BCC Minutes 06/18/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 18, 1996,
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:04 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris
Bettye J. Matthews
Timothy J. Constantine
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager
Mike HcNees, Assistant County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Call the county commission meeting to
order on the 18th of June, 1996. Mr. Dotrill, if you could lead us in
an invocation and pledge to the flag, please.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks and honor
to you this morning. We give thanks for what you are and mean to a
variety of faiths. We give special thanks this morning for those of
us who are here for our families and the support that they offer to
us, especially given our chosen career and directives involving
government and public administration.
Father, it is always our prayer that you would guide
this county commission today as they make very important business
decisions that affect our community and its people and that this would
be a time that would honor and glorify both you and the people of
Collier County and that you would bless our time here together. We
pray these things in your son's holy name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, I see we have a change to
the agenda today.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
County Commissioners. I have just one change today, and that is one
add-on item. It will be 10(A) under the Board of County
Commissioners, and it is a request to reconsider at a future date
petition V-95-28, which was a variance for property located at
Progress Avenue. Mr. Gnerre was the petitioner. That will be 10(A)
under the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does this fit the criteria for our
reconsideration ordinance?
MR. DORRILL: There were some circumstances there
concerning the initial receipt of the letter. The initial receipt of
their request was received within the time frame. It was misdirected
to an incorrect department, and Mr. Weigel has made -- and has a
finding that it met the test of their request, and that's why we're
bringing it to you this morning recommending that you hear it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, do you have anything?
MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Nothing, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One question and one
comment. I don't know that we need to -- maybe we do need pull off
16(E)(3), resolution approving the initial terms of office for the
members of the Collier Water and Wastewater Authority. One of the
names on here I've been told -- I haven't seen anything in writing,
but I've been told has since we've appointed her decided not to
participate. And if -- if this resolution is making that official, we
probably don't want to include that name on the list. Maybe we need
to pull that one off if you can't answer the question.
MR. DORRILL: Indeed, I can't well. It will become 8(E)(4).
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second item, this is actually
communication, but I think it's important we do it now instead of at
the end of the day. Our health plan changes are scheduled to come
before the Regional Planning Council Thursday, which would be fine
except Commissioner Norris and I will both be here at our budget
hearings. And I suspect there may -- I'm told there may be someone
from the state there challenging some parts of that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Hmm.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I wondered if there would be
any objection to us asking the RPC to continue that till the next
meeting so that we can actually have representation there. If the
board agrees to that, I was going to ask you to have someone call this
morning up there so they can also let the people at the state know and
they don't hop a plane and come down here tomorrow night.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that sounds like a worthy
idea.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: That or if they're not able to
do that, perhaps we should alter our schedule for Thursday to allow
both of you to be there to represent us. I mean, I know we've got a
busy schedule, but it's important.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd say we change -- I mean, I
support asking the RPC to change it.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, yeah, but should they not be
able to.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, can we have
somebody call up there and -- MR. DORRILL: We did. Ms. Student sprang to her feet
the moment you said -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think Miss Student is going to tell
us about a scheduling conflict.
MS. STUDENT: All I wanted to mention was as we have the
area critical state concern plan amendment -- and I see that Miss
Cacchione is here -- scheduled to come back to you a week from today,
and that was with the idea that it was a -- going to be considered by
the DCA as a non-EAR-based amendment, and a time period would be told
all this time, that we were working on our EAR, and that might cause a
problem with the scheduling of that. I don't know if the department
will look at it as an EAR-based amendment. If you recall, we did make
it that, but we would have to change in midstream from originally a
non-EAR-based amendment to a EAR-based amendment, and that was giving
the Department of Community Affairs some problems.
So I don't know if it's going -- could cause that much
of a problem. We might be able just to put the plan amendment off for
another week. Miss Cacchione is here. Maybe she can address that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If we can find some flexibility
for one item, I think that's -- that would be sufficient in direction,
but I do not want to risk losing the ground we've made in some of
those other changes by having it heard without the presence of two of
our commissioners on that board.
MS. CACCHIONE: For the record, Barbara Cacchione. As I
understand it, the June 20th meeting it is on there as a regular
agenda item and could be discussed at that meeting. It is not on the
consent agenda. We could potentially continue the area of critical
state concern until -- July 16th would be your next meeting. That's
not a normal public hearing day, but we could utilize that day if the
board so chooses. The June 25th date was the soonest date we could
schedule after our proposed June 20th hearing, and that's what we were
waiting for before we could schedule the area of critical state
concern amendment. I think it --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't see that we're given much
choice in the matter. We can't proceed without representation up
there on Thursday, and I don't know that we have any flexibility
there. I know Commissioner Matthews mentioned altering our schedule,
but those eight or seven budget days are about as -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Seven?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, the initial ones. It's an
eight-day period.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, okay. Whew.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So if -- I'm -- as far as I'm
concerned, we request a delay. I agree with Commissioner
Constantine's direction.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could you have someone to do that for
us this morning, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: Yes.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I was offering a backup if they
can't.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Then we need a motion on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the agenda and
consent agenda as amended.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #4
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF HAY 28, 1996 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
We have minutes of Hay 28th.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to
approve the minutes of the regular meeting for Hay 28, 1996.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF JUNE 17-21, 1996 AS CODE
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' APPRECIATION WEEK - ADOPTED
Proclamations, Commissioner Constantine, I believe you
have one this morning.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We do, indeed. We have -- is
Linda -- there she is -- Linda Sullivan here with us? Before reading
the proclamation, I need to point out our code enforcement officers in
the last year and a half in the Golden Gate area alone I know we sent
over thirty-six hundred complaints and responses from our staff, and
some of those have put them in an awkward spot and between people that
have differing opinions, and so they -- they have a difficult job and
do a job very well.
Proclamation: Whereas, code enforcement officers
provide for the safety, health, and welfare of the citizens in this
community through the enforcement of building, zoning, housing, animal
control, fire safety, environmental, and other codes and ordinances;
and
Whereas, code enforcement officers are often not
credited for the jobs they do in saving lives and improving
neighborhoods as are emergency personnel such as police, fire, and
EHS; and
Whereas, every day, assisted by support and program
staff, they attempt to provide quality customer service to the public
for the betterment of the community; and
Whereas, code enforcement officers are dedicated,
well-trained, and highly responsible individuals who take their jobs
seriously and are proud of their department and the local government
with which they serve -- within which they serve; and
Whereas, the Florida Association of Code Enforcement has
declared the third week of June to be set aside by local government to
honor and recognize their code enforcement officers.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of June 17
through 21, 1996, be designated as Code Enforcement Officers'
Appreciation Week and encourage citizens of Collier County to join the
Board of County Commissioners in expressing appreciation for the
dedication and outstanding service provided by the individuals who
serve as our code enforcement officers.
Done and ordered this 18th day of June, 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.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
approve this proclamation. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I tell you with the noise
ordinance and some of the other codes, we have people out there in the
wee hours of the morning and doing all kinds of strange things trying
to enforce codes. We appreciate the effort. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Now get out there and red tag.
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF JUNE 17-23, 1996 BE DESIGNATED AS
AMATEUR RADIO WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is Martin Pelt with us this morning?
Martin, come up here and stand here and face the camera.
I have a proclamation here. It reads: Whereas, there
are more than 100 licensed amateur radio operators residing in Collier
County, Florida, who from time to time have demonstrated their value
and public assistance by providing public service and emergency radio
communications; and
Whereas, the amateur radio operators donate these
services free of any charge to local government or the citizens
assisted by such service; and
Whereas, these amateur radio operators are on alert for
any emergency, local or worldwide, and practice their radio
communication skills during the American Radio Relay League,
Incorporated, Field Day exercise; and
Whereas, Field Day is an annual 24-hour amateur radio
communications event held nationwide by amateur radio operators to
practice technical operational skills and provide for emergency
preparedness of local radio amateurs. Field Day is generally
recognized as a community service to the benefit of the public and in
the interests of the health and welfare of the residents of Collier
County; and
Whereas, this year's national and Collier County Amateur
Radio Field Day exercise will take place on June 22nd and 23rd, 1996.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of June 17th
to the 23rd, 1996, be designated as Amateur Radio Week.
Done and ordered this 18th day of June, 1996, by the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida.
I'd like to make a motion that we accept this
proclamation.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Mr. Pelt.
(Applause)
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Service awards. Commissioner
Matthews, I believe you have some today.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you very much. I have three service awards today. The first one is
for Mike Kirby with code enforcement, a ten-year pin. Is he here?
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Code enforcement rules today.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Code enforcement looks great
today, and they always do an excellent job.
The second one today is Hillie Kelley, wastewater, 15
years.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The third one today gives me a
lot of pleasure. It's someone who's been with the county, again, 15
years, and she's made great strides in building a department who does
us all a great service, EHS. Special recognition today, Diane Flagg,
15 years of service.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Fifteen more; right?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A little bit of hesitancy
there.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Scary thought.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're halfway there, Diane.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: She can't choose not to. We'll
draft her. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Item #7A
LISA HAWK REPRESENTING SAM'S CLUB REGARDING A WAIVER OF TEMPORARY USE
PERMIT FEE - COUNTY MANAGER DIRECTED TO PREPARE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM FOR
JUNE 25, 1996
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll go now to our public petition
section. The procedure for public petition is each petitioner gets
ten minutes to speak. The board, in all likelihood, will not take any
action today beyond consideration of whether to place it on a future
agenda for -- for full consideration. We have three public petitions
today. The first one is Miss Lisa Hawk.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No offense, Chris, but I guess
you'll do.
MR. NIND: Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Good morning, Miss Hawk.
MR. NIND: That's right. She asked if I may sit in for
her. I'm Chris Nind and, in fact, standing in as the senior riding
instructor for special equestrians, horses and the handicapped. The
reason for Lisa's request to you was concerned with -- like to allow
special equestrians, which is a 501(C)(3) charity, to hold a fund
raising event at their location the last weekend of this month. And,
therefore, they were requesting from the Board of Commissioners a
waive of the permit fee.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is something we ordinarily
do with -- with events that provide funds and entertainment and so
forth for 501(C)(3), and I know we don't normally take direction or --
or take action, but I think in this case we probably should ask our
manager to bring back on the consent agenda a waiver of this fee if --
I mean, I know we don't waive it; we pay it for them, but --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A budget amendment.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- a budget amendment to
accommodate the request.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How much is it?
MR. DORRILL: Seventy-five dollars.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I support that idea.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So do I.
MR. DORRILL: We'll do it next week.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If we bring it back next week, will
that give you sufficient time?
MR. DORRILL: Budget amendment, you'll see it --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: On the consent agenda.
MR. DORRILL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So we'll see that again next week.
MR. NIND: Thank you very much, Commission.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
Item #7B
DENNIS CRONIN OF BOND, SCHOENECK & KING REGARDING RELIEF FROM
RESTRICTIONS ON ZONING CLASSIFICATION - PETITIONER TO PROCEED WITH
REZONE PETITION
Our next public petition is Dennis Cronin.
MR. CRONIN: Good morning. For the record my name is
Dennis P. Cronin. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Bond,
Schoeneck, and King. I believe in your consent -- or in your agenda
-- I'm sorry. Not your consent agenda, but -- you have a copy of my
June 4th letter to the county manager. I'm trying to bring to your
attention a situation on a client that I represent, YBHS, with respect
to the Radio Road Plaza property where the driver's license bureau is
currently located. I want to make clear that -- that as the letter
states, we've been discussing with staff, with Miss Cacchione, who is
who we started with in August of 1994, about trying to device or
design some sort of relief for this property from the current C-2
zoning which has been characterized by staff and by Mr. Mulhere as
very restrictive. And I think that the situation is that we're
running into circumstances where, as you can see, the list of uses
that I've identified which have been prohibited from occupancy in this
-- in this property do not generate any adverse impact or would not
generate any adverse impact. We just seem to be handicapped by this
C-2 zoning classification and --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Cronin, if I may.
MR. CRONIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: MAybe I can hurry things along
here. Are you prohibited from requesting C-3 zoning? I mean, what
you're asking for, C-3 zoning-type uses, do I understand you to say
that you are unable to submit a request for fezone and fezone the
property at C-37
MR. CRONIN: No. But I believe that staff's position is
that that's unlikely to be successful so that -- based upon the
current policies, 5.1 and 5.9 in the growth management plan -- so that
we're -- what we're trying to do is trying to design something that's
-- that's not going to be -- provide any adverse impact but yet at
the same time be compatible with the changed circumstances in the
other surrounding property. Staff has been very cooperative in
dealing with this, and I don't want to give the indication that --
that this is any type of an end run around staff. I think -- Miss
Cacchione is here; Miss Student is here, we've had meetings with.
I've spoken with Mr. Mulhere. Mr. Arnold is here, and I believe that
they can also talk about this issue. I've discussed it all with them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- I'm -- have the same
confusion. What relief could we offer you besides
saying submit a fezone application for C-3 and let's see what
happens? I don't understand what you're asking us to do.
MR. CRONIN: We'd like to do a PUD is what we'd really
like to do which would mix the uses between C-2 and C-3 and provide a
balancing that would move towards a neighborhood center and some sort
of retail mix out there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So isn't the right thing to do is
to submit a fezone application for a PUD?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I don't think -- what you
seem to be seeking is a level of comfort that the board would in some
way be -- that would be palatable to the board. Is that why you're
here today?
MR. CRONIN: I think that's -- try to get some sense of
that --
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: It's probably easier to pull
teeth.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We can't prejudge planning
issues.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. We really are precluded
from sitting here and saying, well, if you move ahead with that
application, we'll probably look favorably upon that. That's
something we don't have the information to even give you that level of
comfort.
What I would suggest is you have two options available
to you. One is a straight fezone to C-3; and the second is to do, as
you mentioned, which is to prepare an application for fezone the PUD
of -- you know, put whatever uses in that PUD you think are
appropriate and compatible, and it'd have to go through the staff
review process and then appear before this board in a public hearing.
There's really nothing that I see we can do today to give you a
greater level of comfort because we don't have any information on this
particular item.
MR. CRONIN: All right. That's fine. I appreciate
that. Any -- staff is -- if anybody would care to make a comment as
to if you could --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is there something else?
MS. CACCHIONE: For the record my name is Barbara
Cacchione in your comprehensive planning section. This is a much
larger planning issue than just this C-2 piece of property. It
affects probably a thousand acres in the county in terms of changing
zoning designations. There are a number of properties through zoning
teevaluation that are not located in activity centers. These include
improved properties, properties that were granted exceptions through
the zoning teevaluation program. It includes places like the Naples
Towne Centre here on the East Trail.
We do not have a policy in the plan that allows
commercial properties to upzone their property. We -- that is just
not in the plan. That language does not exist. There is no language
in the plan that would give staff the ability to recommend to you
based on the plan that this upzoning would be consistent with that
plan. Basically you could look at 5-1 and perhaps interpret it in a
broader way, but it is an area that has other ramifications for other
properties. It is an issue that we did place in our evaluation and
appraisal report based on some discussions with Mr. Cronin that this
is an area that is a problem in terms of potential redevelopment.
Also, in addition, some of the uses that Mr. Cronin
suggests are also in the C-5 district and the C-4 district, so they
are not all -- type uses. We have worked long and hard, but the
bottom line is that there is no language in the plan that would permit
us currently to bring this to you with a recommendation that it is
consistent with our plan. However, the board could make a broader
interpretation if they so choose.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or the plan could be amended.
They could petition for an amendment to the comp. plan.
MS. CACCHIONE: Basically we are looking at amending the
plan in the EAR, and it is an item in the evaluation and appraisal
report that we will begin working on amendments, but that will
probably be about a year to a year and a half away before that
actually gets into the plan because of the long processing time.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. CRONIN: That creates a problem for us just in --
with respect to timing. As I've cited in my letter, the center is
virtually 40 percent vacant at this point in time. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
MR. CRONIN: And, you know, to continue economically to
-- to improve and to maintain that with this type of restriction
becomes a real obstacle.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We appreciate that, Mr. Cronin.
MR. CRONIN: Fine.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But, you know, at the same time it's
not -- it's not the Board of Commissioners' job to upzone property for
economic reasons alone. It's hardly a consideration really. There
are other issues involved, so if -- if you'd like to continue with
this, proceed. You're more than welcomed to bring it back through the
staff through normal procedures, and we'd be glad to take a look at
it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I ask one question? This is
a property -- I'm having trouble getting the picture. This is a
property outside of an activity center as a result of the comp. plan
where we created activity centers that through this ERO process only
qualified for C-27
MS. CACCHIONE: Basically it has been zoned C-2 for some
time, and it is there because it is improved property. All the
properties that were improved were not addressed in the zoning
teevaluation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see.
MS. CACCHIONE: And altogether I think there's probably
-- probably around twelve to fifteen hundred acres that fall outside
of activity centers that are not -- that are there through -- they're
either improved, or they received an exemption. So if we do a blanket
interpretation, it would allow -- for consistent application -- all of
those properties to request rezoning.
Now, it is true what Mr. Cronin says about the C-2
zoning being a limited district. There is very few applications of
C-2 in the county. We have mostly C-3- and C-4-type zoning, so his
zoning category is more restrictive, and he is experiencing some
problems.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that was because -- was it a
blanket that -- that if you qualified for an exception, what you got
was C-27
MS. CACCHIONE: No. Basically that zoning existed. The
property was improved, so we never addressed it through zoning
teevaluation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was always C-2; right? So if
it's -- so I don't understand how something got taken away from you
even in the comp. plan process. It's like you were always zoned C-2.
MR. CRONIN: But I think that fails to recognize the
change in circumstances that are out there, the development that's
gone along Radio Road, the residential development that's there now,
where a neighborhood-type shopping center is much more appropriate
considering those changed circumstances.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that's what a public hearing would
be for, to talk about these issues, and that's what I would suggest
you do. We're not going to be able to settle this for you today.
MR. CRONIN: My understand --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm interested in exploring
it. You know, I'm interested in finding out more about that. Of
course, it's up to you if you file a public -- file a public petition
or not. I'm interested in figuring this out a little more than I have
been able to today.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think our staff is working on
it. It just may not be a time frame that's acceptable to your client.
MS. CACCHIONE: It's going to take longer, I think, than
we'd all like it to.
There is also a cycle for zoning ordinance amendments in
the -- begins in July, and it may be that Mr. Cronin's client would
like to suggest some changes to the C-2 district which may benefit his
potential uses in that district.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a possibility.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's always worthwhile looking
at.
MR. CRONIN: All right. Thank you very much.
Item #7C
KIM ANDERSON REPRESENTING THE CHAMBER/EDC COALITION REGARDING DISASTER
RECOVERY, RESIDENT IDENTIFICATION - STAFF TO PREPARE AGENDA ITEM
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next public petition is Kim
Anderson.
MS. ANDERSON: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners.
Thank you for giving us the time to be before you today speaking on
behalf of the EDC and the Naples Area of Commerce Coalition. For the
past two years the EDC and the Chamber have been working on a viable
recovery -- disaster recovery document. We took many lessons from
Andrew and more recently from Opal, and in the meetings with Ken
Pineau we have been able to isolate some specific needs that
rightfully government is not available or able to respond with
directly to the residents.
Some of those needs specifically have been banking,
building materials and supplies, construction, contractor approval,
insurance claim handling, fuel and power sources, medical preparation,
telecommunications, sanitation, dissemination of the information on
road clearing and horticultural removal, critical stress management
for families, water and food distribution sources. Of these each has
become a subcommittee and has a chairman which is addressing the snags
of how these items should be gotten to the public.
In a quick overview we'd like to let you know that the
banking committee has been extremely, extremely successful. On a
countywide basis they have come together, and they have put in a
disaster recovery plan that when activated would, in fact, address
such things as taking away the ATM fees, expedite check cashing, and
bring in mobile ATM units throughout the county so there would be
access to cash which has been a number-one need for residents and
individuals after a disaster.
Our second goal was to create a manual and a seminar
that the small businessman could use and would have an easy checklist
that would expedite the reopening of their businesses and thereby be
more important to Collier County by remaining and retaining the
economic viability of this county. That was distributed to some 150
people last Thursday night and, again, thanks to the banking community
who paid in full for the production of these manuals.
The final goal, after much discussion at the committee
level and with city and county law enforcement and your own Ken
Pineau, is an identification system for all Collier County residents
and business owners that is grossly needed. The system will expedite
teentry for citizens who evacuate, provide ready identification of our
residents and business owners to out-of-the-area law enforcement
agencies who will, in fact, in the case of a disaster, come to lend us
assistance, will contain the activity of thrill seekers, reduce the
opportunity for looting and vandalism, and provide for city and county
business owners and residents to move about more freely without
constant interruption or providing identification in the event of a
disaster. This has been even more appropriately brought to our
attention from Santa Rosa County more recently after Hurricane Opal's
disaster where they are still requiring identification to move in and
out of the area. And this is titled "Who Gets In and Can You Enforce
Your Decisions."
This is where we've been over the past two years, the
successes that we've had to date, and the reason that we're before you
today. If you have no questions specifically for me, I'd like to turn
the podium over to Ellie Krier, coalition manager, who will describe
the specifications of this program which we are requesting your
support for today so that we can go forward in getting identification
in concert with the county and the city, who has already approved the
program, to city and county businesses and residents. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MS. KRIER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
For the record I'm Ellie Krier with the Chamber EDC Coalition for
Government and Community Affairs. Miss Anderson has already detailed
for you the goals of our program, and I'd like to talk to you about
the method. What you are looking at is, and I -- is a color chart.
We're looking at a method of distribution for identification of two
pieces of identification, and these are samples only. This size
static decal, which is similar to most of the country club decals --
the desire for static was so that you had the flexibility of moving it
to the vehicle you desired. This is opposed to a hang tag which is a
little harder to -- easier for people to remove and move around, but
it does give you the ability to change it if you move cars or you just
want to bring one vehicle in, and then a button, and it would be this
size in the colors you see here for you to wear on you when you're
inside the district you're allowed. If you look at your chart, you
will see it is color coded in two manners; one by businesses, city,
and county and then one by area of residence. You'll notice that
Marco is not on there because they already have an existing system
that works well in the opinion of law enforcement, and there's no
reason to duplicate something that's already working. This is more to
put it in place for everybody else.
So that is what we are looking at in terms of the
physical aspects of it. Distribution would be through sheriff
substations, the tax collector satellite offices -- and he's already
agreed to do that -- and for the City of Naples, through their beach
permit desk at city hall. The cost, I think, is what will interest
you the most based on 20,000, which is low, which means that the cost
will continue to go down. Delivering to a person a decal and a button
is 21 cents.
Now, we intend to fund this through a user fee of one
dollar which is why the collections state -- the distribution stations
are places that already handle money and have the capacity to handle
money. What we are asking for you today -- from you today is the
administration of the finances of this budget-neutral item so that it
-- what we would look for would be a consent agenda item to bring in
a revenue-neutral budget amendment just for the handling of this. We
have to handle it somewhere.
As you've heard from Miss Anderson, it's been approved
by the city, but we have a bulk buying capability if we wrap it up
into one thing in terms of consistency of the system and the reduction
in the cost. And so we would come to you today and ask for your
endorsement of it going forward. What we would look for would be --
and we've been working with Mr. McNees -- an expedited bid process
which includes a request for expedited delivery in the bid. We're
already rapidly approaching hurricane season, and we would like to
move forward as quickly as we could.
Do you have any questions on the physical system that we
are proposing? And this does come to you with recommendation from
your staff.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The vehicle I.D. is for the front
bumper, I would assume, the left front bumper?
MS. KRIER: I believe it would be the window -- inside
the window like a static.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Inside the window?
MS. KRIER: Inside, and it would be on the front so that
as you approach a roadblock you can be waved through.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And assuming that a family has
multiple vehicles, for one dollar they get one sticker so that it's a
dollar per vehicle?
MS. KRIER: Correct. It's a dollar per person.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A dollar per person also because they
have to have buttons for each person.
MS. KRIER: There are a few things yet to be worked out;
whether you need buttons for minor children and at what point you cut
off and say, no, this child will always be with an adult with a
button. Law enforcement is continuing to look into what's being done
in other areas. The Santa Rosa document that Miss Anderson showed you
this morning was received by Captain Storrar yesterday, so that's
brand new. We're still looking at some of the options to make it as
glitch-free as possible. I'm sure we'll find some problems the first
year, but our goal is to obviously expedite law enforcement's job,
expedite emergency management's job, and provide a benefit to the
citizens and business owners.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, I think the sheriff's
department will verify that the system works pretty well on Marco so
and '-
MS. KRIER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- what you're doing is really
requesting that we expand that throughout the county '- MS. KRIER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- in essence. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My question may be one for
Captain Storrar. I'm not sure if you've addressed this yet or not,
but this is obviously a voluntary program. And those people who wish
to come in pay their dollar and make things a little easier on
themselves in the event of a hurricane is the focus here. However,
those who do not will still probably be held up at a checkpoint with
identification such as a driver's license to verify local address and
so forth. In other words, we're not excluding anyone without this.
We're just saying if you want to get through the system a little
easier, this process a little easier, you have the opportunity. Is
that a correct characterization?
CAPTAIN STORRAR: Yes, it is. Anyone who has a
legitimate right to be in that area that has been cordoned off for
security and safety purposes will have admission granted. What we're
trying to do is expedite that. We looked at the Santa Rosa County
experience. I spoke to the sheriff up there. And there was one time
they had fifteen hundred cars at a roadblock trying to get in and
tempers started flaring. People -- you know, people want to get to
their homes, their castles, and they have every right to do that. And
we as a law enforcement agency want them to get there when it is
safe. I think that's the key.
I envision two lines. I envision one line that will be
a fast access that will have the decals displayed where a national
guardsman or an out-of-county law enforcement officer can make a
graphic identification of a symbol and wave them on through the
checkpoint. I envision another line of those who don't have it.
We're going to have to get some type of evidentiary document that says
they have a legitimate right to be there; then we'll allow them to
pass through that checkpoint at that time.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could you identify yourself, please.
CAPTAIN STORRAR: Yes, sir. For the record my name is
Tom Storrar. I'm with the Collier County Sheriff's Office.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I, for one, would like to thank
the EDC and Chamber Coalition for working with our emergency
management director and with the businesses to bring this forward. I
think it's a great idea. I'm fully in support of it, and if any
direction of staff is necessary, I would like to see us move ahead and
assist them in implementing this at a voluntary charge of $1 for those
who wish to participate in the program.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, could you bring this back
for us sometime?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir.
MS. KRIER: Thank you.
MS. ANDERSON: Thank you.
Item #SA1
CONTRACT WITH FLORIDA PLANNING GROUP, INC., TO COMPLETE PHASE II OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY ECONOMIC PLAN AND BUDGET AMENDMENT TO COVER COST -
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Our next item then is 8(A)(1).
This has to do with phase two of the Collier County economic plan.
MR. CAUTERO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. Vince Cautero. Briefly our objective today is to ask
the board to approve a contract with Florida Planning Group,
Incorporated, to perform phase two of the economic plan. As you may
recall, a little over two years ago the board formed the Council of
Economic Advisors and a little less than two years ago that council
began its work. And one of the primary functions of that council was
to develop long-term strategies for Collier County to become more
economically competitive with other counties in Florida and to
increase the number of high-wage, year-round jobs in the county.
The comprehensive planning section, formally called
long-range planning, undertook a data gathering exercise over the past
year -- a little bit more than the past year -- which culminated in a
request for proposal which was written by staff members in conjunction
with the Council of Economic Advisors. Input was also sought from the
Economic Development Council.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Cautero, this is just a
continuation of past direction?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But without it part one would be
rather useless.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It looked to me like a consent
agenda item, frankly. I don't know why we have to have much
discussion about continuing something we've already started.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, in that case, I'll make it
easy and move approval of item 8(A)(1).
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: We have one, but I don't believe he needs
to speak if you're otherwise intending to approve this. Mr. Loskill?
He's waiving.
MR. CAUTERO: I apologize. A portion of this executive
summary includes the budget amendment necessary to secure those funds.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My recommendation includes
authorization of that budget amendment.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second then.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #882
LEGAL ACTIONS NECESSARY FOR THE LANDFILL SITING PROJECT - APPROVED AND
STAFF DIRECTED TO PREPARE SELECTION OF BEST THREE SITES FROM L, A, U
AND B GROUPS AS SUGGESTED BY CITIZENS ADVISORY COHMITTEE
Thank you, Mr. Cautero.
8(B)(2)
MR. RUSSELL: Good morning. David Russell, Collier
County solid waste department. This item relates to the landfill
siting process. On Hay 9th the real property department mailed
letters to property owners included in the top four landfill sites.
The letter essentially gave a 15-day notice that a 30-day window would
be starting when consultants would be coming on these sites to do
investigations to determine the best of those four sites. The county
subsequently received responses from those letters that did three
things basically: denied access to the county to do the
investigations; questioned the BCC's direction to the landfill siting
committee, the Citizens' Advisory Committee that was put together to
identify these sites, and then challenged the legality of the county's
accessing the property.
This item in this trip to the board is really asking for
three things: One, to affirm the direction that the board gave to the
siting committee; two, to authorize the county's consultant to enter
the sites and to advise this board of where we are and our
relationships with those landowners, a for-your-information step; and
then finally we need direction from the board to the attorneys to take
any legal actions needed to gain access to the site so the field
investigations that includes soil borings and so forth can be
accomplished.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let's hear from the public
speakers then.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. We have a number. I have one
question for the staff. We had directed to organize a meeting between
certain landowners and myself in advance of us actually becoming
confrontational and through the courts, and Mr. Wilkerson was supposed
to be trying to arrange that meeting. Has that taken place yet?
MR. RUSSELL: That scheduling has not occurred. We
anticipate that for the -- for the end of this month.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. I may address that at an appropriate time.
Miss Passidomo, you'll be first, and then Miss -- I believe it's Tuten,
Sonya Tuten, you'll follow this lady. Good morning.
MS. PASSIDOHO: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Kathleen Passidomo. We represent the Collier Citrus Growers Drainage
Association, Inc.,; the Silver Strand Partnership; the Barton Collier
Companies or the owners of the farm sites that the Citizen Advisory
Committee selected as potential sites for the relocation of the Naples
landfill.
None of our clients have any desire to sell any portion
of the sites in question. It is our position, backed by our fairly
exhaustive review of Florida law and cases handed down pursuant to
that law, that should the county direct the county attorney's office
to begin legal action requiring our clients to grant access to the
lands in question, such action will be considered the institution of
eminent domain proceedings against our clients.
Article 10, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution provides that no
private property shall be taken except for a public purpose with full
compensation therefore paid to each owner. The basic premise of the
constitutional rights of an individual have been codified by the
legislature into Chapter 73 of the Florida Statutes titled eminent
domain. The legislature extended the right of eminent domain to
counties in Chapter 127 of the Florida Statutes.
Since as early as 1929 the Supreme Court of Florida has
held that statutes authorizing condemnation proceedings under power of
eminent domain must be strictly construed and substantially complied
with. Every single case -- and there are literally hundreds of them,
and I think I've read them all this weekend -- issued by the district
courts and confirmed by the Supreme Court of Florida have cited two
controlling tests which are mandatory in eminent domain proceedings:
Number one, private property may be taken for public use only; and,
number two, private property may be taken only when it is reasonably
necessary for such use.
The factors which the county must consider in meeting
those two crucial tests are: number one, availability of an alternate
site; number two, the costs; number three, environmental factors;
number four, long-range area planning; and, number five, safety
considerations. The failure or refusal of a condemning authority to
properly weigh these factors may constitute an abuse of discretion
which would absolutely preclude the condemning authority from -- from
succeeding in condemnation proceedings. A recent 1990 2nd District
Court of Appeal case filed in Pascoe County denied the county's
authority to condemn an individual's property for a parkway extension
by holding that the county abused its discretion by making a premature
decision in selecting any route based on an insufficient --
insufficient study of the relevant factors.
The Citizens' Advisory Committee, which was charged by
the county in Resolution 95-333 to provide public participation and
community input concerning the location of the future Collier County
landfill site and to review the advantages and disadvantages of
various locations throughout Collier County to determine the best site
for the future Collier County landfill, never considered the issue of
whether or not there was a willing seller of any of the sites which it
reviewed. It never considered the two controlling tests of public use
and necessity. Of the five criteria it only considered some of the
environmental factors.
I am not -- we are not in any way denigrating the
process or the absolutely tremendous effort of the committee. From a
personal level I read all of the minutes of those committee meetings,
and I was astounded by the amount of input and -- and work put -- the
committee put in. Yet I question the weighing factors used by the
committee because the issue of a willing seller should have been given
a high priority. I believe it is appropriate here to briefly discuss
our review of the controlling tests of public use and necessity as
well as the five crucial tests that the county must consider.
Firstly, I will not at this point dispute that the
taking of our clients' land is for a public purpose, although in
litigation the fact that the landfill is being operated by a private
entity for private profit may be called into question. The real
concern here is whether or not the taking will be held to be
reasonably necessary. I don't want, again, to protract a discussion
of whether or not the decision to move the landfill was a purely
political decision or whether or not the county is legally obligated
to move it. But I will state that in a quick review of the Collier
County comprehensive plan and the recent seven-year -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You didn't make it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, we need to hear. I mean,
this is a record that needs to be made.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, we take our legal advice from
Mr. Weigel.
MS. PASSIDOHO: The due process argument.
MR. WEIGEL: I beg your pardon?
MS. PASSIDOHO: The due process argument.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: She's a member of the public.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I don't have a problem with her
finishing. It would probably be appropriate to let her finish.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, '-
MS. PASSIDOHO: I have a due process argument, and the
statutes are very clear.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, then make it in writing, but
your five minutes as a member of the public are up.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, I seriously request
-- I mean, you just got advice from our attorney. Didn't take mine,
but you would take his.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Kathleen, how much longer do
you have?
MS. PASSIDOHO: I just have two pages. I think it's
very important. Do you want me to read faster, Commissioner?
The real issue here is due process. We're dealing with
property owned by four clients of ours that may potentially be the
subject of condemnation proceedings, and the -- the issues of cost and
other things are so important to this community that I think it's
important that you hear what we have to say.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hiss Passidomo may have just made
a distinguishing point that either makes the rest of her comments
relevant or not, and that is that initially after the first two
sentences you made a leap from obtaining access to jumping right into
eminent domain arguments. What we are asking or what we are directing
today is not to initiate eminent domain proceedings.
And my question is for Mr. Weigel. Is there a
difference legally in obtaining access for the purpose of gaining
information to determine whether eminent domain will be the end course
and eminent domain, because Hiss Passidomo's comments seem to draw no
distinction between the two?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think really what we're dealing
with today, yes, there's information being placed before the board.
The question of due process is really a question that will be
determined by what the county does in the future. Based on my
discussion, prior discussion with Hiss Passidomo and the information
that is coming before the board today, that this to a certain extent
is kind of a warning shot across the bow. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh.
MR. WEIGEL: But her discussion today in no way -- or
the failure of her -- a potential failure of her to be able to
continue in no way means that she on behalf of her clients has been
denied due process concerning the properties of those clients, because
the county has taken no action whatsoever toward those properties
other than an informational and -- and directional written statement
that was -- that was tendered to the -- to the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you finish? If you were
to read, could you finish in two minutes or less? MS. PASSIDOHO: Three. I don't know. I --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can spend the next five
minutes having an argument --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go ahead and get it done.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Let's hear it, please.
MS. PASSIDOHO: Thank you. Thank you very much. I
don't want to get into a protracted discussion of whether or not the
decision to move the landfill is a purely political decision or
whether it's legally obligated to do that. But your own comprehensive
plan in the seven-year evaluation and appraisal report submitted to
DCA states clearly that Collier County's current landfills have
capacity for at least 15 more years with no 10-year deficiency until
2001. This calculation does not even include the 300 acres that were
declared surplus and contracted for sale to the Golf Authority. The
county also stated in the EAR that the steps taken, recycling programs
and the like, will extend the landfill's life and enable us to meet
the state's recycling goals. It is clear that for purposes of
determining whether or not the county shall be entitled to a taking of
our clients' land, such taking is not reasonably necessary.
The issue here -- and I'll digress to try to speed this
up -- is that the case law that I reviewed indicated that even
discussions regarding the taking of a client's land, including the
entry on the land, are considered for purposes of damages, attorney's
fees in connection with condemnation proceedings. Basically what
we're saying here is the county may head down a path today by
authorizing county representatives to go onto the land which will lead
them to a dead end, because the reasonably necessary tests may not be
met in the time frame in which you are dealing.
Additionally -- and I just want to show you that -- that
really you are heading down a dead end to spend lots of money for no
purpose. In addition to the reasonably necessary test, you have to
prove -- you have to consider five factors, the first factor being the
availability of an alternative site. Overland -- Oberlin College is
here every board meeting offering its property for sale, and the only
issue that we have seen precluding that is something about -- to do
with fill. Yet nowhere have I seen a comparison of the cost to
condemn property versus the cost of fill to property that is willingly
being sold.
Number two, the current site has many more years of
capacity. Again, back to the cases that I cited earlier, there is a
prematurity issue here.
Cost, this is an extremely important issue. As you
know, in addition to the full compensation to be paid to our clients
under the Florida constitution, you will be obligated to pay all other
costs incident to the proceedings which include attorney's fees -- and
you know we all don't come cheap -- expert witness fees, engineering
and appraisal fees, survey fees from today forward.
With regard to the issue of full compensation, the
courts have held that the amount should be based upon the fair market
value of the property, what a willing buyer would pay a willing
seller. A few comments on this land. It is considered the most prime
agricultural land in the county. Due to its proximity to Camp Key
Strand and its warmth, it produces the best vegetables and the best
citrus in Collier County. The bulk of the -- the land has active
producing and very profitable citrus trees and winter vegetables. It
is very valuable.
There are also some ancillary issues the courts also
address such as the value of mineral rights and any detrimental
effects to adjoining properties. Not only will you be required to pay
full compensation to our clients, but you may be required to pay
damages to adjoining property owners. Needless to say, who will buy
produce from a farmer if his lands are in proximity to a landfill?
There may be a safety issue in that as well.
There are environmental issues. I will say after a
reading of the minutes of the committee that they did take into
consideration environmental issues, but not all of them. A portion of
this property is directly adjacent to the Camp Key Stream, which has
been targeted for a CARL purchase. It has also been proposed as a
natural resource protection area of Collier County.
The next -- the next criteria, compatibility with
long-range planning, this is an area of great concern. Our current
comprehensive plan does not contemplate the siting of a landfill in
these prime agricultural areas. In fact, current zoning of these
lands prohibits such a use. It is important that the county not
attempt to solve the political problem of the current site of the
landfill by creating another problem elsewhere in the county which
could affect the very livelihood of farmers, farm workers, and the
people of Immokalee, not to mention the loss of some of the best
produce in all of Collier County.
The next issue, safety. I won't even go into that in
the time constraints that we have.
In any event, I have looked at this issue strictly from
the viewpoint that although the CAC has recommended the four sites
owned by our clients as the top-ranked sites for acquisition by the
county, since none of our clients are interested in selling these
lands, in order for the county not to waste thousands and thousands,
if not millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars in pursuing
condemnation proceedings against our clients, the county should pursue
other sites in the community taking into consideration whether or not
there is a willing seller and the cost associated with moving from the
present site, the acquisition from a willing seller as opposed to the
extremely expensive pursuit of condemnation proceedings which may
ultimately be disallowed because of failure not only to meet the five
criteria tests, but the reasonably necessary test. Thank you for your
attention.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Miss Tuten and then, Mr. Erlichman, you'll
follow Miss Tuten.
MS. TUTEN: Good morning. My name is Sonya Tuten, and
I'm the chairperson for the landfill committee, Immokalee Civic
Association. We definitely agree with everything this young lady has
said. We've been studying this issue for months now, and June 6 I
issued a letter to all of you that states -- it was directed to Miss
Matthews for alternate solutions of the landfill. We're asking you --
we're begging you to please spend this money on alternate solutions
for the landfill. The landfill committee and I have been studying
this issue for months now, and we now realize that there is no
suitable place in Collier County for another landfill, especially a
landfill of eleven hundred acres.
And also another issue seems -- or one of the big issues
in our landfill problem seems to be the cost. After studying the
alternate solutions, the Immokalee Civic Association would like the
Board of County Commissioners to authorize Waste Management and other
vendors to review and study the numbers and figures of an alternate
solution that would include a dirty muff. A dirty muff is a materials
recycling facility. The study would not cost the county any money or
extra time. One reason why the alternate solut -- solution of
trucking our garbage to some other county had been turned down in the
past, because the amount of garbage we would have to haul out of
here.
The cost is determined by the -- the cost is determined
by the tonnage hauled to the waste facility. For a cleaner
environment a reasonable cost should not be an issue. At this time
only 35 percent of the garbage we dispose of is actually recycled, and
65 percent of the garbage is put into a landfill. If we would cut
down the percentage of solid waste to be transported, then the daily
tonnage costs should be less.
Why not build a dirty muff and run the garbage over
conveyor belts and have prison workers sort through the trash to bring
our hauling tonnage down? Our savings would be in less tonnage to be
hauled. Also we would have to educate and communicate with citizens
on recycling and no littering. I believe this is an alternate
solution Miss Matthews was speaking about. Please advise me at the
earliest convenience of what you and the commission can do to help
with our research. I'm sad to say that only Miss Pamela Mac'Kie took
two minutes of her time to answer my letter.
We're asking you to please -- we -- we have a county
jail stockade facility right by our current landfill. Why can't we do
some studies? Why can't we do some research? Here I have pledged all
my time and -- and free employment to you to study or to do whatever I
can, and no one has come and asked me for any help. Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman. Mr. Perkins, you'll follow
Mr. Erlichman.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Gil Erlichman. I live in East Naples, and I'm speaking for myself.
I was fortunate enough to attend the last meeting of the
landfill advisory committee up in Immokalee, and to my amazement I
heard from these owners of the property under discussion that they're
prime agricultural lands. And I -- I'm trying to picture dumping
garbage on prime agricultural lands where they grow vegetables, orange
-- orange trees, et cetera. I just don't understand it.
It seems to me that by reading -- after reading this
executive summary, that we're approaching a situation which is a state
that is now holding or had their elections yesterday and selecting a
new so-called president. And what I am inferring by that is that
we're talking about going into private land, making tests, in other
words, trespassing on someone's property, digging holes to make tests,
take soil samples, et cetera, without the permission of the property
owner. I thought this was the United States. It seems like it's
another country. In fact, they're talking about litigation, future or
potential litigation costs. When I hear that, that's my money.
That's my taxpayer money that you people are going to be spending on
litigation in this situation, and I don't like that.
I really am at a loss for words because after attending
that meeting up in Immokalee, listening to the people that own the
land that is under question here that the county wants to take over
and dump garbage on without their permission and being willing -- and
the county being willing to spend taxpayer money on litigation is
beyond my belief and credibility. I don't understand it. Thank you
very much.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins and then Mr. Billie.
MR. PERKINS: Good morning, Commissioners, ladies and
gentlemen, A1 Perkins, Belle Heade Groups, citizens for constitutional
property rights. I'm going to say that again, citizens for
constitutional property rights.
(Applause)
MR. PERKINS: Thank you. I can't top anything that this
young lady has said. She has nailed it down big time. If you can do
it any better than that, then you sure deserve a big A with a happy
face.
Well, I got kids and I got grandchildren, and I hope to
hell I live long enough to have a whole bunch of them. Let's go with
this landfill. First of all, it's totally ridiculous to even consider
putting that landfill up there and putting those people out of
business and putting those workers in the unemployment line. The
trucking from Marco Island is 65 miles with a garbage truck. At six
o'clock in the morning -- if you don't believe me at six o'clock in
the morning, get out on the road at six o'clock in the morning and see
them. And, by the way, there's some of your problems with just stop
lights -- running stop signs, and they don't care which side of the
street they drive.
You have a willing seller. You have had a willing
seller. College Properties has a thousand acres or whatever that is 5
miles downstream from all of the existing water supply for the city
and the county, downstream from all of the water supply. So if you
people don't know what leachate is, that's when it rains or when the
water table gets high and it goes through the garbage and penetrates
into the soil, it will take and destroy the quality of water through
runoff.
This college, it's one of the top ones in the country.
One of the curriculas -- the second-most important curricula they have
is the environment. They are willing that they can bond this thing
out. They are willing to support this thing, and they're willing to
take and put their resources behind it to recycle to fix the problem,
to fix it, not just move it around all over this county, but to fix
the problem. We're going to be going into this -- this problem's
going to get worse. It's not going to get better. We have the
ability to put in place right now the vehicle to fix this problem.
Now, we need to do it before I die off, please.
Safety, now, as far as the siting committee, I want you
people to know that the environmentalists outweighed seven to five the
people on the committee. So automatically they are going to pick
whatever is to their advantage to pick.
Gas and oil and the expense of trucking, tires,
insurance, time on the road, especially Marco Island. But the
recycling is where we need to go with this thing. We can totally
recycle it and at the same time talking about composting or dirty
muff. We have the -- the advantage that if we put it on College
Properties, we can also take and use the sludge and the effluent from
Lely's wastewater treatment plant. We can fix it. It's in -- out
where we can have grazing land. You can take -- get rid of the water
and turn that compost into something that's useful along with the
sludge.
Now, somewhere along the line we've got to put our heads
on here and try to do the correct thing for all of the people and the
future generations of this community. With that I'll close, and thank
yOU.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Billie and then Mr. Agoston.
MR. BILLIE: My name is Bobby Billie. I'm Independent
Traditional Seminole Nation. I'm a spiritual leader of the nations.
I want to speak about the animals because we don't have
a voice -- they don't have a voice, and those who have rights to live
on the land, maybe Collier County Code Enforcement might help out. I
see that we have a reward for that. He said he can protect the
animals and the rights of everything, so tell them to stop to create
the trash, so many of them on this earth. We have to cut the trash
because if we don't do that, they all going to kill us no matter who,
even you, all of us. We have to cut the trash. That's the main
thing. We don't need to create the trash more and more. All the
papers laying around go into the dump. You, the people, creating the
trash, not us, not the animals, not the rain, not the water, not the
earth. It's the people creating the trash. You're the one have to
think about how you're going to get rid of it. You don't need to bury
it in the land. You're the one that have to put it maybe into your
home. See how it feel living with trash. I want you to understand
that.
It's bad to live in polluted water. You can't go
swimming out there anymore. You can't go fishing out there anymore.
You can't kill the food out there anymore. You have to go to -- to
the store to buy food these days, and there's also a lot of chemical
in the food.
You have to think about how we're going to survive the
next 20 years or 30 years or more. That is not a long -- that is
around the corner. Don't thinking about the money all the time.
Think about the future. Use your brain. That's all I have to say.
Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Agoston is your final speaker. Thank
you.
MR. AGOSTON: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good
morning. My name is Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates, and
I'm speaking for myself. I, too, have attended the last several
landfill meetings. And at the landfill meeting it was promised that
they -- you're going to reopen the selection criteria which seems to
drive the selection process. The selection criteria contains some
seven or eight references to various animals. Top of my head, I
remember the panthers, this being number five. And as I understand,
the panthers are being shipped either out of the state or nonexistence
in the area.
Additional problems I have with the landfill that are
currently being looked for is that it's essentially centered around
Immokalee. Immokalee is not a wealthy area of the county. How do we
really live with ourselves taking advantage of the essentially -- how
should I say -- poverty stricken? I don't want to really insult them
either, but the fact of the matter is that they are not the powerful.
And who is speaking for them? You know we have a native American here
who is essentially trying to fend for himself. But I mean, I don't
really see a public upswelling. I don't see the Naples Daily News
being here, you know, speaking up here as a variable organization, and
I'm not very happy with the paper. But here is an opportunity for
them to really defend the downtrodden. Where are they? That's all I
-- thank you very much.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, a number of
comments. First, the sites aren't centered in and around Immokalee.
That's misleading. It's about 7 or 8 miles south of Immokalee.
That's neither here nor there.
A couple of points, I think, are important that the
speakers have said that need to be corrected. Both Gil and Hiss
Passidomo referred to wasting taxpayer dollars, and there aren't any
ad valorem -- there aren't any tax dollars going toward this. Solid
waste is an enterprise fund, and the siting of a landfill or any --
any exploration of expanding the existing landfill, any of that is
done out of that enterprise fund. So it's -- there are not tax
dollars going toward that. The money that you and I have paid in our
solid waste bill every year, some of that is put aside for reserve for
the very purpose of dealing with solid waste issues. That is its sole
purpose, and that is exactly what it's being used for.
Secondly, in regards to the alternate solutions, I think
you're absolutely right. We do need to find them, and that's going to
be an ongoing process. About two years ago we did an RFP looking at
alternative solutions, and we looked at dirty muff. We looked at
clean muff, composting. We looked at shipping out of the county. I
may be wrong on the exact dollar figure here, but I think the cheapest
of any of those right now could be done for about 48 bucks a ton,
somewhere around there, 46, 48 dollars a ton, and as opposed to the 14
dollars a ton we're doing under the current scenario. I don't
disagree that we need to keep looking, and I think all of us would
acknowledge as time goes on some of those will come down in cost, and
there may be some creative ways -- you mentioned using prison labor or
doing -- there may be ways to make that cost come down. Right now it
is not anywhere close to competitive. When we went through -- when we
put that RFP out, we said we were open to anything and everything with
the exception of an incinerator, and we specifically wrote the RFP
that way. So we had an opportunity for any technology available
anywhere on the planet right now to come in, and the -- they all came
in at 48 or 46 -- or whatever it was -- dollars and above.
Finally, I want to get on to Hiss Passidomo's comments
in particular. And that is, as Commissioner Hancock said, I think
it's a leap to say that investigating a property is taking.
Everything you said after that point about a taking I agree with. I'm
not -- I don't agree that looking at a property is a taking. And I
guess I found a little irony in some of your comments. You mentioned
the example -- and I can't remember where it was, somewhere north of
here, where there was a road issue and the landowner sued because of
-- and I'm using your words -- premature selection of any route, and
it was without taking into consideration the five factors you then
listed, which were availability of other sites, cost, environmental,
safety, and long-range planning. And if we look at each of those,
what we're trying to do is long-range plan. We're acknowledging there
is a life left in the existing landfill, but we're also realizing, as
Bobby Billie said, we need to look at some sort of decision long
term. And the idea of having a site, regardless of what technology it
is, as large as we're looking at is so that we can have a particular
site for 50 years or more, and that may be landfilling. That may be
some other technology. But we're going to have to have a staging area
for whatever that technology is and that we're trying to do -- in the
past 20, 25 years, there have been three different sites in Collier
County. What we're trying to do is not have it keep moving and keep
moving. Let's find a particular site and have it there for a
generation, and that is long-range planning, as you point out.
Safety issues, environmental issues, cost issues,
availability of other sites, the -- through the whole process -- and
you mentioned you had read all those minutes. How many sites did we
come down to; 43 or 48?
MR. RUSSELL: There were 46 sites.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Forty-six sites, and so we
have certainly looked at the availability of other sites and the
criteria with those. We have done exhaustive work on the
environmental issues. Ty mentioned the panther. It's not a popular
item with me either. Unfortunately at the state level if you're going
to permit it, it's something you need to take into consideration. And
surface water, water quality, all those things are included in there,
so the environmentals certainly were taken into consideration.
MR. RUSSELL: If I may, a point needs to be made about
the willing seller issue also. In the permitting process it's not the
willing seller that's the issue. It's all his neighbors and so --
and, therefore, that's why we went through the process that we did.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the permitting process.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me finish my --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's not the acquisition
process.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me finish my point. And
we're not acquiring anything here. What we're looking to do by going
on the property is to do exactly what you're saying: Don't be
premature in selecting a site. Hake sure you know what it is you're
selecting. And we're trying -- trying to go on and do borings and
soil samples and so on so that we don't take some site that is
inappropriate. And so when your comment came up about the road and
their premature taking because they hadn't done that, a part of what
we're asking to do is make sure we have all our information ahead of
time.
Now, the BCC formed the Citizens' Advisory Committee for
the purpose of methodically seeking appropriate sites, and we have
done that over a year-and-a-half-, almost two-year time. And the
Resolution 95-333 establishing the CAC breaks that down, says shall
review advantages, disadvantages of various locations throughout
Collier County to determine the best site for the future. Now, we
reinforced that Hay 28th when we extended the life of that ad hoc
committee. And as part of the resolution extending that we reinforced
all the powers and duties therein of that committee. So we, again,
just a month ago reinforced exactly what we did a year ago.
The RFP where we brought in Dufresne-Henry and their
team, Wilkison and Associates, had a particular price tag, $599,000,
had some options for 274,000 above that, and those options are broken
down specifically to include two additional on-site investigations.
And you start going through the RFP and going through the agreement
that we struck and approved, this board approved with Dufresne-Henry,
and the scope of services includes the final selection of these sites
and the complete site investigation of one or more sites.
The professional service agreements has broken down
different categories; ecological investigation, conduct a walk-through
of the site or sites, conduct a walk-through of the site or sites on
both page 40 and 41, technical and soil investigations. Field
activities at the site will involve soil -- soil borings at selected
locations. Initially one deep boring will be conducted; approximately
three shallow will be done. I mean, it breaks down. This was
contemplated when we approved this RFP. This isn't news -- shouldn't
be news to anybody. When we voted on this -- this is all in black and
white.
It also -- A-l-7, final siting report and selection of
final site. Following the completion of the field investigations, a
final siting will be prepared evaluating and comparing -- and this is
where you say don't be premature -- evaluating and comparing the
ecological, hydrogeologic, geotechnical, and economic aspects of the
top preferred sites. Task A-l-10, these services may also include
detailed site investigations of more candidate sites, meaning that
wasn't contemplated that it would solely be one site. If we had some
that were comparable, we anticipated that ahead of time.
And -- and so this really shouldn't be news to anyone.
All we're asking from the Citizens' Advisory Committee at this point
is to be able to complete the job. I know there is going to be some
disagreement on this board when we get to the actual citing process,
but what's being asked today is that we be able to complete the job
that we were given when the 95-333 was created that was reiterated May
28th of this year, that was laid out in the RFP, and it was laid out
very, very clearly in the agreement with Dufresne-Henry. And -- and
if you disagree when the siting process -- we're going to have those
hearings, but let's not go backwards on those things which we have
already agreed to. It's akin to running 95 yards on the football
field and then setting the ball down because nobody is close. We need
to finish that 5 yards, and then you may agree or disagree when we get
it. But in order to make that educated decision that Miss Passidomo
is asking for, we need to take this one final step.
MS. TUTEN: There's an important --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. You can't do that.
Please.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Your case is thoroughly made,
Commissioner Constantine, but it fails to contemplate a couple of
things that I think are flaws in how we have approached this. One is
I don't -- Mr. Weigel, stop me for making an admission on the record,
but --
MR. WEIGEL: Stop.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's asking a lot.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He's saying stop.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But a strong case can be made
that we do commence eminent domain proceedings when we go on the
property.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not what our legal
staff has told us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. There are statutes that provide for
the county as well as the FDOT, and it mirrors the FDOT statutes for
the county to have the ability to get on the premises for
investigative work, and the statutes indicate that it is not to be
deemed a trespass or a violative entry. At the same token, a private
property owner may say, no, you can't come on the property. It's at
that juncture that if the board were to give direction, the county
attorney and staff would go to the Court to seek for something akin to
a writ of assistance so that they would have the legal authority to
get on the property to do the investigative work. That's not to say
that that won't be expensive, because it would appear from the record
created today on behalf of these landowners that they're going to
contest that. It's a legal process. It takes time in the courts.
It's supposed to be distinct from condemnation.
The second issue, though, to be -- to be fully
informational to you, is that they may -- they, the property owners,
may consider this an inverse condemnation, and that would be probably
one of the issues that has to be discussed in the Court,
notwithstanding that it's not supposed to be considered an inverse
condemnation. But they may claim that the one or two days that the
engineers have indicated that they would need to be on any particular
property is so invasive that that constitutes what is considered a
type of temporary taking that would require damages. Now, temporary
taking is not the same as complete taking, and the damage config --
considerations are different. But we would expect that that would
probably be a secondary issue with the county going forward with a
writ of assistance, just to fill you in on that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My -- my -- more important, more
fundamental issue, is that as -- as Commissioner Constantine wants to
complete, you know, the last 5 yards, I understand that. But what has
happened is that the committee has gone too far without the board's
endorsement of the criteria and the weight that were given to those
criteria because, as I've said and you know I'm going to keep saying,
is the fundamental flaw is that the pricing, the cost issues
associated with the selection of a site has not been given an adequate
weight. It's been given too insignificant a weight. The problem then
is if you complete your next 5 yards under the criteria with the
weighting that your committee has adopted, you're going to go down a
road that's going to cost -- and I understand it's not taxpayer money,
but it's public money. It's people have to pay it. They don't have
an option on whether or not to pay it. We assess it. It's not
technically taxes; it's technically user fees. But it's still money
they don't have a choice on whether or not they pay. You're putting
that money at risk, significantly at risk, and a huge number at risk
when there's no reason to do it because what's -- there's no reason to
do it for two reasons.
One is what's flawed in the system is that we haven't
given a sufficient consideration to the cost of the sites that we're
looking at. If we gave enough consideration to that, we wouldn't be
looking at prime agricultural operational farms.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, let me try and answer
that. First of all, it's not exactly accurate to say the board wasn't
aware -- it has gone too far because we had a workshop in this very
room -- I don't know what -- four months ago where it was explained
very carefully step by step what steps the CAC would take prior to
bringing their recommendation back to the board. Among those steps
was the on-site investigation. So this, gosh, we didn't know, this is
a surprise to us, you've gone too far --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, you did.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that was all laid out.
And that criteria was laid out there. I didn't hear you stand up and
say stop then.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, I did. I'll show you the
record because I did stand up and say stop, you're not putting enough
weight on price. I've said it, and I've written letters --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You did raise a question on
price, but you didn't ask the board to stop the whole process, and
what's important is, yes, price was one of those criteria, but those
criteria are how they all come -- how all those sites, those 46 sites,
compare to one another in cost. And if you compared these ag sites
with any other sites, the difference in those is negligible. When you
are looking at a 50-year life with a 300-million-dollar-plus price
tag, then a difference of a few hundred thousand dollars, you divide
that by 50 years, divide that by 110,000 customers, and it comes out
to a difference of 30 cents a household or something. It's not a big
piece.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know that that --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me finish my point. The
other thing is -- and, Bill, maybe you can help me with this, but part
of the important aspect of this is in order to go through a site
selection process you have to have a legally defensible process, and
you have to do it politically blind, if you will. And that process
was explained somewhat at our workshop, will again be explained since
it's apparently not clear when we get to our final siting hearing.
But that criteria was done not on a whim and not at -- well, gee, I
think it ought to be more important and throw it out. We went through
months and months and months on each one of the several criteria that
were all weighed against one another. We kept some in; we threw some
out. So to flippantly say, well, I don't happen to agree -- well,
maybe you don't --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not flippantly saying it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps you don't, but the
process, again, can't just be one by which we now throw politics into
the mix and ignore that. If you're going to have a landfill sited
anywhere, someone is going to object. Someone will likely take you to
court. You need to have a legally --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- defensible process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you starting tinkering
with that process now, that legal defensibility is wounded.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm not suggesting we tinker
with the process. I'm suggesting that we pause, check and see whether
or not this board agrees with the weight given to the criteria adopted
by the committee. Let's pause --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll find that out when we vote on
this item today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, we will. Yeah, I guess we
will.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I guess we will. Commissioner
Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, it -- it's unfortunate
when you have more than one of your colleagues making good points on
different sides of -- of an item, and I find myself in agreement with
certain points of all of what's been said. But I've said before and
at the meeting in this room that there's a certain level of
disappointment I have in the lack of geographic selection among the
sites we've been presented.
We have four sites; they're all contiguous. And the
concern I have there is that for $600,000 we end up with looking at
primarily four sites in one area. And regardless of the site
selection, you know, process from here, I fail to see any way in which
we can consider -- we are going to be able to consider sites outside
of this one geographic area. And that limiting factor has always
concerned me, and I've tried to express that through Russell Priddy
and meeting with him, and I think he has brought that to the committee
on several occasions with limited degrees of success. And we're not
being offered a choice. And as much as I don't want to stop a process
that we have to go through in order to have a legally defensible
acquisition process, I'm -- I'm concerned that we don't look at more
than one geographic area, because all of the constraints outside of
wetland and oil borings, the other socioeconomic constraints are
identical for these four sites. And when it comes to this board
making a decision on a landfill site in question, more than the
physical characteristics of the site have to be considered. And if we
don't have more than one socioeconomic impact to look at, I'm a little
concerned about our flexibility in evaluating different areas.
One of the ideas was to take sites that are grouped in
the ranking process, select a prime site from each one, and look at
those so that we have different geographic areas to choose from. I
personally am supportive of that but, again, because we have put so
much weight on the process and the people involved in the process
which, in my opinion, was driven from environmental standpoints by
about 90 percent, you know, how do we back up and do it, and I don't
know how. How do we back up and say we'd rather see you do X without
undermining the process?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make a couple of
points. There were, as we said, 46 sites that floated up as being big
enough and falling into different criteria. I don't want anyone to
think that information wasn't put together on any of those. All 46 of
those sites using USGS maps, using the available geological
information and so on, was put in place. And there are some of those
that just logically don't make sense, because existing work that has
been done by other governmental agencies and so on already tell us
some of that information. And while there may be small variations,
some of them are far enough off the scale where it just doesn't make
sense. And I don't think it's unusual that geo -- geographically
similar areas would float to the top only because you're going to have
a similar environmental situation, a similar geological situation, and
those that are most advantageous floated out. Now, I mean, there were
-- if you go down the rankings, the other sites, I think the next
site out of the top five was a two, which was actually north of
Immokalee. It would be farther away. It would be -- from the center
of the population it would be closer to the Immokalee population. It
would require all the trucks to go through. I mean, when you start
mixing all that in, then there's a logic to where we've gotten.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me finish. The -- you're
saying, gosh, let's look at all 46, or let's look at more than that
one area that contains the 4 --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I qualify that?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and we have --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we've looked at them
individually. But if you look at the top third of what's been
recommended, say the top 12 or 13 sites, there are more or less three
geographic locations in that top third. And I'm just wondering if it
isn't more prudent to pick a prime site from each of those geographic
locations so we truly have a choice in front of us, because I don't
know whether we pick 6, 8, 11, or 12 from this that it's going to be
that different. That's my -- that's my concern is that maybe we're
not -- again, I just want to qualify that --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews has been trying
to get in for awhile.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This has been a great
discussion. Frankly, I'm not interested in continuing the process.
And the reason I'm not interested in it is because I just myself feel
that landfilling is the wrong way to be handling solid waste. I think
the remaining time that we have in the commitment that we made to
citizens in Golden Gate to close and move the landfill, we should take
that time and develop alternative methods for disposing of our solid
waste. We need a different technology.
The other thing that's bothering me with what I'm
hearing today is really paramount, came out in the first speaker.
Mrs. Passidomo is representing the landowners of these four sites, and
she says they are not willing sellers. The price of this project has
just skyrocketed. I think we should go to the next sites down the
list rather than continue on a path -- I'm sorry, Mr. Constantine, but
we are on a path right now that's going to commit an astronomical
amount of money to the process, and I think we ought to move further
down on the list until we find at least willing sellers before we even
ground truth it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it's not news to us
that condemnation might need to be an option here. It says -- that
very point is brought out in our June 20, 1995, public hearing.
That's part of the executive summary.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm well aware of that. But at
that time we weren't contemplating active agriculture producing the
best crops in Florida for a specific time frame of the winter.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd have to say, yes, we were. I
made that statement on the 25th.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. But what I -- what I
would ask -- I mean, you're pulling the plug prematurely here. You
don't have all information, and to say, well, we spent $600,000 on a
consultant but we're just going to throw that out is poor planning, is
not well-informed. You haven't heard the presentation from them. I
mean, comments like that about ag are inappropriate. We have 17,000
acres of prime productive ag land, and so if we take 400 of that, then
that doesn't have an overwhelming impact.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is not just part of the
17,000 prime acres of Collier County agriculture. This is the premo.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And how exactly do you find
these 400 acres -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's don't worry about it. That's
silly.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The point is today what we're
being asked to do is finish the process which we put in place
ourselves, which we ratified three weeks ago on Hay 28th, and to do
that final 5 yards. To just throw out the $600,000 and say, oh, it's
politically not popular so we're not going to do that right now
without having all the information just is inappropriate. It's poor
politics in the process.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm not suggesting that we
throw it out. I don't support stopping the process. I do support a
pause. Let's pause and see if we can't -- see if we can't find a way
to offer more reasonable choices for this board. Right now we have
one site, one location, one choice. And -- and I think it's our job
as policy makers to send a message to the committee that that's -- to
the consultant, thank you, we've given you $600,000, and you've given
us one choice.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, they haven't. They've
given us 46 choices and ranked each of them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I'd like to pause now and look
at those 46 instead of this 1.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we can be more specific
then -- I define pause as a temporary stop. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me, too.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, yeah, it would, in essence --
we need to be specific in our direction here. I don't have a problem
-- there's only one property out there that's a willing seller. None
of the rest has stepped forward, yeah, if you pick us, we're on the
table. So I think we're going to be dealing with someone who may not
be willing to sell the property. We proceed with eminent domain for
the construction of road right-of-ways and roads. We proceed with
eminent domain for many public facilities in the community because
many times there is no other choice. Many times the options available
through willing sellers do not solve the problem. So this is not a
divergence from what government does typically. I am not afraid of
nor am I concerned about someone not being willing to sell for a
landfill because, let's face it, you know, if it's not the highest and
best use for them, they're not going to want to sell. I understand
that. I think we all knew that going in that we're going to find many
of those properties.
What I would like to do is to ask if the board is
willing to give direction to take this grouping of four, maybe pick
one prime site from there and ask the committee if they could give us
some geographic selection outside of just these four sites
understanding that the other groups are ranked at a lower level
initially. And we understand that. It's in the report. But I think
it would then give us more basis for -- for discussion down the road
than would proceeding down this path with solely these four
properties.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If that will give you a level
of comfort, I will do that. There are what they call -- we have
different letters assigned to different areas. L is in this area. A
is up in -- north of Immokalee. U is down near the Oberlin
properties, and so I don't object to that. I'll go ahead and make a
motion that we go ahead and ask our staff to do what they need to do
on getting us on the properties but to select the top site in the A
area, in the U area, in the L area. And I think there's one other
area other than A.
MR. RUSSELL: A and U, I think, were --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, as you go down the ranking
list, you can see groups. And I think the reason you have groupings
is because the minimum distances from environmentally sensitive areas
forced you into prime area A and prime area B and -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Groupings.
MR. RUSSELL: I would just caution that if you go over
this route, I think you're handing the person that might all of a
sudden show up as a more preferred site because of this resistance and
because of this board's interaction with this CAC, that you're
building a case, a court case that we're going to lose when it comes
to the time to fight that property owner. That's what I would offer
you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask a question of Mr.
Weigel. If we do appropriate on-site investigations of one site in
three different areas, in the L category, in the A category, in the U
category, does that weaken the case? If -- I mean, if we happen to
find L -- I'm sorry, if we happen to find U and it's ranked number 11
instead number 2, I think your point may be right but --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- I am concerned about that,
but how do I answer both areas?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's a fair argument. I
mean, if -- if the U site comes out with better soil and all those
things than Miss Passidomo's properties, then that's perhaps -- I
mean, if -- if the truth will set us free, then --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there anybody else on the
board who is interested in --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- the criteria?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- the criteria --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- of giving a weight to them, us
deciding as a board what the criteria -- what the weight given to the
criteria should be? That is the subjective part of this process.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, when it comes to -- and I
think we will have that option later. But when it comes to doing
that, the committee was tasked with doing that by this board, and
they've done so. When it comes to the decision time, the policy time,
and we weigh all of that, we have the opportunity and ability then to
do that so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But this is that time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, it isn't.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is when we should -- well,
the reason it is is because we are about to -- arguably we're going to
commence an eminent domain proceeding when we have an un -- unwilling
seller, so let's pause and determine whether or not we endorse the
weight given to the criteria --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- that produced the sites.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that produced these sites.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That is not where we are.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not my motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know it's not your motion. I'm
arguing against your motion.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not my motion, though.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know, and I'm arguing against
it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Here's the problem. We have had our
CAC evaluate these sites on a number of different criteria, but
there's one criteria at least that they can't evaluate because they
don't have the ability to do that, and that's what we're trying to do
today. If we don't finish the job and evaluate this final criteria,
then we're not going to know finally whether the sites are acceptable
or not acceptable. And that's all we're being asked to do today is to
go ahead and take the final analysis of these particular properties.
And it will have to be done on any of the other properties that we
check. And so if you're saying I don't want to take the final
evaluation of these particular properties, well, just throw these
properties out and let's look at something else. But if you're going
to look at these properties in a serious vein, you have to do these
last steps.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Either we want to know the
information, or we don't want to know the information on these
properties. It's as simple as that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that -- it is that. That is
exactly the question --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Would someone make a motion, and let's
vote on it, because we're going to sit here all day and argue the same
points. It's fruitless at this --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I want to say one last
thing, and that is that what we should be doing today is deciding
which properties we want to take that last step on, which properties.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that was his motion.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's exactly my motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's exactly what his motion was.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: His motion says these properties
and a couple more.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think I know what my motion
was a little better than you.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, Dear.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My motion was to select one
from each of the areas L, A, and U. Now there -- out of the ranking
process there are top sites in each of those, and they would -- and
those are ranked according to USGS and all of that. That would be the
logical ones, I'm assuming, to take the top from each of those
locations, but that gives you the comfort of looking at all those
sites around the county. And if we come up with the U site down below
the interstate as tops, then we --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And I think we can make a legal
safeguard statement in that by doing this we are assuming that the L
grouping, the U grouping -- and is it the A grouping? I'm sorry.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That we are assuming some fairly
homogenous site characteristics and are looking at the differences of
those groups as opposed to pulling a site from down the list and
superceding a site in front of it. And that's my intent, and I will
second the motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: On the motion I have one last
thing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why would we arbitrarily -- why
would we say L, A, U, whichever this committee has selected as the top
sites in those categories, instead of deciding what we think the cri
-- the weight given to the criteria should be -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Because --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- in ranking of the sites
ourselves?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Because we charged that committee with
the responsibility of ranking the sites.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if we disagree with the way
they've done it, when is the point in the process when we're going to
say we agree or disagree with --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're doing that right now.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When we have all the
information.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMHISSION MAC'KIE: Aye.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay, three to two. It passes. We'll
take a short break.
(A short break was held.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene the county commission
meeting. Commissioner Constantine, you have a correction to our last
motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just wanted -- it was
pointed out to me -- I was struggling there when -- I knew K wasn't
the right one, but B -- we had the units A and L and U, and B was the
other category in there where that may have some appropriate sites.
And I wanted to just correct that, and it should be a top three of
whatever of those different lettered category ones.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you want to form that into a motion
then?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will go back and correct my
motion to include the top three of those various lettered areas to be
B, U, L, or A.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The second accepts the
modification.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a -- an amended motion
and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hmm, came out the same as last time.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Surprise.
Item #8B3
BID 96-2481 TO CONSTRUCT EMS DEPARTMENT #12 ON IMHOKALEE ROAD, NORTH
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES/CORKSCREW AREA - AWARDED TO SURETY CONSTRUCTION IN
THE AMOUNT OF $391,446.00
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Item 8(B)(3), a contract to
build EMS department number 12.
MR. CONRECODE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Tom Conrecode from public works. This item is before you
today to ask you to award the contract for construction to Surety
Construction Company in the amount of $391,446. And we also wanted to
advise the board that our project as it stands today is $24,000 short
in funding and that we're proposing two alternatives: one, that we go
back to the GAC Land Trust and ask them if they'd be willing to make a
grant to fund the deficit. In -- absent of that then request a
transfer from impact fee reserves which has a significant positive
balance at this point.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Has the GAC Land Trust
contributed any money to this yet?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am, they have. They contributed
$50,000, and we're wary of going over that number until which time the
project got underway. And so with the award of the contract, the
project will be underway in the near future, and we think we may have
better luck going back to them and asking them for additional grant
funds.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Conrecode, can you tell me
the county's history with Surety Construction on county construction
jobs? Has it been good?
MR. CONRECODE: It's -- I would have to say -- probably
one of the best records of contractors we've dealt with in Collier
County.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I would like it if -- if
when we get these fiscal impacts and they say funds available -- you
know, the sources are a lot of numbers. I don't -- I don't know what
those funds are. And if you could give us like, you know, an English
language translation in the executive summary, that would be great.
But could you tell me?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am. The 350 funding is EHS
funding through impact fees, and the 605 fund is the GAC Land Trust
fund. And the -- a lot of the rest of the numbers are project numbers
and whatever.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers, Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir, not on this one.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to move approval of
staff recommendation.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
That's approved five to zero.
Item #884
LAND PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR THE MEDICAL EXAMINER'S FACILITY, SELECTION
OF THE ARCHITECT, AND CONTRACT FOR DESIGN OF THE FACILITY - APPROVED;
STAFF TO MEET WITH THE SHERIFF REGARDING SHARING SPACE FOR CRIME LAB
WITH MEDICAL EXAMINER
Hr. Conrecode, the next item, 8(B)(4), concerning the
medical examiner's facility.
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, Commissioners. Currently the
medical examiner operates out of rental facilities, and the leases on
those two facilities are due to expire at which time the medical
examiner will have to vacate. Over the past year staff has been
developing the program and budget and has located land for the
location of the new medical examiner's facility. This executive
summary asks the board to approve the purchase of the land within the
Naples Production Park on Domestic Avenue for the siting of the new
facility as well as to approve the ranking and award based on
successful negotiations. And the county attorney reviewed the
top-ranked firm of Harvard, Jolly, Clees and Toppe, architects, for
this particular facility.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just raise the question --
I was over in the sheriff's crime lab about a week ago, and they have
expressed an interest in perhaps sharing some space with the medical
examiner. They have similar requirements as far as sterile
environment or microscopes or different things, and they said rather
than them -- they're looking to build a different facility, and their
suggestion was rather than them building all that specialized
equipment and areas again, if -- if the county is already doing that,
the county taxpayer is already paying for that once, is there an
opportunity for them to share in this facility.
MR. CONRECODE: I would love to see them speak with the
medical examiner, because at this point I think we've only addressed
her programming needs. But I think it would be important to link that
up, and we could certainly do a change order if it required some
modifications of the design.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So even if we approve this,
we can still -- today we can still go ahead and link the two of them
up?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. It wouldn't interfere then?
MR. CONRECODE: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And you'll give them a call?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes.
MR. DORRILL: Specifically we have not done any
schematic designs in anticipation of the site. You've done some
programming.
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am -- or yes, sir.
MR. DORRILL: Then we still have time.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But we do need to link them up
before we go into the design phase on this. MR. DORRILL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Conrecode, this piece of property
that we're considering, is it of sufficient size to enlarge that
building if necessary?
MR. CONRECODE: I believe it is. It was sized
specifically to contain our needs, but depending on what -- if the
sheriff wants to double the size of the facility, then it probably is
not, but if it requires a five-hundred- or a thousand-square-foot
expansion, that I don't think would be a problem. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right now they're using a closet
more or less, if I'm not mistaken, where Scott is over there?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A larger closet.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Their space requirements are not
major, I would assume. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All right. Motion on this one
then?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. That's conditioned
with linking the sheriff's crime lab.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The additional direction to the staff
to negotiate with the sheriff?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second agrees.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You second?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
MR. CONRECODE: Thank you.
Item #8C1
REPORT REGARDING THE PLAT DEDICATION OF A 4.1 ACRE HISTORIC SITE AND
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LYING WITHIN THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS ROBERTS RIDGE
SUBDIVISION - BOTH DEEDS ACCEPTED WITH CONDITIONS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 8(C)(1), the Roberts Ranch.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, could I ask Mr.
Conrecode to answer one more question on that motion we just
approved? And that's the funding on it, 50 percent ad valorem and 50
percent commercial paper. We -- we just, I believe, agreed a couple
weeks ago to roll our commercial or a good part of our commercial
paper outstanding debt into a bond. Is this using new commercial
paper?
MR. CONRECODE: This -- this would be a one-year to
provide for the ad valorem tax payment of this to occur in FY-'97 and
FY-'98.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Gotcha.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. For the record, Tom Olliff,
your public services administrator. And this item is an acceptance of
the two different deeds that are associated with the Roberts Ridge
subdivision. In 1992 a PUD was approved by the board, and as part of
that PUD document there were two special conditions that related to
certain properties that would be deeded to the county. The first one
is a little more straightforward in that it's a road right-of-way
parcel that's 2.3 acres. And if I could direct you to page 4 of that
particular agenda item, you'll see the plat map master plan of this
subdivision. The road right-of-way is the 2.3 acres that actually
bisects the property and connects llth Avenue with County Road 29
right there at the bend.
In addition to that special condition in terms of -- of
the right-of-way deed, there's also a requirement on the county that
once that deed is accepted for the road right-of-way, that that road
construction project would be included in the county's five-year
capital improvement plan. And I've checked with our transportation
staff and capital project staff, and it already is and has been
included as part of our five-year plan, so it's a road that is and has
been anticipated for construction.
The second deeded property is a little more interesting
and -- and unique. It is a 4.1-acre tract of land which is shown as
Tract E on that same master site plan. The site currently contains 11
different historic structures including the main house that's
associated with what was an -- an old Florida orange grove and ranch.
In -- in addition, there are some 12 structures -- I'm sorry, 9
structures that are located on the adjacent parcel which is Tract D.
The way the PUD was approved was that the -- with the
understanding that Tract E would be deeded to the county. The
structures that are currently located on Tract D would be moved by the
county onto Tract E with the sole intent of refurbishing those and
creating a museum in Immokalee that would preserve what is one of the
last, if not the only, remaining turn of the century Florida
ranch-style structures that are out there. We've tried to walk you
through, because the only -- normally a deed acceptance like this as
part of the PUD would show up on your consent agenda. But because
this one is so unique and because there are some requirements of the
county as part of that, we felt it important that you understand
completely what this deed entails.
Our cost estimates in order to relocate the buildings
from Tract D to Tract E are roughly eighty to a hundred thousand
dollars, and our obligation to move those would be at the time we
accept the deed for the property. In addition to that, if the county
is going to create a museum of sorts out of the buildings that are
there, our rough estimates -- and these are rough -- to refurbish
those to a state where they can be publicly shown as a museum are
upward to a million dollars. But to offset that slightly, I -- I
think we have had some conversations with the same granting
authorities in Tallahassee who have provided us grant funds for the
Everglades City project, and I think that there is a great deal of
enthusiasm over this type of a site, because it is a Florida
ranching-type site, which there are not many available, especially
that are intact as this one is and the age that this one is. I think
if you -- if our records are correct, I think the actual homesteading
of that property occurred early or actually 1874, somewhere 20 years
ago -- 25 years before the turn of the century. So there's a lot of
history involved in that particular site.
In most of the historic grants that we have seen, there
is a commitment upon the part of the applying agency, in this case the
county, to provide some sort of a match generally up to 50 percent of
the cost of the grant that you're applying for. So if we were to look
for grant fundings, we should anticipate that there would be an
obligation upon the part of the county to fund roughly $500,000 of our
total one million dollar refurbishment cost for those structures.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Olliff, are they generally
cash matches, or can they be in-kind matches?
MR. OLLIFF: We have used cash and in-kind before, so
they do consider in-kind -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: -- contributions. The only other issue
that I included in the executive summary's fiscal impact for your
consideration is at least the consideration of tourist development tax
funding for this project. We -- we brought tourist development tax as
a possible funding source on projects before only because the state
statute simply provides for these type of uses for tourist development
taxes. It is not currently included in category C of our ordinance,
and it would require a local county ordinance amendment in order to
allow for us to use that kind of funding for this particular project.
But we would see it as certainly a tourist draw for the Immokalee
area, a unique, historic preservation in a ranch-type setting for all
of the State of Florida.
And the other unique aspect of this that we've -- we've
talked about before and as part of the PUD originally was discussed
was to actually create a working ranch environment where it would be a
ranch that actually may have had some livestock on site and would be
an on-site caretaker type of a facility where people could see how
farming was actually done at the turn of the century trying to keep it
as true to form as we possibly could.
With that hopefully you understand some of the aspects
that go along with this particular deed. I will mention, at least for
the sake of discussion, not to confuse the matter anymore, but we have
had discussions, and the family has talked about the possibility of
the county purchasing some of the additional tracts that are there.
Should the county desire to purchase Tract D, which is the location of
the existing historical sites that have to be moved, the cost of that
is estimated at $528,000. You could deduct from that the cost of
having to relocate those structures. So in -- our net cost, if you
will, would be about $428,000 for that 8.8 acre tract of land. If the
county were interested in the entire site, the asking price for that
is about $900,000 if you were looking at the entire tract. Now, I
only mentioned that because it was offered by the family for
consideration to the board today.
With that I'm available for any questions that you might
have.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If we accept these deeds today, what
is the -- tell me again the time constraint on when we have to -- when
we're required to make these modifications.
MR. OLLIFF: I relooked the actual condition language in
the PUD, and there's not a specific time requirement. I think there's
an understanding that the family is moving ahead in its development
plan, and so I think there would be an assumption that the county
would move those buildings so that it might proceed with whatever
commercial or residential development they intended to do, but there's
no specific time requirement.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I've talked with
the family about this, and Mr. Townsend's a representative for this.
And I -- I had -- we had talked about a time frame of something like
120 days after notice, and notice would commence when the -- when the
family had development imminently planned for the -- for these other
tracts. I don't see that included in this, but I -- perhaps
Mr. Townsend or Miss -- Mr. Shertz (phonetic) here, too, could commit
to that. But we're not going to move these buildings tomorrow. And
mainly -- one main reason why I don't want to move tomorrow is that
I'm still in a search for private funding to acquire the money we need
to buy the rest of the tracts, and I'm looking through the citrus
growers' and the cattlemen's association to help us with that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It always concerns me when we --
we sat here not too long ago and more than one commissioner put on
their budget a review of some of the current museum operations during
the upcoming budget cycle due to constraints. Our museum has
undergone a significant expansion. I think it's much to the credit of
Mr. Jamro and the volunteers that it's been handled the way it has,
that it's in the condition it is, and it's run very well, and from
what I can see, very efficiently.
I'm concerned, not just about the initial cost of eighty
to a hundred thousand dollars to move these buildings, but as I read
down the list, to actually make this a working museum we're looking at
a cost of approximately a million dollars, some 50 percent of which
would have to be matched by the county. So we have a
half-million-dollar expenditure there to get it up to speed so the
public can utilize it. But then have on top of that a
one-hundred-thousand-dollar-per-year operating cost that will be added
to the budget. No one -- this is an opportunity to acquire something,
but the time frame in which these funds would have to be expended --
in light of our existing museum, the incredible work that's being done
there, I don't want to rob from Peter to pay Paul and end up with two
substandard operations because we don't have the funds to make either
one a class act. So, you know, if I can get some assurances that --
that the way this is laid out will not sacrifice or probably will not
sacrifice the existing museum's operations we are currently
discussing, then I'm all for moving ahead, but that's -- you know, we
haven't taken a breath from the existing expansion of the museum, and
they haven't even really caught up with staffing if you read the
letters and talk to the volunteers. So, you know, I'm just -- I
wonder how -- how high a pile we can take on.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, you make a good point,
too, when you point out the operating costs. And that's not going to
get less as year goes on -- years go on; that's going to get more.
And that's one of the things that has caught up with us a little bit
this year in the budget season is the operating costs of all the new
facilities we have on line.
This past summer I was up in Rhode Island, and I went to
various mansions and the old historic homes there, beautiful,
beautiful homes. And they certainly do serve as a tourist attraction,
but they are paid for and maintained by the historical society. And
that -- in that lies the difference for me. The city there certainly
projects that image, and I'm sure as part of their TDC package puts
out that those are there. But the actual operating costs of those are
paid for. And there's a little charge to get in and a little charge
-- four bucks or something -- six bucks to get in. But I'd be much
more comfortable if we came up with a formula to do that before we
commit any funds. Just as we face a tough budget year, we need to
prioritize things.
You said last week -- you were talking about
prioritizing things just on that agenda by itself, and this is a great
opportunity. However, as we look at health and safety issues, this is
certainly below those, and so I'm not comfortable with our ability to
fund it right now.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where does this eighty to hundred
thousand dollars show up in our budget, or does it?
MR. OLLIFF: It doesn't. The PUD was approved in '92,
as I said, but at that point I think that the intention was to proceed
through the platting process, and as soon as the plat was -- was
executed, then the county would receive the deed. And we actually
budgeted for that relocation of buildings for, I believe, two or three
years following '92 when the actual PUD was approved. But because the
family was having some difficulty in their actual development plans
and getting the plat together and getting it in front of the
commission, the monies were never spent. So after that period of
time, we quit budgeting those funds. So today there is no specific
budget for the eighty to a hundred thousand dollars.
Our recommendation at this point is if the deed is
approved, that it would need to come from general fund reserves.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, let's hear from our
public.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. I wanted to make that clear
distinction. We glossed over -- the county did cause the original PUD
to be developed in such a way that we wanted that site, and we caused
the family to work around that -- that one site. I have gone to the
extra effort to make sure that this executive summary does not commit
us to renovate to the tune of a million dollars or operate on an
annual basis. But I think by virtue of the fact that we required the
PUD to be proposed the way that it was, we do need to budget some
money to move these out buildings onto the old family homestead site,
which if you're familiar with it, is a beautiful, two-story home in
the middle of Immokalee, which is what is remaining. But when I'm
handwriting notes on executive summaries that appear in the package, I
wanted you to make sure that there are no operating funds, there are
no renovation funds. I think that we do need to recognize the
obligation that we had in the PUD and the agreement that we would
accept a deed, but only the minimal cost to relocate the stable and
the bunk house and the old well site onto this property as a historic
site, but we haven't committed to operate or renovate a thing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And at that point Commissioner
Matthews' efforts could actually turn to forming a foundation for the
preservation and maintenance of that, that would be a --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Absolutely. I mean, you know,
this is in its infancy just to get it off the ground.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't mind that. I just
don't want us to come back a year from now and say, okay, well, we've
got all this. Now, we got to do something with it. We can't let it
dilapidate any further. Let's spend a million dollars doing it.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Wait a minute, now. Let's look
at the laundry building, Everglades City. I mean, that's been a
phenomenal effort from the friends of the museum of the Everglades.
And I -- I think Ron can tell us all about what two or three days'
effort in Tallahassee of this group of citizens acquiring more than
$300,000 worth of grants.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just looking for your
comfort level that that can be accomplished.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think it can be, because this
particular site historically to Collier County is even more
important.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, we have some. Mr. Townsend is
here. He'll be first. While he's coming forward, we're also -- at
Miss Matthews' suggestion, we're pursuing some discussions with the
Florida Beef Council, the Florida Extension Services through the
University of Florida, the Florida Cattlemen's Association --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Citrus.
MR. DORRILL: -- in the hope that something akin to what
Mr. Constantine was talking about is that there be a not-for-profit
group that would assist the board in underwriting the operating costs
but would include the obvious people that are beef or cattle oriented
who might like to see this site preserved. Mr. Townsend, good morning.
MR. TOWNSEND: Good morning. Mr. Chairman, members of
the board, I am here on behalf of the family to speak in strong
support of your follow-through on this project. You know -- as you
know, we had a formal ceremony in January of this year where the
family actually formally transferred the deeds from themselves to the
county, and Commissioner Matthews were there. Most of you had other
commitments elsewhere, and it was on somewhat short notice, so we
apologize for that.
But I think the one thing that is really important to
remember, that there is an awful lot of long-lasting cultural heritage
over there that we do need to take a look at and try to preserve for
future generations. There -- just the other day an individual in
Immokalee died whose grandfather was one of the first white traders
with the Seminole Indians before the turn of the century, so there is
an awful lot of history over there that's about to escape us. And if
we don't take an opportunity to preserve this and make a living
agricultural museum, as was referred to a little earlier, then we're
going to miss a lot.
And this is one of the things that came up while we were
there during that formal ceremony is that the outbuildings are right
where they were when they were built, and they were put there for a
purpose. It's really more historically significant if the county
could find a way to keep them right where they are rather then having
to move them from our site over to the 4.2 acres. And so the idea was
brought at that time to possibly expand this, and that's already been
addressed somewhat by Mr. Olliff.
But the history of the property is really important. It
contains or has on it the oldest citrus grove in Hendry County --
excuse me, Collier County. I work in Hendry County. That grove was
there in 1914 when the Roberts family moved there from Wauchula,
Florida. And as was also related earlier, it was planted before the
turn of the century. And so it provides a unique opportunity for
Collier County to preserve perhaps the only site remaining in south
Florida that's been virtually unchanged during the past 82 years. Its
educational benefits of developing a museum such as this are enormous,
not just for the people of Immokalee or Collier County or Naples, but
for the entire southwest Florida and really south Florida. There are
no other sites in Florida at this time that are even being looked at
very closely for this type of situation.
Yes, it does take money, and we're aware of your budget
concerns. I have to live within a budget myself, and I understand
that. But the family has made a very generous offer to you.
Commissioner Matthews is seeking outside funding, and I think there's
going to be an ongoing effort to do this.
What we need to do is get the project off the ground,
get some time, develop a program that I think you can buy into, and go
forward with this thing. I can say that the family has made a very
generous concession in terms of purchase and the price. It's about 60
percent of what the best estimate of the market value is, and they're
willing to provide terms even for the county if they so desire to
pursue this. So I'd like to close with just saying that I'd be very
happy to answer any questions any of you might have.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Questions for Mr. Townsend?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one question, Mr.
Townsend. My discussion with you a few months ago dealt in the
120-day lead time on moving these buildings, and that 120 days would
commence when you noticed the county.
MR. TOWNSEND: Right. We're aware that time is needed
when you undertake such events, and right now they have no immediate
plans right on the horizon, so they agreed at that time that upon
notice to the county, they would like to have the buildings moved
within 120 days, and they're not going to make that notice anytime
real soon.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that notice based on
anything in particular?
MR. TOWNSEND: It was based on really a sale of the
property.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: On the sale of the property.
MR. TOWNSEND: If they had a buyer willing and ready to
take over the property. Obviously it's development property, and
they're going to have to go through some sort of building permit
process, which would take a lot of time as well. So you'd have a
great deal of time to deal with that. We would actually prefer to
have the thing made into a real large living agricultural museum and
preserve that heritage for the rest of the people.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: With some help from the private
sector, we'll accomplish that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Townsend.
MR. DORRILL: Miss Rupp, if you would, then I believe
it's Mr. Bilee, B-i-l, double e, you'll follow Miss Rupp.
MS. RUPP: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner and members of
the board. My name is Laura Rupp, and for the record I reside at 161
West Avenue in North Naples. I'm pleased to speak to you today
regarding Roberts Ranch from both an historical and economic
development perspective. I have a bachelors degree in history from
the University of Virginia, a masters degree in historic preservation
from Cornell University, and I currently serve on the Board of
Historic and Archeological Preservation for Collier County.
The historical significance of Roberts Ranch in
Immokalee is well-known. According to the State of Florida Division
of Historic Resources, it is the last remaining example of ranch
architecture in southwest Florida. Based on a recent site inspection,
my assessment of Roberts Ranch is of a remarkably intact collection of
residence and outbuildings with a very high degree of architectural
integrity. The two-story home built in 1926 retains its original
nine-room floor plan with beaded wall and ceiling paneling and much of
the original furnishings.
The Collier County Land Development Code provides for a
local designation of historically significant sites provided that
those sites can meet any one of 11 criteria. Roberts Ranch clearly
meets at least 6 of the 11 criteria. In addition to its architectural
style, the Red Cattle Company's unique for its association with the
history of cattle farming in rural Collier County and its impact on
the growth of the Immokalee community. Historical and Archeological
Preservation Board is now preparing the local landmark application.
While we can all agree that there is merit in preserving
history, we can imagine Roberts Ranch only one block from West Main
Street and the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce as a key development in
that community's redevelopment plan. We can dream about the site as a
center green space for special events and community spirit building.
However, our plans must be grounded in reality.
I do ask that you accept the deed without delay, but in
light of commission objections, I would also ask your consideration on
two more fronts. First, there's a lot of talk of different activities
that county managers, the board of commissioners, our board, the
family is taking care of. And I'm -- I'd like to ask you to consider
forming a public-private task force that could develop a project
program, a budget, costs, and report back to you within the next six
months. That way I think that we can all have serious deliberations
about the future of the ranch in an informed environment.
Secondly, as a preliminary measure I would ask that with
deed acceptance you allocate a small immediate expenditure for
maintenance and security of the building and grounds. This
expenditure could be enhanced by simple directional signage from West
Main Street and also on-site signage and artifact display outside the
ranch entrance as an interim program while we all develop the best
plan for the future.
In the words of Mildred Sheran (phonetic), one of Robert
Roberts' last surviving children, this would be a way to show the
strength of a pioneer Florida family. Please use such places as an
inspiration. Thanks for your consideration.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: It was Mr. Bilee. Mr. Bilee, you'll be
next. And Miss Chenery, you'll follow Mr. Bilee.
MR. BILEE: For the record my name is Arthur Bilee, and
I'm a member of the Historic Preservation Board. I visited Roberts
Ranch in connection with an idea we had for giving it historic
designation and also preparatory to looking at it from the standpoint
of making an application for the -- having it placed on the National
Register of historic places.
The ranch is very impressive. I mean, the description
that has been given to you is certainly understated, if anything. The
element that should not be overlooked is the fact that the
outbuildings, the bunkhouse, and the ancillary structures, are of
very, very great historical importance, and if they are moved, then
they -- those buildings would no longer be eligible for the National
Register. They would -- for the national register they would have to
be held in place.
So I urge you to give consideration to the -- over the
larger purchase that was made. This would give you an entity that
would be much greater than the sum of the two parts if they were to be
divided. So I would -- I would hold -- urge very strongly that you
hold that in mind.
I -- the recommendation has been made -- suggestion's
been made that some sort of a study group be formed to make long-range
plans for this. You're dealing with an exceedingly important piece of
property here. I don't know of another in Collier County that -- that
would exceed it from the standpoint of cultural and historic worth.
So it demands careful thought. You have a great potential here, and
at this point I urge you very, very strongly not to do anything that
would foreclose any part of what promises to be a very large overall
project. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Miss Chenery and then Ms. Young.
MS. CHENERY: Good morning, Commissioners, Mary
Chenery. I'm treasurer of the museum. In 1978 I came here from
Boston where I served on the planning board of the Boston
Redevelopment Authority. It was there that I became involved with
preservation, and I joined SPINEA, the Society for the Preservation of
New England Antiquities, which is the arm of the National Register for
New England and northern New York. And I served as a consultant for
Bill Hertog (phonetic) who was the speaker of the National Register.
Over the country, the whole country, preservation has
been a major facility for living history. In Massachusetts I can say
with certainty that tourism is tied in a major way to historic sites.
The Roberts Ranch would be an ideal living history project attracting
tourism to a little-visited area. Hay I note that when I arrived in
Collier County in 1978, having been in politics in Massachusetts, I
accepted an invitation to a political rally for Mary Ellen Hawkins.
After church in my Sunday best I went out into the country, and as I
went on to the land, I was rather embarrassed. Everyone was dressed
in jeans, in boots, and big hats and everything. And I said, "What is
this; a costume party?" They said, "No, Florida is ranching
country." Well, I wouldn't be surprised that many visitors to this
area had the -- have the impression that I had had that ranching was
Texas, and it's about time that we do something about the history of
Florida.
There's one other thing I wanted to mention, that Bud
Barnake (phonetic), who at his own expense restored Nantucket Island,
and can anyone question what tourism has done for Nantucket Island?
He tried to get the University of Massachusetts to work on a HAPB
program, which is a national register program, to have graduate
architectural historian students to do history research on Nantucket
Island. The University of Massachusetts was slow to accept, and
Mr. Barnake was not one to wait. So he negotiated with the University
of Florida in Gainesville, and that was in the '70s. And we have a
wealth of potential graduate students who could participate in
establishing the things we need done on Roberts Ranch. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Young, she's your final speaker.
MS. YOUNG: Members of the board and fellow citizens, I
am Lora Jean Young of Marco Island, member of the Board of Historic
Preservation and member of the Friends of the Museum. And I just want
to lend my support to asking you not to let this opportunity go. It's
a golden opportunity to preserve our historic past.
I talked yesterday with Kevin Mooney (phonetic), program
manager of the Trust for Public Land. I sent you all a faxed copy of
my letter to him. He talked with me for almost half an hour. Here is
another possibility for funding. This is sister to the Nature
Conservancy. And one of the questions he asked was how much money do
you want, which took me so aback.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And what did you tell him?
MS. YOUNG: Lots. But he is -- I'm getting this letter
off to him today with further information. He was interested enough
just in that initial call that he said, "Perhaps I could come down,
look over the site, and if it's as good as you say, we're
interested." So support this. Support this.
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's all?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If there's not any other
questions from the board, I'd like to make a motion that we accept
both deeds and that we accept Mr. Townsend's recertification that we
will have a 20 -- 120-day notice on the moving of any buildings that
are currently off site.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I got a couple of
comments. Lora Jean, who got up there at the end there, I've spoken
with her a number of times in the last few weeks about the museum in
general and enhancing their budget a little this year of the existing
museum and some of the opportunities with TDC dollars and all. But I
also expressed to her at one point my concern on this particular
property. And I just think in the next week we're going to be dealing
in depth with our budget, and we're struggling with how do we get
enough money to pay the deputies their new increase, our own employees
their new increase, how do we keep the existing libraries open. We've
had a couple of commissioners suggest closing down the pool, and I
assume that means laying off those employees for those months that the
pool is closed. And those are all existing things. And this is a
great idea, but I'm concerned as to whether or not we can afford it.
It's -- you know, I'm shopping for a car right now. I
don't have a car. And there are great cars that I see out there, but
there are a lot of cars I can't afford. It is no way indicative that
those cars don't have value. It's simply something I can't afford.
And I'm afraid we may be in a situation here -- we can
accept this, but realistically we're not going to accept these deeds
and do nothing. If we accept these, we will spend money on this. And
whether there is a formal commitment today as part of the agenda item
to spend half of that million dollars to restore or not, this is not
the last time we will see this. And so I just have a concern if we go
ahead -- and I may be in the minority -- but from a fiscal perspective
where this leads us.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The mitigating element to that
are the original commitments in PUD 92-3 that a prior board -- I know
that a prior board cannot commit us to -- to firm decisions. However,
I think, as Mr. Dotrill explained, there was in some way a commitment
there to proceed with this.
By Commissioner Matthews' motion it doesn't come to the
county of an amount up to a hundred thousand dollars to move the
buildings 120 days after notice of sale of land. Yet I heard today
from the -- at least the efforts of one individual in our community,
there are funds out there, people willing to assist with the
development of this, and maybe those funds will not be required. And
I assume efforts will be taken to reduce the burden on the taxpayer
and make this as much as --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You betcha.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- a private-public venture as
possible. I likewise am concerned that it does in some way commit us
to development. And I would ask the motion maker to include as a
portion of her motion that although we recognize a development of this
parcel to become a living museum is a possibility, today's decision
does not bind the board to fund that. The reason I ask for that is to
remove that as a, if you will, a future liability and make it a goal
instead of something that, you know, someone comes back two years from
now and says, well, you bought it, and you haven't done anything with
it. You know, I would like to, again, put the thrust on the
public-private effort, and maybe by modifying the motion we can do
just that and maybe give a greater degree of comfort to some of us.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll modify the motion to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- include that the living
museum be a goal that we're going to work toward but not really commit
public funds until the public's ready to do so.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I think the -- then the
supporters of the museum have heard their challenge, and that will be
to -- to try to get these funds ready. It's fairly clear, I think,
from the direction the board is going here today that we are not going
to commit the funds certainly at this time to do the renovation work
and all that's necessary here. So you have your -- you have your work
cut out for you, and I hope you understand it clearly.
All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
And opposed?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
MR. OLLIFF: A question on the motion just so that I'm
clear about it. Once the notice is received to relocate those
existing buildings, where was the funding source?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, again, my understanding is
that -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We've got 120 days from date of
notice.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If -- if the -- if the
public-private partnership that I have to -- I have to put on
Commissioner Matthews' shoulder, because you brought it up, if that is
not willing to step to the plate with those funds, this motion does
commit the board at least in that eighty to a hundred thousand dollars
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh, to move those
buildings.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and I would term that a last
resort.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll also point out that the Friends
of the Museum are probably very -- almost everyone else doesn't want
to move those buildings.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. So if we can --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Nobody wants to move those buildings.
What we want to do is to come up with the funds to purchase that other
piece.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Bilee, you don't get to talk
again. I hope you know that. Mr. Bilee, you don't get to talk
again. Mr. Bilee. Mr. Bilee. Mr. Bilee, you don't get to talk
again. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to come
up with the funds to purchase all of the -- all of it, which is
$900,000.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that's -- that's what we're
working for.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I think you are stuck with a
possible budget item which is -- was the question you are trying to
avoid.
MR. DORRILL: It is not in the tentative budget. And
only in the event -- I don't have any reason to believe that the
property is about to be sold, so we will cross that bridge -- we will
take the minimum steps necessary to make sure that the building is
insured under your umbrella policy for fire and casualty insurance,
and aside from that we are awaiting the fulfillment of what's been
described as a goal.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we will take over then the
lawn maintenance and utility bills as of today?
MR. DORRILL: And the insurance, but there will be no
operating cost and no renovation cost, and you will not see those
reflected in the tentative budget. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If those aren't operating
costs -- I'm just curious -- what category would mowing and insuring
fall under?
MR. DORRILL: Well, I consider those to be maintenance
costs to protect the asset value in that facility. But in terms of
opening it and having it available for the public, there are no
operating costs in terms of the museum aspect.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Item #8D1
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CASE OF SHARON ROBERTS V. COLLIER COUNTY -
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO PURSUE ITS PRESENT COURSE AND DECLINE THE
$130,000 SETTLEMENT
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. 8(D)(1), discussion regarding
the case of Sharon Roberts versus Collier County.
MR. WALKER: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Jeff
Walker, risk management director. Items 8(D)(1) and (2) are two cases
Mr. Bryant and I are bringing to you this morning in the course of our
normal case management, and we wanted to get direction from the board
as to how to proceed with those. And with that, I'll turn it over to
Mr. Bryant for discussion.
MR. BRYANT: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners,
may it please the board. We're here today, as we do in other cases to
bring to you, in essence, a status report and also to get your
direction on what you would like us to do. I seem to -- Mr. Walker he
informed you of the basic facts behind the Roberts and also the
McGinnis case. As you know, the Roberts matter is a Title 7 cause of
action against the county.
It has been before CEOC, and it has come back with a
finding of reasonable cause that the allegations may have occurred.
We don't agree with that, and we believe the county has multiple
defenses to this, and so does our third-party excess carrier.
However, we have on the table an offer to settle this for an amount of
$130,000. It was a hundred and fifty, and then they came back with a
hundred and thirty, and we have told them that we believe that the
settlement value is of a nuisance value amount, and that's what our
excess carrier agrees with us. However, we have an obligation to
bring that to you at this time.
There has been no formal suit filed. I anticipate that
will happen once -- if the board formally rejects that amount as
settlement and that we will proceed with litigation.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Bryant, you said there is a
nuisance value. Are you saying the $130,000 is worth settling at that
amount as a nuisance value?
MR. BRYANT: No, no, no. Our observation, it's a
nuisance value. We've placed $5,000 -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I missed something in
there.
MR. BRYANT: We feel that 130,000 is outrageous. The
case is a nuisance, but the 130,000 is real money.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So are you asking for direction --
MR. BRYANT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- or --
MR. BRYANT: No, we need direction. We need you to tell
us if you want us to stay the course that we have embarked upon and to
reject the 130,000 demand for settlement and -- with the understanding
we'll probably end up in litigation in the not too distant future.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Bryant, I was going to
say you've assembled a pretty impressive track record for us here at
the county in the last couple of years and have not led us astray.
When things were questionable, then you brought that to our
attention. And if we had a strong defense, then you brought that to
our attention. And some of those cases we've actually not only had
the costs go down, but had attorney's costs returned to us by the
other side. So if you have a comfort level that there are multiple
defenses to this, that's the comfort level I need, and I would suggest
to the rest of the board that we go ahead and decline the hundred and
thirty and --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- direct staff to pursue on its
present course?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you need a motion?
MR. BRYANT: And that will not be the final demand, I
know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So do you need a motion, or is
that just a direction?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll consider that as a
motion if you need it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't think the direction is
sufficient.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You have unanimous direction
without comment to direct staff to pursue.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we need a motion, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I would prefer a motion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I move that the board direct the
county attorney's office to proceed in the case of Roberts versus
Collier County and reject the offer of 130,000.
MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #8D2
UPDATE AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CASE OF BARBARA HCGINNIS V. COLLIER
COUNTY, CASE NO. 95-1481-CA-01-CTC - COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO OFFER
$3,000 SETTLEMENT
MR. BRYANT: Thank you. The HcGinnis matter is one, as
I told you in the back of the material, very similar to the Bilips
(phonetic) case which, you know, came back at a zero verdict, and it
found in favor of the county. There was an initial demand for
$40,000. It's a slip and fall out on Marco. It's the county's
position -- we have defended this vigorously -- that the plaintiff
caused her own injury. She had existing osteoarthritis. She's
claiming that the fall aggravated it.
The initial demand was $40,000, and we have had
extensive discovery. Now the demand is $10,000. It's staff's
position that if the board wants to make an offer at all -- and the
reason that we suggest you might want to is to be able to bring into
play the offer of judgment statute. So if we should be fortunate
enough to again replicate the Bilips matter, we would then be able to
recover our fees because if we don't do that, we won't be able to.
Their demand for judgment was $10,000. We believe that
if the board wants to make one, it should be somewhere in the three to
five thousand dollar range, because that is the amount that it's going
to cost us to finish discovery and actually try the case, which we're
prepared to do.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm willing to move that we
direct staff to make an offer of $3,000 for the purposes stated by
Mr. Bryant and, if offer is rejected, to proceed with litigation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a couple of
seconds. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed?
MR. BRYANT: Thank you very much.
Item #BE1
RESOLUTION 96-291 TRANSFER OF FRANCHISE AGREEMENT FROM CONTINENTAL
CABLEVISION, INC. TO U.S. WEST, INC. - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. 8(E)(1), transfer of
franchise agreement from Continental Cablevision to U.S. West.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One question, where's my radar?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's back.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 7758.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want my radar.
MS. HERRITT: For the record, Jean Herritt, your
coordinator of franchise administration. In February of this year
U.S. West and Continental Cablevision entered into a plan of merger.
You have before you a resolution which transfers the franchise
agreement from Continental Cablevision to U.S. West. U.S. West has
met all the submission requirements including your remission of a
$10,000 application fee and has agreed to comply with all of the
provisions of the Collier County ordinance with one small exception,
and that is that they are continuing to pay their franchise fees
quarterly instead of monthly as the amendment to the last ordinance
stated because they do not have their data system up where they can do
that as of this time. Staff recommends approval of this resolution.
MR. DORRILL: You have two speakers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let's go to the public
speakers.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman. Mr. Perkins, you'll follow
him.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Good morning, Commissioners. Gil
Erlichman, East Naples. I only have one question on this agenda
item. Recalling the -- when there is a transfer of the franchise from
Colonial, I believe, to -- MR. DORRILL: Colony.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Pardon me?
MR. DORRILL: Colony.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Oh, Colony. Colony. It was found at
the time that Colony had not paid any -- was remiss in some payments
to the county. I forget what the fees were or what it was. My
question at this time was has Continental paid all their fees,
et cetera, that they have that they should be required to pay to the
county. In other words, there is nothing owed by Continental to the
county?
MS. HERRITT: Continental is current in all aspects of
franchise payments.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does that include the -- the arrears
MS. HERRITT: Yes, it does, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- that Mr. Erlichman was talking
about?
MS. HERRITT: Yes, it does.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Erlichman.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins.
MR. PERKINS: Good morning, Commissioners, again. A1
Perkins, Belle Heade Groups, citizens for constitutional property
rights. Level of service is where I'm coming from on the
Cablevision. As you know, Cablevision had broadcast the Carl Loveday
show, which each one of you have been on at least once, and everybody
in the county had a shot at you by --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A1, this is a different company.
MR. PERKINS: Didn't you just change?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is Continental, Colony,
going to U.S. West.
MR. PERKINS: Right.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: You're talking about
Cablevision, which is a whole different company.
MR. PERKINS: Cablevision was -- let's go to the
service. Is the service being changed in any way over and above or
lesser? Of the increase in fees, has there been any of this?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Merritt, that just feeds two
questions: One is the -- I believe the level of service remains the
same according to contract; is that correct?
MS. MERRITT: The level of service does remain according
to contract. And as you well know, we will be renegotiating a new
contract early in 1997.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the second question. Do
we have the ability to impose or suggest programming at that time?
MS. MERRITT: We will have some input, yes, sir.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Expect to have some lively
discussions.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I would, too. In
addressing Mr. Perkins' concern, I think he's talking Continental
Cable no longer carrying the news journal.
MR. PERKINS: Yes. Well, my big thing is trying to get
the message up, getting the whole story out so everybody can make up
their own mind about what's going on, not only with this board, but
with the Big Cypress Basin Board and any functions throughout this
county. We have the ability to do it. Why don't we do it? I would
like to see the people, you know, bug the hell out of you people.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You know what, Mr. Perkins, when we
come up with the discussions next year, early next year, I think it
was said, for renegotiation of the contract, that would be a perfect
time to make all these points.
MR. PERKINS: I sure hope that I am around here long
enough. No, no, no, it's very important that the people get to know
what's going on in their community. You know, I mean, like give you
an example, beach renourishment, I would have loved to have seen it
being done from my living room.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, sure, but the point is -- the
point is we have an existing contract, and a contract is a contract.
MR. PERKINS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next year is a different story. We
have an opportunity to talk about all these things in a -- MR. PERKINS: Yes, and put in place the TV system that
I've been yapping about. I thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're quite welcome.
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I got one
question. Would the cessation of broadcasting of the news journal
constitute a change in service?
MS. HERRITT: No, it would not.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't understand that.
MS. HERRITT: Our contract does not control the services
per se. The contract -- the agreement does not say, for example, how
many channels a cable company is required to carry. In the normal
course of business, a cable company will do -- add services, delete,
do whatever. But the contract as we have presently does not control
that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But if during contract
negotiations they make either verbal or contractual commitments, we
then have that on the record and can enforce that in some way? MS. MERRITT: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's a discussion for next
year.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If there's nothing further, I'm
going to move approval of staff recommendation for transfer of
franchise agreement from Continental to U. S. West.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
MS. MERRITT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
Item #8E2 - Deleted
Item #8E3
RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS VOTE NOT TO
PARTICIPATE IN A REGIONAL JAIL AS SUGGESTED BY DAN L. WILEY &
ASSOCIATES AND THAT THE BOARD AUTHORIZE FUNDING FOR A WORK RELEASE AND
RESTITUTION CENTER AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE FACILITY RECOHMENDED BY THE
CONSULTANT GROUP - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED; STAFF TO PLAN FOR
WORK CENTER ON CAMPUS AND PROVIDE PLAN FOR NON-ADVALOREH FUNDING;
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO PROVIDE SAMPLE BALLOT QUUESTION AT 6/25/96 MEETING
Next item is a recommendation county commissioners not
participate in a regional jail.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, the executive summary is
brief, and I'm -- I'm sure that you have had the opportunity to read
that, so I will not reiterate that. I have asked Captain Smith to be
here today from the sheriff's department and just parenthetically tell
you. From our perspective, we think that he has been a real asset on
the correctional side of the sheriff's department and, in fact, this
-- our original effort is in no way intended to be compared or
contrasted to the Collier County Naples Jail Center and its
operation. You made a decision to participate and explore the
possibility of operating what I think could best be defined as a
regional jail center similar in scope to the stockade facility that
you own and is operated by the sheriff for post-trial sentenced
prisoners in Immokalee.
The analysis has been done. Jails are very finicky
animals because of very strict classification requirements and how you
must classify and then segregate prisoners of various types in the
State of Florida. And it runs the gamut from various infectious
diseases to juvenile status, to security status, to prior arrest
status. And we currently have sufficient space for the types of
prisoners that would be housed in this particular type of facility. I
need to tell you, though, that at some point -- and, in fact, the
sheriff requested, and I did not include in the tentative budget --
the Immokalee Jail Center is probably 30 years old, and I sort of say
that it is something right out of Cool Hand Luke, if you ever saw that
movie, in terms of the type of facility that it is. It is
unairconditioned. It is a concrete dormitory with bar grill-type
coverings over the windows, and it is not a nice place at all.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We got to use that as a
design.
MR. DORRILL: And so we -- we have a post-trial
facility, albeit one that at some point is going to need to be
modernized, and we will either do that by our own volition, or at some
point the Florida Department of Corrections is going to come down and
insist and require, and we will enter into some stipulated type of
agreement as to what renovations need to be made at that facility.
But it functions, it operates, and it is being very capably
administered by Sheriff Hunter through the captain. And he is here
and can elaborate or answer any specific questions that you have.
You also need to keep in mind at some point you are
going to have a general obligation bond referendum to expand the jail,
and that has been programmed at a huge cost of 20 million dollars.
And as the sheriff begins to experience population and housing
problems for pretrial maximum security-type prisoners, that is the
dilemma. And that is why we have a maximum security jail here, to
house and to hold people and not release them pending the trial that
they have. That's a totally different issue aside from this one, but
you will probably see that before you see a request for a regional
jail come back to you. And with that I would either try to answer, or
I'd have Captain Smith answer any questions that you might have.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got one comment. And when
I was serving as chairman of the public safety committee, it came to
-- came to my attention that the DOR -- I'm sorry, not the DOR -- the
Department of Corrections often builds new jails for communities
provided that they can use half of the beds made available for minimum
security housing. And I'm -- and I'm wondering if in an effort to
improve the Immokalee stockade if we shouldn't be investigating that a
little further than -- than we have so far.
MR. DORRILL: You may recall last year as part of a bill
that was approved by the legislature there was an effort to do just
that and to explore the privatization of minimum and medium security
prisons in Florida. You may recall they were looking for communities
to bid or to propose sites. At that particular time we -- we asked
the board whether they wanted to have us prepare a bid to bring that
sort of facility to Collier County, and we were told, no, that you
didn't choose for us to pursue that. But that is always an
alternative if we could cost share and then co-house inmates in that
particular instance who are sentenced, and either they are in the
Florida penitentiary system or they are sentenced and are serving time
in the county jail. I believe it's up to a year, year and a half,
which is the maximum that you can hold somebody.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. The -- the -- you know,
perhaps that is a solution for this board, though, if the -- if the
DOC is willing to build those jails, they can build a jail that's far
more efficient than the one that exists right now, and the cost to man
it and operate it -- probably best estimate I've heard verbally is
that they would be similar to the costs of manning and operating the
existing stockade. And perhaps in a -- in a joint effort to solve the
sheriff's problem, we should investigate asking the DOC to come in and
give us a proposal on replacing the stockade.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Shouldn't the sheriff do that?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, we're in charge of jails.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I really see that as the
sheriff's role, not as our role to -- Greg, you know what -- what you
all need and when that's coming down. I suspect you probably have a
feel for that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't disagree with the idea.
I just want, you know -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That should be initiated out
of the --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's kind of like just going
ahead and deciding which gun the officer uses, and that's not our area
of expertise.
MR. SMITH: For the record, Captain Greg Smith, jail
administrator for the Collier County Sheriff's Office. I think it's
important to point out at this particular time, Mr. Chairman and
members of the commission, that what we're really reacting here to is
a meeting that was held of the Public Safety Coordinating Council, and
what they'd like to do at this point in time is bring the findings of
that meeting and the consensus of that group back to you in the form
of a report. I think that's more or less the intent here this
morning. And if -- if that would please the commission, we can
continue in that vein, and certainly we can field any questions you
might have following the -- the report.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to sidestep that one
real quick there, Greg, because there was anoth -- I understand what
you're saying. You're limiting to what's in front of us, but there
was a question raised by Commissioner Matthews regarding a different
approach using the DOC funds to, I believe, build a facility, and we
would then man it and so forth. Is that something that you have
experience in looking at or something you think is worthwhile looking
into?
MR. SMITH: We have explored that possibility. I have
done extensive staff work in that regard. We put together a packet
and even kind of polled Tallahassee, if you would, to see what the
feeling is for pursuit of a venture of that type. What was relayed
back to us is that funding may or may not have been appropriated
during this year's legislative session. I apologize, I have not kept
up with the trend. Therefore, I don't know if they funded that
particular program or not. I do know that last year at this
particular time there was funding available for those type of joint
ventures with the State Department of Corrections.
I held a personal conversation with Miss Matthews,
excuse me, Commissioner Matthews, who -- who was also very interested
in pursuit of that. But I -- like I said, I apologize that I -- I
don't have that information available. And I think that may be what
Mr. Dotrill was alluding to in his remark, that there was some funding
mechanism up there or some kind of joint participation effort that may
still be on the books. So perhaps we -- we could look at that as
alternatives.
I will agree with him that the Immokalee stockade, while
functional -- and I say that from a standpoint of not only the jail
administrator but having been the officer in charge over there for
some five years, and that's also where my corrections career started
back in 1977. And I think it's a perfect analogy that he used, being
likened to Cool Hand Luke. But certainly today it is both functional
-- it is useful, and I think that it's worthy of preservation,
specifically given the -- the public sentiment that's out there today,
and certainly I share that in some regard.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Kind of support a little more
Cool Hand Luke.
MR. DORRILL: They're not eating boiled eggs out there,
John.
MR. SMITH: It also -- it also is co-located with our
juvenile boot camp, and the main reason why we co-located those two
facilities together was so that the juvenile boot camp could use the
laundry and the kitchen of the Immokalee Jail Center thereby keeping
those costs low. So especially from that perspective as well, you see
there is a real value in the Immokalee Jail Center.
Now, I don't know whether that would preempt any action
on the part of the state or persuade them maybe to look at us in a --
in a little bit of a less favorable light in regard for a shared
facility because of the co-location of the juvenile center, because
now you're bringing three entities under one roof with BJJ and the
Department of Corrections and county jail systems. And so, you know,
that's something that we would just all have to sit around and look
at, but certainly we would commit to doing that if that's the
direction of the board.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Captain Smith, your
recommendation on the report on the regional facility is pretty
clear. I did notice the Hay 17 release was on a preliminary report.
I assume there will be no substantive change between whatever their
preliminary report is and whatever is forthcoming?
MR. SMITH: The consultant explained at the -- at the
release of the report that they categorize it as a preliminary draft
to kind of graciously avoid any criticism that could come from a
misspelling or -- or perhaps a misplaced graph. Certainly I don't
think there will be many substantive changes in that document as
presented.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: You were represented at all of the
meetings by the county manager's office, and there are no changes. You do have one speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let's go to the public
speaker.
MR. DORRILL: Judge Brousseau. Judge.
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Good morning, Judge.
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: I'm not here to directly address the
regional aspect.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could you identify yourself for the
record?
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: My name is Ted Brousseau, circuit
judge.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: And after eight years of studying and
planning, it's a pleasure to be here under these circumstances to
present what was the alternative in the recommendation, that is the
work restitution center. Ned Putzell sends his regards. He wishes he
could have been here, but obligations in his St. Louis office called
him up to St. Louis.
And let me say that your staff at all levels should be
commended for the work that they have done in getting us here today.
I just wanted to make the presentation that -- that the work
restitution center has not been -- we have not focused on the money
aspect of it. It's primarily a drug treatment program for offenders
who without intervention and treatment would likely continue a career
in crime and be sentenced to prison. We're addressing the ambiance of
life in Collier County and maintaining it or improving it.
The center would include persons involved in domestic
violence, people unwilling to pay their share of court ordered
restitution or child support. Underlying the drug treatment program
are the basic assumptions that drug abuse is a major health and social
problem in Florida, that crime in Florida and its social costs are
unacceptably severe, and that drug abuse exaborates (sic) the crime
problem, that treatment of substance abuse can be effective, and that
treatment of drug-dependent offenders is a crucial part of the
solution to the drug and crime problem in Florida.
The things that -- the goals that we would have for the
center would be reduction of criminal recidivism, reduction of
substance abuse, reduction of domestic violence through counseling,
mandatory payment of restitution and/or child support and many other
things.
If all of that weren't enough, it happens to be cheap.
It happens to be cost effective. Once it's built it effectively pays
for itself, so that brings us to the issue of how much does it cost to
build. The work has been done. I commend the Collier Building
Industry Association. They've become involved in this. They've
adopted this as a project. They're willing to lend -- lend their
expertise in support for this.
There's been many alternatives presented to you today,
but just to put this thing in perspective, we're talking about a
little less than 3 million dollars to build it. As I calculate it
from what I read in the paper, that's about eight-tenths of a percent
of your annual budget coming up this year. It's about 6 percent of
the sheriff's total budget. It's less than half of the increase that
the sheriff is requesting this year, as I read. And why do I address
that? Because we think that this will impact the necessity and need
for future law enforcement and future expansion of fighting crime
through the good that the center will do.
I heard that there's a group that has made a
presentation here for a half-cent sales tax. I listened to the
numbers that were presented that I read about. Thirty days, sales tax
at 1 cent would pay for this, build it. I'm here to tell you that our
group is prepared if you're -- if that's one of the choices or the
choice you want to make is to put this to the people. If you can't
come up with any money anywhere else to build this, we -- I will go
out, and you put this thing -- get it on the ballot this fall, and I
can't believe with the support that we've gotten over the years that
this wouldn't pass in an eyelash.
Some of the other funding methods is to design and build
with private financing similar to the development services building.
This was added at the insistence of the building community. They
think that they could come in and save government some money by a
turn-key operation, so that could be explored no matter where the
money comes from. One of the suggestions was for a surcharge of
building permits for a specific period of time to build it, and I
won't address that. I'll let the county attorney speak to the
legality and the prudence of that. But if you have questions --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Judge Brousseau, I've met with
Mr. Putzell several times on this. And from the time it was first
brought forward through today and probably into the future, I'm
extremely supportive of the idea. It's not very often we have the
ability to develop a tool for law enforcement that will pay for
itself. My question is, we know that it will pay for its operation.
Is there a way that we could make it pay for its construction, that we
bond the construction out and the actual users who come into the --
into the facility over a period of 15 or 20 years would actually pay
the county back for the construction of the facility?
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: You know, that's -- you're getting
into an answer that I can't answer, and I'll tell you why. It's you
will build this thing. You will basically set some policies such as
how much a day are we going to charge each of the people that stay
there, what kind of services are you going to provide in the way of
counseling, and you're going to control the levels of that. You know,
you get -- it's like selling anything on the street. You get into a
point of how much are you going to charge them to stay there.
Traditionally it's been about ten or eleven dollars a day the sheriff
has charged out of the jail, and we've kind of used that figure. You
could say, yeah, we could make it $15 a day and amortize that over
those number of years, and it would probably work out, be done. But
the problem might become is can they afford it. Will they have
sufficient jobs to -- to pay that and pay their way, and -- but that's
within your -- your control.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And maybe the question -- I
inappropriately may have directed it to you instead of maybe the
county attorney. But my feeling is -- you know, I say every year
there are hundreds of good ideas that will go unfunded because we
simply don't have the blank checkbook to do everything that sounds
good. But this is something that will have a real impact on the
community, in my opinion, and we need to try and find a way to do, but
I think it's reasonable to look at this year's budget and say we're
not going to squeeze out $300,000 over the next 12 years to pay back a
loan on this, at least not initiating this year. So my question
really then is one of if we're going to look at this, I'd look at it
in such a way that over a period of, say, 15 years that the operation
costs actually end up paying back the construction of the building.
If we legally can do that, we may have a mechanism with a dedicated
source of repayment of a bond or loan issue.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Perhaps in conjunction with that
or alternative to that, I -- I think it's time for us to look again at
a law enforcement impact fee. I don't know why -- we have impact fees
for libraries and parks and everything in the world, but we don't have
an impact fee for law enforcement, which could be, you know, at least
the construction funds. The capital money could have come from that
if we would have been collecting it all these years and could come
from there in the future. And maybe even we could borrow against
future impact fee collections. I don't know, but I -- I'd like to
hear from the sheriff, I guess. I don't want to butt into his
business, but I think we need a law enforcement impact fee.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A couple of thoughts.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've been there.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know you have been.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. I didn't mean to talk
while you were interrupting me. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No problem.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The idea of the sales tax, I have
always favored paying for our new jail facility that we're going to
need some day with the sales tax rather than going -- bonding with
ad valorem. And the simple reason is that you could put on a sales
tax for a period of 9, 10, 12 months and you could pay for the entire
jail, and you capture about 50 percent of that money from tourists and
people outside of the county which have an impact on our jail system,
by the way. So as Judge Brousseau says, one month more than you pay
for the jail, you also pay for the restitution center, one month. I
think that idea is much better than going ad valorem for 20 years and
having only the property owners in Collier County pay for this when
they are not the only ones that are impacting the jail and law
enforcement system.
And on a completely different thought, in the interim
has anyone checked with the board of St. Matthews' House to see if
they would be willing to make an interim agreement, because they have
a facility very similar to what you're talking about doing, and I'm
not sure given their -- their fiscal constraints that they have, their
fiscal situation, that they wouldn't be amenable to at least
considering the idea of renting, so to speak, some of their facility
out for some period?
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: George Drobinski, our probation
director, could address that because St. Matthew's House made a
presentation to the Public Safety Committee offering ten beds as a
pilot project, and for some reason legally it failed. But before --
before I leave I'd like to make one additional point you need to
consider, and that is we're losing ground. And I don't mean that
literally -- I mean that literally.
You've got the juvenile detention facility that now is
really, as I understand it, is located where staff had suggested a
year ago to put this. There was another location between building W,
I think, and the health department, and now I understand there's some
expansion being proposed there. And physically you're running out of
ground to locate this. And my prediction would be from what I've seen
in this county and what I know of this county and what I just heard
about the landfill this morning, is that you won't be able to locate
this anywhere else in the county, at least easily, and that if you're
going to do it, do it post haste before we just say, oh, forget it, we
don't have any land left. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick question before George
gets up. We've been through the explanation before, but just for the
benefit of the public, we keep saying the operational cost will pay
for itself, and maybe you can do a 30-second or 60-second summary on
what it is we're all saying.
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: Okay. Basically it's 110 beds here,
and we acknowledge that not everybody is going to have a job, but the
type of people that would be put in here are the ones that we judges
now really have a tough time with, someone, let's say, a DUI second
time where you really want to keep them off the street while they're
going to counseling and they may be a danger to drive around, domestic
violence where going home is the problem, not during the day where
they're working and they have jobs. And if you put them in jail, then
they lose their job, and then they become -- the family becomes a
burden on society as well as the stresses that go on this person.
These people are already under stress. That's what usually causes the
drug dependence, so now they get out of jail whenever they get out and
they have no job, plus they have the debts that build up, and guess
what; they go out and commit more crimes either through drinking and
just get drunk or crimes such as stealing or burglary or whatever. So
the idea here is those people that have jobs would go here. During
the day -- my experience has been they don't get in trouble during the
day. It's their off hours, their leisure hours. So during their
leisure hours we've got them locked up, they're being given
counseling, but they're paying their way because we charge them room
and board while they stay there.
Now, some of the people will not have jobs that would
still qualify for this and need the treatment. And years ago Vo-Tech
approached me and said they would be more than willing to accept these
people. We would drive them over there each day. So all the inmates
who had jobs were working -- these would be getting Vo-Tech training.
By the time they got released, hopefully they would be -- have jobs
and be citizens that would pay their way. Okay? Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: If I may just comment briefly, and county
attorney office has had an opportunity to talk with Judge Brousseau
and Mr. Putzell and the CBIA representatives in regard to the question
of funding. I just briefly state that if an impact fee, which was
mentioned, were to be sought, that would require, of course, a
consultant's methodology study. And our preliminary opinion from the
county attorney is that it would -- rather than a work release and
restitution facility alone that -- and we have talked with our outside
consultant we've used on the sheriff's study before, that it would
probably require, at least be greatly facilitated in this enactment if
it was the more comprehensive type, but it's law enforcement which
includes work release and restitution facility as opposed to an
attempt to create an impact fee purely for a work release and
restitution facility.
Secondly, if there were to be -- if the sales tax
mechanism were to be used, whether it's for merely the work release
and restitution facility or a larger assortment of capital buildings,
projects -- I just got off the phone with supervisor of elections to,
once again, check with, and she would need the ballot question for the
November 3rd election June 25th.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: June 25th?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hmm.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We knew that.
MR. WEIGEL: I knew that the time was going to be tight
but --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is that for September?
MR. WEIGEL: I beg your pardon? No, that's for the
November 3rd election. That's if we go countywide. If it's not
countywide, we'd have to preclear with the justice department, which
the county attorney's office is used to doing. But in any event, with
the ballot question which is adopted by resolution there is almost
always in regard to this kind of referendum an ordinance that comes
along with it, which we wouldn't have the time for an advertised
ordinance. It would have to be developed and adopted under an
emergency basis if it were to go forward June 25th. I just wanted to
bring that to your attention at this point.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Drobinski.
MR. DROBINSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, George Drobinski, director of probation. In answer to the
inquiry about St. Hatthew's House, previously there was a lot of
effort that was undertaken by Father Lindell, and now the reins have
been passed on to Frank Heehan. And I don't have my notes in front of
me on that particular issue, but I'm fairly certain that it was a
zoning issue which was the reason that St. Hatthew's House could not
provide the type of service that is similar to that of a work release
restitution center. It was a limited-bed capability; I think it was
12 beds at the time. And at last communication with Father Lindell
the zoning issue was not rectified, so it's still up in the air.
Otherwise they had taken care of a lot of other hurdles to get to that
point, but the work release restitution center encompasses all of our
solutions together.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Pleasure of the board?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I think, first of all, we
need a motion to accept staff recommendation that the board vote
against participation in the regional facility. That would be the
first step.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is that a motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That is a motion.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to --
MR. DORRILL: You have one -- you have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, we still have another speaker?
MR. DORRILL: Yes. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. West.
MR. WEST: Thank you. For the record my name is Eric
West. I'm a volunteer member of the Public Safety Committee of the
EDC Chamber and Coalition for Government and Community Affairs. I'm
speaking this morning on behalf of the coalition for a formally
adopted position that they have reached which suggests that Collier
County should not participate in the regional jail proposal. And, of
course, that agrees with the position that you've already heard this
morning from the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council.
We've been working on this issue since early January.
It included going through a stack of material about this tall
(indicated) which included not only planning documents from this
county and other counties, but also some nationwide research reports
on the specific issue of regional jails and included some law
enforcement and correction-oriented periodical articles that describe
some of the practical experience that various jurisdictions throughout
the United States have had in attempting to implement a regional plan
and I would say with mixed success.
We've also been in contact with the National Corrections
Information Center in Colorado, also some academic contacts that we
had previously developed in connection with earlier work we did on
community policing. We've done site visits at detention facilities
here in the county center and out at Immokalee. We had a
representative at the presentation by the consultants on Hay 17th in
Fort Myers and, of course, we have reviewed the report, deliberated,
and adopted a formal position which I'd just like to briefly read.
The Chamber EDC Coalition does not support participation
by Collier County in the proposed Southwest Florida regional jail.
The proposed regional jail is not cost effective for Collier County,
does not accommodate Collier's projected inmate needs, and is
inefficiently located for Collier County judicial personnel. Collier
County's integrated corrections strategic plan of 1991, which was
updated in 1993, projects a need for additional jail space,
particularly for pretrial medium and maximum security inmates and that
Collier should, therefore, resume following its own correction
strategic plan.
By way of expansion on -- on the three reasons by which
we came to that conclusion, I think you've heard earlier sort of a
mismatch from a program standpoint it's literally a situation like
this whereas the proposed plan for -- for the regional jail was post
trial sentenced low-risk inmates which, by the way, of course, is the
prime labor talent pool that you need to run our own jail system,
whereas what the crunch is and is coming for Collier County is, in
fact, pretrial medium and maximum security prison. So there is, in
fact, a mismatch there, and we believe that crunch is here now.
Seasonally and -- and the line for that crunch on pretrial medium and
maximum security inmates is already inside what a normal lead time
would be for a constructional plan of those types of cells in Collier
County.
The second point, which is the cost effectiveness
question, the consultant's report literally did not address the
question of comparing this regional jail with what Collier County
could have done. It is literally silent on that subject. We would
offer the opinion, though, that if, in fact, that direct comparison
had been made on an apples-to-apple basis -- and you would have to
rework it to do that -- and you came up with two different numbers,
which we would suggest you really come down to a per diem cost, that's
a cost per inmate per day, that the board and others would ask from a
policy standpoint why were the numbers different. We suggest that the
answer to why those numbers would be different would be five areas:
economies of scale, land acquisition cost, construction costs, salary
costs, and the strength of jail leadership. It is our opinion that
Collier County going along on all five of those criteria, which would
ultimately explain a difference in per diem, Collier County matches
that in efficiency or exceeds it.
Just two quick examples on economies of scale. The
experts tell us a 50- to 20- -- a 50- or 25-bed jail is not efficient,
that there is a sweet spot up in the 200 range or above. Collier
County is already there. I mean, it may present an opportunity for
Glades and Hendry that are not operating at that level, but Collier is
obviously well over the 200 point of efficiencies. And to pick on the
fifth one and really echoing a comment that Neil made earlier about
the question of the strength of jail leadership, I think the track
record in this county on jail leadership is quite strong. And I would
also extend that to the support of the agencies, the county
government, and citizen involvement in terms of just flat getting
things done. I think the track record is there on the juvenile
justice and detention center, the assessment that goes with that, and
the ability to get the jail camp put in place. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. WEST: If you have questions -- thank you for the
opportunity to speak.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to not
participate in the regional jail. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
Opposed?
There are none.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, to incorporate some
of the presentation we've heard today, I would like to follow up with
a two-part motion. The first part is to direct staff to incorporate
into their campus plan a tentative location for a probation and
restitution center. The second part of the motion would be to direct
staff to further develop funding scenarios for that center that are
non-ad valorem based, whether -- to include at a minimum the fee-based
repayment or sales tax -- a sales tax referendum. And since we
probably will not meet the June 25th deadline, we're probably looking
at a special election if it were a sales tax question that may be
folded in with the jail itself.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, would there be
any way humanly possible to put together in the next seven days -- if
we were to decide on that seventh day that that was a viable option --
a ballot question for us to submit to Mary Morgan? Secondarily, Mr.
Dotrill, is there any way to extend that deadline at all? I'll let
Mr. Weigel answer the first.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. We're very human, but I think it's
possible. And what I would suggest, that we provide scenarios --
unless you give us further direction here -- of work release and
restitution facility or something a bit more broadly comprehensive.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's a concern. I would
love the work release center. I mean, can you imagine the taxpayer
actually being asked if they want a 30-day sales tax to pay for this?
I mean, what a great idea. But if we throw the jail question into it
at this stage, I don't think the sheriff's office is ready to do that
with quantifiable numbers, and I don't think he's foreseen that. I'd
like to get input from him as to whether or not that question should
be broader than just the work restitution center.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't mind. If we need to
go to a special ballot, we do, but just from a thought if there is a
cost of doing that at 60,000 bucks or 80,000 bucks or something and
having a special ballot.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would love to consider if Mr.
Weigel could give us a question for next week on a 30-day penny for
the work release center.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You know, a 30-day is probably not
worth the trouble unfortunately.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I think it's worth it if we
get a center out of it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And I don't think you can do just 30
days. I think your minimum is 90; wasn't it?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It would have to be a quarter,
doesn't it?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. We were looking at it for
the bridge, and it had to start on the quarter beginning date and end
on a quarter ending date.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Uh-huh. Greg, I know we've
had the conversation, and the sheriff and I have had the conversation
in detail about the potential for expanding the existing jail. Again,
posing a similar question to what I asked Mr. Weigel, would it be
humanly possible in the next seven days to have some of that
information forward? I know the sheriff has been prepared long ago,
much as maybe two years ago, to ask if we can do some expansion work,
and so I know he's not starting from scratch, but is that even a
possibility or should we not entertain that at this point?
MR. SMITH: I really can't say, Commissioner
Constantine. I know that some of the forerunning -- excuse me --
preliminary work has been done, and some numbers have been provided
previous to this. But I don't know where we stand from a staff
standpoint of being able to provide that within the -- within the time
frame required. So --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My only other concern about
showing up on November is that we, in all likelihood, are going to
have the green space tax on the ballot along with the jail. Typically
I think if we look at the history of having two taxes on a ballot, the
success rate of either one is minimal. So I -- I would hate to lose
ground in one very important area, whether it be urban space or green
space or jail at the expense of the other.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. I'd also -- I may be
forgetting something from prior to when I -- in the '70s or something
prior to when I was here, but anything in the last ten years or so
that has any tax that has appeared on the ballot by itself has failed
miserably. If that is the sole purpose for the ballot, it usually --
my recollection has been almost two to one lost. And so if we're
looking for a way to make this effective or palatable or -- you know,
I don't know which is -- which is a worse situation.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One very different thing here is
some of the reasons those ballot questions have been on the ballot
where this one is -- is probably one of the premiere reasons or
concerns that the general public has, and that's crime prevention and
so forth. On the question of a sales tax, though, for 30 days, why
not have -- since we have to do it quarter to quarter, why not a
quarter-percent tax for 90 days, and that we can -- that we can handle
from quarter to quarter? Of course, the ideal quarter is January to
April.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Only a CPA would love that
idea.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me -- let me suggest this. Why
don't we -- why don't we -- we're discussing issues now that we should
be discussing next week when the thing is brought up. Why don't we
direct Mr. Weigel to go forward, get a --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- sample ballot question designed
that we can tinker with a little bit next week and have the sheriff's
office provide us with the hardest figures they can on what they feel
the price of the jail is going to be, and we'll work it backwards sort
of in a way. If we can do that, if we can get those figures in the
next 48 hours for our staff, we can probably put this together for
next -- have a reasonable ballot question for next week.
MR. DORRILL: We -- we can have the ballot question, and
we can develop the program numbers and costs for both the jail
expansion, and there's some sheriff administration facilities all
contained within that one building. Ms. Morgan says that -- that her
drop-dead date, if you will, is July the 1st in order to design. And
you will not be meeting between then, and that's why she had said to
Mr. Weigel the 25th. We can have something on for the 25th. We
cannot have it in advance of the agenda going to the printer tomorrow
at two o'clock, and so we'll have to insert the information when it
returns from the printer on Friday or Monday. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm willing to agree with that
direction. However, I would still like to hear finality -- a final
vote on my motion, because it does direct staff to make sure we have a
campus planning room for a work release center. And if this tax idea
should not go forward, it does direct staff to look at other
alternative funding methods that are not --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why don't you just amend your
motion to include John's seven day -- Commissioner Norris's seven day
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second amends.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Second amends. We have a motion and a
second then. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed?
We'll break for lunch.
(A lunch break was held between 12:33 p.m. to 1:44 p.m.)
Item #8E4
RESOLUTION 96-292, APPROVING THE INITIAL TERMS OF OFFICE FOR THE
MEMBERS APPOINTED TO THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY
- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene the county commission
meeting. Our next item is 8(E)(4) which is the former 16(E)(3).
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This may have -- We may have
answered my own question here. Commissioner Hancock just pointed out
the bottom paragraph says there is one vacancy due to the resignation,
Stickford, who is the -- the top man there, and I just wanted to
clarify that that was included, and obviously it is, so I'll move the
item.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #9A
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DISCUSS ENACTING
AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH AN ELECTRIC UTILITY FRANCHISE AND/OR
PRIVILEGE FEE IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY - STAFF TO
MEET WITH FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY AND LEE COUNTY CO-OP AND COME
BACK ON 7/16/96 WITH PROPOSED ORDINANCE
Okay. 9(A). Franchise fee.
MS. ASHTON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record I'm Heidi Ashton, assistant county attorney. Attached to the
executive summary is a draft privilege ordinance. A privilege
ordinance is distinguishable from a franchise ordinance in that it is
unilateral, something that the government would impose. I've attached
that for discussion purposes today. I've also distributed to the
board members by memorandum a copy of FPL's proposed model franchise
agreement for your comparison.
The board previously directed the county attorney's
office to return with a draft ordinance for discussion, and if you
desire to go forward today with the franchise fee, then we will
advertise an ordinance and bring it back to you sometime in July or
August.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could I just make a couple of
-- a couple of points, one dealing with the agreement itself and the
other dealing with the concept of the franchise fee? I -- I got a
call last Friday from Senator Fred Dudley who is the attorney
representing FPL on this. They -- They apparently weren't alerted
until Friday -- weren't aware for some reason until Friday that this
was on this coming Tuesday's agenda which seems like fairly a big
error if this will impact them obviously more than anyone else.
There's a couple of points in -- in our contract -- I don't want to
digress too far -- that refers specifically to FPL and should probably
say a carrier as opposed to a specific company but -- a couple of
thoughts. Senator Dudley came by and said FPL doesn't necessarily
disagree with the concept. They don't have a problem, but they would
like the opportunity, rather than have their presentation and the
staff presentation, to actually sit down and try to hammer something
out so that they can both get up on a Tuesday and agree to, if we
choose to go forward with this. And so if we choose to go forward, I
would suggest the way we go forward is directing staff to sit down
with FPL and set a dead -- drop-dead date by which they come back.
Seconds to that, I have a little problem with the
franchise fee for a couple of reasons. There are some appealing
parts, but it appears that we may be using this to rescue ourselves a
little bit from the ad valorem challenge that lies ahead in the next
three or four months, and I guess I -- I would rather see this as a
last resort type activity if the county finds themselves in some
terrible crisis as opposed to making this the first step and then
looking at everything else. I heard Commissioner Hancock say
something similar on the -- only probably worded a little better -- on
the radio yesterday, and I -- I tend to agree, and I wondered if
rather than having a prolonged discussion on the merits or not of a
fee today, is if we gave direction to staff to sit down with FPL and
-- and in six weeks or eight weeks see if there's anything that they
can agree to as an option. In that time frame, we will have gone
through our budget and see -- have a much truer picture. We won't
have the final picture but have a much truer picture of what our
budget picture really is. And if we find ourselves in such dire
straits that we need something, then -- then that's one thing, but I
hate to substitute this for the ad valorem tax. I've heard
Commissioner Matthews say before at least the ad valorem is tax
deductible. At least you get a break on that. And so we can go
through the merits of this or not, but I would rather keep it as a
last resort and have that debate of whether it's merited after y'all
have had a chance to sit down with FPL and -- and come to an agreement
rather than have that today and -- and either rule it in or rule it
out because I think we're premature in that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I don't know who was next.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You were.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It would probably be beneficial
just briefly for each commissioner to state where they are on this,
and although I have done so publicly on the radio and so forth, I
personally believe that -- that -- to the -- the taxpayer, this is --
it can be perceived as a bit of a shell game, that what is typically
an ad valorem-funded service now is funded through a franchise fee and
I -- personally I understand and I actually -- you know, it's the
county manager's job to find ways to meet the budget, and he has done
that. He's produced something and presented something that is a way
to meet the budget without raising the ad valorem rate, but I think we
-- we, by initiating this today, are avoiding the hard decisions that
we know we're going to have to make in the next couple of weeks or at
least avoiding up to $4 million of those hard decisions. I would
rather go through that exercise and practice with this as a
last-chance fallback if need be.
My personal feeling about a franchise fee is if we are
going to charge taxes on electric bills, it should be used for related
purpose, such as burying utility lines, to make road projects easier,
or to provide a greater degree of service after hurricanes or storm
events and so forth. You're then taxing for a purpose that benefits
the community. You can take the dollar, track it, see where it goes,
and everyone benefits. That type of franchise fee, in my opinion,
is -- is a more appropriate expenditure.
So my personal feeling is that I would like to at least
have the structure of an agreement with FPL available, but my absolute
intent is not to go to it. My absolute intent is to do the necessary
cuts, to make the necessary changes in our budget before considering
any franchise fee. And, again, I don't want this to be taken as staff
is trying to, you know, present an insidious plan to go after the
taxpayer, because that characterization is wholly untrue. Staff has
done their job in presenting this. It's our job to consider it, and
for my consideration, I would rather not utilize this right now to
subsidize ad valorem.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, tell us a little bit
about the time function here. If we -- If we delay this for a while,
what -- what is the outcome of that?
MR. DORRILL: You -- You can, and you -- you need to
remember when we discussed this as part of your budget policy on March
the 5th, we told you that the budget -- it was recommended, and you
have confirmed and -- and voted, and the budget was prepared in
anticipation of this fee for October the 1st, and I think this is one
of the discussions that we need to have with F -- FP and L and also
Lee County Co-op officials, is the -- the lead time necessary to
impose those taxes and to make whatever software changes on bills and
whatnot. And I -- I think that we can do that and report back to you
in fairly short order.
We were in touch with Senator Dudley last Friday, and
they -- they have strong feelings about one of the things that
Commissioner Hancock alluded to which is called a privilege fee
because of the nature of charging that fee in return for their use of
public rights-of-way and -- and, thus, designating those funds to
offset the cost of utility relocation or conflicts and things like
that.
They do not appear to be opposed to discussing franchise
fees. Frankly, the reason for that was that cities and towns
throughout Florida have been charging franchise fees for 30-odd years.
It has only been the last two years where it appeared that non-charter
counties could also avail themselves of -- of that same revenue the
same way that we charge the cable television company a franchise fee.
And so beginning last year we thought -- and I still feel -- that that
was part of the staff work plan, was to explore this non-chartered
county being able to avail itself with the same revenues that we used
for cable franchises and the cities and towns have used for decades.
There was no intended trick here. We've said all along -- In fact, we
said for three years in a row this appeared to be the year that an ad
valorem tax increase was going to be necessary, and you will see
tomorrow that, in fact, as it currently stands, we have almost an 11
percent tax increase. So we haven't done ourselves any big favor by
-- by some slight of hand, and I don't think any of you have -- have
even tried to imply that.
The -- The proposal is that by -- by the end of your
budget workshops next Monday, that we should be able to tell you when
the public hearing would need to be held in order to collect the tax.
One last point and then I'll answer any other questions
that you have. As -- As we looked at this, one of the driving
mechanisms behind our availing ourselves of this revenue the same as
cities and towns do focused in on mobile homes and travel trailers
that are in these permanent parks, and I had asked a question having
no idea -- I was surprised when I got the -- the answer to my
question. There are 10,805 mobile homes or travel trailers in this
community that, by and large, are not paying any general fund property
taxes at all or property taxes, period. The -- they -- They break out
in almost equal thirds. There are over 3,000 owner-occupied mobile
homes. There are about 4,000 rental or co-op-type units where people
don't own the land and -- and, thus, they are paying taxes on whatever
the value of their little site is but obviously -- and then the final
third are travel trailers that are permanently in these TTRV parks
that we increasingly see. And that, frankly, was one of our
motivations as well, was because there is that segment of this
community that are not paying property taxes, and I've shared that
with a number of you in recognition of us getting into franchise fees
where non-chartered counties never have had the opportunity to do
that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's just -- and at first
blush, I thought, oh, well, gosh, but these are poor people and da,
da, dot, dot. You know, these are $100,000 outfits, some of them.
And -- And in addition to the mobile homes, there's also -- you know,
God forgive me -- but churches that don't pay any taxes, any property
taxes, schools that don't. The hospital doesn't. There's a lot of
what I would call free rides going on in this community that -- that
I'd like to look at the franchise fee not from the perspective of --
of an easy out to fill the gap but just from a tax equity in the
community standpoint that there are too many untaxed being carried,
you know, by those who are overtaxed.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And in a given year if we were to
implement a franchise fee and the commensurate reduction in the ad
valorem tax, now we're talking everybody wins. Now we're talking
replacing $4 1/2 million of ad valorem tax with $4 1/2 million for
franchise fee and that -- that -- those scales become a little more
balanced.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the kind of -- that That's
the level of my interest, anyway, to explore the franchise fee, is as
a methodology for spreading the -- the tax burden more fairly, not for
filling in this year's gap.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Actually, Commissioner Hancock, I
believe that we are talking about doing just that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, in a sense, yes. I -- you
know.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We are -- just -- Just because it's --
happens to be a year when we're facing a potential sizable budget
increase doesn't lessen the effect that the franchise fees will offset
some ad valorem.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. I -- I -- I agree with you
again that we're dealing more with perception than -- than what's
actually happening there, but it still remains -- I would rather -- I
don't want to -- to take this and -- and table it completely because I
think in the end if -- if we have to have the mechanism, we need to
know whether it's there or not. But I sense from the majority of this
board that we're going to do everything we can to avoid utilizing this
and --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Of course we are. Commissioner
Hac'Kie has a very good point, and it's very similar to the -- to the
predicament that the State of Florida is always in when they're so
heavily reliant on funding the state's operation through sales tax
revenues, relying on one source that heavily causes inequities other
places. And -- and we in Collier County are similar to that in that
we rely heavily on ad valorem, and as Mr. Dotrill has pointed out,
there's 10,800, or whatever it was, units that don't pay any.
there's some inequities there. And the -- the franchise fee would
serve to a limited degree to equalize some of those inequities and
have at least everybody contribute something, as small as it may be,
to the services that they receive because obviously people in -- in
travel trailers or mobile homes receive all the -- all the sheriff and
EHS services, for example, that anybody else does, and -- and if
they're not contributing to it, then there is an inequity there that
could be partially addressed by a franchise fee. So there's -- you
know, on both sides of the coin there are good arguments and it's --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My biggest thought is just by
making that the last resort, if we find we are in an awkward situation
later in the summer but it may only need to be 2 percent or it may
only need to be 1 percent, and rather than go ahead and say, "Let's do
this today with this agreement with 3 percent," let's have the two
sides sit down, come up with an agreement they're both comfortable
with, let's do whatever work we can on the budget, and if we find we
don't need to be doing that, that's fine. If we find we're in a tough
spot and we need it to be 1 percent --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do I hear a general consensus on
the direction that, you know, let's -- number one is don't -- try not
-- you know, do everything we can to not raise the millage rate;
however, if we find that to be impossible to meet base-level services
throughout the county, then we will make a decision as to whether or
not a franchise fee is appropriate?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I -- I -- I'll go with
that, but I'm saying that I think that a franchise fee might be an
appropriate way to reduce ad valorem taxes so that we even out that
tax burden. I'm -- I'm saying I'd like to look at it whether or not
we find ourselves in a deficit position this year.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that's fine. And what I would
suggest to the board is that we -- we give staff direction today to
enter discussions with Florida Power and Light and Lee County Electric
Co-op. Is there any other power companies in -- in the county? MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's my other question. I
don't understand what their role is as an essential party. I mean, we
don't have to get their permission to tax; right?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They need to adjust their
software to collect it.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We need to tell them to.
MR. DORRILL: That's just a courtesy. That's an
arguable point. There --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it?
MR. DORRILL: Yes. And there is a representative here
from FP and L, and he will probably tell you that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a comment, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mmm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, I -- I -- I don't
want to argue with the numbers that I'm sure you got from Mr. Skinner,
but wasn't there a resolution a couple of years ago to the TTRV
situation that the legislature or the -- or the state tax assessor
finally made a finding that the underlying property in TTRV had to be
able to sustain year-round occupancy and RTTRV zone does not? So
that's 3,000 people who ought to be paying property taxes?
MR. DORRILL: Perhaps. But, again, they're not paying
for the improve -- They're not paying for the structure. They may be
paying property tax on the value of frankly --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But they're not homesteading the
lots?
MR. DORRILL: No. And -- And the same is true for
rental parks. They are paying property taxes on what may be a 30- by
60-foot piece of -- of land.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But not on a $100,000 trailer
that sits on top of it.
MR. DORRILL: And that was the point I tried to make.
Maybe I didn't make it very well.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we set a specific date by
which y'all can sit down with FPL and try to come back to us?
MR. DORRILL: You can and -- and Mr. Coleman is here.
Mr. Coleman, I'd ask you to respond to that. I don't know how much
time they think that they might need in order to make those changes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fred Dudley told me on Friday
-- and he can certainly respond -- but told me six weeks, four weeks,
whatever, whatever. So if six weeks is realistic --
MS. ASHTON: But are you saying you want this to come
back as a discussion item or as an advertised ordinance? That's part
of the reason why I scheduled it today, and I apologize for any lack
of notification to FPL, but it was so that you would know what
situation you were in going into the budget hearings.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if we bring it back as
an advertised ordinance, we can have a discussion and if -- For that
matter, if we needed to table it, we can go right up until the first
of September which is when our final budget decisions will have to be
made anyway so --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So -- So you're suggesting,
though, that TRIM notices that go out in -- end of July? Is that what
it is?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mmm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- would have -- would have
whatever effect they're going to have without this ordinance? Because
I certainly wouldn't want the TRIM notices to go out prejudging the
adoption of this ordinance.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. We can't -- can't
move it up. So, yeah, we would have to.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So that -- that our TRIM notices
will go out with an estimate of what the taxes will be if we go with
straight ad valorem, and then we can hear from our public as to --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- what they prefer.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, let's give staff direction then
as to what we want to do and let them move forward.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First Tuesday in August?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Suitable to me.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: August 7.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we'll get --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 6.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So are we or are we not going to
have the discussion today?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. We're not going to have the
discussion today.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Depending on whether this is
definitely in or out --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sounds like not.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would prefer not to. Again, I
-- I -- I'm just not interested right now in saying, yes, we're going
to have a 3 percent franchise fee. The question is, what's the ad
valorem rate going to be. That's kind of what you're asking for. I'm
not ready to do that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You asked why, and I think
it's just because I don't think this should be the first discussion in
the budgeting process. It should be at the other end.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: ANd that's because every -- It
sounds like you all are looking at this as that way to fill in the
gap, and I'm -- I'm saying it sounds that way, and I know that's not
what you --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just the opposite.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- intend. Well, if a franchise
fee is a good taxing mechanism, whether it is or not should be decided
now, and then we should decide how much of the taxes that are
collected in Collier County next year should be collected via a
franchise fee and how much should be collected via an ad valorem tax
instead of, "Let's wait and see if we need the money."
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, frankly, either way,
I'm not going to be prepared today without some sort of comfort level
between the utilities and our folks. We have two different plans
right now, and -- and I think, at the very least, as a courtesy we
need to have us sit down and have all that go on.
MS. ASHTON: I think it's a timing issue because I never
intended to go ahead with the privilege ordinance. This is for
discussion purposes. I expected to take quite a bit of time to
negotiate this, and I was trying to get a feel from the board where
you were at prior to entering into the lengthy negotiations but -- you
know, I'd be happy to meet with whoever I need to expedite that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm --
MR. DORRILL: Both the manager's office and the largest
utility are recognizing the franchise route as opposed to the
privilege route. So that's -- that's our intent, is to take that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So do we need permission from FP
and L to impose a franchise fee or only to impose a privilege fee?
MR. WEIGEL: All you -- You don't need permission for
the privilege fee. The privilege fee is the substitute where the
franchise fee is -- a franchise agreement is not entered into, and
typically the franchise agreement is the ordinance itself which
provides for certain -- like franchise privileges, if you will, to the
addressed franchisee. The privilege fee ordinance is a little bit
more generic, but county government -- non-chartered county government
like this does have the legal authority to go either route. It can go
unilaterally, the privilege fee ordinance, or it can enter into the
agreement of the franchise fee ordinance with the utilities there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So privilege is the one that we
can do without their permission. Franchise requires an agreement. MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A privilege fee accomplishes '-
MS. ASHTON: A franchise is also an ordinance.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And privilege is what you aren't
recommending?
MS. ASHTON: Privilege is unilateral -- unilateral where
we set it. The franchise is also adopted by ordinance, but there's a
certificate -- I believe that's what it's called -- of acceptance that
is then submitted by the -- the electric companies, and the ordinances
has provisions in it that are more of a contract nature such as the
duration --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Like the cable franchise.
MS. ASHTON: It's a little different because the cable
is an agreement but --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Although I understand the
argument Commissioner Norris made and I don't disagree with it, I -- I
still feel that maybe a privilege fee is where we ought to go for the
purpose of utility line relocation and so forth and so on. I'm just
-- Again, I'm not -- I'm just not comfortable saying across the
board, you know, this is a good tax versus ad valorem and -- and
making that decision today.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've never seen a tax that was a
good tax.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A better tax, shall I say.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I want to make
a motion to give staff direction to work with the utilities and return
to us at the August 6 Board of County Commissioner meeting with a
proposed ordinance so we can debate its merits and whether or not it
should be passed at that time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would that be a franchise or a
privilege?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've just heard that neither
party wants the privilege, so we'll say franchise.
MS. ASHTON: And I'm sorry --
MR. WEIGEL: No.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think that's what we're
hearing.
MR. WEIGEL: It's a -- The county attorney office has no
comment either way about privilege or franchise fee, but if I
understand the direction we are heading, is that if the parties don't
negotiate a franchise fee arrangement to come back in the ordinance,
that we would -- that the county staff would advertise a privilege fee
ordinance for debate at that time. It -- It does take two parties to
get the franchise fee ordinance.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So the difference is
immaterial. It depends on the circumstances as to how it will come
back?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a second on that?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just one point of clarification. If
we did enact either one of these, would it apply within the
municipalities?
MS. ASHTON: No. I don't believe so because the
municipalities already have enacted one. MR. DORRILL: I would say no.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: They have separate agreements?
MR. DORRILL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right.
MR. DORRILL: We have some speakers, Mr. Chairman,
before you -- before you call the question. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I've got one more
question for Mr. Dotrill. In the calculation that -- that the budget
office made on how much money this will generate, included in that
calculation was the 3 percent, I presume, that the county will have to
pay on its electric bills?
MR. DORRILL: That I don't know. I'm -- I'm looking at
Mr. Ochs.
MR. OCHS: Yes. Yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I imagine we're one of the big
users.
MR. DORRILL: He indicates yes. We have a -- We have a
negotiated rate, and we have a power-shedding arrangement, and so the
rate that we're paying on is a little different because it's subject
to separate negotiation as opposed to the normal.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But that rate would still be
subject to 3 percent.
MR. DORRILL: I would think so.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're talking about a
percentage, and it's been included.
MR. DORRILL: I would think so.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Call the speakers, please.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Coleman, if you'd come forward if you
still would like to speak. Let me -- Just so the board understands
the chronology of -- of what will happen in August, about the third
week of July, upon your return from the recess, you will be asked to
set a tentative millage as a result of the workshops that you're
beginning tomorrow. That information is what is then sent to Mr.
Skinner to prepare the TRIM notices, and the -- the point being is
that the TRIM notices will go out higher than what they would
otherwise be. We have to account for the possibility of not having a
franchise fee; and, thus, it will need to be made up theoretically in
property taxes. Unless the board makes some wholesale changes in the
budgets that you will begin to see tomorrow, the current rate of ad
valorem increase over the rollback is going to be about 18 percent
that is being mailed out in the TRIM notices which will be received
about two weeks prior to the September primary. Now, you will have
the opportunity to come off those somewhat, but I just want you to
keep in mind the shock value that those TRIM notices seem to have
sometimes even when we're not the ones that are raising property
taxes. And we've sat here for almost seven years, but those TRIM
notices sometimes upset people when they go out, even when we have --
we're not to blame, and I -- I would like for y'all maybe to have a
little discussion about whether August the 6th is the best date, if we
can come back a little earlier than that. I mean, if you're going to
impose it, there's no sense in unnecessarily alarming people with
those TRIM notices unless we have to.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You want to hear from the
public, and we'll deal with the motion after that. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Coleman.
MR. COLEMAN: Mr. Chairman and the board, thank you for
allowing me to speak. My name is Bob Coleman from Florida Power and
Light from Daytona Beach, Florida. I'd like to speak about the
proposed ordinance, and it's really three issues in here. The first
one talks about the permits for construction safety. There's a lot of
words in there.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you a -- Are you a lawyer
representing --
MR. COLEMAN: No. I work for a living. I -- I'm an
engineer. I'm a registered engineer in the State of Florida.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm a lawyer.
MR. COLEMAN: I'm sorry. I apologize. Nothing against
lawyers. Maybe Shakespeare wasn't right.
MR. DORRILL: It's too late now.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think you lost some agreement.
MR. COLEMAN: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Whatever you say, I'm against it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's only 20 percent. Please
continue.
MR. COLEMAN: Okay. The three issues, one of which
is -- is permits for construction, and the ordinance talks a lot about
safety, and we fully agree with that. Most counties and cities have
ordinances that tell us as far as the construction, the placement of
the pole so it's not in the sidewalk, so it doesn't interfere with
traffic. No problem whatsoever with that. And I'll kind of take
these in ascending order of difficulty.
The second one is a franchise fee. We have about 191
franchises currently with mostly cities, chartered counties, and one
or two non-chartered county. The most recent one -- Well, the closest
one to you is Charlotte County which is a non-chartered county. The
-- The thing about a franchise, it's a negotiated contract. It's a
two-way partnership where I have -- you may pass an ordinance and then
we actually set a following that's a negotiated contract. It's not an
imposed thing. It's negotiated for the benefits to you as a county,
to the citizens of Collier County, as well as to Florida Power and
Light.
The primary thing we're looking for from a franchise is
an agreement that, A, you will not go into business in competition
with us; and, B, deregulation is coming. We know it's coming. It's
going to impact the electric utility like it did the telephone company
in the past decade. Since 1991 we've gone from 15,000 employees to a
little over 11,000. Get ready for it. Actually, the rates you pay
today is about 10 percent cheaper than it was in 1991 because they
know competition's coming.
In -- In the current franchise with negotiations,
there's a clause that if someone else gets a better deal -- and we're
not talking about Lee County Co-op. We're talking about Duke or Enron
or somebody from outside the state -- and our 3 percent, if that's the
number in the franchise, puts us at a disadvantage, then we want out
of the contract. We do not want to lose our competitive advantage
because of the franchise.
The other issue is -- and it sometimes tends to get
mixed together. I want to clearly separate them -- is the privilege
fee. The privilege fee is an imposed fee by the county. The county
manager said you have every right to do that. We've been in
litigation for 18 months and still in litigation up in Baker County
that you don't have the right to do that. We feel that as a public
utility we have the right of condemnation. We have an obligation by
statute to serve. We're a little bit different than a cable company.
We must serve people. Because of that, for you to impose a fee means
that you're setting our rates, and that is exclusively reserved for
the Public Service Commission. I don't want to go through all the
arguments we've made in court, but I can tell you right now that we
are very concerned about impositions of fees. We would be very happy
to negotiate. If we get an imposition, then we probably will, of
course, litigate it which is going to take up some time.
The -- Again, not to knock the attorneys, but the only
people who are going to get rich from that are the attorneys. We call
that the Attorney Welfare Act because if you pass an ordinance, our
attorneys are going to get rich as well as the county attorneys.
As far as the timing, the standard franchises, the
reality of billing is there's normally about a 60-day lag from the
time the franchise is accepted to when we can start billing. So if
we're looking at October 1 receiving the revenue, then we really need
to get started quickly. If you're looking at October 1 to be
effective, which means you would receive the money at the end of
December, then we have a little time to play on it.
We have provided to you, I believe, the model franchise
which is common evolution over the past 70-some years of receiving
these. You all are perfectly willing to go ahead and pass that by --
I believe you can pass it by -- just by reading the title. It gives
us time to sit down with the county and negotiate any fine points to
it. The most recent one was passed in Wellington which is a new city,
the way they did that and that would fit your time frame. And, of
course, then once you get it negotiated, you always have the option of
just not passing it.
And I appreciate your time. Again, there was a very
clear distinction from our perspective between franchises and
privilege fees. One is imposed. One is a contract that we negotiate.
We're very willing to sit down and negotiate a franchise. We're very
unwilling to accept, without litigation, a privilege fee. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir.
MR. DORRILL: Dr. Biles. Then, Mr. Erlichman, you will
follow Dr. Biles.
DR. BILES: Fay Biles. I live on Marco Island, and I'm
speaking on behalf of MITA, the Marco Island Taxpayers' Association.
We have gone into both of these, the franchise fee and also ad valorem
tax increases and have determined that as far as Marco Island is
concerned -- of course, if there has to be any tax -- now, we don't
want any tax at all, of course, but if we have to go one way or the
other, we certainly would favor the franchise fee over ad valorem
taxes. As you know, we feel on Marco that our property values are way
overvalued to begin with, but it means that our ad valorem taxes are
very high. In fact, we pay 17.5 percent of the ad valorem taxes in
Collier County, and imposing an 11 percent ad valorem tax on top of
this would just be astronomical.
I might add that we have been in contact with Lee County
Electric. In fact, they contacted us. We have talked with them, and
now they tell us, well, we were counting on reducing the electric fees
over the next couple of months and so forth. Now, I don't know
whether they really did or not but that this would impose a hardship
on them.
However, after we talked with them for quite some time,
they seemed to come around, and I must say it sounds as if they really
didn't understand this whole business of utility tax. Now, I may be
entirely wrong on that, but we feel very strongly that we would prefer
that tax over an ad valorem tax. But, please, I agree -- as the last
resort, let's hope that that's what -- would be the case. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman and then Mr. Agoston.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Good afternoon. Gil Erlichman, East
Naples, and I'm speaking for TAG. First I'd like to -- Mr. Chairman,
could you please answer this question? I was sitting here several
months ago -- a few months ago when I think the commission --
commissioners instructed the county manager to come back with a budget
which -- which had a 1 percent lower ad valorem tax. Am I stating
that correctly, sir?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. Well, no, not correctly. Our --
We set a target to try to reach as a goal --
MR. ERLICHMAN: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- the 1 percent reduction.
MR. ERLICHMAN: The target. Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Okay. That was a target for the manager
-- county manager to try to reach. Now, I -- I -- According to the
agenda topic, we have a budget now which requires a utility tax or
franchise fee tax or an ad valorem tax because the target was not met.
TAG is not in favor of any tax, either an ad valorem tax or a -- or a
utility tax or franchise fee tax. We are -- We are looking for the
commissioners to reach a budget which does not require any tax
increases or tax increase. I don't know -- I don't know what the --
what the considerations are that are increasing the budget as
presented, but we've been -- I look at my electric bill, and I see a
state tax on there. I look at my telephone bill; I see a World War II
federal tax on there. That was a tax that was supposed to be put on
our telephone bills for the duration of the war, World War II. It's
still there. It's over 50 years ago. And also there's a state tax on
the telephone. I'm going to -- If you're thinking of imposing another
-- a tax on our electric bill, is it -- is there a possibility of the
county imposing a tax on our telephone bill too? That I don't know.
So taxes -- TAG's stand on this -- on this situation and the taxes is
that there should be no increase in the -- in the budget to require
either an ad valorem tax or a franchise fee tax or utility tax. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Agoston and then Mr. Perkins.
MR. AGOSTON: Good afternoon, Chairman, Commissioners.
My name is Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates, and I speak for
myself, and I want to convey my disagreement with the enactment of a
utility tax for a number of reasons. The obvious one mentioned the
loss of writing off your tax -- ad valorem tax on your income taxes
which gives you the obvious disadvantage, the 15 to some 40 percent
that you lose by paying your utility tax.
I also have another problem with it, is that we are
shifting the tax collective role to a capitalist either utility or
large company. I'm from a communist country where the term
"capitalist" is a dirty word. It is getting to be that way in this
country because there is sufficient amount of people who hate a
capitalist system which produced the finest living standard in the
world.
There is an additional factor here, that based on your
annual report, ad valorem taxes currently make up less than a third of
the revenue base that you collect. It doesn't seem to be a very
honest way of handling or collecting taxes.
Finally, the Naples Daily News, with whom I rarely agree
with, today came out against both the ad valorem increase or a utility
tax, and I wholeheartedly concur. Thanks very much.
MR. PERKINS: Good afternoon, Commissioners and Lawyers.
A1 Perkins, Belle Heade Groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property
Rights. I couldn't help that. You've been picked on today. Now I've
got to get serious.
Okay. The different kinds of taxes that you're talking
about, ad valorem or a franchise fee -- let's get real. If you own a
big house, you pay large ad valorem taxes. If you own a big house,
you pay a large air conditioning price, and your outside lights and
your driveway lights and all the rest of the goodies. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Got to heat that Fool.
MR. PERKINS: And heat the Fool and take care of the
boat. So now what I'm trying to take and bring you in perspective
that the people who want to live in a big home with all the goodies
are going to have to pay for it, but if you put a franchise tax on
somebody like -- and I -- and I don't mean this in a derogatory
meaning -- the poor people of Immokalee -- There's a lot of poor
people in this county who are grubbing and working like crazy just to
keep -- to make ends meet. They're out there. They surface every
once in a while when it gets pushed. You need to watch what you're
doing as far as the tax goes. The one who can afford to pay it should
pay it. The ones that can't afford to pay it, you should take a good
long look at these people because of the fact that they have no way to
get the extra money, and -- and it's just that simple.
I would like to ask Mr. Coleman a question if I could --
and, by the way, Lee County Co-op was not represented here? DR. BILES: No.
MR. PERKINS: No? Mr. Coleman --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A1 --
MR. PERKINS: Can I -- Can I ask one question?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. If you want to ask Mr. Coleman a
question, could you go out in the hall and do it?
MR. PERKINS: This pertains to the -- this --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: He's not recognized, A1. You are.
MR. PERKINS: Oh. Okay. All right. Let me ask you
then, John.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. PERKINS: What does Florida Power and Light charge
to read one meter?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't know that that has anything to
do with what we're talking about today.
MR. PERKINS: Well, the -- the point that I'm making is
Florida Power and Light is -- the last time I knew, it was paying --
you were charged five sixty-five per meter, and in a bank of meters --
in a condominium they can read them just one, two, three. The point
being, as a stockholder of Florida Power and Light, I know what the
interest is. I know what the dividends are, and I like them but --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A1, are you going to conflict
out on this item?
MR. PERKINS: Anyhow, I want to make one more point on
this thing. If you go into this, we're talking about the hospitals
and the schools and the churches; right? The courthouse was brought
up that this is going to pay taxes, and the -- the jail is going to
pay the franchise fee also and the EMS and the fire house and all the
rest of them. Now, out of which pocket do you want me to pay this
money? Same pair of pants. Which pocket?
Okay. What I'd like to see is if these people who are
living in a $100,000 mobile home or a park model be charged their fair
share. Let's get this thing in perspective because we're letting them
slip through the cracks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You've got to call Butt Saunders
on that one.
MR. PERKINS: Beg your pardon?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You've got to speak to your
legislator on that one.
MR. PERKINS: Did you happen to see the Naples Daily
News, his little -- Right. Wearing the wrong hat today.
Other than that, that's where I stand. I think you need
to readdress this and find out who's not paying their fair share and
put it where it belongs. See if you can't come up with some kind of
answers on that. I don't mind paying -- Like I say, I wear one pair
of pants. You pick the pocket. It doesn't make a damn bit of
difference. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That was it?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We do have a motion and a second.
Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Particularly taking into
consideration the comments from the gentleman from FPL where it would
take a couple of months to put into place if we opted for this, I
assume the budget considerations take in a 12-month budget year, not a
10-month budget year, and also taking into consideration Senator
Dudley had said to me four weeks or six weeks or whatever we wanted,
so -- four weeks should be sufficient -- I'll alter that motion to ask
our staff to bring this back on the 7-16 -- July 16 agenda.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second amends.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that okay? Can we do that, Mr.
Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have an amended motion and
an amended second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
I like that much better because I -- I think this
discussion today was a little bit premature. We should have gone
through the workshops first and then heard this item but --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- now we're going to do that.
Item #10A
RECONSIDERATION OF PETITION V-95-28, REQUEST FOR AFTER THE FACT
VARIANCE FOR TWO METAL CANOPIES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3584 PROGRESS
AVENUE (ANTHONY C. GNERRE, PETITIONER) - PETITION TO BE READVERTISED
FOR RECONSIDERATION
Our next item is reconsideration of a variance.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have more or less a process
question on this matter.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. Who -- Who brought this
forward?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I did. I did. After I -- I
voted with the majority in opposition to this variance; however, I had
an opportunity to find out some things we weren't aware of ahead of
time, and I agreed that I'd bring it back for reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that information going to be
presented today for a final vote, or are you asking to place it on a
future agenda item for reconsideration?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only thing I was asking
for today is for us to reconsider it, make sure everybody was okay
with that, and put it on a future agenda.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In your opinion, there is
substantial information that would affect this decision other than the
man standing at that microphone saying he knew about the process and
decided to avoid it?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I'm -- I'm going to
say it warrants looking at. I'm not going to say for sure one way or
the other that my mind has been or will be changed. I don't know
that, but their conversation with me convinced me that it warrants a
more complete look.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could you share any of that with us
today or -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, I mean, if -- I'm --
I'm asking you to bring it back for a reconsideration. If you're not
so inclined, that's your prerogative.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, we're just --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want to have the
public hearing today. If we want to have a public hearing, we'll do
that one day and if we -- if you don't want to do it, we won't.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm just asking your -- your -- You're
asking us to bring it back, and I'm just saying on what basis simply.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On the basis of my
conversation with the gentleman and his attorney and -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There -- There's, apparently,
a history with this that was not expressed as part of the public
record that day.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've met with the gentleman
also, and there is more history of the issue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you tell us?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Huh?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Will you tell us?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, there was some --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's no secret. Just -- We
don't need to have the public hearing today.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Essentially -- We're not going
to have the public hearing, but there was some conversation between
the petitioner and methods by which he could -- he could use to get
this done with our staff -- staff prior to the current staff and so
forth, and I guess we could say some tempers flared and so forth like
that, different information that we did not have on -- on the first
go-around.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Well, let's put this back
on the agenda -- if nothing else, just to satisfy our curiosity.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That sounds like three, so I guess
it's back on.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess so.
MR. ARNOLD: Would you prefer the staff just determine a
date that's relatively open and readvertise for that specific date?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sometime far, far away.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: October of '97.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: October of '97. Is there anything
available then? What -- what -- In the interim if -- what is
happening? Is the gentleman accruing fines? Is he having to tear it
down? What is happening?
MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold. I believe
that no code enforcement action to require the removal of these
structures has occurred at this time. Several code enforcement
actions were postponed because of the Seminole Indian issue that was
moving forward through the Code Enforcement Board, and I believe this
particular issue has not been addressed by Code Enforcement Board.
They would, of course, stay any further action if -- if we're going to
continue to hear this as a public hearing item.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In that case I'd like to see it
come back and -- you know, without rushing it, you know, as soon as
practically possible so that we can then reschedule for code
enforcement if need be rather than allowing a violation to linger
unnecessarily.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would like to see it
reasonably timed.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Four weeks?
MR. WEIGEL: It will come back in -- for the fourth
meeting after your motion for reconsideration is granted. So you have
no meetings schedule for a period, so it will be the fourth meeting
after this motion is granted today. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does there need to be an official
motion and vote on this?
MR. WEIGEL: I really -- Probably not. Better to do it
just to get it out of the way.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: It looks like August 6.
MR. WEIGEL: You may want to make a motion to show the
breakout.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Give us a motion. Give us a motion.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A little dance over there,
Mr. Weigel?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just a motion.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The motion as outlined by Mr.
Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Motion to reconsider.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion dies for lack of a second.
Let's move forward.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, wait a minute. I'm sorry.
I thought Mr. Weigel was still talking.
MR. WEIGEL: I was restating it. It's -- All you need
is a motion to reconsider, and your ordinance provides that it shall
be the fourth meeting after the motion is granted.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion. I'll
second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Aye.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: A different 3-2 than usual.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any public comment today?
MR. DORRILL: Yes. We have three today. We have Miss
Leinweber.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: As we approach our fall season, I
would like to -- to remind our public commentors that this is not a
forum for political statements. I want to make sure that we don't use
this for political statements of any kind. So with that, let's move
forward.
MR. DORRILL: Miss Leinweber.
MS. LEINWEBER: I'm Judy Leinweber, and I'm still
representing Bay West Nursery. The first thing I would like to do is
I would like to thank Bettye Matthews for her letter to Glenn Simpson
on behalf of Bay West. The topic was Treeline Drive and I want --
like that letter to be made public record.
Second of all, I have found out -- I'm not attacking
anyone today. I'm -- I just would like to give some -- documents be
put on the record. There's going to be a water management meeting in
July. The water boards are going to be invited to come to the county
commissioners and do some explaining. I have sent a letter personally
to Glenn Simpson -- I would like that to be made public record -- on
the things that happened with the past flooding and stuff where my
husband was actually ordered to turn off our ditch pump, and then
Margaret Bishop broke the Gargiulo dikes and forced more water on us.
And I don't know if any one of you know the gentleman
that hangs out with the water basin board. He's Indian, and he
usually comes to a lot of those meetings. He personally came out to
the nursery to make sure we had turned off our legal ditch pump, and
then he threatened to close Bay West Nursery operation down, and he
was riding with the water management. And if I'm not mistaken, I
think that's against the law. I would like that -- to find out who
this guy's name is and have him be made accountable.
Another thing is I found out in the past -- I've given
this -- county commissioners documents they didn't have in the past,
and that's the reason I want these to be made public record. In case
something happens again, you people will be -- I will be on the record
saying I have told you; I have given you the proper documentation.
And I also have the fax from Governor Chiles' office
telling Butt -- ordering Butt Saunders to keep legal lawsuits out of
the court systems. I thought that was one of our constitutional
rights. I do have that fax. I will give to the board today so it --
it is at least documented.
That's all I have to say. I thank you very much, and I
thank you for letting me come up here and talk to you folks. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Miss Leinweber, anytime you
write a letter to any county commissioner, it's a public document. So
as soon as you put one of our names on it and it hits one of our
desks, it's a public document.
MS. LEINWEBER: Okay. I didn't realize that, but I just
wanted to thank you for writing that letter to Glenn Simpson on behalf
of us.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm awaiting an answer.
MS. LEINWEBER: Okay. Hay I hand these out?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Why don't you give them to Mr.
Weigel, and he'll give them to us. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Cooper.
MR. COOPER: You want to speak first?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. I believe I will. Thank you.
Mr. Cooper is here for public comment, and so he brings
me to speak to you what I was going to reserve for the staff
communications at the end of the day, and I'm going to talk briefly
about the transfer of development rights based on last week's
discussion of the board in regard to the matter that was presented by
Attorney Kim Kobza. And at that time the board had indicated a desire
to go forward to amend the Land Development Code ordinance and -- I
believe -- and to have a hearing in that regard, and I had told the
board that we would look to prepare an emergency ordinance probably
for today. And I took upon myself after a little further review and
also coming to an understanding of what was in the staff pipeline
which is the matter for which Mr. Cooper is here today -- and the
board was generally apprised of this last week -- that we were better
served to bring the emergency ordinance to the board this next week.
In fact, just to kill the Lily a little bit, although not required
statutorily because it would still be an emergency ordinance, we have
advertised the ordinance. We will provide the public -- and it is
included within the regular agenda package, and so that we'll be
giving the public and to the newspaper publication of the agenda
considerable notice of potential change and of the hearing for the
proposed amendment to the Land Development Code concerning transfer of
development rights.
Again, for the record at this point, I'll indicate that
not only does the proposed amendment in part provide for the board,
rather than staff, to have the ultimate decision to make in the
matter, you may recall that the board merely had a guarantee decision
that -- not an earlier decision that was by ordinance reserved to the
development services. This is -- This is changed in the amendment,
but it also does provide for a reduction in the -- in some of the
numbers with the formula that is there. Obviously they are presented
to you for your discussion and change, if any change there be, this
next week.
We'd also had communication with Mr. Cooper's attorney,
Mr. Jim Siesky, to inform him and for Mr. Cooper that their project
was far enough along in the development services' pipeline that they
would not be subject to any change from the ordinance that would -- if
the board were to adopt an amendment to the ordinance this next week.
Beyond that, Mr. Cooper's here, and perhaps I have nothing more to say
except answer questions later on.
MR. COOPER: My name is Frank Cooper. I'm the general
partner of Club Marco Development, Limited. Club Marco is a 75-unit
condominium project on Marco Island. Permitting was taking place last
summer and fall. The project started in December. All 75 units have
been sold, and the project is under construction. We have a -- It's a
project on 12 acres at a 6-unit-per-acre density. The zoning allowed
us for 75 units, leaving -- We had an extra -- I guess an oddball
building with three units. At that time we initiated plans to try to
develop a 76th unit to even out the last building. All the buildings
were four-unit buildings.
In February we've had meetings at the county staff
regarding -- Originally our thoughts were for a variance -- zoning
variance to allow one more unit in this project on the existing
building that had been approved already. The last building would have
been a three-unit building. At that time we determined that we could
not get a zoning variance, and we were suggested and looked at the
code and the idea of a density transfer surfaced from within your
planning department, which I appreciate them doing that. Being an
existing code, let's use it.
At that time we -- in -- March 1 we made an application
for a density transfer for one unit and at that point also found a
piece of property out off of 41 by the Port of Isles that was in with
the coastal zone for a 2 1/2-acre site to transfer to the county to
provide us the 1 unit we needed. We actually only needed about a 1/2 a
unit from a fraction aspect but 1 unit.
In -- April 17 we had received a preliminary ordinance
from the county staff for our density transfer. At that time they had
requested -- soon after that that we also would probably need an
execution date of a deed. We closed on the property in April --
excuse me -- in Hay and delivered a copy of the executed deed to the
county staff on Hay 17.
Approximately on Hay 15 I met with Wayne Arnold, Bob
Hulhere, and Chahram down there regarding coming to the county
commission with our density transfer. We'd had discussions all the
way through this thing in terms of what the process was, being that
none of these had ever been done before, or at least in the last ten
years. Nobody was really sure. Originally we were told we were the
first ones, and we've got to work -- figure out how to do it.
fine.
At that point we'd asked to be on the agenda for June
11. We were unable to, and they were told the agenda was full. We
could not be here until June 25. It gave us a timing situation
because the project was already under construction. At this point we
only had four buildings left to start to pull the building permits
for, and as part of this transfer, we have to have the transfer intact
before we pull the permit on the last building at which we'll apply
this unit, plus we have condominium documents that have to be revised
accordingly with the State of Florida.
We were able to work with that time frame. Last week we
had a phone call regarding -- We had been calling trying to find out
the status about advertising for this meeting coming up next week and
at that point was told there was a problem and the last week -- We
were not aware of the ordinance coming for last week. We're also not
sure why that ordinance got in front of us, being their application
was after us. Their order -- request for legal services wasn't made
until May 20. I don't know how they got on the June 11 commission
hearing when we couldn't, but that's beside the point. Maybe their
attorney being from Mr. Volpe's firm was better prepared than we were,
but who knows. We thought we were on track. We've been told
everything was fine.
My problem is -- and I appreciate Mr. -- or Attorney
Weigel's heres comments, and he says at this point we've been told we
were grandfathered in under the old ruling, and I've been told the new
changes you're requesting in the code shouldn't really affect us, but
I don't have that -- I don't have a guarantee, but they have agreed to
grandfather us, but I still have a timing situation. We don't know
why our thing hasn't -- wasn't advertised. Even for the time for the
meeting last week it wasn't ready. Somewhere in the staff -- I don't
know where or what -- I guess somebody wasn't doing their job.
But beside that, what our problem comes in now is that
-- even if we're grandfathered and the timing that you're going to
approve the new ordinance, is that we have a building that we need to
start to keep the project moving. The units are sold, and all of a
sudden I don't have a -- I can't start the building in the time frame
that we need to start it which would be approximately on the 15th of
July that needs to be started. I have a concrete contractor that will
be finished and come -- get off the job site. For me to bring him
back to the job site to start that building is going to cost money.
We also have condominium problems with the State of
Florida having the documents. There's a certain process there. I
think Commissioner Mac'Kie knows the process and can answer your
questions too. So there's a certain finding here, and the June 25
date we didn't like but we could live with. When I start going into
the July dates, it creates a problem.
What I'm asking today if you could help direct the
county building department or however or bring it back with your
emergency ordinance next week to put us on that ordinance with us to
approve our density transfer, and this alleviates the time frame, or
tell the county building department go ahead and, you know, issue the
permit, and we'll give you the approval -- the formal approval at a
later date. At this point I believe that we've been basically told
that we're going to be approved. And if I understand this correctly
and -- or the existing ordinance basically deals with your approval of
the guarantee language --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Heck. Why have the public
hearing then if you already know you're going to be approved.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand -- I understand your
position, but the board doesn't have the ability to -- you know, well,
before a hearing we'll just let you know that it's a real good idea
and it's, you know, a good chance so go ahead. In similar situations
-- and I -- I can't really say similar, but in the closest like
situation we can find, we have in the past, I believe, allowed
property owners to proceed at their own risk with the understanding
that should the board not approve the final action that would allow
for it, the modifications must be made at the owner's expense and that
the board holds no liability whatsoever if we should decide not to
approve the transfer. Is that mechanism available as a convenience
matter -- Assuming the property owner wishes to take that risk on, is
that an available option?
MR. WEIGEL: I -- I think it is, but perhaps Wayne or
some of the staff can tell the board just how far along it is under
the -- under the current ordinance which you had a bit of a discussion
and description of last week. As you know, under the current
ordinance, there's actually -- when it comes to the board, the board
isn't doing too terribly much at that point in time. The
determinations are previously made so --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is this the same issue that we heard
last week?
MR. WEIGEL: It's the very same issue. In -- In this
case there's just -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We had an emergency amendment on it
because we didn't like it.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. This is -- This is the
one in the pipeline.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What he is requesting actually is
along the same lines of what was approved last week. He's not asking
for half a unit per acre to transfer density to an area that -- You
know, in other words, he's not taking the receiving density and
applying it to the granting property. He's asking for what the
property would yield on its own currently to be transferred which
is --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, that's what we did last
week.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Similar to what we
approved.
MR. WEIGEL: In this case it's one. We're talking one
unit, not multiple units, but I don't know if Mr. Arnold has something
further to say about the process and how far this particular
petitioner's petition is -- is -- through there. If the petitioner on
-- on the record wants to say that he accepts going forward with no
risk to the county, that would be fine. We certainly look forward to
that.
MR. COOPER: We're willing to accept that as long as I
understand that we're under the old ordinance and, in fact, the
development service instructor can tell me has -- in fact, has
approved our request, you know. And then at that point the only thing
under the old ordinance you're really doing is -- approving the actual
language on the deed that says we're giving it to Florida Wildlife,
and it can't be used and built on, et cetera. That's your approval.
You're not really approving the transfer.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't believe because that
public hearing has not occurred that we can tell you that what our
staff has indicated is the law and that this board cannot change that.
I'm not going to mislead you under a guise of that. The item could
come for public hearing, and this board could take -- take action
other than what staff has recommended on that matter. So I -- you
know, when we say "at your risk," we mean that, sir.
MR. COOPER: Well, that creates the problem then. Then
I would -- I would ask Mr. Arnold why the other one was approved
before us. Now, I don't know why and I don't -- That may not belong
here but --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It doesn't.
MR. COOPER: -- the bottom line is --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This -- You came here under a public
comment, and you're allowed to comment for five minutes.
MR. COOPER: I was asked to be here on public comment by
your staff to bring this issue up.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. You've brought it up. Thank
you for that, and we're done with it for now.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I have a question
for Mr. Arnold. Has development services approved the transfer in
this case?
MR. ARNOLD: I think we would argue that technically we
have not until this board acts on the ordinance. We have, in fact,
informed the applicant that we are supportive of their application to
transfer the one unit that they have on their ST-zoned property to the
one receiving unit on their Marco Island site. We have not, in
essence, approved that until this board would approve that ordinance.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: And, again, we -- we have also discussed
with the applicant the potential to proceed at their own risk,
withholding a CO pending any outcome of this item. And, frankly, in
terms of the condominium building itself, there are only internal
modifications, I would suggest, that are required to make two units
out of the one large one that they would otherwise have, and that's
probably an economics issue for Mr. Cooper, but essentially you're
looking at an interior building renovation because the shell of the
building is still going to look like a four-unit building. It may
only have two regular units and one large unit in it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It sounds as if our staff has
offered a solution to the problem. I would encourage you to -- to
pursue it, but we cannot bind this board to a decision that has not
been made, so we're not going to do that for you today, but the
solution our staff has provided for you I think is the -- is the best
course to take if you choose.
MR. COOPER: I will accept it but I -- I -- if I
understand correctly, we are grandfathered in under the old ordinance.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's what we'll determine at the
hearing.
MR. COOPER: Wait. Excuse me. I'm sorry. You said you
will determine that or yes -- He's saying yes. You said differently,
I think.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is not a public hearing. We're
not having a public hearing today, so we -- we can't tell you --
MR. COOPER: All right. So I -- I could -- I could ask
your county attorney to give us a legal ruling for that to be
presented here?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's his job. Whether or not
you're grandfathered is his determination to make. Whether or not the
unit gets transferred is the board's decision to make.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Wrong. The ordinance -- That's why we
changed the ordinance last week because that decision is taken away
from us.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: At the appropriate time, Mr.
Weigel will give us the same legal opinion he's giving you. MR. WEIGEL: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But today isn't that day.
MR. WEIGEL: I won't change.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Perkins.
MR. PERKINS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm back
again. A1 Perkins, Belle Heade Groups, Citizens for Constitutional
Property Rights. Topic, the panther. I have the videotape from CNCB
of the panther that has been removed from this -- South Florida and
actually moved out of the state into Texas with -- for the possible --
what they call a canned hunt where people pay money that they can
slaughter defenseless animals for trophies. I wanted to try to get
this for the people and you commissioners and also the people in this
room to view this so they know where their misspent dollars on their
tags went. What does it take for me to get this viewed? Because I
approached Ed Day on that. He has the vehicles, but he needs your
consent.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: To give us copies of the tape?
MR. PERKINS: No. No. To -- To actually show it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In my opinion, A1, it's not
appropriate for this board to serve as public information for items
that are not appearing on our agenda. This is not an agenda item that
is -- requires a decision by the Board of County Commissioners, and
maybe a local cable company would work with you in airing that but --
you know, I, for one, am not going to make an agenda item out of a
video that's been brought to us. I think that's inappropriate.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe we can even work out
Channel 54 to show it --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's what I suggest.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- which -- which is our
channel. We have the right to air stuff on there so --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So can we do that, Neil?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can we do that?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Take a look at it, see if
it's appropriate, and then I would -- I would think that would be the
ideal vehicle.
MR. PERKINS: Well, the -- the whole thing is I'm
interested in getting the message out, not my message, but actually
what took place, for everybody to know where their money is being
misspent because it's cost a lot of money to handle this thing. You
know what I mean? And then actually makes liars out of the State of
Florida.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is there a public access channel
functioning now?
MR. DORRILL: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have our county informational
channel?
MR. DORRILL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's probably not appropriate to do it
on that.
MR. DORRILL: I -- I wouldn't think so because of some
broader issues concerning censorship and what may or may not be
appropriate for government access versus public access television. I
indicated to Mr. Perkins we'd be happy to look at it and, if
necessary, schedule a staff-type workshop or make this room available
and show it to anybody and everybody that wants to see it. Short of
that, he's free to go to anybody, any one of the network affiliates or
Colony to see if through their own community affairs programming
they're interested in showing it. It's not our job to -- to do that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I understand that, and that's what
we've been trying to get across to Mr. Perkins, is that this is a
county commission meeting and not a public access television program.
MR. PERKINS: Absolutely. But I wanted you people to
take and be aware of what's on this tape prior to everybody.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, we -- we appreciate that, and --
and I -- Just as a point of clarification, did you say a panther or
some panthers?
MR. PERKINS: Panthers in there. There --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How many?
MR. PERKINS: I didn't count them all.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We don't have that many here.
MR. PERKINS: They moved them out. This is the ones
where they moved them.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. PERKINS: What should I do?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You should --
MR. PERKINS: Proceed with Mr. Dorrill?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- speak to someone else because
you're in the wrong forum.
MR. PERKINS: Can you point me in the right direction?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ken Fuchs was here earlier.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They were -- They were all here
earlier. Channel 4, Channel 2, Ken Fuchs, they were all here.
MR. PERKINS: Okay. All right. I'll take and try to
proceed, and any advice that you can give me on this thing -- I want
to get the message out to the people. That's all.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. PERKINS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that the last one, Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir.
Item #13B1
RESOLUTION 96-293, RE PETITION CU-95-1, NENO SPAGNA REPRESENTING
SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE ASOCIATION OF THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH,
REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE "7" AND "10" IN THE "A"
AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR A CHURCH AND SCHOOL, LOCATED
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SABAL PALM ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE EAST OF
C.R. 951, CONSISTING OF 10.1 ACRES - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll move to our afternoon agenda
now. 13(B)(1). Petition CU-95-1 is a simple extension of a
conditional use application that we've already granted.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Arnold, is this the first
extension?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes. This is the first of a potential
three extensions.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If the -- If the chairman would
like to close the public hearing, I'll make a motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll make a motion we approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second to approve. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
And those opposed?
There being none, that -- that's approved. Mr. Spagna,
you are very persuasive in your presentations.
MR. SPAGNA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Once again.
Item #14A
DISCUSSION RE PUBLIC INPUT DURING BUDGET WORKSHOPS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews, anything else?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Under communications I -- I -- I
-- I have run into some documents on my desk in the last day or so
which I think are talking about several conflicts this coming Friday;
and, that is, we have budget hearings in this room on Friday, June 21.
Juvenile Justice Council is scheduled to use this room at noon on the
21st.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We no longer have budget
hearings here on Friday.
MS. FILSON: Changed to Monday.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, okay.
MR. DORRILL: Wednesday, Thursday, and Monday.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Not Friday?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So the MPO meeting Friday
is off?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Got it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: My schedule says Friday.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It was originally, and now we
changed it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one. On the -- on the -- A
question. On the budget hearings, we talked about having a greater or
-- and/or earlier opportunity for public input in the budget process,
and I just wondered -- if people are going to be invited to speak
tomorrow, it would be nice if Mr. Coty would tell them that in the
newspaper. How did -- what -- Could you tell us what the procedure is
going to be as far as public input?
MR. DORRILL: I can tell you what the chairman indicated
to some members of the public yesterday, was that it was his intent to
ask the county commission to have daily input at the conclusion of
each fund for the people who were interested.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: At the conclusion of each fund.
MR. DORRILL: Yes.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- So that would --
MR. DORRILL: They would speak at the conclusion of --
of your having seen and heard that particular budget. We wouldn't
make them wait until the end of the day, or we wouldn't set one time
like we did last year. You remember the last day of the workshop last
year?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
MR. DORRILL: That's what the chairman indicated his
intent was yesterday.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- So we'll hear from the
staff, and then we'll hear from the public, and then we'll discuss?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: But on the fund -- I mean, the
general fund is huge.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, it is but --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I know.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- we're not -- We'll be here for
months if we let people speak on every --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I -- I --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- issue or topic so --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand that. I'm just
saying this is huge.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Coty is going to write a nice
article and have it in the paper for tomorrow and fill this room up,
aren't you, Mr. Coty?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm -- I'm supportive of
at the end of each fund. I understand the size of the general fund,
but I think as this meeting has displayed so many times, there's some
people that will speak on -- say the same thing on each individual
item and --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: True.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and there's no need really
doing that in the general fund when we can cover it adequately.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Will we -- I just need to get
this clear in my head though. At the point in time when we're offered
input from the public, won't we have already essentially made
decisions? I mean, they won't be final decisions, but we would have
gone through them. Mr. Dotrill will say we need six people to do
this, and we would have said, no, we think five can do it. And then
after all of that, people get to talk? That's not going to be very
useful.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But that's what we do in our meetings
like today.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's true.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if we could break that up --
I mean, I -- I'm just -- If we could break that up and offer people an
opportunity to talk more frequently --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We -- Well, let me just say that we're
going to try to accommodate the people as best we can but we -- you
know, we can't -- we have to have this done by September the 30th. So
we -- we can't just let people come up and speak without restriction.
There has to be a set time for them to do that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think this certainly looks
better than it has in the past years. Last year we added in a comment
period. I think the idea that this will have a comment period while
each fund is still actually fresh in our head is probably a good one,
and nothing prohibits us from making any alterations.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we can modify and finalize
decisions after public comment on each fund. So --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you have anything?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it does have an impact.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I like this process better than
the one we've used before so --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, what was the
word from the RPC?
MR. DORRILL: The RPC indicated that he would
accommodate our request; however, based on his most recent
conversations with DCA, that they would not be actively opposing our
amendments, and his suggestion was to leave it on the agenda and allow
it to be approved unless anyone is there opposing that action, at
which time then he would fulfill your request to continue it to their
next regularly scheduled meeting.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to authorize the
chairman to write a letter of support to the RPC to be faxed up
tomorrow indicating both your and Commissioner Constantine's request
for their supporting of those -- those individual items.
MR. DORRILL: I think we've already done that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Have we? Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Confirming our phone conversation -- I
wanted it to be in writing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's great. So if -- if a
problem arises, it will be continued; otherwise, it will -- MR. DORRILL: Otherwise it will be recommended to be
approved as submitted.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of other quick
questions. Our discussion earlier in the year, as we were planning
the budgeting process, we said there would be four or five departments
that we looked at stepped level of services. Which departments should
we expect to see that with?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We got memos, didn't we? I did.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know. I haven't seen
the memo so -- MR. DORRILL: I -- I can't -- I can't recall, unless --
Mr. Smykowski usually listens.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Here. A tax based on civil,
county manager agency --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my copy. I'm kidding.
Item #14B
DISCUSSION RE LANDFILL TECHNOLOGY COSTS
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just a question for
Commissioner Matthews. You mentioned today when -- You indicated you
wanted to stop the process of looking at a future site for the
landfill, and you wanted to look at alternative technologies instead,
and I'm wondering what you would suggest we do differently than we did
two years ago when we put out an RFP to the entire universe for any
and all technologies with the exception of an incinerator.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, it seems that all of those
technologies that came back -- number one, they -- they -- we -- we
may not have gotten them all that actually came to -- to this board.
And, number two, all of those technologies apparently were dismissed
because of the increased cost, and I'm -- I'm not convinced at this
point in time that increased cost is a reason to dismiss them.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That wasn't just increased
cost. It was multiples of four and five times as much as we pay right
now.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm not so sure that's -- that's
so today.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not to mention dirty MRFs were
being closed all over the state.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. It just -- my -- And
the only reason I raise the question is we had that discussion and I'm
-- it doesn't -- I haven't come across anything new, and if you have
something new, I wondered if we can get -- get -- get copies of that.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I don't have anything
new at this time. I've got several letters out, though, that I'm
anticipating some stuff -- stuff to come in that is new. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll share it with you when I
get it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's all I have, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill.
Item #15A
REQUEST FROM FLORIDA GULF COAST UNIVERSITY TO SCHEDULE A MEETING WITH
LEE COUNTY RE FINAL ALLOCATION OF BIDS FOR TREELINE DRIVE - DISCUSSED
MR. DORRILL: I have three quick items. The first is I
have been sent a letter that the board apparently has not received
which is a request by the Florida Gulf Coast University to schedule a
meeting with Lee County officials apparently at the urging of
Representative Arnold concerning the final allocation of funding on
Treeline Drive as a result of bids having been received, and I just
wanted to make you aware of that, and I will provide a copy of this to
you. I received it today, and just a little curious that the board
did not or was not sent a copy, but I wanted you to know that the
university is attempting to schedule a meeting, and I want you to be
aware of that. We'll advise you if and when the meeting gets
scheduled.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, we have --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Copies?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we have copies of not only
the bids but a whole explanation from George -- what's George's --
MR. DORRILL: Crawford.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Crawford.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Crawford.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you -- from him and his
department coming down, I think, by tomorrow which I will pass a copy
on to each of you.
MR. DORRILL: This letter apparently at the request of
Mr. Arnold is from Curtis Bullock who is vice president for
administrative affairs at the university and I just think --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They want us to come all the way
up there to tell us they don't want our money. That's fine.
Item #15B
CONCERNS RE IMPACT ON VICTORIA PARK AND CRESCENT LAKES RESIDENTS AS A
RESULT OF THE SIGNAL FOR PELICAN MARSH SCHOOL - DISCUSSED
MR. DORRILL: Secondly, there has been an ongoing issue
concerning the impact on Victoria Park and Crescent Lakes as a result
of the Pelican Marsh school, and I wanted to advise you that we
haven't made any final decisions, but there were some things said
unfortunately at a staff level that we might close the median, and
that would affect the Crescent Lakes' Homeowners' Association as a
result of a light being installed in front of the school. Those
decisions have not been made, and there's a lot of anxiety surrounding
that, especially in Victoria Park. We will be represented at the
school board meeting tomorrow evening in the event that specific
questions have -- have come up for things that people are hearing on
the radio and attributing either to me or representatives of the
school board.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to thank you for your
involvement stepping into that and for your continued involvement
because there was a lot of misinformation flying around, and after
meeting with the residents up there, some fears were put to rest, but
others arose just as quickly, so thank you, and please keep up the
good work on that.
Item #15C
DISCUSSION OF HANDOUT RE BUDGET WORKSHOPS
MR. DORRILL: The final thing, the -- the handout that
I've given you is -- and I want to tell you how we intend to present
the budget discussions tomorrow just so that we won't waste the first
15 minutes trying to get it ferreted out. We're going to go fund by
fund in a balance-sheet approach, and at the beginning of every fund,
you will see what I have just handed you which is a total list of all
the appropriations, all of the reserves, and all of the transfers that
give you sort of the net expenditure size, and then you will see all
of the revenues. Now, this is the huge one. This is the one for
tomorrow morning. This is the general fund that -- that is balanced
that you will see the balance sheet before you ever begin trying to
see these departmental requests.
The next thing that -- that you will then see are the
original zero-based program packages and then the associated -- what
we call the line item or financial budgets that are updated and -- and
tie into that. The -- The point being -- and the only reason that I
gave you the first department summary which happens to be yours and
that's just a coincidence you're the first one listed in the general
fund -- the -- The overall increase in ad valorem taxes for the coming
year based on the budgets as they were submitted from last year --
Last year we were at 59 million. This year we're almost $69 million.
The point being that what we're going to try and focus you in on are
the biggest reasons for that initially. And rather than, as we've
done in years past, make you flip page after page after page, we would
like for you to see the entire fund summary dilemma and then show you
the major reasons for the fund needs before you start flipping page by
page by page. And my point being, the entire county commission budget
is only up about $30,000, and rather than you starting with that
budget and not having the sense of what the overall need for that fund
is, we'd sort of prefer that we focus you in on the major spending
increases and transfers to constitutional officers to use this fund as
an example rather than starting you at page 1 of a 240-page notebook
because of the time and the -- we get off on these rabbit trails that
don't generate a lot of hard questions on your part.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just want to make sure I
heard your comment -- I'm reading this right. The entire county
commission budget only up about how much?
MR. DORRILL: Thirty-some thousand dollars.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what I thought I heard
you say.
MR. DORRILL: In -- In addition, I wanted you to know
that your budget staff, in conjunction with Mike McNees and Michelle
Arnold, have done an incredible job of responding and providing all
types of new information for budget comparisons this year, and some of
the things that you might want to bring with you tomorrow -- we've
just released what Commissioner Mac'Kie originally called core service
levels, and we've got a 20-page document by division that explains the
facilities that you own and operate and the services that you provide
for current level of funding, and that's what we're calling core,
although you can certainly, you know, make changes in addition to
that.
In addition to the budget, we do have some summary
information that is -- probably was slipped inside your gray
notebooks. You should probably bring this tomorrow. The most
important thing that you should bring is your original list of those
proposed program cuts that you personally prioritized and we -- we
tried to reach consensus on because there are many where at least
three of you felt some of those things should come out. The one that
comes immediately to mind is administrative helicopter flights.
Tomorrow as you begin to discuss fund by fund, you need
to have your own list or the compilation list so that you can direct
cuts in certain funds where there's a consensus to make those cuts,
and that's the only other thing that you should bring with you
tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: When -- How long do you anticipate
this to run tomorrow?
MR. DORRILL: I -- I don't know because we changed.
Because we're providing additional public comment opportunities this
year, I can't give you a good idea of tomorrow. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All day?
MR. DORRILL: The better part of the day tomorrow, I
would think, with a lunch break. We're not dealing with the sheriff
tomorrow. You're dealing with all of the general fund departments,
but you'll remember that the sheriff really isn't in the general fund.
He has his own fund, and you transfer money out of your general fund.
So you're going -- really going to be focusing on your general fund
spending priorities. I think the sheriff is Thursday morning.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, anything else?
MR. WEIGEL: Nothing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Filson, do you have anything?
MS. FILSON: Nothing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, can I see you in
my office?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, that's a lovely tie.
I like it.
***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner
Constantine and carried unanimously, that the following
items under the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted
as follows: *****
Item #16A1
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM GENERAL FUND 001 RESERVES TO
POLLUTION CONTROL FUND 114 FOR RED TIDE MONITORING IN FY 95/96
Item #16A2
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR CHRISTUS VICTOR LUTHERAN CHURCH -
SUBJECT TO LETTER OF CREDIT AND STIPULATIONS AS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
See Pages
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 96-276 AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN HUNTINGTON
See Pages
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 96-277, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR LOTS 28 AND 29, BLOCK A, SEMINOLE
SUBDIVISION, OWNER OF RECORD - THELMA E. SKIPPER
See Pages
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 96-278, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR TRACT R-C, MARCO BEACH UNIT 25 REPLAT,
OWNER OF RECORD - DELTONA CORPORATION
See Pages
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 96-279, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR LOT 4, BLOCK J., CONNER'S VANDERBILT
BEACH ESTATES, UNIT 2, OWNER OF RECORD - ROSEMARY MOCIO AND SANDRA E.
FREEDMAN
See Pages
Item #16A7
RESOLUTION 96-280, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR LOT 5, BLOCK 16, NAPLES MANOR LAKES,
OWNER OF RECORD - GARY ROOKSTOOL AND ELEANOR PORRAS
See Pages
Item #16A8
RESOLUTION 96-281, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR LOT 16, BLOCK 9, NAPLES MANOR ANNEX,
OWNER OF RECORD - ROSA DE CORES AND TERESITA HENDEZ
See Pages
Item #16A9
RESOLUTION 96-282, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR ALL OF GRANTOR'S UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF
(1/2) INTEREST IN LOT 15, BLOCK 7, NAPLES MANOR, UNIT 1 OWNER OF
RECORD - JOAQUINA CONCEPCION
See Pages
Item #16A10
RESOLUTION 96-283, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR LOT 3, BLOCK 19, LELY TROPICAL
ESTATES, UNIT NO. 2, OWNER OF RECORD - DAVID ALAN SMITH
See Pages
Item #16All
RESOLUTION 96-284, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR LOT 42, BLOCK 591, MARCO BEACH UNIT
TWENTY-THREE, OWNER OF RECORD - JOHN FICARRAAND GRETA HARKOWSKI
See Pages
Item #16A12
RESOLUTION 96-285, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR LOT 15, BLOCK 795, OF A REPLAT OF A
PORTION OF MARCO BEACH UNIT TWENTY-FIVE, OWNER OF RECORD - ZBIGNIEW
TOHSZAY & DORILA H. TOHSZAY
See Pages
Item #16A13
RESOLUTION 96-286, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR LOT 22, BLOCK 790, OF A REPLAT OF A
PORTION OF MARCO BEACH UNIT 25, OWNER OF RECORD - GAMO REALTY INC.
See Pages
Item #16A14
RESOLUTION 96-287, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR LOT 27, BLOCK 779, OF A REPLAT OF A
PORTION OF MARCO BEACH UNIT TWENTY-FIVE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF,
OWNER OF RECORD ALOYSIUS NONDORF
See Pages
Item #16A15
RESOLUTION 96-288, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR LOT 28, BLOCK 779, OF A REPLAT OF A
PORTION OF MARCO BEACH UNIT TWENTY-FIVE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF,
OWNER OF RECORD ALOYSIUS J. NONDORF
See Pages
Item #16A16 - Deleted
Item #16A17
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR HANSION LA PALHA - SUBJECT TO
STIPULATIONS AS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
See Pages
Item #16A18
RESOLUTION 96-289, AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THOSE ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN GRAND ISLE AT PELICAN HARSH
See Pages
Item #16B1 - Deleted
Item #1682 - Deleted
Item #1683 - Deleted
Item #1684 - Deleted
Item #1685
AGREEMENT OF SALE AND PURCHASE FOR A LOT IN NAPLES MANOR LAKES, A/K/A
NAPLES MANOR, FOR THE SOUTH NAPLES COHMUNITY PARK - SUBJECT TO
STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
See Pages
Item #1686
AGREEMENT REGARDING WASTEWATER SERVICE FOR SUNGATE CENTER PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT WITH FLORIDA CITIES WATER COMPANY AND WYNN REAL ESTATE
PARTNERSHIP - SUBJECT TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S APPROVAL
See Pages
Item #16C1 - Deleted
Item #16C2
BID #96-2525, RE VENDING MACHINE SERVICES AT PUBLIC PARKS - AWARDED TO
NAPLES VENDING
Item #16C3
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD AUTHORIZING
APPROXIMATELY 1,500 ADDITIONAL SUHMER FOOD GRANT FUNDED MEALS AND
AUTHORIZATION FOR ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT INCREASING THE
EXPENDITURE AND OFFSETTING THE GRANT REVENUE BY $55,000
See Pages
Item #16D1
RFP-96-2519 TO ENTER INTO A MASTER LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT - AWARDED
TO CARLYLE CAPITAL MARKETS INC.
Item #16D2
EXECUTION OF THE EHS DEPARTHENT'S MEDICAL DIRECTOR'S CONTRACT - IN THE
AMOUNT OF $40,000.00
See Pages
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 96-290, AUTHORIZING THE ADDITION OF A SENIOR MECHANIC
POSITION TO THE 1996-97 PAY PLAN AND THE CORRESPONDING CLASSIFICATION
SPECIFICATION AT PAY RANGE 13
See Pages
Item #16D4
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH FLORIDA SDA 20-PRIVATE INDUSTRY
COUNCIL, INC. FOR A SUHMER YOUTH PROGRAM
See Pages
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 96-422, 96-453 AND 96-454
Item #16E2
TRANSFER OF $4,200.00 FROM RESERVES TO ENGINEERING SERVICES-MANGROVE
STUDIES FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE PERMIT APPLICATION FEES TO THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Item #16E3 - Moved to Item #8E4
Item #16G1
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
See Pages
Item #1662
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:07 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Barbara A. Donovan and Christine E. Whitfield