BCC Minutes 03/26/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 26, 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 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRPERSON: John C. Norris
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock
Timothy J. Constantine
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
Bettye J. Matthews
ALSO PRESENT: Neil Dorrill, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3 & #3A
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Call the meeting to order on March 26, 1996.
Mr. Dotrill, if you could lead us in an invocation and pledge to the
flag, please.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we just thank you, and we praise
your name this morning as always for your grace and your wonder and the
beauty that you have bestowed on this community and the people of
Collier County.
Father, we thank you for this time today to discuss the business
affairs of Collier County. We are thankful for the many citizens who
choose to participate and monitor the activities of their county
government. And we ask that you bless them for that.
We give thanks always for the dedication of our elected
officials and the hard work of the support staff. And as always, we'd
ask that you bless our time here together today and that the action
taken today would be a reflection of your will for Collier County and
its people. And we pray these things in Jesus' name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, do we have any changes
today?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Whoa.
MR. DORRILL: Good omen.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's certainly unusual --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wow.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- to say the least.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How did that happen?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Hancock, do you have anything
additional today?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. Rather than pull it off the
consent agenda, I'm just going to ask that if I can ask staff to get
with me on item 8(C)(1) in the next day or two, I've got some
questions to go ahead on that. MR. DORRILL: 16(C)(1 e
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Eight -- I'm sorry, 16(C)(1).
Thank you. If I could ask for that, I'll avoid pulling that off the
consent agenda.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie, do you have
any changes?
I guess we need a motion.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tim?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I got a couple of changes.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 16(B)(5) and 16(D)(2) I would
like to remove from the consent agenda. And 16(A)(4) I'd like to
continue for a couple of weeks. 16(B)(5) has to do with the --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that B-5, B, Baker, 57
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: B, Baker, 5. It has to do
with Rattlesnake Hammock speed. I don't have a problem. I just need
an explanation. And 16(D)(2) has to do with the fuel tank
replacement.
HR. DORRILL: 16(B)(5) will become 8(B)(1). And
16(D)(2) will become 8-D as in David 1. And, Hr. Constantine, I need
you to tell me the item you want continued again.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 16(A)(4).
MR. DORRILL: Got it. Thank you.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And with that, Mr. Chairman,
I'll make a motion we approve the agenda and consent agenda as
amended.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There's none.
Item #4
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 27, 1996 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
We have next --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, motion to
accept the minutes, approve the minutes, of February 27, 1996, regular
meeting of this board minutes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second on
the minutes. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
And opposed?
None again.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESINGATING THE WEEK OF APRIL 1 - 7, 1996, BE DESIGNATED
AS PUBLIC HEALTH WEEK - ADOPTED
We'll move on to our proclamations.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, just in order to have some
staff ready, the board had said that today under, I believe,
communications that you were going to discuss the discretionary budget
list that we sent to you several weeks ago. And I presume we'll do
that at the end of the meeting today unless you direct us otherwise.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Were we going to discuss that
today or just simply have our list available for exchange today? And
why I ask that is my idea when I brought it up was for each of us to
submit a list and then have an opportunity to review each list. MR. DORRILL: Okay.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then bring all five
forward at the same time.
MR. DORRILL: At a subsequent date?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
MR. DORRILL: Very well. Whatever you prefer.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that all right?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's fine.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me too.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We'll move ahead then with our
proclamation. This is a proclamation for public health week to be
accepted by Dr. Polkowski. Dr. Polkowski, if you could come up and --
and put yourself on television here for us.
The proclamation reads, whereas, recognizing that an
annual celebration of public health week in Florida and Collier County
will increase awareness and understanding of the importance for a
strong public health policy; and
Whereas, realizing that public health week is a
community outreach effort to deliver health promotion messages
directly to the community ensuring that the general public and
professionals have an opportunity to participate in the program and
improve their understanding of and appreciation for the vital impact
public health has upon shaping a healthier future; and
Whereas, public health services benefit the entire
population of Collier County and are among the highest priorities of
the Collier County government; and
Whereas, greater public knowledge and awareness of
healthful behavior are cost effective and contribute significantly to
the reduction of needless suffering; and
Whereas, public health professionals and others who
promote public health play important roles in providing for health and
welfare of our citizens, and their efforts undertaken with genuine
concern and compassion are worthy of widespread praise and
appreciation; and
Whereas, public health week also recognizes the
coalition of public and private health agencies, foundations,
academia, and health-related enterprises that are working to promote
healthy behaviors.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of April 1 to
the 7th, 1996, be designated as public health week.
Done and ordered this 26th day of March, 1996, by the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. And I'd
like to make a motion that we accept this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
accept. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Dr. Polkowski, thank you very much.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I have one other
item. Miss Chinnery, are you in the audience? Yes, if you'd just
come forward, please. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are there any changes to the
agenda? Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir. I just -- I took care of that.
She was here for an item that's not actually until next week --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Oh, okay.
MR. DORRILL: And I didn't want her to sit out there all
morning.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you meant
that we were going to do something right now.
MR. DORRILL: No, sir. I just needed her to identify
herself.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. This morning it's my
pleasure to recognize two employees each with five years of service.
First we'd like to recognize Mr. Thomas Kuck for five years service in
engineering. Mr. Kuck.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Don't forget that pin.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You get both.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you, Tom.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And this morning we would like to
-- like to also recognize David Fitts for five years' service in
waste water. Mr. Fitts.
Got that Dole handshake down there.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. Do we still have Mr. Dole
with us?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll be happy to have it heal
sooner rather than later.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Any public petitions today, Mr.
Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
Item #SB1
RESOLUTION 96-157 LOWERING THE SPEED LIMIT ON CR. 864 (RATTLESNAKE
HAMMOCK) BETWEEN US 41 (TAMIAMI TRAIL) AND POLLY AVENUE FROM FORTY FIVE
MILES PER HOUR (45 HPH) TO THIRTY FIVE MILES PER HOUR (35 HPH) AND
LOWERING THE SPEED LIMIT WITHIN THE WORK ZONES TO TWENTY FIVE MILES PER
HOUR (25 HPH) FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: If not, we'll move on to our first
item which is the former 16(B)(5), now 8(B)(1).
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a quick question on
this. This was lowering the speed limit on Rattlesnake Hammock from
45 to 35 and then lower --
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- within the work zone.
MR. CONRECODE: Just during the period of construction.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's my question because I
know out on 951 even though it's expanding the limit is required to be
lower, and I was going to check if Rattlesnake Hammock was the same.
You've answered my question. I'll make to motion to pass the item.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
And opposed?
There are none.
Item #8C1
BCC TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FORAN INTERNATIONAL FIREWORKS COMPETITION AT
SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK - STAFF TO WORK WITH PETITIONER AND COME BACK TO
THE BCC
We'll move on to 8(C) 1), recommendation that we
consider a request for the fireworks competition at Sugden Regional
Park.
Mr. Olliff, good mornmng.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. For the record, Tom Olliff,
your public services administrator. This item, 8(C)(1), is a
recommendation that the board consider a request for a fireworks event
to be held at the Sugden Regional Park. And if the board will recall,
this item came as a result of a public petition that was heard two
weeks ago.
The project as proposed is to have an international
fireworks competition that would span over five separate nights at the
facility. It was intended to run on a Wednesday night and a Saturday
night in two consecutive weeks, and then the following Saturday would
be the grand finale.
The project is expected to draw an estimated 100,000
spectators with an estimated 20,000 on average spectators per night at
the event. The event is expected to grow each night as the project
proceeds and word of mouth spreads about the type of an event that it
is.
I think from the video that you saw, you realize that
the project is one that is a dynamic type of fireworks event where
fireworks from the different countries and the fireworks manufacturers
are set to music.
The concerns that the staff has in regards to this
particular event are practical and logistical kinds of issues for the
board to consider. The 20,000 spectators each night are expected to
draw some -- or require some 7,000 parking spaces.
And in addition, the park itself would be, if everything
goes well at this point, under construction at that point. And, in
fact, in November we would probably be in the clearing and earth
moving stage of construction.
The site today has no water or sanitary sewer
facilities. So everything would have to be brought in and -- and put
on site. The event is going to require the use of a number of
off-site parking lots and shuttle transportation systems to and from
those sites to the community and to that particular park.
Because of those concerns, the staff has recommended
against having this project at the site at this particular time only
because I think at this particular time the project is very much in
its infant stages and the property is very much raw land.
However, you'll hear I think from the petitioners today
that I think that they've tried to address a lot of those logistical
concerns and hopefully can answer all those questions here this
morning about those.
With that, I'm available to answer any questions that
you might have.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two questions -- well, question
and statement. Mr. Olliff, your -- your staff report, your summary,
is in no way directed at we don't think it's a good event but simply
the logistics of getting 20,000 people in the park and out of the park
and its impact to the surrounding area. Is that the primary concern
you have?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. I think the event is a good
event, and it's a successful event in other places. In Toronto and
Montreal I know they've had this event for years, and I think it's a
very -- in fact, they have some statistics that will show you from the
public's perspective it is one of the best type of events that they
have in the area. So I think it's very popular and it's a good
event. Just from a timing and a -- and a location standpoint today,
we think it's probably a little premature at that site.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the second thing is just that
I think we all read in the paper the potential or possible request of
TDC funding, and that's really not what we're going to discuss today
in case anyone here is here to talk about TDC funding. This is simply
to decide whether or not the park is an appropriate place. So try and
keep those at the appropriate time.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, I've always
respected your opinion. You always give us good updates and
information. But one thing that raises a red flag for me and that's
when the words if, could, and might all appear in the same sentence.
And the potential impacts here are outlined in a sentence that
includes something -- if something might happen, it could do something
and might do something else. And any time we link three
hypotheticals, I wonder how far off we're getting if you could help me
a little bit with that.
And then secondarily, I was under the impression that
our shoulder season was defined as ending November 1. Perhaps I'm
mistaken. Maybe it's December 1. But under fiscal impact, the final
paragraph says, the event planned in November meets the, quote,
shoulder season goals. And I thought shoulder season as our TDC has
defined it traditionally ended once November began.
MR. OLLIFF: I thought it was -- November was included.
We'll double-check that. But I think the actual proposers went and
sat down with the staff who sort of acts as liaison with the TDC to
make sure that this project fit in with the criteria of the TDC.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Again, like Commissioner Hancock
said --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I don't want to get
off on that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I do hope that this -- this
will spur some careful scrutiny about how TDC funds are spent.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: At the conclusion of this item,
I've been talking to some members of the TDC, and I'll try and bring
you up to speed on what we might do there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great.
MR. OLLIFF: To -- to -- to answer your first question,
it's very difficult when you've never had an event like this -- and,
in fact, there's never been one in the United States like this -- to
-- to be able to rely on to see what you're going to actually have.
Our concern was only that this is being proposed as the
first major event at the site. And there are a lot of potentials for
an event when it becomes this large to have some difficulties and some
impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, especially when you're
talking amplified music and fireworks. And -- and given preference, I
think the staff would probably want to have some smaller type events
to be able to understand how crowd management and control can be
handled at the site before we embarked on a project this large.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one final question. To
reiterate, parks and rec. advisory board, those members that were
there anyway, did support the concept? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two areas I have questions for,
and I guess Mr. Lieth or whomever's appropriate -- if -- if Mr. Olliff
doesn't have the answer, you might be more well suited to -- to give
me the answer on this. One is how much open space will be required
for the viewing area on site because we obviously heard that clearing
will be ongoing. And we need to know that if we expect 20,000 people
there how much open space is required to accommodate those people and
will it be present on site by the time the event is scheduled to
happen.
The second item, Mr. Olliff, you and I discussed this.
If we are to have off-site parking and bring people in, we need, I
believe, approximately 7,000 parking spaces total. "A", to bring them
in, to shuttle them by bus, a bus holds about four hun -- four -- 45
people, so we're talking 450 bus trips in and out of the park. And
that number sounded kind of big to me but -- and I don't -- again, I
just need to know if it's practical and doable and what time it takes
to get people in and out and those kinds of things because Mr. Olliff
has expressed some concern about the adjoining neighborhood. I think
we need to consider that.
Those are my two -- two concerns, and -- and I guess Mr.
Lieth would be more appropriate to answer them.
MR. OLLIFF: I think they've been doing a great deal of
work, you know, in trying to address those logistical concerns. And I
will tell you that they have experience. These are the same people
who do the events in Canada, so they -- they know how to handle crowds
and how to handle these type of productions. And perhaps now's a good
time to have him come up and answer some of those logistical questions
for you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just as they're coming up, what I
-- I wanted to say was that perhaps, Mr. Olliff, you have more
information -- I -- I'm sure you have more information than I have. I
have what we got in the last presentation and what we have in these
two pages of a staff report.
But based on the information I have, I think we're way
ahead of the curve on prejudging -- I need -- I need site plans. I
need proposals. I need specifics. Why -- I would like not to kill
this today and see if we can't get more specific unless you're
prepared to tell me you've reviewed everything carefully enough and
you know it won't work.
MR. OLLIFF: No. And, in fact, the meetings that we've
had we talked about initially, I mean, where would the parking spaces
be, for instance. And every shopping center up and down the East
Trail would provide 3,000 if they were all available. So then you
still have the -- a majority of the parking spaces that are needed
that are going to have to be someplace even further than the East
Trail. And we've talked about the airport and some other places.
We've even talked about the possibility of a scaled-down type of an
event and would that be a possibility.
So I don't think there's anybody saying that this can't
happen. And I think a lot of the details still need to be flushed
out, and I think we'll see this morning a little bit about what the
work they've done already to be able to answer some of those
questions.
MR. FOY: Good morning, commissioners. My name's Peter
Foy. I'm the event director for International Fireworks Management
Group.
I would like to respond to your concerns, Mr. Hancock,
concerning the shuttle routes and load-in and load-out periods. I
prepared a logistical summary which I can pass out to each and every
one of you at the completion of this presentation.
Approximately 75 transportation vehicles, buses, will be
utilized for load-in starting at four o'clock in the afternoon. Our
load-in period runs from 4 till 6:30, 7:00, the main event being
7:30. This takes a lot of pressure off as far as load-in goes.
Exiting the park afterwards is where the bulk of the logistical
problems come in.
With 75 buses and the off-site parking facilities that
have been arranged for at this point which amount to 7,000 spaces,
that load-out period is projected to take approximately an hour to an
hour and a half. We have not secured the shopping centers nearest to
the event. That will be addressed, and these -- these facilities may
change. But at this point we have five facilities close enough to the
event to be able to move eight to nine thousand people per hour.
Keep in mind that if we have a full house of 20,000
people, a number of those people will be parking close to the event as
well, and we more than likely will not require all 7,000 spaces.
As far as landscaping concerns related to the general
public, the east side of the lake where the grandstands are now in
existence for the Skimmer show needs practically very little work done
to it. We're looking at the grassy field play -- play area and picnic
area at the north end of the lake for additional general admission.
Those two areas would need to be cleared and prepared as far as
landscaping requirements go.
The grandstand seating itself is projected to hold
approximately 11,500 people, the balance being general admission at
the west -- east and north -- north section of the park there.
As far as launching sites go, we would need exotic
vegetation removal which would be on the west side of the lake. There
is an existing road on the south end which some improvements would be
required in order to facilitate access to the launch area.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: When you talk about some of those
improvements, are those things that -- that you would be doing or you
would need the county to do before this could happen?
MR. FOY: As far as improvements to the road, that is
something that we can do. But, however, if it is built into your
initial buildout, then we would appreciate the county's support in
that particular area.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I guess -- I guess to be really
blunt, one of the things that I see as a possibility here is if -- if
we are -- if you're ahead of our development curve, perhaps you can
help us accelerate the curve, and that would be reason to go forward
with the project.
MR. FOY: Well, providing we get site approval, that
would open negotiations to all of those specific points with the parks
and recreation department or publics works director.
There is a planned buffer surrounding the park, some of
which is sort of already there. And I have heard that there is a plan
for fencing as well. Those both would be prerequisites as far as
securing the park.
Also the -- the main entrance would be required to be
completed. And the emergency exit at the southwest -- southeast
corner, that we would like to keep open for emergency vehicles should
-- should such a -- an event occur.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, those specific
items he just mentioned, are they scheduled to be completed in this
time frame?
MR. OLLIFF: We don't even have a construction schedule
as yet because the zoning hasn't even been to the board for approval.
But I was sitting here trying to map out what a tentative rough time
frame would be. And in April and May, assuming that the zoning gets
approved, we would be into the site development and design permitting
stage. June and July we would be preparing bid specifications and
bidding the construction of the project. And then August and
September we'd be awarding the bid and negotiating a contract and
issuing that notice to proceed.
So we probably wouldn't be able to actually start
construction until the October, November time frame, so it would give
us roughly 30 days in advance of this project. And whatever we can
accomplish in 30 days, we would try and phase construction so that
those things that needed to happen for this type of an event could be
done first.
But the likelihood of building the entrance road and in
clearing the grass play field and having it sodded and ready to go in
time for the event, it's tough. I'm not going to say that we can't do
it but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tom, what was the -- what was the
total there from -- from site development -- I'm just thinking from a
private developer's standpoint from the -- from the point in time when
you submit your SDP to when you expect to start construction, you said
like six months? Private developers don't do it that way.
MR. OLLIFF: Well, it takes us a long time to bid. Our
bidding requirements require in most cases us advertising for 30 days,
and that's generally what causes us to take longer than a private
development company so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Olliff answered the question
I was going to ask, and that is is there -- was there a way to phase
the construction components that are necessary for this project, and
he's already answered that so --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill -- are you -- are you
finished, sir?
MR. FOY: If I could make one additional point regarding
the -- the restroom facilities, regardless of whether those facilities
were in place or not, we would have to bring in additional facilities
to accommodate the crowds expected, so that is a non-issue for the
event itself.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, do we have public
speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, there are.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a question for the
presenter before you do that. From where do you expect to attract
20,000 individuals on a night? That's better than one in ten of every
man, woman, and child in the county are going to be at this event.
MR. LIETH: I might --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Identify yourself for the record.
MR. LIETH: Oh. It's Brian Lieth, and I'm the marketing
director. And if I may answer that question for you, Commissioner,
the bulk of our focus in advertising will be outside of Collier
County. If you look at the Canadian events, the focus is primarily in
the surrounding area because it's being done in large cities.
Despite it being in the immediate vicinity in those
cities, close to 40 percent of the attendance is coming from outside
the area. We plan on shifting the focus, as I mentioned, outside the
area. So we plan on drawing about 70 percent of the attendees into
the area from other counties.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to piggyback on that if
I may. The draw in your current events makes a lot of sense because
an event like this gains a reputation each year that it's held
successfully. Do you have information on the first year of the event
and whether it had a draw outside of the municipal area it was being
held in because my concern is that -- and I've discussed this with Mr.
Olliff -- if I live -- if this event were in Miami, would I pack my
family in a car and drive over to see it? Probably not until it
gained a reputation --
MR. LIETH: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that would draw, that would
have some -- you know, some -- something associated with it. So I'm
curious in the first year, do you have first-year figures for the
other events that support an outside draw or -- again, do you see
where I'm going with that?
MR. LIETH: Yeah. The event has always been successful
in its first year. Most recently it was introduced in Quebec City,
and the attendance swelled each night over the first year's
presentation there quite significantly. We feel pretty comfortable
that we can probably draw in 90 percent of the numbers that we're
looking at. You find that with the three-day period in between each
event and, you know, the word of mouth gets around very quickly that
it's an event worth going to.
So you get strength from show to show in a single year,
and then you get strength from year to year. The event has extremely
strong repeated visitation, so you get a lot of people who attend it
on an annual basis. So it's a -- it's a -- it's a good event, and it
also is a good long-term event so --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, could we go to the
public speakers then?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Ms. Miller, you'll be first.
And then, Mr. Carpenter, if I could have you stand by up here, please,
sir.
MS. MILLER: Do I speak here?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Good morning.
MS. MILLER: I'm Phyllis Miller, and my property backs
right up to the Avalon Park. And we have several senior citizens
there. And our working class, of course, can't come to the meetings
in the morning. Now, we could get a petition up and have it signed by
all those that are not in favor of these fireworks.
The traffic, we're always thankful when it starts
slowing down a little. And I have a group with me this morning that
could come. And there's no way we want any fireworks there. I can
hear the loud speaker just as well as it's in my yard from the
Skimmers. That I don't have anything against. But these fireworks,
no way.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Carpenter, if you would, please, sir,
and then Mr. Kennedy, Brandon Kennedy.
MR. CARPENTER: Hi. I'm Dave Carpenter, president of
the East Naples Civic Association. And we're backing this event. We
have no financial tie-in with the group. But we think it would be a
good event for East Naples.
As I've seen this progress, I think International
Fireworks Management has gone out of their way to try and accommodate
the community. They passed out -- hand-passed out, 600 flyers in the
area, the residential areas, adjoining Lake Avalon and held a public
meeting in the evening at the East Naples park. I think there was
approximately 35 or 40 area residents attended that meeting. They did
their best to answer their concerns, and they took their concerns a
step forward.
The two concerns that seemed to exist in the area were,
number one, they didn't want something going on at ten or eleven
o'clock at night on a weekend or a week night. And I think that was
addressed by the fact that the event will be over at eight o'clock and
they're hoping to have basically everybody cleared out by nine.
we're not looking at something like a Naples, you know, private
fireworks at eleven o'clock at night.
The second concern was parking. And from -- from the
initial concept of this, International Fireworks Management have said
we realize that there will be no parking at Lake Avalon or in the
residential areas surrounding the lake. And they've shown an ability
to work with the sheriff's office to make certain that the residents
around the area don't have people parking in their yards and that
those side streets don't become a quagmire of cars trying to get in.
So, you know, this is something they've seen professionally right off
-- right off the front of it.
As far as the effects of the event on the East Naples
area in general, number one, we feel it would be good for businesses.
We've gotten an awful lot of input from restaurants in the area and
motels in the area that think that this would be a great draw to the
area.
As far as imaging goes, we see it on par as with the
Intellinet Challenge which held out in East Naples this year brought a
tremendous amount of prestige to that part of the county. And we
think an international event of this caliber would fit in with that
image for our end of the county on it.
We're not going to address TDC funding at this point. I
know that's -- that's not on the agenda today, and that's for the TDC
board, the committee from hell, to deal with.
But we think this would -- would be a good, positive
event. As far as tying in with the construction at the site, I think
one of the things you have to factor in is if you say let's go ahead
and give it a try this year is to let them sit down with Tom or who's
ever going to be in charge of the construction there and say, okay,
this is what we need. It may be a case where they're allowed to go
ahead and do it themselves and then be reimbursed by the county if
that's what it takes to be speeded up. But I kind of agree with
Commissioner Hac'Kie that the time frames to get some minor
improvements -- and that's what they're talking about, some form of an
interest that doesn't have to be polished and it doesn't have to be --
you know, even if it's gravel with a base on it instead of paved, that
would work for them. They're talking about some fill along the area
of the lake where the Skimmers have their bleachers currently. That's
not a major problem.
I'd hate to see this thing at this stage be kind of
nitpicked to death because of worries or concerns. These guys are
big, grown-up guys. If the facility isn't right and doesn't work for
it, they stand to lose a bundle on it.
And so I think it's kind of -- really the onus is on
them to work with the county to get the site improved to a level where
it's usable for them, and I think that can be done. And I think
rather than kind of saying, well, you know, this might not be exactly
right or that may not be exactly right, they're the ones that have to
make certain it's workable for them.
And I think if it's approached that way that some of
these improvements they may have to undertake on their own to get it
ahead of schedule and get it in I think -- I think that can be
accomplished.
At any rate, I think it'd be a great event for East
Naples. There's a lot of enthusiasm within the East Naples Civic
Association for it. And I think they've done their darnedest to -- to
try and handle the concerns and the legitimate concerns of the
residents around it. And I think -- I know obviously you're going to
have -- any time you do anything in this county somebody objects. And
you as commissioners certainly know that. But I think in general it'd
be great for the area. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Kennedy wants to wait and speak on the
zoning matter, so Mr. Erlichman will be your final speaker. Mr.
Erlichman.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Oh. Good morning. My name's Gil
Erlichman, and I live in -- I live in East Naples. And I'm speaking
for myself and TAG.
First of all, Mr. -- Mr. Carpenter and the East Naples
Civic Association do not speak for me. I'm not a member of the East
Naples Civic Association. And I disagree with many of their precepts
and many of their supports -- support that they had for various other
projects in the county.
Actions have consequences. If the commissioners vote
today to accept this agenda item, that means that in the future the
TDC is going to be concerned with giving these people TDC money
because in the -- in the Naples Daily News the other day there was a
very definitive article about -- about this. And the -- there were
figures in there which I cannot -- could not check the facts in a
short period of time. But they're talking about drawing on four --
drawing on 14 million people of the surrounding areas. Well, I don't
know what the population of Florida is if somebody could enlighten me
on that.
Also they're talking about the 5-day event in which they
would draw 100,000 people, 20,000 people a day. In other words,
Wednesday, Saturdays and then a Wednesday and Saturday. And I think
-- I don't know where the fifth day comes in from.
I just heard these pe -- the people that are running
this business talk about metropolitan areas. Well, I heard mention
the area of Quebec City. I think they -- I think they're also -- have
done this in Toronto and I don't know how many other major cities in
-- in Canada.
But here we are down here in Naples in Collier County,
and I've heard some comparisons between the event that would -- that
they would do here and comparing it to Canada and how well they
control the crowds and they draw from the surrounding areas and so
forth.
Here are some of the things that I heard pets -- the
people mention: This load-in, where are they going to load the
buses? Seventy-five buses, where are they going to load them?
They're talking about shopping centers. Work on the grandstand that's
presently in the park, landscaping, extra -- extra -- ex -- exotic
vegetation removal, root -- road improvements, road entering or roads
in the area there, negotiations with the park -- with parks and the
recreation department, security risks -- exits and entrances, in other
words, to allow police, I guess, there to patrol the exit and
entrances and make sure that the -- they're not cluttered with trapped
cars so that any egress or entrance of emergency vehicles would be
available.
And also Mr. Olliff said they -- the parks -- park and
recreation department doesn't have a construction schedule. Well, as
Mr. Constantine said, it's all about if this, when this, and
so-called, so forth.
And I hear that the previous speaker was talking about
the county paying for this. Well, when you say county, substitute
taxpayer. You mean to tell me that the taxpayers are going to pay for
all this work and supposedly I heard somebody mention that -- the
previous speaker said that they would probably -- the company that's
doing this fireworks thing would probably re -- reimburse the county.
Well, first, that's another subject. You're talking
about -- of having this project. Let's talk about the financial
arrangements. How much money is it going to cost the taxpayer? What
happens to the profits from the -- from this fireworks -- music,
fireworks thing? Are they going to keep all the profits? Are they
going to pay back any money borrowed from the TDC? Are they going to
pay back any -- any monies that expended (sic) by the -- by the
taxpayers in Collier County for these various improvements at Sugden
Park? Let's think about that. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Erlichman.
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's all?
Comments from the board?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I have one. I'd like to do
exactly what Mr. Erlichman said and think about it. I'd like to get
the information, get the answers to his questions and the others that
were raised. And we can't do that unless we continue to investigate
it.
So I'd -- I'd like for the project to continue to go
forward so we can find out if it's possible to do. I just think it
would be a wonderful benefit for East Naples, and it's just the kind
of thing we want to see. Yes, the timing is early. And yes, it will
be a challenge. Let's just see if we can meet it. Maybe we can't.
But let's -- let's see if we can.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I concur that we should at
the very least explore it further. Some of the logistics are kind of
vague, and perhaps we can work those out in more detail.
And I do like the question of the petitioner sharing in
the expense. If we have something over and above or if we need to
move up some of the construction schedule, then I'm not sure the
taxpayer should shoulder a burden of any additional costs there. But
it's worth -- it's worth investigating.
I think Mr. Olliff has a good point that the worst thing
we can do is do it wrong. But I'm not convinced either way yet. We
need to settle some of those logistics and -- and know -- if we can do
it right, then, you know, I think there's an advantage to it. But we
need to explore it and make sure we can.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yeah. I'll take your comment one
step further and note that I am sure that the taxpayers should not
shoulder any burden for -- for any acceleration of schedules. I mean,
obviously we -- we have plans to do certain things at the park, and --
and we have allocated funds to do that or will allocate funds to do
that. And I don't think that we should get in the position of
expending any extra funds to accommodate this particular event. Any other comments from the board?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I feel the same way. I mean, if
-- if -- if we're going to have to do some temporary construction
work in order for this project to go forward, I think the project
should bear that expense if it's temporary and we intend -- and then
we have to go back and redo it in that the sole reason for the
temporary expense was the project. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So I'm -- I'm concerned about
that. I'm concerned about the time frame. But they're all answers
I'm sure that exist somewhere. We need to get them.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just I know I've said this
before, but I really do think that these people do -- there's a profit
to be made here. And perhaps in addition to the taxpayers not
absorbing any extra expense, perhaps the -- this private company can
help us with some of the permanent improvements to the park. And that
can be, you know, part of the incentive to the county for doing the
deal.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I remember correctly -- and
I'm sure Mr. Lieth will correct me -- but the proceeds, a portion of
the proceeds of this event, will go to local charities such as the
YHCA and others. So a lot of what Mr. Erlichman brought up are things
that are hammered out through the TDC application process if those
funds are being requested.
So I think what you're hearing is that this board is --
is quite simply not going to dedicate any tax dollars to preparing the
park above and beyond what we already have. And if that needs to be
accelerated, it will be done so at -- at your expense.
We're not here to make a -- a decision on TDC funding
today. But what I would like to do is set, I guess, a check and
balance. We've all said, okay. We -- we think these things can be
hammered out. Let's see if they can be. But we know there's one
hurdle left before getting those answers, and that is whether or not
TDC funding is secured and if the funding is or is not secured, will
the event go on anyway.
So we need to set a -- either time or -- or something
that -- that we make a -- if we're not making a final decision today,
we need to at least set the time frame in which that can be made. I
hear a preliminary approval for the most part --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- with some outstanding issues.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- I think Mr. Olliff can best
help us with the time frame on -- on what would otherwise be called a
drop dead date of -- of when the bids and proposals would be finally
reviewed and -- and submitted and given to whatever company wins the
award. That, I presume, is a drop dead date.
MR. OLLIFF: Well, from what I hear from the board, I
think what staff would need to do is go back and -- and let them
proceed through the TDC and determine whether or not they are going to
get that funding and then flush out those details and specifics in
terms of where are the parking facilities going to be, exactly how
many numbers, what are the routes, what are the restroom facilities,
what are the water facilities, what are the vendors, security, traffic
control, all of those kinds of issues and bring you a plan that they
would submit in the form of a contract with us and let you consider
that.
I would think we probably need to have that resolved
within the next six weeks in order to be able to make a decision
because if we're going to accelerate, there are some things we need to
do in terms of maybe looking at a design/build contract as opposed to
just a straight design and then construction contract and some other
things.
So we would probably need to have that decision from you
within six weeks. And I think in talking to the proposers here that
that's probably a doable time frame to try and get some of those
answers put together.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. I believe that the next TDC
meeting is May the 6th. That's probably six weeks out.
MR. OLLIFF: We'll -- we'll try and shoot for then, the
Tuesday following that TDC meeting.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: So your direction then is to work
with the -- the proposals to try to get a little more firm on the --
the details here and assuming the petitioner doesn't have any
objection to -- or the time -- timeline here, going to May the 6th to
the TDC, is not going to interfere with the project or -- or cause
undue hardship, then that's the way we'll proceed. Is that -- we need
the presenter to maybe --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'll need you on the microphone,
Mr. Lieth.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- maybe to make a comment on
that.
MR. LIETH: If I may, Mr. Chairman, we would greatly
appreciate a tentative approval at least at this point based on our
being able to sit down with Tom and work out the logistical details.
We actually do have a detailed plan in place at this point which we
can go through with him. But it is difficult for us to go ahead and
proceed with planning for the event not knowing one way or the other
whether we have a -- have a site for it. We --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, I appreciate that. But on
the other hand, what we have been presented here today is -- is a very
amorphous proposal, and it's hard for us to make a -- an informed
decision on what we've heard here today. There's just too many
questions. Every time we hear something, it raises several more
questions, not the least of which is are you willing to go forward
absent any TDC funding at all because there's always the possibility
that you don't receive any. MR. LIETH: Uh-huh.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: So are you willing to -- to go
forward without TDC funds?
MR. LIETH: We probably would not go forward without TDC
funds.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Well, that -- that's a
pertinent question that -- that's going to be answered in the next few
weeks. But, you know, there are so many questions that we've raised
here today that we don't have answers to that it's going to be hard
for us to give anything more than a -- an approval to go forward in
discussions with you and the staff to try to work out a little more
firmness to the details that we would like to hear so that we can make
our informed decision.
MR. LIETH: Okay. Would it be possible to move ahead
the approval process, though, as opposed to waiting for the TDC
approval which is six weeks down the road? Could we not get together
with -- with Tom Olliff in the next week to two weeks?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I don't think the board has any
objection to that at all. But, you know, if you're not going to be
able to go forward with -- without TDC funding, that's something you
need to take into consideration because you haven't received that
yet.
MR. LIETH: But at this point we're -- we're really just
specifically looking for park approval. The TDC is another issue and
another hurdle that has to be dealt with.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's fine. I don't know if --
Mr. Olliff, do you have any objection to a three- to four-week
timeline on this instead of six?
MR. OLLIFF: No, none at all. I think we can -- really
the -- the burden's on them, and the burden is for them to develop
those details and be able to provide those to us. So whenever they're
available, I'm -- I'm more than willing.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, with -- with the board's
approval then, we'll --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Three weeks?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- go forward with that direction.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As soon as they can.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: As soon as possible.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Time is of the essence.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not to exceed six weeks. If
they can come back in a week, more power to them but --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please. Hurry.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Except this does have to be --
does this have to be advertised?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Mr. -- Mr. Olliff, you're
clear on your direction then?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're clear on that one, huh?
All right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd mentioned that at the
conclusion of that item I wanted to just bring to the board's
attention that I've been talking with members of the TDC. And
obviously we continue to wrestle with a diff -- a divergence of
opinion on what category C should be used for. The TDC seems to lean
one way, and this board has gone in another direction many times.
What I'm going to do is work with them and try and
develop, I guess, a common ground guidelines. And if we can do that,
I would appreciate the board's indulgence in possibly scheduling a
two-hour time certain workshop at some point to -- to list those and
have discussion, objections, and so forth on them. I know we've gone
through category C before. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Two hours?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I'm -- I'm just saying
maximum. But the point -- the point is there's still some divergence
there, and I think we can work closer with the TDC if we can come to
common ground. And -- and if we can't, then -- then we can't. But I
want to at least give that a try.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't mind exploring it.
Just two thoughts come to mind. One is the chairman is assigned the
task of working with the TDC every year. So perhaps John could best
do that.
But also we have altered some of the formula for
category C in the past year because the complaint a year ago by the
hoteliers was, well, nobody's using it anyway, so let's shift it
over. And it appears now the requests are rolling in now that we have
a more user friendly category C.
So if you want to explore it, I don't have a real
problem with that. But it seems to me we have something in place that
appears to be working now. But it's only been in place for six or
eight months, and we ought to give that a little time so we have a
track record on which to look at.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. I'm not talking so much
about an ordinance change as I am reaching some level of understanding
of -- of what a -- a best and highest category C event would be. And
I don't think we've ever had that open discussion with members of the
TDC with the exception of the chairman sitting on that board.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Perhaps we could schedule this on
an agenda sometime and -- and chat -- chat about it --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wanted to bring it to your
attention.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- under communications or
something.
Item #8C2
AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COHMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR A GRANT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $854,210 TOWARD THE PURCHASE OF THE LAKE AVALON SITE
AND RE-ALLOCATE THESE FUNDS TO BE USED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW
SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK - APPROVED SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS
Let's move forward to 8(C)(2) to accept a grant in the
amount of $854,210 for the -- to be used for construction and
development at the Sugden Regional Park.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a couple of
questions.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is there a down -- is there a
downside to this?
MR. OLLIFF: Well, the down -- I don't know that I would
consider them downsides. There are some considerations that you need
to make and think about and make some decisions about. This item
hopefully will be a lot easier to deal with than the last one, and
there are a lot less considerations here.
In this particular case the staff prepared and submitted
a grant for that Florida Communities Trust Grant program in the amount
that you see. And in honesty, one of the things that helped us to win
that grant was our association with the Gulf Coast Skimmers because
juvenile justice was associated with this grant program this year, and
some of the work that they're doing out there put us in a very good
position in order to be able to get this grant.
The only -- the only decisions that really need to be
made today is the grant can be used for two things. And as you'll
recall, when we purchased the property, we purchased it with a note
against regional park impact fees. And we currently have an
outstanding note of about 1.6 million dollars which we have an annual
debt service payment of just about $225,000 a year that we're paying
-- paying it off. This money can be used to help pay for the land
cost, or it can be used to be put towards the construction.
What we're proposing to you today because of the
directions that we've received from the board to get that project
moving is that we put it towards construction. And I'll tell you the
money that we have available for our construction today in the budget
is $500,000. And that's the $500,000 that we had that was donated
from Hr. Sugden for the project.
With that amount of money, we can actually do the
entrance road, do the restroom building, and a parking lot. And
that's basically what we would have at the end of construction with
that available cash.
With the additional money here from the grant if we put
that towards construction, you will be able to develop the picnic
areas. You'll be able to develop that open play field areas, the
concession building that will include the canoe and paddle boat type
rentals and basically the beach area that the board seems to want to
have as part of that park.
So I think most of the public-type amenities are
contingent upon us being able to use this money for construction.
that's really the only decision that you're faced with today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I '-
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two questions. At the bottom
of the page, it says if any essential term or condition is violated
and we don't correct the violation within 30 days from the date of
written notice, the state can take title to the property. Is that
solely during construction, or is that from now to eternity?
MR. OLLIFF: My understanding of that is now to
eternity, and I think there are some primarily environmental issues
that will be developed as part of what they have as a management
plan. It's the same type language and the same management plan that
we have at Barefoot Beach.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are there any restrictions on
what the state can do with that property should they make a claim and
we don't satisfy it in 30 days and they take title, or could they
theoretically sell the property?
MR. OLLIFF: I'd have to look into that. I don't know
that there are any restrictions other than our own local zoning
ordinances about what could happen to that property.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just would think if -- if
their grant is for us to improve this as a regional park and they have
an understanding of that, that their ultimate goal would be to
maintain it as that as well. And I don't have any objection that if
we have some violation and we've taken nearly $900,000 of the state
money and we don't keep it up that they should take title.
But it seems to me there should be some sort of clause
in there that requires them if they're going to take title to maintain
it for the same purpose in which it was intended. And that gives me
real discomfort. I mean, theoretically down the road, some little
environmental thing doesn't happen in 30 days and the state takes
that, I think that's a real concern to me. I want to get the grant
but --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's what I call a downside.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Perhaps Mr. Weigel can address that
a little more.
Mr. Hancock, do you have questions?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I did. I wanted to ask Mr.
Weigel if the -- if the grant's 800,000, the property value's 1.6
million, the idea that a tie to an $800,000 grant is they can take
property worth 1.6 million under title? I mean, that makes no sense
to me. It may mean they can put a lien against the property. But the
idea of -- of them being able to take title of property twice the
value of the grant should we fail to comply with what they're
asking -- and I don't think we'll have a problem complying with
it -- does -- doesn't that sound a little unusual?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it really just reflects potential
bargaining power of the entities entering into a contractual
agreement.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you answer my question?
MR. WEIGEL: Could you repeat my question, please?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. It's a matter of if --
can we -- I mean, you mentioned their bargaining power. But can we
require that if they were at some point to take title that the
property would remain in its intended use as opposed to the state
having any opportunity to do with it what they would including
selling?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think in the -- in the context of
this agreement if your approval had that proviso that in essence is a
-- an amendment to the agreement as it's -- as it's drafted here and
would go back as a contingency, they could approve it or not on that
basis.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd feel much more
comfortable with that because it doesn't make much sense. If their
intent is to assure that we maintain this appropriately, in their mind
appropriately as an environmentally sound regional park, then they
don't have that -- put that restriction on themselves. That just
doesn't make any sense.
MR. WEIGEL: I won't attempt to speak for them, but I
would expect that they don't have a surreptitious motive.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. -- Mr. Weigel, is it a matter
of practice with these straight -- excuse me, state grants to have
this type of clause in there?
MR. WEIGEL: I can't say that it's a matter of constant
practice.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Uh-huh.
MR. WEIGEL: They get what they can get by with quite
often.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Would another option be to simply
repay the grant if they were not happy with how we were performing?
MR. WEIGEL: Again, that would seem to be a contractible
option.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm under the impression from
this language and the way the grant requests are written that many
people are using the grant money to purchase the property in total.
And that's why this statement is in there. We're talking about -- you
know, so I don't think it applies here. So I think we have a point
that -- that makes sense that we aren't using the grant money to buy
the property in total so the idea the state could take title for
violation is -- is -- is really not applicable.
This -- this -- and let me -- the second thing is under
number -- item number 4 where it says county must restore
approximately 15.75 acres of disturbed upland to its native state,
we're going to take disturbed upland and replant it to make it
upland? Where is this in the -- in the plan? Where -- what part of
the lake are we talking about? Any idea?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The lake itself is not upland. I
just thought I'd point that out.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not today but --
MR. OLLIFF: There -- there's a -- what they call a
scarified area to the -- I believe it's to the south and to the east
on the property that's basically a -- a lime rock stockpiled area --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: -- things that we would probably have to go
back in and replant, some slash pines or some things that were upland
in nature. We would much rather and always prefer to do upland
mitigation than we do wetland. I think it's a much less expensive and
less onerous kind of mitigation.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But my question was does that
area fall into a part of the plan that that would adversely affect
what Mr. Moore and others put together?
MR. OLLIFF: No, no, not --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: -- at all.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And the exotics must also
be eradicated. Obviously we were going to try and remove exotics
through a phased program rather than trying to do the entire lake at
one time. Can we get clarification that a phased plan is acceptable
to meet that criteria?
MR. OLLIFF: I think that would be included as part of
the management plan that's required, and then we were allowed to do
that at Barefoot Beach because of the number of Australian pines and
things there.
What we have anticipated trying to do -- and we've
already talked to them about it -- is actually phasing in replanting
some natives that would grow and provide some shade and some buffer
between the houses and hopefully be able to do that over a number of
years rather than just eliminate what is the whole tree line out there
at one time.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you explain for me number
3, the water quality consideration? What exactly does that mean?
MR. OLLIFF: I'll let Mr. Brinkman deal with that. The
littoral zone is actually an issue that we had to negotiate with them
a little bit about.
MR. BRINKMAN: Yes. They just require that around most
of the lake a littoral zone be established, and that's just allowing a
plant material to grow back up around those areas. The areas that
they would exempt would be where the Skimmers' beach would be and
where our future beach would be. We would not be required to have it
in that area.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what is the water quality
portion of that that it must be protected?
MR. BRINKMAN: Yeah. We have done a number of tests
initially before purchasing the property to make sure that the water
quality was, in fact, good. We would have to contin -- continue to do
that on an annual basis or actually more frequently if we're going to
have bathers in the water. So we would do something on a regular
basis.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have any idea -- idea
how frequently? I just -- in the budget process we kept talking about
doing tests and putting those reports on a shelf and nobody ever uses
them. I had this vision of us doing these weekly tests and spending
money, and I want to make sure that's not what they envision.
MR. OLLIFF: No. We were required to do annuals but
also primarily addressing storm water and the fact that we're not
going to allow this lake to become the storm water drainage spot for
the entire East Naples community, and I think that there are -- you
know, there are certain storm waters that actually do enter that lake,
but I don't think that we're allowed to increase the number of storm
water runoffs into the lake, and that was their big concern.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My -- my comment, I think all of
these are -- these are good points of discussion because what -- in my
reading anyway, page 9 of -- of this, of the agreement, talks about --
well, it's paragraph 5, and it talks about that business about their
being able to take the property back, and it describes under
conditions that will be set out in the conceptual approval agreement
so -- and that's a to-be-signed document. That's not this document.
There's yet to come a conceptual approval agreement in which these
kinds of issues could be addressed. So it's good for you to know what
the board is going to be looking for. But we will get another bite at
that, at the particulars of those.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. I think this is a -- kind of a
cookie cutter document, of course, that's put forward. It's reviewed
for legal sufficiency, and it's legally sufficient. It just obviously
may have some terms that would seem a little bit overbearing.
Tom, you may want to assist me. Further information for
the board, recap, is that when the county took title to this property
and particularly in reference to paragraph 5 on page 9 there which is
the proviso of potentially title going over to the -- to the state
interest, but I believe that when we took title to the property and
also the arrangements we had with the Sugdens that we had limitations
on the -- for the use of the property by virtue of the title that we
took. So if the state were to take the property, horror of horrors,
they would have the limitations that we had with that property.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They can only take what we have,
and that's what we have.
MR. WEIGEL: And -- so they wouldn't have the ability to
put a state building on it or something like that.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And the other -- the other
potential here is that the grant money that we're going to use will be
used for the improvements. Now, do they take title to the
improvements that the grant funded or to the property? And it says
here the project site. So the project site would be right where the
improvements were in this particular case. We can make that argument
I think.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. And as Commissioner Hac'Kie pointed
out with the additional dialogue that will occur with the subsequent
agreement, I think that these things may lend themselves to a
reasonable interpretation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate your comment
that -- that we're bound by our agreement with Mr. Sugden, but I would
like that to clearly be written here so that the state has a clear
understanding of that as well.
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely. Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, as we -- this project
itself is something we're looking long term with, and I don't think
anyone here intends to purposely violate or ignore any objections of
the state. But in worst-case scenario I don't want the state to take
it and -- and do with it what they will. So that needs to be clearly
spelled out I think.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Olliff -- and maybe Mr.
Hoore's the appropriate person to answer this. But when we talk about
restoring or creating a littoral zone which in essence is a shelf for
aquatic vegetation to grow on, most of that lake is covered in
cattails.
MR. OLLIFF: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are we going to have to pull up
cattails, create a shelf, and replant vegetation to meet this
requirement?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're going to do that anyway,
aren't they?
MR. OLLIFF: Actually the place where the cattails are
located is primarily where we're going to have the public beach area
and some of the other picnic areas and that -- and we've already
discussed that with them. Our plan is to actually remove that area of
cattails.
The rest of the area has a small shelf that surrounds
it, and I think their concern is that we're not going to do
development around the entire edge of the lake and simply not allow
plant life to grow for that entire bankment. And that's not our
intention, and I don't think we've ever indicated to you that it was
either.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we get credit for where
that shelf currently exists.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Do we have public speakers, Mr.
Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: None?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to -- is it appropriate
-- do we have a public hearing you have to close? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: No.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or can I move approval of the
item subject to the -- the finalization of the concept approval plan
including these issues that Commissioner Constantine raised regarding
the state's use of the property in the event we should default and not
cure? But I'd like to approve accepting the grant.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You've lost me with that
legal jargon. Let me read what I hear here in item 5. If any
essential term or condition of the grant award agreement is violated
-- and are you telling me that hasn't been written yet, grant award
agreement, or have we filled that out?
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: It has not been written yet.
MR. OLLIFF: No.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The grant -- I'm sorry. The
grant award agreement refers back to in paragraph 3 on page 3 a
conceptual approval agreement to be executed in the future so that I'm
saying that that condition of protecting the use of the property
should be clearly stated in the conceptual approval agreement.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because, again, I think the
ultimate goal is just to make sure that this is going to be a regional
park in perpetuity. And if we can assure that regardless of whether
we have title or the state has title, then I really don't care as long
as it's still serving the public.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's exactly what I
intend. And -- and may I also -- I'd like to include in my motion
that the grant money be used for construction, not for retirement of
the debt.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Do we have a second?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one other question, quick
question. On the -- on the -- the water quality you were talking
about storm water runoff being -- being the primary concern in that
the state probably will not allow us to put any other storm water
drains going to that lake. And that -- that's fine. I guess my
concern is -- thanks -- are we going to be required to improve upon
the existing quality in that lake?
MR. OLLIFF: No. In fact, the water quality of that
lake is surprisingly good.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I know it's good right now.
MR. OLLIFF: And --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: As technology goes down the
road, requirements get more stringent.
MR. OLLIFF: No. And we'll develop that in a little
more detail for you to see as part of the management plan exactly
what's going to be required in terms of monitoring and the water
quality issues.
But I think the concern about storm water and the
concern that we weren't going to turn this into just a power boating
center where you end up with just a lot of engine runoff and things
were their concerns, and I think as long as we're not doing either of
those, then they're going to be satisfied.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Thanks.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will we see --
MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the agreement be -- beyond
the conceptual agreement?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a
second. If there's nothing further, all those in favor signify by
saying aye.
Opposed?
None.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment. Compliments
to Commissioner Norris without whom we wouldn't be at this point to
start with, so I think you deserve a great deal of the credit for
getting us to this point with Sugden Park anyway.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
Item #SD1
CONTRACT 95-2388 TO REMOVE THE EXISTING UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANK
AND INSTALL A NEW UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANK TO FUEL THE EMERGENCY
GENERATOR SERVICING THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - AWARDED TO LAW
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $89,250
That brings us to the former 16(D)(2) which is now
8(D)(1). Commissioner Constantine, you had a question on this one.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just get an explanation
as to why we're doing this? Is this a DEP requirement? We anticipate
being in violation of something, and this is we're a step ahead of the
curve, or why are we replacing this?
MR. CAMP: It has to be replaced -- for the record, Skip
Camp, facilities management director. By law it has to be replaced
within two years. It's part of our program to replace all four of
them that are in violation before the 1998 deadline.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. Motion
to approve the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
None.
Item #8El
ADVISORY BOARDS DESIGNATED FOR ANNUAL REVIEW PER ORDINANCE 92-44 -
APPROVED
Our next item is item 8(E)(1), a recommendation to
approve advisory boards designated for annual review. Commissioner
Constantine, this is your favorite item of the year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had -- I -- I did review these
before today. And actually what we've created is kind of a tracking,
you know, what have you done in the last year and -- and should it
continue. And -- and I'm satisfied with most of the responses on
this. I'm looking for the Citizens' Advisory Task Force --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I was too.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- task force because that's the
one that I -- I flagged for some reason, and I don't know why.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps Mr. Hihalic can help
us with that.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Hihalic, do you have something
to --
MR. HIHALIC: Good morning, commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- offer on that?
MR. HIHALIC: Yes. I'm the liaison for the Citizens'
Advisory Task Force. I'm Greg Hihalic, housing and urban
improvements. And this task force is a requirement of receiving
community development block grant funding. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nevermind.
MR. HIHALIC: Okay. We'd be happy to answer any
questions. We just appointed a new chairman, Vivian Longer, to this
task force.
MR. DORRILL: We have two speakers.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps this is going to be
one of the speakers anyway, but Roy Tuff serves on the Golden Gate
Parkway Beautification Advisory Committee, and I know they've explored
or are in the process of exploring expanding that which would require
an ordinance change. And I don't know if you're going to make comment
to that or if you would make comment to that, Roy, I just want the
board to be aware we may see that back in the next couple of months
some time to do a little change. But it's to further expand their
purpose.
MR. DORRILL: If there are no further questions, Mr.
Tuff is your first speaker. Good morning. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
MR. TUFF: Thank you, Tim. Yeah, I don't have any --
much more to say other than we have -- are in the process of drafting
a new ordinance for our advisory board to proceed in the overseeing of
what could possibly be 951, Santa Barbara, some of the interior roads
inside Golden Gate. We've had public hearing. Like I say, we're in
the process of drafting an ordinance. And we've met nothing but
positive input from all sides. I've not heard one person say that no,
don't -- don't spend our money this way. This wouldn't be a good
thing. So it's all been positive.
And we would like to -- we're developing a master plan
as we speak to take in landscaping -- medium land -- median
landscaping projects for all the, I guess, four-lane roadways in the
Golden Gate area. And when we get that ready, we'll be presenting
that to you, and we'll, of course, need your support or we've wasted
our time. That's all I've got to say unless you've got questions.
MR. DORRILL: We also have a Rita Avalos, Avalos,
A-v-a-l-o-s.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She's coming.
MR. DORRILL: If you'd come forward, please. She's the
chairperson of the Immokalee beautification. Good morning.
MS. AVALOS: Good morning. Good morning,
commissioners. My name is Rita Avalos. I'm chairperson of the
Immokalee lighting -- Immokalee Beautification Committee. We did
remove the lighting section. We're in the process of beautifying 29
from 9th to 1st Street. And there will be an executive summary pre --
prepared for presentation to the board. If there are any questions --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You all are doing a great job.
MS. AVALOS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
we approve the advisory board reports as they're presented.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There are none.
Item #8E2
LEGISLATION UNDER CONSIDERATION TO ESTABLISH A UNIFORM FIRE DISTRICTS'
ACT - LETTER TO BE SENT OPPOSING THIS LEGISLATION
Our next item is 8(E)(2), discussion of legislation
under consideration to establish a uniform fire districts act.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, this was -- has to be on the
agenda today, and my office has contacted Chief Jim Jones who is, I
believe, one of the sponsoring entities. I don't know whether he has
arrived yet.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: He is.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. This bill, by way of introduction,
does a number of things that improve uniform fire district reporting
and enabling legislation statewide. It is my impression that between
Collier and Lee County that we probably have the vast majority of
independent fire districts that are still remaining in the state. And
thus the need coming out of Senator Dudley's district, he has
sponsored this bill for the past several sessions.
The extent to which we have a concern -- and I have
been in touch on two occasions with a -- an attorney who's
representing the Florida Special Districts Association who are -- are
pushing this bill -- deals solely with the matter of EMS.
Currently under Florida law the Board of County
Commissioners reserves the right to review and approve and issue
certificates in public need and necessity for any EMS operation if
certain procedures are adopted by local ordinance.
This bill in particular -- it's my opinion -- would
give independent fire districts the right to get into the EMS business
and respond and treat EMS patients at both the basic life support
level and also an advanced life support level that entails the full
blown paramedic-type procedures.
The only condition that allows for county commission
approval if the bill passes would be a provision that in the event
that same fire district wanted not only to treat but transport that
patient, then they would still need the approval of the local board of
county commissioners in any county in which that is taking place.
By way of background, the Florida Association of
Counties is opposed to the bill and is fighting the bill in
Tallahassee as well as the affiliate agency of the -- I don't know the
exact title, but the Florida EMS directors' association is very active
in that part, and our lobbyist's name is Marcia Jordan whom I imagine
most of you are -- are acquainted with. We had called Chief Jones to
be here today to answer any questions that -- that you might have to
determine what our status on the bill should be. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Chief Jones.
MR. JONES: Good morning. Thank you for the invitation
to be here and hear our side of what we think is a very good proposed
law that will make it uniform for the fire districts.
We have 6 fire districts in Collier County and 17 in Lee
County, so there's many, many counties that have more districts than
we do. Certainly the southwest Florida area as the coast -- the
coastal area from Tampa south has probably more fire districts than
any other part of the state. But there is 51 throughout the state of
independent fire districts so the 6 being in Collier County.
The concerns of the county manager we feel are certainly
unfounded, and I have a letter from Senator Dudley of which I'd like
to give you a copy of.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. JONES: Along with this is a letter from -- along
with this is a letter referenced by Mr. Dotrill. But the -- the --
the -- the concern is in regard to the transportation for explanation
there by Senator Dudley stating that we do not have to -- we cannot --
I mean, the fire districts cannot transport without the authority of
the county commission. Therews no change in that enabling act at all,
in the proposed enabling act.
And if I may read from the enabling act -- excuse me
just a moment. Also Chief Bob Shank is here today, and he may be able
to answer some questions, and I invite him to come up and -- and
participate in this if itws approved by your -- on -- on page -- on
page 12 of the Florida Senate -- Senate bill 374, it says pursuant to
provision of chapter 401, Florida Statutes, county approval shall be
obtained prior to the provision of any emergent transport services.
So therews no change in -- in that regard to the
transportation services that is now performed by the county. And
North Naples -- Iill speak for North Naples -- has no intention of
getting into the transport services in competition with in this case
the county.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, let me ask you, your
concern on the -- the emergency -- the EMS-type issue is what exactly
because this bill does not allow them to transport unless we say they
can transport?
MR. DORRILL: And I -- I fully recognize that, and
thatls why I said -- but thatls the only remaining provision. You
lose your opportunity to -- to govern or determine who and how
prehospital emergency medical service will be governed because this --
the state will take that ability from you as part of the passage of
the bill.
Currently in this county if Chief Jones wanted to get
into the EMS business -- and most of the independent fire districts
for good reason have gotten into the rescue business with firefighters
who are all trained and certified EMTs. But if Chief Jones wanted to
begin to hire paramedics and have paramedics respond and treat
patients under a paramedic protocol with heart defibrillators and --
and transmitting heart signals to the hospital and -- and
administering intravenous drugs, all of those are things that
firefighter EMTs cannot do.
But if they wanted to get in and compete for the EMS
business, he would be able to do that by passage of the -- of the
bill. If he wants to load that patient and then take them to a
hospital, that would be the only area where you would continue to --
to be able to issue that local certificate of need. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: And that -- that is a policy decision that
the board can make. I canlt make that. Itls my job to advise you
that this bill does take away your ability to control EMS systems and
only control who is going to ultimately transport that patient to the
hospital the way that I read the bill.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: But now it doesnlt take away our
right to decide who transports. Thatls clear. MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. So what youlre saying is
that it gives the fire districts the ability to provide advanced life
support if thatls what they want to do which they currently do not
have the right to do now?
MR. DORRILL: Or basic life support. They do not
currently have the ability to provide basic life support under the
protocol that is established by the Naples Community Hospital medical
director.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: So a good question is if the fire
department wanted to do that and they arrived on the scene first, why
would you not want them to do that?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. I don't understand
what's wrong with this. This seems like the possibility for a great
idea. And coupled with the fact, you know, setting aside even the --
the why not let the first on the scene provide as much help as
possible, I've only been through one budget cycle, but EHS is -- is a
very difficult financial -- we have to support it with -- with ad
valorem taxes to a -- a painful level.
As long as there are standards of care -- are there
standards of care? Are we concerned with the quality of care that
they wouldn't be -- forgive me for talking about you in front of you
but that -- that we are concerned with the quality of care that might
be provided, that it's not adequately regulated so that they might
show up and do something wrong?
MR. DORRILL: I don't -- I don't think so. I -- I think
the quality of care is -- is not an issue, and I don't -- I don't -- I
don't think that the issue is, you know, how many -- how many
paramedics would we like or desire to have at the scene of any
emergency. The quality of care ultimately is going to be governed by
the Board of County Commissioners' medical director, and that's why I
said I think it's clearly a policy distinction that you can make.
I will tell you that it is my observation that the
public is generally confused and/or concerned about cost of
government. And while you're not responsible for the costs of
independent fire districts, I think that needs to be taken into
account, albeit a small portion.
But I think that the question of duplication of service,
if you are otherwise ultimately going to be responsible for EHS in
this community, do you really need two ambulances and two sets of
paramedics or firefighters and EHTs at the scene of a call? And I'm
just telling you that that is something that currently you do have the
ability to control. And if this bill passes, you will not have the
ability to control that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And if it -- just to finish up,
if it passes and we don't have the ability to control it, then the
possibility of competition comes into play, and that's a wonderful
thing. And if all we're losing here is -- is control and our control
has created a monopoly that might not be the very best thing for
Collier County, then this seems positive to me.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only downside I can see
is it would depend on which fire districts opted in and which fire
districts opted out because in our EHS service, the money which we
don't collect every year, what -- our ad valorem support traditionally
comes from one or two particular areas of the county where we are
financially supporting that. In North Naples the vast majority of the
people pay their bills when they get EHS service. MR. JONES: We're not talking --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There are some parts of the
county that don't. And my concern is -- I understand what you're
saying. If we compete or if they can get there faster and do it
better, let them do it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But do we then end up
spending the same ad valorem dollar providing far less service?
That's the only downside I can see.
But, I mean, Commissioner Mac'Kie's point is -- is
perfectly legitimate. If I'm lying on the ground at the site of an
automobile accident, I don't care who -- who it is that's responding
to me, whether it's a fire district or whether it's the county, as
long as they get there and attend to my problem.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But you do care about the
training and qualifications of those individuals. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So let me ask this: Chief Jones,
if this bill were enacted as it's currently written -- MR. JONES: Commissioner, may I answer Commissioner
Constantine's concern?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You can do anything you want to.
MR. JONES: Thank you. We're not talking about
collecting monies here. The fire districts has no provisions in this
enabling act to collect any monies. The monies is collected on
transportation. And so, therefore, because there's no ability to
transport without the -- so there's no monies to be collected by the
county -- I mean by the fire districts.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're just headed down -- and
-- and my point -- I appreciate that, but that wasn't my point
anyway. The point was there -- if we have two ambulances report to a
scene and two crews report to a scene, people -- the public as well as
probably these five people sitting here are going to scratch their
head and say, well, that's not really necessary, and it's a logical
next step then to let the first group transport. I know that's not
what you're asking for at this point. But at some point that becomes
a logical step. And then you get into billing, and then you get into
who's paying for what.
So that may not be the immediate indicator, but I think
that's a logical look into the future as to where we're going to be.
MR. JONES: As a fire chief you're seeing -- I mean as a
commissioner you're seeing farther than I am as a fire chief in -- in
concern with the public. I mean, I have concern for the public. But
I'm not seeing that far ahead.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My predominant concern regarding
that -- and you answered one of them -- and that is that the fire
districts can't bill. In other words, you have no -- there's no
financial reason for you to train advanced life support, get there,
administer meds., and then bill somebody. You're telling me you
cannot bill them.
MR. JONES: That's correct. We cannot.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But my further concern -- and,
Commissioner Mac'Kie, you hit the surface on it -- if you sit down
with Dr. Tober and talk about the extent and lengths we go to to
provide a level of patient care and a consistency throughout our
entire system so the personnel that arrive on scene that are
responsible for medic -- medical care have that level of training, I
think you will find that there are a lot of stories out there -- and
I'll call them stories because you can't validate them one way or the
other -- about a first scene responder who did something that had to
be corrected by trained medical personnel. The best intentions don't
always produce the best result.
And my only concern here is not giving up control. As
far as I'm concerned, any time we can take things down to a more local
level, we're doing something good. But when we're talking about a
bill that gives ALS capabilities to the first people on scene and if
those people are not trained under the same umbrella that our medical,
trained medical, responders are trained under, then we have a
consistency problem there. And I -- I'm concerned about it. There's
nothing we can do about it. I mean, if this bill passes and they want
to do it, they can. It's -- it's their -- you know, it's their
taxpayer dollars that they're gonna, you know, pony up in a lawsuit.
So, you know, I'm just -- I'm concerned that that
consistency of training -- if this is enabling something, I want to
make sure that if it's applied it's consistent, and we -- we don't
have the ability to do that. So it's -- again, it's not the bill.
It's the potential application that concerns me of that one aspect.
There are some other things in here that I wanted to ask
about if we're kind of getting off the ambulance aspect. I notice
currently you have a three-member board, Chief?
MR. JONES: Yes, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This --
MR. JONES: All -- all the -- all the districts do in
Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. This allows you to expand
that to five members.
MR. JONES: Yes, it requires you to expand.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It requires you.
MR. JONES: (Mr. Jones nodded head.)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Who pays for that?
MR. JONES: The taxpayers do if there's a cost. You're
talking about the cost of the --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Two -- two more fire
commissioners, I assume you're not going to split the same pay five
ways. You're gonna -- it's gonna be an added expense.
MR. JONES: Added expense. It's $200 a month or it's --
currently we're paying them $200 a month. The -- there's an amount in
here. I --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. It's not a lot of money.
MR. JONES: It may be as much as $500 but no more than
that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, maximum $500 a month. Why
-- why -- why to a five-member board? I'm just curious.
MR. JONES: A -- statewide the -- probably the norm is
five. There's as many as 18 in some of them which is uncontrollable,
and it's absolute -- the -- the state legislatures and the fire chiefs
who -- who drafted this felt that five was an adequate number. And we
see -- we see five sitting here now certainly with more responsibility
than five fire commissioners if we understand that. But I -- I found
that it's better to have five on a committee than it is only three,
and I feel -- I feel -- I feel the same way about this.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: What other parts of this bill to
your knowledge have a financial impact on the taxpayer?
MR. JONES: In Collier County the impact could be an
additional millage, in any counties. But it must go from a
referendum. The -- the current millage caps that are in place in
Collier County is from one to two I think. Currently this gives the
opportunity for fire districts statewide to go to 3.75 after there's
been a referendum, successful referendum, by the voters in that
district. And we can't have a referendum until the county commission
gives us authority to do that as it is now. So there -- there is an
opportunity if the people so desire to go above the current caps.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I have one more procedural
question in -- in how this bill changes process. If two districts
wished to combine services and dissolve their district boundaries,
their process currently how they would go about doing that, how the
voters of those districts or the fire commissioners would want to do
that, how does this bill impact the ability for that to happen?
MR. JONES: It -- it remains the same. And under
chapter 189 the fire commissioners or any other government entities
have the ability to merge by the vote of the elected officials. That
-- that's not recommended, and we did not do that when we merged with
a fire district in the northwest corner of the district, Little
Hickory, Bonita Shores. We had a vote of the -- the public in that
area and a vote of the citizens -- again, the citizens in our area.
And that was how it was merged.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Did the vote --
MR. JONES: And that continued to be in here.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did the vote occur prior to
approval on the state level allowing that to happen?
MR. JONES: No.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or did you have to get approval
on the state level first?
MR. JONES: We had to get approval on the state level to
request the county commission to permit a vote.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And this does not change
that. That same method can occur if this bill were adopted? MR. JONES: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Chief Jones, you said that
there's no possibility for the fire district to charge ambulance fees
at this point?
MR. JONES: It -- you mean currently?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. JONES: No, there's not.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do you charge any fees
whatsoever other than impact fees and ad valorem taxes?
MR. JONES: We charge hydrant maintenance fees. When a
hydrant's installed in an area, we charge that maintenance fee for
hydrants.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do you charge any sort of user
fee?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, there's hazardous material
response.
MR. JONES: If we have a fireworks in the area, display
of fireworks, we have a -- a -- a fee for that, yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I guess in response to your
saying that -- that you cannot charge fees, page 10, section 11 says
to charge user and impact fees authorized by resolution of the board.
There's no referendum required there. You can institute fees if this
passes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Can you do that now by resolution
of your board, Chief?
MR. JONES: Yes, we can.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: User fees?
MR. JONES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So then you do have the
authority right now if you could operate EMS services.
MR. JONES: No, not EMS services. We have the -- we
have the ability, there again, by state legislature action to collect
impact fees and to collect hydrant maintenance fees.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. I'm -- I'm just
concerned that there is a provision in this bill that -- that allows
you to collect user -- user fees and I presume for whatever purpose
you -- you may want.
So while the -- while the county may withhold
transportation authority from you, it still does not prohibit you and
it will not prohibit you from assessing a user fee for EHS or EHT
services you provide to whomever you provide it to. But you say you
can do that now but don't.
MR. JONES: No. I -- I -- we cannot charge a fee for
EHS --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You cannot.
MR. JONES: -- or EHT services.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What about assessments, non-ad
valorem assessments? Do you do those now? MR. JONES: No, we do not do that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But this still gives you the
right to do that, and it also gives you the authority to foreclose on
those assessments.
MR. JONES: The -- currently there's the -- there's only
an assessment or an ad valorem tax -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. JONES: -- that's collected by the fire districts in
-- in Collier County and statewide. It cannot be done -- they cannot
-- both of them cannot be done.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Well, right -- this bill,
section 15 on page 11, says to impose and foreclose non-ad valorem
assessment liens as provided in sections 1 through 13 or to impose,
collect, and enforce non-ad valorem assessments pursuant to chapter
197, Florida Statutes.
Now, I don't know what sections 1 point -- 1 through 13
is, and I don't know what chapter 197 is. Perhaps Mr. Weigel can do
that. But I -- but I can read the words impose and foreclose, and I'm
concerned about that.
MR. JONES: On non-ad -- on -- on assessment, on non-ad
valorem assessment fees.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: On non-ad valorem assessment.
MR. JONES: And -- and I expressed that concern
yesterday to our counsel in Tallahassee, and her -- her reply to me
was -- and I'll be happy to do this -- that it needs to be inserted in
here that we can only collect one or the other of the taxes or the
assessment fees, that no district in the state should be able to
collect both of them.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But right now that's lacking
from this bill.
MR. JONES: It's lacking in this bill currently, and I
-- I -- you know, since you brought that to the floor, I'll be happy
to have that inserted, have it worded, inserted, and we can do that at
this time in the -- in the state legislature. Prior to being --
approval of this we can have that inserted in there. That would give
the ability to only collect one or the other.
And the reason it was -- both of it was put in there,
because some fire districts in the state now have the ability to
collect on assessment fees, and some of them are on ad valorem taxes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, we -- we can -- we can go
on again, and I don't want to belabor it. I think you've already
answered it. But section 9 on page 13 again says taxes, semicolon,
non-ad valorem assessment, semicolon, impact fees, and user fees. The
semicolons tell me that you can have either/or, whatever mix you
choose.
MR. JONES: I'm sorry. I was trying to follow you.
Which -- which section?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Section 9 on page 13. I -- I
guess my concern is this: You're going to have the authority if this
bill passes to assess user fees. And in the most recent history of
the fire districts, the voting public has been unwilling to increase
the cap for -- for ad valorem taxes. Therefore, your -- your other
mechanism for funding is user fees.
And -- and I'm concerned that, again, with the EHS, EHT,
basic life, advanced life, what -- whatever, that you do make a
decision to begin assessing fees. But you can't transport. And then
the -- the county will step in and do the transporting. We're going
to support that with ad valorem taxes on our end. You're gonna assess
probably, possibly user fees on your end to support your budget. And
the -- the user of this service winds up paying twice, and so does the
taxpayer.
MR. JONES: I -- I don't see that occurring. I
absolutely don't see that occurring.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But it allows it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The potential exists.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think it allows it. That's --
that's what the problem is. I mean, you may stand here today and say
in the foreseeable future you don't see it. I agree with that. But
this bill allows it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Chief Jones --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm finished.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I follow the line that
Commissioner Matthews is on, and let me draw a correlation. What --
how do you term -- on, say, the hazardous material response in
Immokalee that occurred when we had the fire out there, under
hazardous material we can recoup those additional expenses from the
property. Is that term currently a user fee?
And I'm trying to -- I'm trying to draw a correlation of
why user fees are -- are in here. The only thing I can think of right
now is we do have, I guess, service fees for services performed such
as hydrant, you know, and so forth. Hazardous materials, is that
currently under legislation termed a user fee when you recoup those
expenses, or do you know that?
MR. JONES: I'm not sure of that. It is a fee that can
-- we can collect.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because there are some
appropriate I guess you could call them user fees and some that scare
the -- the daylights out of -- out of others. And we're trying to
determine if this bill opens the door for -- for other areas that
currently are not available. And that's -- that's really the crux of,
I believe, Commissioner Matthews' questions is does this allow for
something that currently is not allowed for that could double dip and
hit the taxpayer twice.
MR. JONES: I understand.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we're probably not going to
answer that today, but I just -- I guess to put it in a nutshell,
that's -- that's really what we're looking at as far as user fees are
concerned. And we'll probably want some clarification on that. MR. JONES: I will -- excuse me. I will get that
clarification. I'm not sure if those fees now charged are user fees
by definition.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because you don't want to throw
the baby out with the bath water. You don't want to eliminate one
thing that you need such as haz. mat. fees, but you also don't want to
open up Pandora's box. And -- and for someone that's less credible
than yourself in ten years to begin charging something that you stood
here today and said, we don't see that happening, is a possibility.
And that's a concern.
MR. JONES: We currently charge inspection fees and plan
review fees as permitted by the county.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, do we have public
speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Just two. Mr. Vasey or Vasey.
MR. JONES: If I may reserve the right to come back and
answer any other questions that may appear.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Sure.
MR. JONES: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Following Mr. Vasey is Dr. Biles.
MR. VASEY: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, I'm Duke
Vasey. I'm listed in the Naples telephone book as Dennis P. Vasey.
My wife and I have lived in Naples for the past five years since my
retirement. Today I'm speaking as a representative of the Taxpayer
Action Group.
TAG applauds the county fire districts for providing
high quality, effective fire prevention and fire suppression services
consistent with their current enabling legislation. However, TAG
opposes issuance of the certificate of public convenience and
necessity which would authorize the fire districts to transport to
health facilities.
TAG views the transport service currently provided by
the emergency medical service both excellent and cost effective. To
authorize fire districts to also perform this function would be a
duplication of effort and is definitely not cost effective.
There are six independent fire districts and two fire
districts. Each has a separate organization. Each has a -- fire
commissioners, fire chiefs, assistant chiefs, captains, lieutenants,
administrative personnel.
In essence it costs us 17.2 million dollars in ad
valorem taxes. While the fire service budgets have increased
substantially over the last 5 years my living here, their calls have
decreased 18 percent.
On the other hand, EHS has established a reputation for
medical excellence that is recognized throughout the state and is
organized as one consolidated service throughout the county. We pay
6.8 million annually for that service. And in the 5 years since I've
been here, the number of medical calls has increased nearly 65 percent
in the last 5 years.
Emergency medical service has expanded easily and cost
effectively to meet the increased demand at least partially because
it's not encumbered with duplicative organizational structures and the
resulting layers of supervision and management. Emergency fire,
medical, and police services are activated throughout the county by
dialing 911. The 911 operator asks, is this fire, medical, or
police? The caller's reply activates the appropriate organization
which is quickly mobilized.
While fire trucks often show up in response to medical
calls, it's the emergency medical service organization's equipment and
certified emergency medical technicians who are licensed and trained
to stabilize and transport to a health facility. Probably in
recognition of that fact, the current fire service enabling
legislation specifically denies the fire service authority to
transport.
TAG is not aware that county medical transportation
requirements cannot be met by the emergency medical service
department. TAG is opposed to granting a certificate of public
convenience and necessity because it would duplicate service presently
being performed by the emergency medical service department.
Senate bill 374, the bill supporting or mentioned in
this agenda item, and request -- it does provide for a 3.7 mill ad
valorem increase. And your comments about that increase are very
important and germane. TAG believes that the approval of a
certificate of necessary and public convenience will begin an effort
to purchase state-mandated medical equipment not presently owned,
acquire the necessary training for state certification of fire service
personnel, and also purchase suitable vehicles.
Senate bill 374 presented with this agenda item also has
a provision to establish and maintain an emergency medical service as
a customary part of the fire services. It directs the fire service to
employ, train, and equip such personnel and expand impact fee use to
include medical, radial telemetry equipment. Senate bill 374 also
creates a very aggressive fee structure not requiring voter approval.
Creation of a county fire service would provide benefits
and economies of scale not possible under the fragmented system we
currently find in Collier County while eliminating waste without
giving up the flexibility to deal with emergency situations across the
county.
TAG supports the elimination of all duplicated county
functions. In this instance we have an EHS and a fire service that
are -- come to life essentially through ad valorem taxes. TAG
believes that approval of the certificate of public convenience and
necessity would have major cost consequences in Collier County as each
fire district would be required to budget to meet state guidelines to
transport and provide emergency medical service on non-EHS operated
medical equipment, vehicles, and personnel.
Costs relating to the approval of any requests for a
certificate of public convenience and necessity will ultimately become
a tax issue to be decided and paid by the residents of each fire
district. Thank you for consideration.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Vasey.
MR. DORRILL: Dr. Biles is your last speaker.
MS. BILES: Fay Biles. I'm president of the Marco
Island Taxpayers' Association known as HITA.
We also oppose this bill, and I'd like to give you just
a little bit of history how much we have studied this bill. For the
last two years we have contacted the analysis committee in -- in
Tallahassee and have asked for their comments.
As you know, they provide a detailed economic analysis
of every bill that goes through both the House and the Senate. Last
year the comments were that this bill is contradictory. It says in
some cases has to go back to the state. Then later on it says they
can do whatever they want. There are many, many items there that they
have -- they have flagged as having to be changed in the bill for this
year.
MITA also was requested to submit our -- what we saw in
the bill last year so that they could change some of those things, and
we did. We did submit those changes.
I took this year's bill, and I put them side by side,
and I went over them line by line, word for word. Very few changes.
And I'm really disappointed because I think it's one of the most
poorly written bills I've seen in a long time, and I've looked at many
bills and read them. There's contradictory statements back and
forth.
I'm not going to repeat what Duke has said because I was
going to mention that too, but I will go on to say that there are 15
pages in this bill that are devoted to knowing how to get more money
out of taxpayers. Read them, 15 bill -- 15 pages.
They are very detailed. They are the detailed
procedures and provisions that govern the levy, the collection of --
and this year they've added the word special non-ad valorem
assessments. I don't know the difference between an ad -- a non-ad
valorem assessment and a special ad valorem. And I tend to call the
office in Tallahassee and ask them why that word was added this year.
It's added before everything that says assessment.
The issuance of bonds they can do. Just read those
pages that talk about how they can put liens on personal property if
the fees are not collected. User fees are included.
And this year I'm hoping to get an analysis from that
economic office to find out still what is wrong with this bill. It
should not be passed this year. It needs many, many more corrections
before it is acceptable to us. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Dr. Biles? Dr. Biles?
MS. BILES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since you've gone line by line,
page by page which I commend you for and we might want to have you
examined because that's a -- that's a -- MS. BILES: It's a chore.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The -- I'd mentioned earlier
about hazardous material. There are some things that districts can
charge for, special services they can charge for, such as hazardous
material response currently.
MS. BILES: Right, right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you aware of what part of the
legislation allows them to do that? Is it called a user fee anywhere
else? Do you have any knowledge of that?
MS. BILES: No, I don't, but I heard what you have, and
I intend to find that out. I'm going to call the analysis office and
ask them about that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because there's some things in
here that make sense like including charging for responding to false
alarms. And we're seeing this with the sheriff's office, that we
spend a lot of time responding to false alarms, and I'd like to see
things like that --
MS. BILES: Well, they can do that now.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They can charge for that now?
MS. BILES: Oh, yeah, they can impose that now.
Uh-huh. Marco Island does.
I might add, too, that Marco Island has now, you know,
the three-member team in action. And so we do have a firefighter on
the ambulance, and it has certainly cut down on the number of fire
engines and the horns and all the traffic there that have been -- you
know, people on Marco have been complaining about that for years.
It's a small island. I think that should be spread throughout the
whole county, but I know people feel it's expensive or whatever. But
I think we have to start working together, and I think this
duplication of effort is hurting us all.
There's one line that was added at the very end of this
bill, the very last line. If you look at that line, it says something
to the effect that the fire district will control traffic or control
the situation -- of course now with a fire we expect that -- and any
other emergency. Now, that would include EMS. And I take issue with
that. I think that's kind of a -- a point that should be explored
because I can't see if somebody's life is in danger it certainly would
be the EMS that would be controlling the situation, not the fire
company in that -- in that instance. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, while the
intent of some of the portions of this are good, I think it puts the
taxpayer at risk and puts a number of burdens on -- I'll cut to the
chase. I'll make a motion we --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second that motion if it's
what I think it is.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion that we
send a letter to Senator Dudley and through the FAC and through any
other appropriate bodies that we're opposed to this bill, Senate bill
374.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And I think it's -- the letter
should reflect that we're -- that your opposition to this bill is in
its current form because as you mentioned -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- there are -- there are aspects
of the bill that are positive, but there are some that --that need
further clarification before it goes forward. Is that what you want
in the letter?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second that change as
well.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
And opposed?
There's none.
We'll take a very short break.
(A short break was held.)
Item #8E3
RESOLUTION 96-158 DESIGNATING THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT TO MONITOR
ARBITRAGE CALCULATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CLERK TO OBTAIN SECOND
OPINION SERVICES FROM ERNST & YOUNG AT NO COST - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We'll reconvene our meeting. Mr.
Dotrill, we're ready to go to item 8(E)(3).
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can it -- can I comment on that
one as we get started because I think that's one that's generated from
the board as a request to let's please find out some answers to some
of the questions on the arbitrage issues and exactly -- with the goal
being obviously there were mistakes. There -- something was broken in
the system. Let's identify it and solve it.
So first to be able to solve the problem we have to
identify what was broken, so that's -- as a general concept, that's
what I'm going to be looking for today, and I have some specific
questions on it, but that's where I hope we get.
MR. HCNEES: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, commissioners,
Mike HcNees from the county manager's office. What I'd like to do is
first answer what I think are the two major questions that you asked
us to respond to you on.
And then when I finish with that -- that will be
relatively brief -- I agree with you completely. Where we need to get
to today is what to do next and how to make sure we don't have a
similar reoccurrence, although I think one thing we need to understand
through here is just exactly what is it that occurred that we want to
make sure it doesn't reoccur. And like I said, there may be some
question as to that.
Secondly, there have been a couple other questions that
have come up as we've done our staff review of this issue, and I'm
going to put those on the table here so that you at least understand
what they are. If you have further interest in them, fine. If -- if
you don't think they merit further study, then that's fine as well.
We'll -- we'll take your direction on that.
The two questions that -- that we sought to answer for
you were, one, who had particular responsibility for some of these
arbitrage accounting, tracking, and reporting issues so that we could
determine clearly for the future who -- whose responsibility that
would be so that we wouldn't have a recurrence of some sort a
problem.
The second question that you asked us to study was there
was a fiscal year 1992 management letter that resulted from the
county's external audit that referenced potential arbitrage rebate
problems. And you wanted to know why there was no further comment on
that in the following fiscal year.
I'll answer the first question first. Mr. Brock
referred in his presentation a couple of weeks ago to a document
called the arbitrage certificate that is a closing document as part of
certain county bond issues wherein he referenced a reference to the
agent of the county or that the county had certain arbitrage
responsibilities.
And in looking at that statement, it's relatively clear,
at least from our staff's point of view, that the agent for the county
in that case is either the clerk's office or the finance director
because, in fact, it is the finance director who executed the document
who is on page 1 of the document specifically identified as deputy
clerk of the Board of County Commissioners and has responsibility for
issuing these bonds.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just interrupt at that
point? One of the primary goals that I want to come out of this is
for this board to adopt a policy so nobody has any question ever again
about who has that responsibility.
So if -- you know, if that's who it is -- and I want a
recommendation from the clerk as well -- it makes sense to me that it
would be the director of -- is that what Mr. Mitchell is? The
director of finance?
MR. MCNEES: Yes, ma'am. That's what I'm about to
recommend to you.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great.
MR. MCNEES: So from a -- from our point of view -- and
I have spoken to prior clerk's office staff who would have been the --
the primary players during the years in question regarding these
arbitrage rebate calculations to the financial advisors, to the
underwriters, to the -- to the -- all the different players in this.
I was at that time budget director and peripherally involved in these
-- in these issues.
I don't think there's any question from a staff point of
view that the accounting, the reporting, and -- and the other related
responsibilities on these issues has been and remains in the hands of
the clerk's office.
In fact, the -- the management letter for the current
year audit identifies again some arbitrage rebate concerns, and the
clerk's own internal document which identifies who the responsible
party is for the answering of that management comment is the finance
director and the controller who are both clerk's employees. So we
feel like that's clear.
In order rather than to argue the specific
responsibilities, we feel like if it -- if it would solve the
situation and make things clearer for the future, we would just ask
that the board pass a resolution stating that.
And if that's -- if that will satisfy Mr. Brock as far
as responsibility for the future, then we feel like that would at
least put an end to the -- to this part of the discussion.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like I said, I'm going to want to
hear his recommendation on that, but that's exactly what makes sense
to me. To the extent there's been a question, it needs to be cleared
up.
MR. MCNEES: And again, that would be our
recommendation. We'd be happy to hear from him on that.
MR. DORRILL: Between the two issues, I -- I want you to
elaborate, too, that -- that I thought that Mr. Brock may have
indicated to us yesterday that several years ago there was one
instance where a -- in that particular bond or commercial paper
application that the chairman signed a document?
MR. HCNEES: Yes. We asked for -- to see some copies of
the actual IRS filings. And there had been an indication, as -- as
Mr. Dotrill said, that perhaps the chairman at that time had signed
the documents, not someone from the finance department.
And in all of the -- the samples that we've been given,
actually it has been the finance director consistently who filed the
actual IRS arbitrage rebate forms. With the exception of the most
recent which were approved a couple weeks ago, the exhibits that we've
been given are unsigned copies. Mr. Mitchell has indicated that
actually Mr. Brock signed those. And so we donwt have evidence that
in the past the -- the chairman has been the signatory on those
forms.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But what would be important is --
is in this resolution that we may consider today is that regardless of
who signs them, regardless, you know, what counts is who -- whose
responsibility is it ultimately to do the calculations, to see that
they're done and to see that the forms are -- are filed so that we
don't get into this again in the future of who did what when. In all
circumstances it needs to be clear.
MR. MCNEES: What I'm saying to you today is at a staff
level I don't think there is or has been a question. But if -- if
your ratifying a resolution clarifying what has been consistent staff
practice will help the situation for the future, we're all for that.
And we think that's probably a good idea.
The second question that you asked us was regarding the
fiscal '92 management letter and why there had been no subsequent year
response to that. And I'm sorry. I don't have hard information for
you. I was only finally able to contact Mrs. Jones from Coopers and
Lybrand who was the external auditor at that time yesterday
afternoon. She indicated -- general --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, was that you tried and
didn't get through?
MR. MCNEES: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. MCNEES: I tried repeatedly. She indicated that to
the best of her memory absent some response from the county there
certainly would have been a repeat comment. And what she indicated
she would have to do is pull their records from storage and go in to
find out just exactly what was the county's response or documentation
that led them to not repeat what would have then been a prior year
comment in the -- in the subsequent management letter.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She couldn't offer you anything
to say what the county's response had been, just that it's normal that
they would leave it in but for a response from the county?
MR. MCNEES: To be perfectly frank, I don't think she
was interested in speculating. I think she wanted to see the
documents before she said anything. And -- and she indicated that she
would be happy to do that and provide that to me some time probably
after today.
So I'll be happy to follow up on that and continue to
stay with her on that and -- and get an answer to that question. I
know you have a concern regarding the auditor's responsibility in all
this. And all I can tell you today is we'll propose and I think
probably with the clerk's office as well to stay after that trail and
find out just exactly what happened in that regard.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, what point does your
office get involved in the potential liability or the need for the
county to bring a lawsuit if there is liability for failure to audit
appropriately?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, upon a review of -- of the -- of the
facts with staff, we'd bring a report to the board asking for a
recommendation providing perhaps alternatives or options. And in
regard to potential litigation, the typical question often asked by
the board is what is the probability of success, one of the hardest
questions to answer of the county attorney, but we would always
attempt to provide some kind of a response to that question or
anticipate that question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you looking into that issue
on -- I mean, are you looking into litigation possibilities in
relation to this problem? Or if not, would you, please?
MR. WEIGEL: Not looking into it up to this point other
than the fact that we've been -- since the agenda item a couple weeks
ago had the concern and certainly been attuned to the issue as well as
the other issues of county responsibility. Be happy to continue in
that regard.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, if I may
ask, before unilateral direction is given to Mr. Weigel on that issue,
maybe we should hear the entire item. And -- and if you'll hold that,
it may be appropriate. I just --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I jump in? I have a
question, Mr. McNees. On -- on the -- on the spreadsheet we were
given a couple weeks ago showing what the arbitrage due, I noted that
there were two specific bonds that were causing -- causing the
problem. And both of those bonds according to the spreadsheet
indicated that the calculator of the arbitrage was either the county
or -- or its designee or the board or its designee. And -- and I
guess my question is -- and I've noted that no bonds since that date
say that. They all say now the clerk or an independent auditor.
But my -- my concern is if we had bonds that said the
county or its designee, was anyone ever -- could you find anything in
the record that indicated we had designated somebody related to those
bonds?
MR. MCNEES: As far as a formal designation, I would say
no. As far as identifying staff members who at that time were making
calculations, yes, clearly and have spoken directly to those people
who were involved at that time. And they believe that that was
clearly their responsibility. Those would have been the person who
was the controller at that time who now no longer works for the county
and -- and Mr. Yonkosky who was then the finance director.
So in terms of a formal designation, a document, so to
speak, no. But in terms of individuals who understood that to have
been their responsibility, yes.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I guess what I would like
to see if the board's going to adopt any sort of policy today as to
who the calculator of these rebates are that -- that we have -- that
we do adopt a policy that includes a designated person or group of
people who will be that calculator and -- and that our -- all future
bond covenants have that group as -- as a calculator.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Yonkosky has acknowledged
it was his responsibility?
MR. MCNEES: He has -- well, a number of these forms
actually bear his signature. Yes, he has acknowledged that the --
these calculations fell in the perview of the finance office during
his term there, yes.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And this -- this may require Mr.
Brock, but -- but I -- I understand that there are even letters to Mr.
Yonkosky saying, you're not doing this job well, you're not doing it
correctly, and that those -- I -- you know, we're not aware of any
response to those?
MR. MCNEES: Perhaps I can finish my little
presentation.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. MCNEES: I may answer some of that for you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good.
MR. HCNEES: And then I'll be happy to answer any other
questions.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm willing to let you do
that, but I just -- finish my question there I guess. He's
acknowledged that it was his responsibility. Does that mean he's
acknowledged he was in error or has acknowledged that he made an error
along the way somewhere?
MR. HCNEES: No, I certainly didn't say that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry?
MR. HCNEES: I certainly did not say that. And I --
again, if I can complete my presentation, I may get to that because
that's -- you're getting now to the core of what re -- what is one of
the remaining issues.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just seems to me if there's a
problem in an area and I acknowledge that area is my responsibility,
there's a logical step there that I would take responsibility for what
it was I was responsible for.
MR. HCNEES: Given those factors, yes, but I'm not -- no
one is -- is alleging at this point those are the factors that we're
talking about.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Perhaps you can clear that up for
us.
MR. HCNEES: Thank you. Following the review that we've
done as a staff on this issue, there are two questions that cause us
some concern at this point. The first one I think is the one that --
that Commissioner Constantine's alluding to.
I have spoken to the underwriters for one of these
issues, the one for which we incurred the largest rebate liability. I
believe it was two hundred and sixty some odd thousand dollars. I
have -- or other members of staff have spoken to the gentleman who was
then the county's financial advisor with Raymond James, Marc Samet.
There seems to be concern among those folks, including
bond counsel, Neighbors, Giblin, that during this process when we
identified a potential rebate or arbitrage problem, that no one spoke
to them regarding the assumptions, the mechanisms that were set up
during the creation of the bond issue. And they're -- they're
concerned, frankly, that is there in some of these cases actually
rebate penalty due.
And if I can boil all that down to one issue, there
seems to be some crying for second opinion on this issue. And it is
my understanding that there is at least one big eight firm that will
do an arbitrage rebate calculation review for no charge and only
charge a fee in cases where you subsequently engage them then to deal
with problem areas that they have identified.
So there -- there seems to be some sentiment here -- and
again, I think now I'm not going to speak for Mr. Yonkosky but maybe I
can represent his position is -- I don't know that he's prepared to
say there were major errors made, that there may be some difference of
opinion over these calculations.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Did you say Neighbors, Giblin was
left out of the -- I thought Neighbors, Giblin was -- weren't they
here, Mr. Brock, and weren't they actively involved in this
calculation process? They -- they are now telling you that they were
left out of the loop?
MR. MCNEES: They became aware that there was an issue
to be discussed one week prior to the issue coming to this board.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. HCNEES: And the -- the investigation, to my
understanding, goes back considerably further than that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure I
understand all -- all the facts as you've stated them. Mr. Yonkosky
has said it was his responsibility. Arthur Andersen, after spending a
year in the books, has said there were errors made, but Mr. Yonkosky
is saying he disagrees with that. MR. HCNEES: I -- I --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And apparently a big eight firm
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's -- that's what I
thought I heard you said.
MR. HCNEES: I prefer not to speak for Mr. Yonkosky. I
-- so maybe I shouldn't. What I will say is there are players, both
underwriters, financial advisors, other parties who are -- who are
central to this issue, who believe that perhaps a second opinion is
appropriate and that it is not necessarily stipulated by those folks
that the Arthur Andersen calculations are precisely correct and that
the money Collier County has paid the IRS is, in fact, due.
I'm not an arbitrage expert. I'm telling you that the
financial experts with whom the county has dealt with on these issues
are asking why didn't we get a second opinion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So they're -- they're
suggesting that perhaps Arthur Andersen made a $677,354.21 error.
MR. HCNEES: That is precisely what they're suggesting.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In a nutshell, your presentation
recommends two things: It recommends clearly identifying from this
point forward who is responsible for the calculation of arbitrage; is
that correct?
MR. HCNEES: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The second thing that you're
recommending based on discussions you've had is that it wouldn't kill
us and it won't cost us a dime to get a second opinion -- MR. HCNEES: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- on whether or not the
arbitrage amount that we payed the IRS is, in fact, accurate. MR. HCNEES: That is correct.
MR. DORRILL: Let me -- let me just clarify that second
point so that the -- the board understands. As -- as part of the
research for today, I had asked Mr. HcNees to speak to anyone who was
in any way responsible for this time in question. And so that we're
clear, he's spoken to representatives from Smith, Barney, Raymond
James, and/or Marc Samet. And I don't know whether it was Raymond
James or Sun Trust Securities who was the board's financial advisor.
Did speak to Mr. Yonkosky; spoke briefly to Miss Jones. And it's my
understanding -- why don't you name the -- the other firm that has
made that representation to us, the other big eight firm.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That would do this on a
contingency basically is what we're talking about?
MR. DORRILL: I'm -- I'll clarify that. What's the name
of the firm?
MR. MCNEES: I wish I could, but I -- I -- it escapes my
mind at the moment.
MR. DORRILL: We -- we have a name, but we'll need to --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Ernst and Young?
MR. HCNEES: Ernst and Young.
MR. DORRILL: And Ernst and Young's specific
representation to the county manager's office is that they will --
will do at no cost a review or the work necessary for a second
opinion.
But then I think the footnote there is that if we pursue
their representation beyond that to attempt to account and/or recover
those funds from the Internal Revenue Service, they fully intend to be
paid for that. But the up-front work that they propose to do is what
I would call or characterize an unsolicited proposal in the hope that
they will get some business out of it if they pursue a recovery.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure I
understand. How -- on what contingency would they expect to be paid?
If they -- say of that 675,000, for example, they found 200,000 of
that in there. How much would they expect to garner?
MR. DORRILL: I don't believe they've represented any of
that to us thus far, and that's why I want you to make -- make sure
you understand. We don't have the back end of that unsolicited
proposal yet other than a willingness to do some business development
work in the hopes that they will get some money.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because what I'm wondering is
Arthur Andersen did roughly a year's work here and -- and if my
recollection is correct from a couple of weeks ago, it was about --
$180,000 was the amount of their work. For someone else to do a
mirror image of that, I find it very hard to believe -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For free?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that they're going to do
it for free. But I also find it hard to believe that Arthur Andersen
just was completely wrong, $677,000 wrong. I'm sure someone may come
up with a different number. It may be 630. It may be 730. But there
may be a different number. But I don't know where they're ever going
to get anywhere close to $180,000. I'm trying to figure out what
makes it worth someone's while to do that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And where were they when Mr.
Brock did RFPs?
MR. DORRILL: They were a proposer and an unsuccessful
one is -- is my understanding.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But they didn't propose free then
or they would have been the lowest bidder.
MR. DORRILL: I don't -- I don't know. For us -- we
have not pursued it in that level of detail aside from -- from an
expression from -- and, Hike, you correct me if I'm wrong -- the
former controller who made a recommendation at one point that this
work be engaged annually at a cost of about $5,000 for -- for any
particular year or the desire on the part of this other firm to do
work for which they have not given us the back half of that equation.
I'm merely --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, let me clearly
understand this. They've -- they've just offered this with what facts
in hand for them? They've gone through the entire report and say,
gosh, we see X, Y, Z error, or they've just heard there's something
going on and think they might come up with a different --
MR. DORRILL: I think it's the latter, but I -- I have
not spoken to the individual.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If I could -- if I could
interject here -- MR. BROCK: Com -- Commissioner, could I -- maybe I
could link --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- those calculations -- those
calculations are so complicated that the likelihood that the final
number might be something different is very, very high. How much
different it's going to be, that's -- that's what we don't know.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, I don't understand what the
board members are getting at here. If someone's offering to give us a
free second opinion, are you going to turn it down? I mean, is that
what you're saying? I believe I'm at a loss here.
MR. BROCK: May I -- may I interject something for a
moment? We spoke to Earnest (sic) and Young who agreed to review the
calculations done by Arthur Andersen, review the process, not redo the
process, review the process. And as I understand it, it was an offer
free of charge.
And I certainly would suggest to this board that if
someone is going to offer their services for nothing to review the
work that we accept that offer as long as there are no strings
attached. But we are in the process of trying to talk to them to see
exactly what it is that they are willing to do. They were, in fact,
one of the firms that responded to our RFP, and they did not get the
bid.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Brock --
MR. BROCK: And as an aside, they didn't agree to do it
for nothing the first time.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Brock, I'd like to ask a
question of the Arthur Andersen representative if I may. MR. BROCK: Sure.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'll have to ask when you
come to the microphone if you'll give your name for the record,
please.
MR. FIELDS: My name's Victor Fields. I'm the audit
manager with Arthur Andersen.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Fields. I think
-- I think some context is appropriate here. What has happened is
the -- an individual responsible for the generation of one of these
bond issues as well as bond counsel feels that there's a protocol that
was -- was -- was missed here, and that's why I want to ask you a
couple of questions. Have you done these type of arbitrage
calculations time and time again for other municipalities?
MR. FIELDS: I have to qualify that. I myself did not
perform the arbitrage calculations because that's not something I have
an expertise in. As Commissioner MAtthews alluded to earlier, they're
very, very complicated. I am an audit manager. These are sections of
the Internal Revenue Code. And Joan DeMArco who I understand has been
present before that board did the work, and she has done a number of
calculations for other municipalities and has worked with our other
clients in the Florida market as well.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Are you familiar with the
process by which these calculations are performed enough to answer
some questions on that, or -- or would you --
MR. FIELDS: I would have to pass on that because that
is beyond my expertise.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let -- let me then just put out
what I have heard and why I am interested in a second opinion. What I
have heard is that typically when these arbitrage calculations are
done, it's fairly normal for bond counsel to be consulted early in the
process in addition to the generator of the bonds to be consulted
early in the process. Whether that's true or not, I don't know. And
that's what I wanted to find out is if in other situations that has
been your course of action. And that's why a second opinion sounds to
me to be in order --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because I hear from one side
that, hey, we weren't consulted and we were the counsel to the board
on these items and -- but I don't know if that's normal procedure or
not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can -- can I --
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, can I ask you a question just
out of curiosity? Who is it that is representing that bond counsel
wasn't consulted?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who says --
MR. BROCK: Who is it that is representing that bond
counsel isn't or wasn't consulted? When we got the draft report from
Arthur Andersen, we immediately contacted bond counsel and provided
them with a copy of the draft for them to go through. I'm -- I'm sort
of perplexed as to who it is that is not --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But didn't you say that was one
week before the board heard the item?
MR. BROCK: But I'm still perplexed as to who it is
that's saying bond counsel wasn't consulted. We had bond counsel here
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, no. Mr. Brock, Mr. Brock,
that's not what I said. I said what I am hearing is that they are to
be consulted earlier in the process.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the question is from
whom are you hearing this.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm hear -- well --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we heard it from Mr.
McNees.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He's holding his hand up.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's who I heard it from.
MR. MCNEES: If I may, I spoke following the meeting two
weeks ago -- in fact, he called me -- directly to the Neighbors,
Giblin representative who was in attendance on that day. He wanted to
make sure that I understood they had only been made aware of this
issue. In fact, he felt like he had -- he had kind of got in a
position where we as his clients didn't know what he was up to, so he
called me to make sure that I understood that he had only found out
about this issue a week before. They had been asked to review some
documents which they did and made a report based on that review.
That's why I have made the statement that I did.
MR. DORRILL: It should be clear, though. They called
us. They called us as a result of a concern that they had that they
are under contract to the Board of County Commissioners. And neither
the county manager nor the county attorney knew that they had been
asked to do work. They assumed that we knew that they were asked to
do work a week prior to the item being on the agenda two Tuesdays
ago.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And again, my statement is in no
way an indictment of the process but merely a clarification. And
unfortunately, the people who normally do that aren't -- aren't here.
So I don't know if that's normal process or not. That -- that was
just the focus of my question. Is that fairly normal, or are they
normally contacted when you start the process? And as you said,
you're not qualified to answer that.
MR. FIELDS: I cannot answer that because it's --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just as a general comment, what
-- what kind of set me off a little bit here this morning is the --
the focus of this discussion is supposed to be to figure out what was
broken and identify how to fix it. We know that that's going to be by
identifying whose responsibility it is to do these calculations going
forward. And to do that we have to identify whose responsibility was
it in the past. We've -- we've gotten that much. We know it was the
director of finance which at the time was Mr. Yonkosky.
So -- and we will adopt some form of a resolution to
address the problem in -- in the future to clarify that. Nobody's got
any problems -- I don't hear any problems with if every CPA firm in
the world wants to be sure we're not overpaying, everybody wants to do
that.
The problem that I'm having with this discussion is that
it's turning into finger pointing that -- and too much trying to cover
your own behind here because the -- the issue shouldn't be -- nobody
could possibly be alleging that we did this completely right before.
We have not done this right before. We did it wrong. We may owe 677,
or we may owe 673.
But -- but I don't think it's appropriate for anybody to
be acting like there was really nothing wrong and another firm is --
you know, they want to show up and say, gosh, we think Mr. Yonkosky
did it all just right. Anybody who's suggesting that I think is -- is
way off base.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a little aside. Does
Mr. Yonkosky assert -- do you know, Mr. McNees? -- that the 220,000
overpayment that we made was correct as well?
MR. MCNEES: I can't answer that. I don't think he
would stipulate to an overpayment, but again, I --
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, may I make a suggestion? I
mean, it seems to be that we're getting detracted from what I think is
the real purpose of this. And that is if, in fact, we have an
opportunity to have someone review the work that was done by Arthur
Andersen at no cost, I will go back to Earnest and Young and ask them
to look at it. And prior to me doing that, I will have conversations
with Earnest and Young, see what it is that they are, in fact, willing
to do, and come back and talk to you about it.
If, in fact, Arthur Andersen's calculations are not
correct, I would be the last person to suggest that we should not, in
fact, do something to correct that. And I think that as opposed to
standing up here and arguing about this that that would be, if the
board is agreeable, the way to deal with this. And I will go talk to
Earnest and Young.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I've heard the terms finger
pointing and arguing, and neither of those is what I -- you know, I
asked a question.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I wasn't talking about you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wanted to put cards on the
table as to why I thought a review was necessary. That's all.
MR. BROCK: And I think that is a very legitimate
request if, in fact, we can get that done for nothing.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman --
MR. BROCK: So I -- you know, I will -- I will be glad
to do that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, can I ask Mr.
Brock a simple question? MR. BROCK: Certainly.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think it's simple.
MR. BROCK: I'm not sure any of this is simple.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You -- compared to the
calculations they are. MR. BROCK: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You're going to find out from
Ernst and Young the whole picture that they're offering. MR. BROCK: That is correct.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. And -- and whether there
will be a requirement for Collier County to take action on their
findings within whatever they agreed to do. MR. BROCK: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: My question is we've already
devoted or you've already devoted a significant amount of staff time
to the calculations that have been done.
MR. BROCK: An unbelievable amount of staff time.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Now, my -- is Ernst and Young
merely going to review the report with a limited amount of staff
time?
MR. BROCK: I have not gotten into the specifics.
That's the thing that I need to do. And when I find out what it is
that they're really willing to offer, we'll come back and talk about
it further.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just make sure I
understand one thing? My recollection of your presentation a couple
of weeks back was not so -- not only that some of the calculations
were done -- done improperly but there were -- there were several
calculations that were never done at all and --
MR. BROCK: I mean, Commissioner, I think if -- and if
you'll give me an opportunity to go through the bond covenants and
everything, I think you will get more insight into what, in fact,
wasn't done. And I think you're correct. No, I know you're correct.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that's just on the point of
that we can't sit here today and act like perhaps really there was
nothing wrong after all. There was something wrong. We did something
-- we haven't done it correctly. Now we're gonna focus and identify
what it was, and nobody's questioning if we're gonna get -- get it
down to the last penny. But I'm ready to hear from the clerk if you
are.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: What do you -- do you have a
presentation for us, Mr. Brock? MR. BROCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: How long do you anticipate that to
take?
MR. BROCK: I guess it will depend in large part upon
the questions that I get, but it's going to take probably 15 minutes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do the presentation and we'll
ask questions at the conclusion.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yeah. Let's -- let's let -- let's
let the clerk go through his entire presentation without interruption,
and then we'll ask him questions later. We could maybe get through it
quicker.
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, as to who the responsibility
of doing the arbitrage calculations were, that rests solely within the
parameters of your bond documents and specifically the bond
resolution.
To give you a history, when this county originally
started issuing bonds back in '86, the first couple of the bond
issues, one of which I'm going to show you in a moment, clearly said
that it was the clerk of the circuit court, said clerk, the clerk's
responsibility to do the calculations.
The next progression in the bond issuance and the
resolutions that took place here in this county says the county shall
calculate. And I'm going to go through -- and this is one of the
issues that Arthur Andersen calculated that we owed a rebate. This
particular rebate was due in nineteen and ninety-two. It is the
capital improvement bond.
Okay. Commissioners, if you will look -- if you will
look at section H, this is an amend -- an addition to an original bond
resolution. And if you will look at the two last sentences, monies
shall be transferred to and from the rebate fund, and monies in the
rebate fund shall be invested in such a manner as shall be provided in
the certificates of arbitrage.
Now, if you will recall the conversation that Mr. HcNees
had with you, the certificate of arbitrage was the document that was
signed by Mr. Yonkosky. That is the document which identifies the
process by which arbitrage shall be done.
It goes on to say that the issuer agrees to take all
actions necessary to maintain the exemptions of the interest on the
bonds from federal income taxation including without limitation
complying with all of the applicable provisions of the tax reform act
of nineteen and eighty-six.
Okay. Now, the issuer -- without showing you that, I'll
tell you that the issuer is defined in the documents as Collier
County.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. -- I'm not going to
interrupt. I'm sorry.
MR. BROCK: Do you want me to show you -- I'll figure it
out here in a minute. There is -- if you look at the bottom, issuer
shall mean Collier County, Florida.
What I'm fixing to show you now is the --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Help him, Jim.
MS. BILES: He's never been a teacher.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They don't --
MR. BROCK: That's true.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They don't give us that in law
school.
MR. BROCK: What I'm fixing to show you now is the
arbitrage certificate. This is the document that was signed by Mr.
Yonkosky which in the bond resolution this board or the board that
passed the resolution, the bond resolution, agreed to comply with;
okay?
And it says in here -- and where I was referring to the
county or its -- or its designated agent, if you will look at that, it
says, the county or its designated agent shall administer the rebate
fund and continuously invest all amounts held in excess account,
earnings account, and authorized investments. Okay. If you look at
that, that doesn't make any reference whatsoever to the calculations.
If you look at the next paragraph which is paragraph --
paragraph 3, when -- within 20 days after any calculation date, the
county shall calculate.
Okay. And having said this, let me make it clear to
everyone that from my perspective as the clerk of the circuit court
and as an elected official by the people of this community, it is just
as much my responsibility from a practical standpoint as it is anyone
else to ensure this county operates the way that it should. But in
terms of people saying that it is legally the clerk's responsibility
to do the calculation, I think there needs to be some explaining.
If you look at section 5, you see the very same
language. The county shall at the same time calculate the excess
account requirement.
Now, if you look at the definition section of the
resolution, there is a definition of clerk. The issues that preceded
this issue had very unequivocally the clerk of the circuit court was
to do the calculations. These issues changed that to say the county.
And in the definition section of the resolution, it defines what the
clerk is. I suspect from the standpoint of a lawyer that if, in fact,
it was intended to be the clerk who was the primary responsible party,
that they would have used the word that they had defined.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that's -- oh, I'm sorry.
MR. BROCK: But if you go to the emergency ordinance
that was passed by the Board of County Commissioners with reference to
this particular project, you look down at the bottom section 1. The
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, hereinafter
respectively called board and county.
Now, the other issue in which we -- we were -- which
Arthur Andersen determined that we had a large rebate due the federal
government was essentially the same language that we have here in this
particular scenario. I'll be glad to go through that if you want to.
But in the interest of brevity, I will skip that one and go to one in
which the clerk was designated.
If you go to this particular bond issue and look at the
language that is used in this bond issue, it says, on each rebate
determination date, the clerk shall calculate and determine, "A", the
actual earnings. It basically substitutes clerk for county.
This preceded the bond issue that I just showed you.
Without going through all of the documents in that particular bond
issue, it's a resolution where the board agreed to comply with all of
the terms and conditions of the arbitrage certificate and the
arbitrage certificate itself. I mean, they're essentially the same.
What we have moved to since -- as a natural progression,
I suspect, as the arbitrage laws evolved and became a little more
complicated, what we moved from was the clerk to the county and the
county having the responsibility of identifying who was going to do
that through the natural progression of requiring that it be done
independently.
Now, this is a line of credit revenue note, series D-3.
If you look at section 3.03, tax covenant, in order to maintain -- let
me see -- maintain the exclusion -- it goes on to say that basically
the county will comply with the provisions of the arbitrage
certificate. This is the document which is comparable to the
resolution.
Now, this is the arbitrage certificate and the rebate
requirements. The county shall pay to the United States government
the amounts determined to the rebatable arbitrage for purposes of
determining the rebatable arbitrage. The county hereby covenants to
cause the calculations to be made by competent tax counsel or other
financial or accounting advisors, independent bodies, to ensure
correct application of the rules contained in the code and the
treasury reg -- regulations relating to arbitrage.
Now, that is overwhelmingly the language that is
contained in all of the bond issues that are presently out there. In
nineteen and ninety-two, there were three of -- no, there were five
issues that required that calculation to be made, none of which we
have been able to determine were ever made by either of those three
parties.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you put that last slide
up again just for a minute, please? Thank you.
MR. BROCK: In going through the process of trying to
find out what had taken place in the county in terms of the arbitrage
calculation, we went back and researched documents. In as early as
nineteen and ninety-one, Hay the 30th of nineteen and ninety-one, we
found a letter from Coopers and Lybrand to John Yonkosky suggesting
that, in fact, calculations should be done annually and by someone
independent and competent.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is 19917
MR. BROCK: The date of the letter is Hay the 30th,
nineteen and ninety-one. Can I change?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yeah, sure.
MR. BROCK: I mean, do you all want to go through the
entire letter?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We'll take your word for it.
MR. BROCK: On December the 3rd, 1991, we discovered a
letter from a Kathy Ream who was in 1991 the comptroller of the
finance department in the clerk's office under Mr. Yonkosky to a
member of your staff, a Mr. Harry Huber, in which she very clearly
tells him that in her opinion that there is, in fact, an arbitrage
rebate that is going to be due as we have now discovered based upon
Arthur Andersen's evaluation, that that was, in fact, due in nineteen
and ninety-three and was not ever calculated or filed.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Dwight (sic), would you --
would you read the last sentence of the third paragraph?
MR. BROCK: The IRS code deals with arbitrage in two
general ways.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Just the last par -- just the
last sentence of that paragraph.
MR. BROCK: If the arbitrage profits are not rebated to
the federal government, the tax exempt issue may become taxable to the
bond holders.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. BROCK: I think that language is contained in every
bond covenant that is out there or in every -- I don't know whether
it's the covenant portion, but it's in the issue portion.
Now, that became due, as I said, in nineteen and
ninety-three at the end of the fiscal year and had to be paid. It was
never calculated, and it was never paid.
In addition, we found a letter from Earnest and Young to
Mr. Yonkosky on May the 5th, nineteen and ninety-two. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Ernst and Young?
MR. BROCK: Earnest and Young. The letter says, I have
had several phone conversations during the past ten days with your
financial advisor, MArc Samet of Raymond James, regarding the
above-captioned issue. The fact that in each case Collier County
chose the penalty in lieu of rebate option with the understanding that
if the county did not spend the available construction proceeds on the
prescribed time table that at each six month -- six-month anniversary
from the date of delivery of each issue the county would cal --
calculate and pay the penalty due the U.S. Treasury within 60 days.
From my conversations about the two above-captioned
issues, I understand that the county has not made the calculation
and/or paid the U.S. Treasury the amount of penalty identified. The
Internal Revenue Code is not particularly lenient in such situations.
And, therefore, I cannot help but encourage you to rectify this
situation as soon as possible.
The two issues that we are talking about here are the
two issues in which we overpaid based upon Arthur Andersen's
calculations by $200,000. I think one of these particular issues were
two reporting periods behind at this point in time, and one was one --
I believe one behind at this point in time. So --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you going to show us a
response to that?
MR. BROCK: No, ma'am, I'm not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why?
MR. BROCK: Unfortunately I was not able to find a
response to this. There was -- as far as we can determine, no one
hired or paid to do those calculations. Now, these are nineteen and
ninety-one and nineteen and ninety-two when it's pointed out that we
have problems with these. And in nineteen and ninety-two, according
to Arthur Andersen, we had a major hit on one of the issues. In
nineteen and ninety-three we also had a major hit.
On December the 28th, nineteen and ninety-three, John
Yonkosky filed a report on one of these bond issues which overpaid,
according to Arthur Andersen's calculations, the penalty in lieu of
for that particular issue.
So I do not argue with or question or have any
disagreement whatsoever with Mr. McNees that apparently someone over
in the finance department, i.e., Mr. Yonkosky, was of the impression
that it was his responsibility to do this. But it was not taking
place properly based upon what Arthur Andersen has told me and my
reading of the bond covenants. Question.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Does that conclude your
presentation?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just on your final comments
there, calculations weren't made though required at all for about two
years from the time of notification and then when they were -- when
those calculations were made they were in error, and we overpaid the
federal government by a couple hundred thousand dollars.
MR. BROCK: That is correct. Commissioner, when I say
there were no calculations made, that's not really correct I don't
think. I mean, we found some documentation over in the clerk's office
that we provided to Arthur Andersen which appeared to be what was an
attempt to do something. But when we gave it to Arthur Andersen, the
response was, there's nothing been done. So we started out from
scratch.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Based on the -- the progression
you went through where sometimes the word county was used and
sometimes the clerk and sometimes the third set of wording, what
you're saying is that you're not -- there's no argument that the at
least perception among everyone was that the clerk's office was
responsible or -- or someone in the finance department was responsible
for doing the arbitrage, but you're saying it was just done wrong.
MR. BROCK: Well, I'm -- I think there were a lot of
people that thought there was some responsibility. If you will note
your -- the county's, not yours, but I mean the county's financial
advisor was involved in this. I mean, he was contacting firms to do
it that was sending letters back to the finance department in 19 --
was it '92 or '917
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: '91.
MR. BROCK: 1991 telling them they were a problem. I
mean, there were people that were involved in this, and it appears
that they were people over in the clerk's office that thought that
they were doing what was right. And, you know, fortunately or
unfortunately -- I think very unfortunately for us -- you know, we
have -- or very fortunately for us at this point in time we have taken
what action we could to try to ensure that this never happens again,
to correct it.
As to passing a resolution that the clerk of the circuit
court is responsible for the calculation, I have a problem with that.
And here's the problem that I have with that. I think your bond
covenants require that it be done by an independent party, bond
counsel, financial advisor, or an accountant. I don't have a problem
with the clerk of the circuit court being responsible for the
monitoring of that and ensuring that that takes place. And I think
that is appropriately where that function should lie.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Brock, let me see if I
understood one of the points that you were trying to make with your
documents that you showed us in the language there where it
differentiated between the definitions of clerk and the definition of
county. You -- you seem to be -- and correct me if this is not the
point you were trying to make, but you seem to be indicating that that
was to place the responsibility for those particular issues on the
board of commissioners and not the clerk of courts. Was that your
point?
MR. BROCK: No, Commissioner. Commissioner, you want me
to tell you, you know, my real feelings about that? That stuff is
created by bond counsel.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Uh-huh.
MR. BROCK: It's generated by them. You've probably
signed one. I'm sure -- well, no, I'm positive Mr. Constantine has
signed them. They're created by bond counsel. They're brought in
there to your desk, and you affix your signature to them. And, you
know, let's be realistic. You don't go through those and read all of
those and understand exactly what is taking place in that.
You know, the ultimate responsibility rests upon all of
us. It rests upon the elected officials of Collier County, the clerk,
the board, and everybody else. I don't want to stand up here and
think and you think for a minute I'm trying to point the finger at you
and say it was you, it was you or it was me, it was me. It's the
elected officials of Collier County's responsibility to ensure that we
comply with all of those bond covenants.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, then what was the point that
you were trying to make?
MR. BROCK: I have a difference of agreement with staff
that it is real clear that it was the clerk's responsibility based
upon the law in the covenants. That was the only point I was trying
to make. I don't think it is that clear at all.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Was it -- was it clear to you,
though?
MR. BROCK: I just said no, it is not that clear to me
that that's what is required in the legal documents.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. All right. Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My question on that point is --
is were there different drafters perhaps. I mean, were there
different drafters in those different issues, or was that a
progression in change of policy?
MR. BROCK: I think there were a couple of issues that
started out with the clerk. Three issues started out with the clerk.
Then it was a progression to two issues that went to that language --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The county.
MR. BROCK: -- and then it went to the other language.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- and -- and I need to
understand, Mr. Brock, your -- on the issue of a resolution saying
whose responsibility this is going to be, my feeling is that it should
be your responsibility. And then if you hire independent people to do
it, I think that should be in your judgment.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But our -- our covenants say
independent.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, on the existing, but now
what we're talking about is establishing a policy for what our
covenants are going to say in the future. So I'd like a
recommendation from you about that, but that's what I believe is that
you're the chief financial officer. It's your responsibility. And if
you think it needs to be hired out, you hire it out. Otherwise do it
in-house.
MR. BROCK: If I have any voice in that particular
decision-making process, I would like to suggest to you that that be
done by some independent source. That is a very complicated,
complicated, complicated process.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But who's going to review that?
MR. BROCK: And I certainly do not have and neither does
this county have the money to hire someone with that type of expertise
for that limited purpose if I'm understanding you correct.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Almost.
MR. BROCK: But I mean I don't -- I think conceptually
we agree that the clerk should be responsible for monitoring that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I'm talking about.
MR. BROCK: But, you know, you as the Board of County
Commissioners -- I don't want to be in a posture and I don't think any
clerk should be in the posture of coming out here and saying, well,
you do this. I had rather leave that with the Board of County
Commissioners to make the determination of who it is that does that.
I mean, you're principally the policy makers of this county, and I
think that's the way that it should be left. You know, I perform
essentially a ministerial function. And I think that conceptually and
in the constitution and the statutes, that's the way that it was set
out and frameworked.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me -- let me just be
perfectly clear. What I'm saying is as one of the policy makers, I
would like for the policy to be that the chief financial officer, the
clerk, is the overseer, is the -- has the responsibility of ensuring
that this is done. I don't think it should be the county manager's
function. I don't think it should be the chairman of the board's
function. I think it should be your function to monitor and oversee
that process.
MR. BROCK: And I agree.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's what I hope to make
clear.
MR. BROCK: And I agree.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let's see if we can bring this to
closure. What are we going to do here today? What's the pleasure of
the board?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I'd look to adopt a
resolution along the lines of what I just described with -- with Mr.
Brock for going forward.
Okay. I move that going forward that it's the official
policy of Collier County that the clerk to the board, the clerk of the
circuit court in his capacity as the ex officio clerk to the Board of
County Commissioners, has the responsibility for ensuring compliance
with bond covenants, whether he does that in his office or through
outside experts but that the responsibility lay with the clerk.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And let me ask a question on that.
Since the outside auditor, I believe, is hired by the Board of County
Commissioners, how does that -- does that allow the clerk to -- to
hire the out -- same outside auditor for extra work to be done such as
what is being proposed here?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think that's -- what my
intention is -- again, we get so set up in this us and them stuff.
Mr. Brock is the clerk separate from us, but he also serves as the
clerk to the Board of County Commissioners. It's one of his many
titles.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Let me ask a question.
MR. BROCK: Hay I -- may I answer I think Commissioner
Norris's question? The Florida statute provides that the Board of
County Commissioners will hire the external auditor. There is a
structured process -- I think it's chapter 11 of Florida statute --
that we go through in hiring the external auditors for the county.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman?
MR. BROCK: And the board is the one that enters into
that contract.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, you know, but my question is
does the clerk then have the authority to say, well, I've decided that
we better have these calculations done by the outside auditor.
Therefore, I'm unilaterally going to authorize that? That's my
question. Does that take -- does that take approval by the board? MR. BROCK: I do not know.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Just a procedural -- Commissioner
Hac'Kie, I understand your impatience here -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, no.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- but we're trying to make sure
that we comply with the law.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm so sorry, Mr. Norris. That
was on a completely --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- different -- that sigh was not
intended --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- to have any editorial
comment. It was something Mr. Constantine and I --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it was hunger speaking.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm so sorry.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I'm hungry too.
Can someone answer that for me, please?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it needs to be structured
whichever way we see fit.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, could I ask Mr.
Brock a question?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Sure. Well, could I get answer to
my question, please?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I think my question
addresses your question from -- from a different direction. I -- I
believe that as you were putting the covenants up on -- up there I was
seeing something that related that these calculations are supposed to
be made annually and money put into a reserve fund or trust funds.
MR. BROCK: Some of them say annually, and some of them
say five years.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Some say five years?
MR. BROCK: I think most of the ones that are out there
now say five years.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But most calculations are done
annually.
MR. BROCK: But, I mean, you know, there's going to have
to be a calculation done annually. They're going to have to go back
and do the bond year, so it only makes sense that you keep doing them
annually so that at the end of five years you've got everything tied
together.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Brock, would it be
appropriate that -- that this board when it hires its outside auditor
include within the scope of work to be done this calculation?
MR. BROCK: I think that would be very appropriate.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that we just include it in
the scope of the work --
MR. BROCK: I think that would be an excellent idea.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and it gets done every year.
Thank you. That --
MR. BROCK: I mean, the external auditors are not going
to issue an opinion until they make a determination that there is no
liability out there that has not been identified. So, you know --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But Coopers and Lybrand did.
Coopers and Lybrand did every year after 1992.
MR. BROCK: That's true.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go figure.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, then either Commissioner
Hac'Kie's resolution needs to be amended to reflect what Commissioner
Hatthews just said or --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I would ask the -- the
motion maker to broaden the motion to include a widening of the scope
of our audit each year to include the calculations.
MR. BROCK: We work very closely with the external
auditors in the audit process, and we can work very closely with them
in terms of ensuring that this takes place. If you will look at the
audit agreement, scope of services, it requires compliance with bond
covenant.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I'd be happy to include that
with the -- with the understanding that we're not -- I don't -- I
don't want to make any -- any -- I don't want to raise any question
about the fact that that's already been in the scope of services with
our auditors. And if --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Compliance.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- they fail to do that --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Compliance, not the
calculation.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I see. Compliance, not
calculations.
MR. BROCK: Correct.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So I do amend my motion to
include -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Could I please have an
answer to my question, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I'll try. And if I don't answer the
question, please restate, and I'll defer it probably. But I think one
of your -- part of your question was in regard to the hiring of the
outside -- hiring of the outside expert or auditor to review these
arbitrage and bond requirements is will that be -- is that a county,
i.e., a board contract as opposed to something that you by this
resolution possibly would be delegating to the clerk?
I would suggest that it continue to be a board
contract. That keeps in keeping with the general policy anyway that
the board enters into contracts with the outside experts for these
kinds of things.
And, however, I think perhaps the gist of the resolution
that you're aiming toward here is that the clerk be responsible so
that if there is an additional contract or any kind of contract that's
not already in place such as with our current external auditor that it
will be the clerk's responsibility to see to it that the board timely
enters into that contract so that the functions can be performed in a
timely or anticipatory manner.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I think that's --
MR. BROCK: Here, here.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I think that's the intent of the
motion. The -- but to make sure I understand the current and previous
answer to that question not counting what we may do to change it in
the resolution today, the answer to the question up to this point has
been that the clerk does or does not have the authority to request and
authorize and pay for work done by the outside auditor.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's truly the 64 dollar question.
In regard to the recent contract with Arthur Andersen, I can reflect
on the recent history that the clerk came back to the board to get
authorization for the payment of that contract. Mr. Brock can assist
in regard to the fact that I believe that that was probably a contract
with the Board of County Commissioners as opposed to a contract with
the clerk.
I will state that I don't recall that -- that it had
been to the Board of County Commissioners or reviewed by staff prior
to this time including county attorney staff. And again, not to speak
for Mr. Brock, I know that he had kind of a confidential manner to --
to accomplish the task of getting the job done.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. Do we have a
public speaker?
MR. DORRILL: You -- you have one.
MR. BROCK: Before this moves on, the contract that I
had with Arthur Andersen was a contract with the clerk's office. If,
in fact -- you know, I entered into the contract with Arthur Andersen
with my eyes opening -- open knowing that if, in fact, I was unable to
get from the Board of County Commissioners the funding which I didn't
think I was, that the Board of County Commissioners and I were going
to be in litigation. I did not think that for a second under the
circumstances that that was going to happen because it was required by
the bond covenants, and that would have been a major losing
situation. But I understood the problems. And I dealt with it
because of the circumstances in which I found myself.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we hear from the
public, can we move the video display there? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Go ahead, Mr. Dorrill.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Yonkosky had asked to -- to speak.
MR. YONKOSKY: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name
is John Yonkosky, and I'm here before you today as an individual
rather than as an employee. And the reason that I'm here is that I
heard there was a lynching going on, so I thought I'd come down and
participate and found out that I was being lynched. I -- and that's
my feelings about that.
I have not had one call from either a commissioner or a
member of the staff that put this together that asked me one question
about it. So I have heard two commissioners talk about errors that I
performed and asked if I have admitted it. But no one has asked me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll ask you right now, Mr.
Yonkosky. Mr. McNees alluded -- and that's where my question came
from, is our own staff report.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He said he talked to you.
MR. YONKOSKY: He said he talked to me. He did not say
that I made any errors.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't mind if I finish my
question, do you? Mr. McNees said that you had indicated you believed
it was your responsibility to take care of these. The clerk has
indicated that there were errors, "A", in the way the calculations
were done, and "B", that several of the calculations weren't done.
So the next logical question for me since Mr. McNees was
suggesting you had indeed taken responsibility was have you
acknowledged that there were errors, and have you acknowledged that
some of the work wasn't done? Perhaps you can answer that now.
MR. YONKOSKY: I have not had the opportunity to look at
the calculations that were made. I have not had the opportunity to
review the assumptions that were used by the consultants. I don't
even know that the board has reviewed the assumptions. I don't not
know that the underwriters that were involved with those issues have
been contacted and reviewed the assumptions. I do not know that bond
counsel has re -- reviewed those assumptions. Bond counsel is the one
that gave the opinion on those issues.
And -- and, Commissioner, I fully understand what you're
saying. And I'm not saying -- I'm not trying to be argumentative with
you. All I'm saying is that some issues have been raised, and I was
never contacted with those. That's -- that's all.
But what I would like to do is pursue something a little
bit further in the discussion earlier that the commissioners had about
whether the rebate should be verified by someone else. I would
suggest that the bond issue, the 1988 bond issue, which has generated
a two hundred and fifty or sixty thousand dollar rebate -- I don't
know because none of the information has ever been provided -- was --
when that bond issue was issued in 1988, it was at 8 percent. The
interest rate paid on those bonds was at 8 percent.
In order to generate a $260,000 arbitrage rebate, I
would have had to have earned on the county's investments at that time
probably somewhere in the vicinity of 14 percent. And I have a lot of
confidence in myself, but I doubt very seriously if I came close to
that. As a matter of fact, it was probably more in the vicinity of
below the state board because in 1989 the state board was paying 8.31
percent. And if you paid on your bonds, which you did, 8 percent,
then there's something that doesn't pass the sniff test.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We -- we've all agreed we're
going to have that recalculated, Mr. Yonkosky. Can I -- since we do
have you here, can I ask you a question that -- that came up in the
discussion today was -- I can't even remember who but -- yeah, to Mr.
McNees. A Mrs. Jones at Coopers and Lybrand said -- when asked why
did this red flag about arbitrage appear in the 1992 management letter
and not subsequently, she said, I need to look into it more closely,
but the normal practice would be it would have continued to appear
unless we had received something from Collier County saying take it
out. Do you have any idea what Collier County might have communicated
to her in response to that?
MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, Commissioner. I will offer you what
I think Collier County communicated to the external auditors. Every
year the finance department staff made calculations, not sophisticated
calculations but calculations to see whether or not we really should
go out and get some external people. That was early on in the
process.
Those papers are provided. That particular year, there
was a question coming up about the -- whether or not there was a
rebate payment due on one particular issue. And I don't recall that
issue at the present right now because it's been several years since
I've seen those papers.
I suggest that someone contact Miss Kathy Ream who is a
CPA with Coopers, became an employee in the comptroller of the -- for
the Board of County Commissioners -- she made those calculations --
and ask her if she made the calculations. And I suggest that you get
Phyllis Jones to come here and provide you with them because I'm
telling you that the calculations were made. To the best of my
knowledge they were made and provided, and I believe that that -- that
those calculations were made in good faith and probably were very
close to being accurate.
The three issues that you have been asked to pay a
rebate penalty on, you maybe need to look at the time when that rebate
was due. The first one was a sales tax issue. The seven million
dollar sales tax issue, there were, as far as I can recall, two
projects associated that (sic). One was a payment to a Lely
Corporation for $3,500,000 for the acquisition of Lely Barefoot Beach
Park. The second one was the payment for that building at 2802.
So I've dealt -- very seriously doubt if there was any
arbitrage, significant arbitrage, owed on that. What I've been told
through discussions with some of the staff in finance, that there may
have been some sort of a transfer of proceeds associated with that.
And if there is, then I suspect that there could be an error.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one last question.
MR. YONKOSKY: Uh-huh.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: There was a letter from Ernst and
Young or Coopers and Lybrand or something that was put up on the
screen here today that said, dear Mr. Yonkosky, the IRS is not going
to be happy if you don't change something about what you're doing. I
asked Mr. Brock if there was a response to that letter. Do you know
the one I'm talking about and if there was a response?
MR. YONKOSKY: I do not know when the letter was
written. I was on my way down here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could you tell me -- Mr. Brock,
help me remind what -- it was a 1992 letter. Was it from Coopers and
Lybrand or Ernst and Young?
MR. BROCK: Ernst and Young.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It was from Ernst and Young, and
it said, dear Mr. Yonkosky, you're not doing arbitrage calculations.
And if you are, you're not doing them right. Danger, danger. The IRS
won't like that.
MR. YONKOSKY: Let me respond to that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please.
MR. YONKOSKY: I think there were a lot of letters from
a lot of people that came into the clerk's office. That being one of
them, that letter would have come from Margaret Purcell who is the
head of Ernst and Young's arbitrage calculation in Jacksonville. And
-- and in my opinion and I think you would if you checked with other
people find out that she has a lot of status in the arbitrage
calculation community, not a relatively new cumber (sic) in this area
as the current auditors are.
In addition, I think that if you go back and ask Mr.
Brock and Kathy Hankins and Kathy Ream how many unsolicited proposals
they received over a period of time to make these calculations would
have put any payment that was due back to IRS in a timely manner.
I also suggest to you that -- that Miss Hankins
specifically told the financial advisor that the intent of the clerk's
office was to wait until after the new auditors were on board to
specifically keep Coopers out of it. I don't know why people aren't
asking more piercing questions about this.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Except for --
MR. YONKOSKY: Well, let me make one more point,
Commissioner.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And then answer my question about
the letter, please.
MR. YONKOSKY: I do not recall that particular letter.
It may have been written four or five years ago. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was.
MR. YONKOSKY: But I've had several conversations with
Miss Purcell over a period of time. I just want to make one more
point, and then I'll be glad to answer any questions you have. There
were two major components of the arbitrage calculation that was
presented to you. One was the 1988 bond issue. The second one was
the 1989 bond issue. The five-year period for the second one was
finalized and should have been made and represented to the board six
months after I left the clerk's office.
And I just -- you know, as a child and as an adult, I
don't mind accepting responsibility for something that I am
responsible for. But when I specifically ask my boss to allow me to
go out and hire external aud -- external consultants to make the
calculation and I am told no, then maybe I am guilty. I should have
been a whistle blower and came to the Board of County Commissioners.
And then I'm guilty of that.
The first one, yes, the 1993 calculation. And I made
the honest assumption that there was no rebate due IRS. And until I
see those work papers and have verified that that's true, I believe
that the Board of County Commissioners in listening to the clerk
authorized payment for that $260,000.
And everyone that I have talked to in the last few days,
including bond counsel, underwriters, financial advisors, all feel
that that's an unbelievably high amount of money based on the facts
that what the bond issue arbitrage was paying.
And finally before I stop and start answering questions,
everybody keeps saying there was an error made. And I don't think
that you've defined what the -- the concerns are here. And -- and the
arbitrage rebate is based specifically on money that the board would
earn in excess of what it's paying on its debt. According to
arbitrage in 1986, you were never entitled to any of that money. You
never were entitled to it.
And I don't know whether they calculated a penalty when
they made that -- that 8,038. I don't know what they calculated as
interest. But I know enough about the arbitrage regs. to know that in
the 1986 regs. that deal with that sales tax issue require you to
provide interest at the slug rate. And Commissioner Matthews may know
what the slug rate is, but it's been very, very low. So unless you're
required to pay a penalty, you've come out ahead on that particular
issue assuming those calculations are accurate.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Yonkosky, you just
mentioned you didn't know what errors people were saying or what --
what -- what the questions were. Let me just run through a couple of
very simple questions, and -- and that is do you believe while you
were serving as finance director in the clerk's office that the
calculations were your responsibility?
MR. YONKOSKY: The calculations of arbitrage due on any
bond issues were my responsibility as an employee of the clerk of the
circuit court. There's where the ultimate responsibility lies. If I
made an error in the calculations or someone that works for me, I -- I
don't have a problem in admitting that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand.
MR. YONKOSKY: But I maintain to you, Commissioner
Constantine, that those calculations were made.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was my next question.
Do you believe all calculations were made completely, accurately,
and/or in a timely manner?
MR. YONKOSKY: I believe that the calculations -- I'm
going to answer that with a statement. The calculations were made at
the end of each fiscal year and presented to the auditors, the
external auditors.
Now, did I review those myself personally? No, I did
not. I mean, I've got CPAs on staff that work for me. I've got
external CPA firm, one of the big six, that's reviewing these. So I
suggest that you ask that question to Miss Jones.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the -- there would be
records obviously somewhere of those annual reports as presented to
the auditor.
MR. YONKOSKY: In the auditor's files, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just one thing confused
me -- I guess a couple of other things actually. You started out in
your comments by saying you don't know, you haven't had a chance to
talk with anyone from the clerk's or from the staff or anyone else.
You don't know what's gone on, what's transpired here specifically.
And then your final comment before I began my questions
referred to everyone you've talked to in the last week about this says
so and so. And I'm wondering if you don't have the specific facts how
much detail you could have got into with the different players this
past week. And -- and those two comments just seemed to be contrary
to one another.
MR. YONKOSKY: I -- Mr. Hitchell has informed me what
the bond issues were, and he's informed me what the amounts were for
each one and which -- by -- just by going back. And if there's an
arbitrage rebate that has to be made on either of those issues, it's
very easy to look and -- and make a rough estimate of whether or not
there should be a significant arbitrage. The underwriters and bond
counsel and other people that have looked at it have questioned the
size of the issue.
And I -- I -- I think a couple of the commissioners were
talking about sixty -- you know, if it's going from $3,000 difference,
why do we want to spend the time on. And that may very well be. I
question the size, and I'm talking about $200,000 worth of that
calculation for at least that one issue. The other issue, I believe
we can go back in --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Somewhere in your comments I
thought you said -- and -- and that's why I'm going to ask again
because I wasn't sure -- that you believe perhaps no rebate was due
the IRS.
MR. YONKOSKY: I may have said that in the heat of being
hung, but I don't know whether --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it was in reference to
the '88 bond issue that you said that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's -- yeah, I lost
the context on there because I was writing at the same time. And then
finally, while you were still in your position there, there was a
$220,000 payment to the IRS.
MR. YONKOSKY: I don't know whether there was a $220,000
payment. There were a series of payments that were made based on the
$12,750,000 commercial paper draw. And I as a representative of the
clerk representing the Board of County Commissioners chose the penalty
process on that because I felt very comfortably that that money would
be disbursed in the county. And it wasn't.
Therefore, my staff made a calculation at the end of 6,
12, 18, and 24 months on that just as we're required to. That
calculation was reviewed by the external auditors and presented to the
Board of County Commissioners. If there's an error in it, no one has
asked me how -- what assumptions I used. Nobody has asked me. Yet
all of a sudden my name is associated with overpayment. But have you
seen the overpayment calculations yourself? Have you gone through
them?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what I was going to
ask those -- and I think you just said those -- MR. YONKOSKY: Nobody showed them to me.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those calculations were all
done in-house?
MR. YONKOSKY: Beg your pardon?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those calculations were all
done in-house by your staff people?
MR. YONKOSKY: That's correct.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- may I just one more? And
that -- you brought up many good points, Mr. Yonkosky. And one them
was a question that you -- you think has not been asked, but I asked
it, and I don't know if I've asked it in a public forum. So I want to
ask it of Mr. Brock again in a public forum is, as you said, that 260
was due 6 months after you left that position as director of finance
in the clerk's office. In 1993 that was due. And -- and Mr. Brock's
been clerk for that long.
And so I ask the same question. As soon as you found
out that there was a payment due, why didn't we immediately -- why has
it taken us three years to come to reach this point? And we discussed
that in your office, Mr. Brock, but I think it bears -- I think it's a
very good question that bears discussion in a public forum.
MR. BROCK: Well, to begin with, Commissioner, I think
we're talking about the beach renourishment issue. It's my
understanding that that was due in the end of the fiscal year of
1993.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what I said.
MR. BROCK: October. Sixty days after that calculation
would have had to have been made, Mr. Yonkosky worked for me at the
time.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But '-
MR. BROCK: In addition to that --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But why has it taken us from 1993
to now to -- to be where we are? MR. BROCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why weren't we here sooner?
MR. BROCK: To answer that question -- and it's premised
upon it being discovered prior to us revealing it to everyone. We did
not discover that we had this problem until Kathy Hankins during
nineteen and ninety -- I believe it was nineteen and ninety-five said
we have a potential arbitrage problem. And at that point in time we
then began to explore whether or not we did and hired people outside
to do that.
Let me go -- let me go to one other issue. Mr. Yonkosky
just made a statement with reference to --
MR. YONKOSKY: The name is Yonkosky, sir. There is no
"w" in my name, and I would appreciate it if you would address me as
John or Mr. Yonkosky. Thank you very much.
MR. BROCK: John just made a statement that they made a
calculation every six months on that first commercial paper draw that
they made the penalty in lieu of calculations on.
Now, Commissioner, the letter that Earnest and Young
sent Mr. Yonkosky -- John, excuse me, on Hay the 5th, nineteen and
ninety-two, was not an unsolicited letter. It was a letter that was
solicited by the county's financial advisor, Marc Samet, in
conversations about those two particular issues, the Collier County,
Florida, special obligation revenue bonds and Collier County, Florida,
revenue note draw A-i, the commercial paper draw.
Now, that letter was dated on Hay the 5th, nineteen and
ninety-two. It says in the letter that it's his understanding that
the calculations had not been made and the payments had not been made
-- had not been paid.
Now, if you go back and look at when the reports were
filed with the IRS, you will notice that on Hay the 19th, nineteen and
ninety-two, all three, all three, two with one issue and one with the
other, were filed with the IRS on that particular day and the payments
made. So the payments nor the calculations were made in the six-month
periods --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
MR. BROCK: -- contrary to what Mr. Yonkosky said.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Well, you know, we're
getting a little bit afield from what we are here intended to do. We
have a motion on the floor. We have -- you know, I don't think this
board wants to continue a he said and he said and he said arguments.
Let's bring this to termination.
Does anyone else -- any other board member have -- let's
restate the motion so that we're clear that -- what we're going to do
here.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: My motion is that going forward
the clerk of courts be designated as ultimately responsible to monitor
arbitrage calculations and oversee that process and also that
arbitrage calculations be included in the future outside audit scope
of services provided to the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Now, does your motion also
authorize and direct the -- the clerk to enter into an agreement with
Ernst and Young to provide free second opinion services? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
MR. BROCK: That's fine. I'll certainly do that. But,
I mean, whenever I talk to them, I'll come back and discuss it with
you, and we'll go from there.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it included free. If it
turns out not to be free, let us know.
MR. BROCK: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Second?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
MR. WEIGEL: Part of the motion is to adopt a resolution; is that
correct?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I can obviously put that resolution
together. Just as a side note, if you wish to make a motion or wish
to continue, I could, in fact, draft a resolution that says all these
things with the appropriate words and bring it back for your review
next week.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Can we just direct you to do the motion
today?
MR. WEIGEL: You can direct me to do the resolution today.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I think that's what the motion intends.
MR. WEIGEL: Perhaps you might like to -- to see it, and
then a resolution number would be accorded to it next week.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe just consent agenda if necessary.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, he can do it today.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And that's -- that's what your
motion intends; is that correct? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Good. Public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second finally. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
And opposed?
Being none, we will take a very short lunch break and be
back here at 1:15.
(A lunch break was held.)
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 96-159 REAPPOINTING AUGUST ROCCO, SR. AND APPOINTING CHARLES
METZ TO THE CITY/COUNTY BEACH RENOURISHMENT MAINTENANCE COMHITTEE -
ADOPTED
(Commissioner Matthews was not present for the following
proceedings:)
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We'll reconvene the county
commission meeting. And we are down to the Board of County
Commissioners section, item 10(A), appointment of members to
City/County Beach Renourishment Maintenance Committee.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I -- after reading
the summary, I would like to recommend Gus Rocco and Charles Metz.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second the motion. Was that
a motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, that's a motion.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 96-160 APPOINTING JACK HCKENNA, MARC GERTNER, AND BERNARD
WEISS TO THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED
The next one is item 10(B), appointment of members to
the County Government Productivity Committee.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to nominate Bernie
Weiss. If you've gone through, he's a pretty impressive guy.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise, I -- I've worked with
Mr. Gertner and Mr. HcKenna both, and I -- I think the recommendation
as presented is good.
I do want to point out that there are two vacancies
upcoming on this committee. And I think Mr. Paul would be well suited
for either of those. But in line with the productivity committee's
recommendation, I'm -- I'm comfortable with the three of them. And I
believe we'll see Mr. Paul for one of those two remaining vacancies
that are coming up.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: So we have a -- we have a split
motion here. Motion to appoint Jack HcKenna, Mark Gertner, and
Bernard Weiss. All those in favor signify by saying aye. And opposed?
That passes as well.
Public Comment
AL PERKINS REGARDING OBTAINING AN INFORMATION CHANNEL TO COMMUNICATE
WITH PEOPLE REGARDING ALL FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY - DISCUSSED
And we now start our afternoon agenda. Do we have any
public comment, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: I just got one.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Just got one.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins.
MR. PERKINS: Good afternoon, commissioners.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good afternoon, A1.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Miss Filson, start the time,
please.
MR. PERKINS: Here we go; right? After the last little
episode, maybe we can play it light the rest of the afternoon.
Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights and Belle
Meade Groups; okay?
Three topics basically come up that I wanna speak upon.
The landfill committee meeting tomorrow afternoon at four o'clock, you
people need to know about this at the Immokalee ag. center on
Immokalee Road. This is out at the fairgrounds. The people who have
attended the last two public meetings will be there for input against
the proposed landfill siting. This is an invitation to everybody in
this community to participate and pay attention to what other people
have to say, especially our remote cousins out distant Immokalee.
By the way, they're totally against it, and it got a
little hot and heavy. And poor Bettye Matthews took the heat the
other night.
Next thing was information. Now, tying this whole thing
together, information, both of these meetings which, by the way, I
have taped and would be available for any segments or portions
thereof; okay? And I'm going to make a point.
The meetings that were there and the people who were
there -- and believe me, we had a cross segment of every nationality,
every race, every religion, every color. It was great. It was one of
the few times that I've seen input from everybody in this community.
But the big scream was lack of information, lack of
communication. They didn't know about these meetings. They didn't
know this was happening to them. They didn't know anything about it,
and they got nasty with it.
Along with that, I have been advocating getting the TV
camera in the ceiling over here so that we can see the displays that
are put up here and to take and use the camera in the back to get the
message out to the people of not only Immokalee and Everglades
information.
Now, I've said to several of the commissioners, and you
people all have heard of the V chip. Well, I want to get rid of the C
chip, the Collier chip. I want information out all over this
community. Anybody that wants to tune in to this can take and find
out what you're doing, how you're doing it, who's doing it, and why
and what they're paying for.
Now, along with that in 12(C)(2) I see that the -- that
the TV people are back again and about the franchising. And
Cablevision Industries has upped the price of cablevision in the
estates in Golden Gate $2.47 per customer per month.
Now, at previous meetings we had they had applied for a
$1 per month. This is when Time Warner was getting involved. Now I
understand there's somebody else.
Anyhow, trying to pull this whole thing together,
information, get our own channel, get our own staff to take and do
whatever has to be done on a -- on a rotating basis so there's no one
individual gets -- catches it but to get the message out about what
the functions are going on because we're spending the money, but we're
not letting the people know, especially the ones that are affected.
Now, the Indians were irate about the whole thing, and
so were the Hispanics in Immokalee because they said in essence what
-- and I -- I want to try to get this across. They said, why are you
picking on me because I'm Mexican, because I'm Hispanic, because I
don't speak the language as well as you do, because I'm black, because
I'm Haitian, because we live out there and we work the migrant farms
and we're in the dirt and we can't make the meetings at four o'clock
in the afternoon? And they were very nasty about this whole thing.
Now, getting back, they have options to watch the
television. They don't read the newspaper. They even mention the
bulletin and the Naples Daily Progda. They don't even use it for a
fish wrapper, point being let's get the information out for all of the
people of this community on all the functions of this community. It
can work both ways. It can benefit Lake Avalon for one which I see
the advertisement on. It can also benefit what's happening on this
community. On channel 54 I've seen most of your faces on there. And
it's to the advantage to the people here to know who you are and what
you're doing for -- on their behalf. Other than that, I think I've
covered it all. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Perkins.
MR. DORRILL: You have no others.
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 96-12 RE PETITION PUD-96-2, ALAN D. REYNOLDS, AICP, OF
WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC., REPRESENTING BENEDICT P. MIRALIA,
TRUSTEE, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "C-3" COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE
DISTRICT TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT TO BE
KNOWN AS "MIRALIA PUD" CONSISTING OF A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OF
RESIDENTIAL (210 DWELLING UNITS) AND COMMERCIAL (5,500 SQUARE FEET) ON
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD IMMEDIATELY
WEST OF VANDERBILT DRIVE - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. We'll move on to 12(B)(1),
petition PUD-96-2. Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: For the record, my name is Ron Nino
presenting -- of your planning services division section presenting
PUD-96-2. I believe you're all very familiar with this property. It
was the subject of a recent settlement agreement that you entered into
with the owner of the property.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, is this ratifying
that settlement agreement?
MR. NINO: I beg your pardon?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What you're asking us to do
is ratify the settlement agreement?
MR. NINO: Yes, exactly. One of the conditions of the
settlement agreement were that the owner of the property seek -- seek
the appropriate zoning classification to permit the development that
is described in the settlement agreement, and that's exactly what this
petition's all about.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: For the benefit of the record, this
is something that has already been the subject of a legal proceeding.
MR. NINO: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Do we have public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Question?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, the physical layout of
the site, access to the site, are they consistent with what has been
approved in the past?
MR. NINO: Yes, they are.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And are they in your opinion
advantageous and in the best interest of the community surrounding the
project?
MR. NINO: Yes, I do. I believe one -- one entrance
would be -- instead of two entrances -- the original plan had two --
had two access points on Vanderbilt Beach Road. The current -- the
current plan will only have one, so that's an improvement over the
previous approval. So we have one access point on the beach road and
one access point on the drive road, and I think they're in appropriate
locations.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The access on Vanderbilt
Drive, does it line up with 91st?
MR. NINO: No, it's south of 91st.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's all. If there's no further
questions from the board, I'll close the public hearing. Do we have a
motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There are none.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, appears we may
only have four commissioners here for the balance of the day. Do you
want to check with any of the petitioners since some of these items
require four votes and see if they want to opt for another day?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Is Commissioner Matthews not going
to make it back?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Her stuff is down there it looks
like.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe she said she would be
late when she left was the comment I heard.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: If there is any petitioner here
present today that would like to delay your hearing when it comes up
to be called, we'll -- we'll certainly accommodate you with that if we
have less than five commissioners present at that time.
Item #12B2
ORDINANCE 96-13 RE PETITION PUD-83-2(2), MR. STEVE BRINKMAN OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, REQUESTING TO AMEND THE
LAKE AVALON PUD DOCUMENT TO DELETE THE RESIDENTIAL USES AND TO AD
PUBLIC USES INCLUDING PARK AND RECREATIONAL USES, LIBRARIES, MUSEUMS,
WATER SKI FACILITIES AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL FACILITIES TO THE LIST OF
PERMITTED USES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF U.S. 41 AND
NORTH SIDE OF OUTER DRIVE - ADOPTED
12(B)(2) is petition PUD-83-2(2).
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, the current
planning staff. This petition seeks to amend the Lake Avalon planned
unit development document to delete the residential uses and to add
public uses which include park and recreation, libraries, museums,
waterski facilities, and other governmental facilities to the list of
permitted uses.
The subject property is designated mixed use urban
coastal fringe which permits these water-related and park and
recreational uses. The traffic impact study indicates that the
proposed -- proposed amendment will not generate trips that increase
the trip generation that's currently approved in the PUD.
Collier County Planning Commission recommended approval
on May -- on March 7, 1996. Staff hasn't received any letters in
opposition. But during the planning commission, several concerns were
raised basically concerning noise and landscaping. I think we were
able to address most of those concerns.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The objection again?
MR. BELLOWS: Were with landscaping concerns. There was
a draft copy of the master plan sent out which is not a finalized
version, and some individuals had questions concerning the location,
say, of the swimming area.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to clarify, the existing
PUD called for --
MR. BELLOWS: Residential uses.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would have had how many
units?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Three sixty-four I believe it was.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I think it was three -- three
seventy.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which can equal seven, eight,
nine hundred people?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: If there's no questions, we'll go
to the public speakers. Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: Some of these people may have left. So if
-- if you're here and -- and you still wish to speak, if -- if you'd
just let me know. Mr. Street and then, Mr. Kratt, are you still
here? Okay. Very good. Mr. Street, you'll be first.
MR. STREET: Hello. I'm Jeff Street. And I just want
to say that all I want to do is help the kids and help the
neighborhood in East Naples. And the kids are the foundation of the
future, and John Gursoy who is here is establishing the foundation for
the Gulf Coast Skimmers. And the Collier County commission, public
services, and Collier County parks and rec. are establishing the
foundation for Sugden Regional Park.
And I would just like to thank the Collier County
commission and parks the rec. and public services and the people of
Collier County for their vision. And that's all I have to say. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Street.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Kratt. Mr. Drott apparently has left,
but he put a note on his card, says that he's just in support.
MR. KRATT: Good afternoon. My name is Joe Kratt. I'd
like to express my quest -- questions and concerns. I'm a 24-year
resident of Naples. I've lived -- my property abuts the lake property
for 20 years. Two of my nephews are presently or were with the
Skimmers.
I have quite a few concerns as to what's going to happen
over there and what is happening. First off, the local residents have
little or no idea as to what exactly is going on. Like you said,
there was proposed, proposed, proposed. We've seen umpteen things in
the paper about it and out there and nothing about what you all are
going to do to protect the community around there as it is other than
speaking to Mr. Norris and Miss Matthews myself on the phone.
I live on a dead-end street. I'm really concerned as to
what's going to happen to that dead-end street, whether it's going to
become a maintenance access, whether it's going to have any access to
the park for the simple reason that it's on the back side of the lake
and all I got there -- and I've already had two crack houses on my
street and come home one day and they were busting a prostitute in my
driveway. The sheriff's department was parking right there.
So my concerns are very valid, and I direct these to
you, Mr. Norris, especially for one of the comments you made when I
did talk to you on the phone.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you saying these crack houses
in some way have something to do with the park?
MR. KRATT: Well, I'm just trying to express that that
neighborhood -- we've got a number of problems over there. Bayshore
Drive is not going to clean up until you help clean up the outlining
area of Bayshore Drive.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right, like converting vacant
land into a usable park.
MR. KRATT: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. KRATT: Which is great, which is great, exactly.
But by having a dead-end street sitting there where you can go down
and park at that -- at that dead-end street and have access into that
park where I never see a police car, never, you know, what's going to
happen at the end of that street? There's probably 200 foot of street
from my house that extends into the park, that, you know, can, you
know, can and is been used because I've already taken a baseball bat
to protect myself to go down there and chase people out of there from
dumping and everything else.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your suggestion is that it
would be or would not be a good idea to have access to the park from
that location?
MR. KRATT: Would not be good to have access, and I'm
disabled. And I would love to just be able to walk out of my house
and walk in that park. But due to what will happen if you have
accesses off Jeepers and all these other dead-end streets and you
can't police them, you know, we're going to have problems. We're
going to have some serious parking problems.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, excuse me.
MR. KRATT: We're going to have some people hanging
out.
(Commissioner Matthews entered the proceedings.)
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, we have no intention
whatsoever of making any of these streets accesses.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One access.
MR. BELLOWS: The master plan basically iljustrates
there's single access into the park, not -- no access via Outer Drive
or any other road into the site. Only one single access in. There's
an emergency access which is a gate that can be knocked down by
emergency vehicles. That's the only one off Outer Drive.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Bellows, this gentleman lives -- if
you'll point to those streets in the southwest corner all the way --
go a little bit further west, one more. That's this gentleman's
street.
MR. KRATT: All the way down there. Right there, that's
me.
MR. DORRILL: And I think as part of this, the site plan
as proposed shows that the right-of-way there is vacated, so you don't
-- you don't have a road right-of-way.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. We vacated those.
MR. DORRILL: And in addition, the area that would be
immediately north of this man's home is proposed to be all part of a
conservation grant at the lower --
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, this area here is a conservation
area that's not to be developed in any way for park uses.
MR. KRATT: There were several programs or several
drawings that showed maybe not drive-in-with-your-car access. I know
there's not going to be any roads there. But there's going to be gate
access.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I think they showed older easements
that were platted for the original PUD that are deleted.
MR. KRATT: No, these were -- these were like --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The point, Mr. Kratt, the point
is there's no access.
MR. KRATT: You're not even going to be able to walk in
there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not over there. It's not on
the plan or part of the record.
MR. KRATT: There's going to be a fence there. There's
going to be a fence there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know if there's a fence
or not. There's no access.
MR. KRATT: Okay. Well, there would have to be a fence
there or there would be access.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm -- I'm certainly going to
vote for there to be a fence. I hope -- MR. KRATT: Please. Please do.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There should be a fence there.
MR. KRATT: We really -- we really need it. Although --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All the way around.
MR. KRATT: -- it will keep me out, but still, you know,
we really need a fence. And that way there, that would solve that.
Okay.
And one of the reasons you were bringing up before about
developing, you know, developing it slowly but surely because there's
an awful lot of animal life over there and that, plus the privacy. If
you just go in there and make it a desert, you know, there could be a
problem.
And there was also -- it was brought up before about
water quality and stuff like that there. Well, I called the health
department and environmental health, and I stopped my own family from
swimming in there because of the concerns that they expressed.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Kratt, your time is expired.
You had some questions from the board members, so I'll allow you a
little bit more.
MR. KRATT: Well, can you just give me a little second
to wrap it all up?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Uh-huh.
MR. KRATT: We just need to have -- the community needs
to have a little more in on what's going on over there. The contract
you all signed with the Skimmers allowing them carte blanche seven
days a week and everything else, I think that should be re -- or taken
a better look in and give us all a little bit of a break on some of
the holidays and some of the weekends and that there and take a real
good long hard look at -- just like Hiss Matthews said before, it's
not happening right now, but it does allow for an awful lot that can
and will end up happening. Mark my word. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Morgan, are you still with us? If you
would please, sir. And then, Mr. Stephenson, you'll follow Mr.
Morgan. Go right ahead.
MR. MORGAN: My name's Yewart (phonetic) Butch Morgan,
and I live the closest to that lake that you can possibly get to the
water line. That's right, right there. There's about five or six
houses that absolutely our property borders the lake. I'm within 200
feet of the water from my property line.
I'm -- I have a lot of concerns. Basically what I'm
saying is or asking for is we need as a neighborhood to have a little
more input questions and talk to somebody who's doing this planning.
You know, I don't want people throwing chicken bones in my backyard,
you know, from their picnic area. I live in a two-story house. Your
ten-foot fence is not going to allow me any privacy. I'm going to
look over that lake, you know. So what they do over there is going to
affect my quality of life from now on. So I want to be a good
neighbor.
I've got things I want to address. I want to address
how they're planning on doing the buffer zone. I want to address the
noise. I want to address the -- the car access back in there. I
don't want some base boom box from a car right in my back door.
I want to be a good neighbor here, and I want the lake
to be a good neighbor. I want the Skimmers to be a good neighbor.
They're -- they've got a contract here that says seven days a week. I
gotta wake up every morning and listen to jet skis. I mean, these are
some of the concerns that we have as property owners who abut this
lake.
And I'd like to have a liaison or something to where
somebody from our neighborhood or the property owners that come here
can have a better access to the planning of this lake. I'd like to do
it right the first time. I'd like to see what kind of a program they
have for moving some of these shrubs, the density of the picnic tables
right behind our house.
These are all concerns, and I believe what we need is to
have a better access to the planning committee so that we can put --
have more input into it and see what's feasible and what can work for
us.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sir, have you or anyone in your
neighborhood to your knowledge contacted our staff and asked the
questions you just asked?
MR. MORGAN: Charlie Stephenson's been up here at the
last meeting, and basically now that this is all going ahead, we're
just trying to -- we want the park. I'm all for it. I love the
Skimmers. But no, we have not, and that's what I'm --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The point I'm making is there are
answers to every question you just asked, and our staff has those
answers, and they've had them for -- for weeks now. And a phone call
to one of our staff members two or three days ago or to Mr. Olliff at
parks and rec. would have -- would have provided those answers to
you. So I think what you'll see is if after this meeting if you'll
give them your name and phone number -- MR. MORGAN: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- they will contact you or
whoever is your community liaison or person you designate for your
neighborhood, and the questions you just asked we will get the answers
for you because I believe we know it to all of them.
MR. MORGAN: Okay. Well, what I'm -- you're saying that
they know it. But then again I'm hearing somebody saying this isn't
written in stone. This is our basic layout, but we don't know what
we're going to do yet. So, I mean, how can they answer those
questions?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We want you to be in the loop so
MR. MORGAN: Right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- what we're hear -- what you're
hearing is that we're directing the staff to work with you and -- and
also letting you know that they probably would have without your even
asking us. They -- they're very cooperative, and they would work with
you I think under any circumstances. But we're certainly encouraging
them to. They have to do that.
MR. MORGAN: Well, that's my point today is -- making is
that we want to be recognized.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Let me -- let me clarify
something, Mr. Morgan, over here. MR. MORGAN: Oh.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Do you have a homeowners'
association?
MR. MORGAN: No, not on the Lake Avalon itself.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: All right. Well, then you need to
get one. I think it would be very helpful for you to get one because
you're -- you're in the position of representing yourself and no one
else technically.
MR. MORGAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And what I would like to suggest to
you is that you get the people together, have a little homeowners'
association, appoint somebody as the liaison if you'd like to the
county, hold your own meetings to discuss what you want, bring it to
us, let us know because the last thing we want to do is interfere with
your neighborhood. We want to do whatever we can to try to -- to
protect your neighborhood and all the neighborhoods around there. And
now's a very good time to be doing that because we don't have final
plans.
Mr. Olliff, when will -- when would you expect to bring
us back a final site development plan with -- with a hard proposal?
MR. OLLIFF: We're probably talking Hay, June time
frame.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: So you have plenty of time to -- to
discuss this with the staff and -- and to get your views known. And
if we can, you know, reasonably work it out, we'd be glad to do that.
But you need to organize. You need to get yourself a
group together because it's not going to be effective if homeowner A
says one thing and homeowner B says another, homeowner C says
another. We need to have a unified voice from you.
MR. MORGAN: I understand that. And we have as
neighbors been talking about it, and this is why I'm bringing this up
today --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
MR. MORGAN: -- is that we would like to get somebody as
a liaison so that we as homeowners -- we're the ones most affected by
it.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Absolutely.
MR. MORGAN: We've got no street, no nothing between
us.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, as they assemble
their homeowners' group, I assume you'll communicate with Mr. Morgan
or with someone?
MR. OLLIFF: The other thing that I'd offer is in -- in
-- in park designs in the past, we have at -- at certain stages
through the design process held public meetings at the -- East Naples
Community Park in this case would be a good place to -- to have a
public meeting and let the public come and see as we develop so that
we're getting their concerns as we're putting the design together.
And I think that's what I would propose that we do for this particular
park because it is a large project.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's a huge project, and it's not
terribly -- like you say, there aren't a whole lot of organized
associations over there.
And just for what it's worth, I think you could do a lot
toward addressing a lot of these problems, not just Lake Avalon, if
you could get some organization of the residents over there.
MR. MORGAN: Okay. We will and --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Does this -- does this suggestion
meet your approval then?
MR. MORGAN: Yes, absolutely. I mean, that's all I
want, you know. I want -- I just want to be a good neighbor. I want
the park to be a good neighbor.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We do too.
MR. MORGAN: You know, and that's it. You know, I -- I
build docks. I build -- I design them. I estimate them. If the
Skimmers need help, they can call on me. I'd be glad to donate some
of my time for their effort, you know.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Write that down, Mr. Gursoy. You
heard that. We got it on the record here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: On the record we got it.
MR. MORGAN: Okay? Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Stephenson, you'll be next and then
Miss Delgenio.
MS. DELGENIO: I don't want to speak. I just want to
support.
MR. DORRILL: Thank you.
MR. STEPHENSON: Charles Stephenson also of Guilford
Road, 3514 Guilford Road, echoing a lot of Mr. Morgan's sentiments on
this. And we will get together as a group and come to meet with the
people here to make sure we don't have surprises.
The biggest thing that has made an impression on me is
the surprise that the people got at the Pelican Marsh Elementary
School.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Absolutely.
MR. STEPHENSON: And that's how my house sits on this
lake. And if they come in and clear and don't put a buffer or they
say they're going to put a fence and there's -- or whatever and it
doesn't turn out to be what it was supposed to be, I've got it
forever. I -- I live there seven days a week from eight in the
morning till sunset and maybe even more depending on how this runs. I
just want to make sure that we do get the input so that we can live
there. This is my home. It's my backyard right on the back of that
lake. There's no road. There's nothing in between it.
And I mentioned last time I didn't want picnic tables
against my fence. Keep them out of the buffer area that you're
planning in there. You know, that's important. I just don't want to
have people standing and looking at me like I'm in the fish bowl.
And so we will get this all together and meet with you.
But, you know, we have to be able to live there. It's just that
simple. And that school, elementary school, deal that came about, you
know, that's the closest thing that I can think to myself as to what
can happen unless we really keep up on this.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you. We understand your
concerns. And as I pointed out -- and the staff has clearly gotten
their direction -- we -- we're going to work with you to try to make
sure that -- that whatever you need is going to be provided. That
doesn't mean, however, you know, that we're going to take -- you know,
that we will go extraordinarily out of our way. MR. STEPHENSON: Well, no.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: But anything that's reasonable
we're certainly willing to do.
MR. STEPHENSON: Exactly. My idea for a buffer area,
put a fence, the buffer area, and then my fence. There's no reason
that the buffer area has to be -- because the kids are naturally going
to go to a buffer area. They're going to go into the shrubbery.
They're going to go as far as they can. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Uh-huh.
MR. STEPHENSON: Well, put a fence up and then your
buffer area and then my fence is there so I've got 20 foot in between
there that is an actual buffer area without people going through the
buffer area to my property, things of that nature which I'm sure, you
know, that would work out fine.
But when I see the fella standing at his swimming pool
looking at the desert school there, I get scared. And, you know, I
don't wanna have a concrete wall, but I sure don't wanna have what
he's got either.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. We understand.
MR. DORRILL: And -- and for what it's worth, this --
just to recollect the board's -- this is the same or there are members
on this board who -- who spent $175,000 in Lely buffering and
landscaping a berm at our waste water treatment plant there that was
just the opposite, you know. Frankly, it was as a result of people's
own ignorance that they bought and moved into and behind a sewage
treatment plant.
But this -- this board and the prior board I feel have
really gone out of their way to try and -- and not do what has
happened at that Pelican Marsh School. We have spent extraordinary
sums of money buffering and -- and landscaping, and I don't have any
reason to believe that we wouldn't here based on the board's prior
commitment.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Neither do we. Do we have any more
speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Mr. and Mrs. Dean Schreiner
asked to say they're in support, could not come back after lunch.
Chris Depetro or Depetro, Depetro. MR. DEPETRO: Depetro.
MR. DORRILL: I'm from Alabama, so that's about as good
as you'll get.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Could I ask a question while
he's coming up? Mr. Olliff, do we have any estimates on what a fence
will cost around the lake?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am. The preliminary estimates --
and actually John's gotten those for us, and the number I saw was
about $60,000, and that was to fence the entire perimeter. It's a
large piece of property.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Six, zero.
MR. OLLIFF: Six, zero --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: -- zero, zero, zero. What -- what -- what
we are looking at is to see if there are some places -- there are some
places that are basically impenetrable because of the landscaping and
maybe doing some things -- they even call it defensive landscaping I
think so that you could get by in some areas without having to fence
the entire place, but we're gonna look at that and see.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are we talking about a park or a
prison here because I've heard fences?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Excuse me. We're actually talking
about a PUD, so let's -- let's try to stick with that.
MR. DEPETRO: Good afternoon. My name is Chris
Depetro. I would like to thank all you, Chairman Norris and the rest
of the commissioners, for having the vision and foresight to purchase
Lake Avalon property and convert it from private use to public use.
I'm all for preservation of land and greenery area. And I am
definitely for the supporting the rezoning from private use to public
use.
I see this park as a great family outlet location, great
facility for the Gulf Coast Skimmers to run their youth outreach
program and reach out to the neighborhood youth that really need the
help. The ones that as Mr. Kratt spoke cause problems in the area
that he's concerned of, that's what the program's about. And the
facilities, the park, allow that vision to go forward. And I just
want to thank you all in support of this rezoning effort. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. and Ms. Kennedy could not return after
lunch. They're in support. Master Kennedy, that would be you,
Brandon.
MR. KENNEDY: I am Brandon Kennedy. I am here to say
that I am in support of the Gulf Coast Skimmers, and I'm sure if
anybody has any problems with somebody going through and looking
through their fences that somebody -- that you can talk to John, and
maybe we can schedule something out. Maybe we can get some nice
shrubbery in to look over the fence and so nobody's looking through
your houses and stuff.
And I just want to say that the Gulf Coast Skimmers is a
excellent youth out -- outreach program. I have been in the Gulf
Coast Skimmers for two and a half years, and I've made a lot of
friends, and I've went -- my grade averages have went up. And if I
need help on homework and my parents are at work or something, I can
call up John. I can call up anybody else at the Gulf Coast Skimmers.
And I want to thank all you commissioners and everybody
that has helped us along the way. That's all I have to say.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Gutsoy. He's your final speaker, Mr.
Chairman.
MR. GURSOY: John Gutsoy for the record. Chairman and
fellow commissioners, again, we just want to thank you for your vision
and your foresight on this, and we look forward to the conclusion of
this project occurring with the zoning change and the wonderful aspect
and how it's going to benefit that neighborhood. As a resident that's
been there for six years, the changes have been phenomenal, and we
look forward to that to continue. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you. Close the public
hearing.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval of the PUD.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
approval. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed?
Passes unanimously.
Item #12B3
PETITION PUD-89-17(1), ROBERT L. DUANE, AICP, OF HOLE, MONTES, &
ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING JAMES & COMPANY DEVELOPERS, INC., FOR A
REZONE FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CHANGING THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY BY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF AUTHORIZED
COHMERCIAL USES AND INCREASING THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
IN THE NEAPOLITAN PARK PUD LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DAVIS
BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET EAST OF SANTA BARBARAA BOULEVARD -
CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER. PETITON MAY COME BACK
WITHIN 4 WEEKS
And we'll move on to 12(C)(3), petition PUD-89-17(1).
MR. NINO: For record my, name is Ron Nino, your
planning service section. I am presenting PUD-89-17(1) which -- which
has us revisiting the Neapolitan PUD which was approved back in the --
back in the '89 period.
The reason for revisiting the PUD is that the developer
of interest has decided that instead of optimizing the hundred and --
150,000 square feet of offices or motels rooms originally approved in
the original PUD, they now have an interest in -- in building
multi-family dwellings in lieu thereof and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, let me -- let me
try to cut to the chase here. How has the impact changed as far as
transportation and some of the other obvious impacts?
MR. NINO: Reduction of 42 percent in average daily
traffic.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And have you had any
objections from --
MR. NINO: No objections. Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: What's the -- what will be the --
the gross density then?
MR. NINO: The gross -- the gross -- the gross density
on the residential tract will be 16 units per acre. And we have to
appreciate that this is in an activity center. And activity centers
provide for up to 16 units per acre for housing in activity centers.
And in this case we're really swapping 150,000 square feet of -- of
commercial development for the 261 multi-family units which -- which
ends up producing, as I said to Commissioner Constantine, a 42 percent
less impact in -- in transportation alone. And I suspect that there
are equivalent reductions in the -- in the sewer and water consumption
and all -- all of the rest of the level of services.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Let me make sure. The --
the -- the total number of units is 261.
MR. NINO: Two sixty-one.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And there were previously 91 --
MR. NINO: Ninety-one.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- approved, so it's really 170
additional.
MR. NINO: Yes, but --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And no commercial.
MR. NINO: Correct. No, I'm sorry. There -- there will
be -- commercial is on the out parcels. That aspect of this PUD
remains the same. There are three out parcels, three out parcels
originally that were commercial. They're staying commercial.
However, the 150,000 square feet of additional -- of commercial was
allocated to this interior parcel together with 91 dwelling units.
That 150,000 is coming out of the interior, and the 91 plus another
176 producing 261 dwelling units will go into the interior parcel.
That is 16 units per acre, Commissioner.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, in com -- in conversion
of commercial zoning per se -- and I assume that's where this density
request is -- well, it's actually not coming from. It's coming from
the fact it's an activity center.
MR. NINO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It says up to 16 units per acre.
MR. NINO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's kind of a recognition by
previous boards that we'd rather have high density residential than
commercial if at all possible. Is that a fair assumption because
that's not -- I personally don't feel that way but --
MR. NINO: I would -- I would para -- I would paraphrase
that by saying activity centers were always intended to be mixed
developments.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh.
MR. NINO: And residential was always a desired element
of that. But it was never specified in terms of what the distribution
ought to be. This is about the first PUD that I can recall where a
major component of the -- of the activity center is going to end up
residential. Usually it's the other way around. We get a token bit
of residential and -- and 95 percent commercial.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And -- and since we have the
activity centers in place whether I'm a fan of them or not, I
understand that relationship. MR. NINO: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But again, we don't have to --
have to grant 16 units an acre. It's up to 16 units an acre.
MR. NINO: That is correct, Commissioner.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. NINO: Mr. Duane is here representing the
petitioner.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a follow-up to
Commissioner Hancock's comment. Mr. Duane, perhaps you can tell us
what you envision possibly happening on a property like this where you
-- with the up to 16 comment.
MR. DUANE: Well, we're in the process of -- of actually
permitting that project for 262 units. We submitted our applications
to the corps, water management district, and we're here before you for
zoning approval today. It will be constructed and soon because my
client is in the process of trying to obtain the necessary financing
for this project. So this is --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let me see if I can put out one of
my concerns that I've had a number of times in the past, and it
applies to this one as well. This PUD was approved in '89 and -- 7
years ago, and nothing's been done. What assurances do we have that
with this change that something will be done, or is it going to
languish again for another period of --
MR. DUANE: Well, I did the zoning back in 1990, so I'm
very familiar with this project. I can tell the board that -- that we
have submitted applications to the water management district and the
Army Corps of Engineers. This is another one of those affordable
housing projects, but we're not coming for you with a density bonus.
My client plans on -- on financing this through tax credits. The 16
units per acre is very important to my client. I will assure you that
that is the density I need to make this project work.
Of course, as Mr. Nino has told you, it is consistent
with the comprehensive plan. It's a reduction in density. It gets at
a better distribution of land uses throughout the entire activity
center. I presume that's why we have a unanimous recommendation of
approval from the planning commission and no objections, nor do we
have any developed land uses at the present time really around the
subject property. It's -- it's primarily vacant lands that we adjoin
or abut.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I tend to agree with
Commissioner Hancock's comment earlier, and I'm paraphrasing. So if I
change it, you can let me know but that perhaps the assumption was
that intensity of residential is better -- and I use that word loosely
-- than commercial development. I don't know that I agree with that
either. And I think that's what you had said before.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, good. That's three if
anybody's counting because I don't agree with that either. Forgive
the interruption, but I wanted --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, that's four.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. EAR.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And frankly, as far as -- and
I realize it's gone through the full public hearing process, and there
has been an opportunity to comment. But I suspect there would be some
reaction from some of the neighboring residential properties if they
were aware of how intensive a product going in. I mean, that's really
a moot point here, I understand.
MR. DUANE: Well, Commissioner, the northern portion of
this project is presently permitted 16 units per acre. This is -- the
91 units are generally in this area right here, you know, so we've got
a density of 16 units per acre. And we have three commercial out
parcels. All we're doing, you know, is replacing, you know,
relatively intensive land use with a continuation of the residential
component of the project.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or another way to look at is
all you're doing is tripling -- roughly tripling the size of that
16-unit-per-acre allowance.
MR. DUANE: Well, I -- I'm not sure I -- we're tripling
it because we're asking you to fezone eight or nine acres from
commercial to residential. I mean, that's what our plan permits.
That's the land use that's encouraged in this particular area, and
that's what we've relied upon and based our planning upon that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The petitioner is caught here
between what the growth management plan has set forth as a -- a
policy, if you will, and a -- in essence a change of direction that
this board -- I sense this board feels. And I didn't know there were
three others on this board that felt the same way.
There was a time when we decided commercial was bad and
we want to get rid of commercial. And we figured, well, let's offer
density bonuses as a way of doing that in the higher density areas,
you know, the areas close to activity centers and so forth.
And the only incentive here to look at 16 units an acre
is, in fact, it's affordable. If you're going to do affordable
housing, that's the only incentive I would have personally in just
granting 16 because it's allowed in the growth management plan.
I would look for some justification as to what is an
appropriate density for this parcel, not just the maximum. What
assurance do we have if we approve this that this will, in fact,
develop as an affordable housing project?
MR. DUANE: You only have my assurance today that this
project will be financed largely on tax credits. In fact, my client
has indicated to me -- and I don't want the board to take -- to take
this the wrong way, but -- but my charge today is that if I can't get
a density similar to what we're requesting then there will not be an
affordable housing project at this location because frankly my client
has told me that the numbers will not work. I realize I'm treading on
-- on thin ground when I tell you that. I'm trying to be as candid
__
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand.
MR. DUANE: -- as I can. I've got a developer that has
spent tens of thousands of dollars preparing permit applications with
the corps and the district. I've had a planning commission approve
the subdivision plot last Thursday. And, of course, the planning
commission reviewed the zoning last month. We have been in the
planning process, I would say, for the last -- better part of the last
nine months on this project.
Frankly -- and I -- I didn't anticipate that there would
be the concerns today on this project. Perhaps if I'd known so, I
might have met with you each individually. I try not to do that with
every zoning petition that comes before you. But either rightfully or
wrongly we lied -- we relied on this is what the density you can have
in an activity center and thought through our reductions in impacts
with no objections to this project that we have an appropriate land
use.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I object a little to
the fact it's -- the incentive for this development is tax credits as
opposed to the current real need for the property. And the current
situation, our current needs and merits of that area, seem to be
secondary to being able to take advantage of tax credits out there.
And I don't know that the current needs and merits of this particular
parcel at this particular time really warrant that.
So I guess the reasoning behind it is -- and, you know,
there's nothing wrong with making a buck. But the reason behind it --
behind the PUD change seems to be it's an opportunity to make a dollar
now with a -- pretty much a guaranteed credit for as long as you're
going through the tax program instead of doing an honest to God
development and -- and the way the PUD that's five years old, six
years old calls for, and that's with commercial property and trying to
actually earn your own way. So I resent that a little bit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I --
MR. DUANE: Well, I -- I -- I can't apologize for my
client taking advantage of tax credits as a -- you know, it's very
difficult to finance these apartment-type projects. People rely on
these tax credits. The advantage -- and I'm not an expert in the
housing area. But the advantage of the community is that -- that in
turn for using those tax credits, you know, you establish, you know, a
-- certain rental levels which are a percentage of, you know, median
family income so you end up with a project presumably that will have
rentals that are below market rate. I mean, that -- that's the
incentive for people to use this kind of financing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. But in Collier County
HUD statistics for median family income is mid forty thousands for a
family of four. So to turn that around and say, gosh, we're trying to
help the poor -- poor folks in the town, I don't think folks who are
making $46,000 a year are the ones who really need. Yet that's who
you can put in there under the formula HUD puts out and that these tax
credits are put forth.
So I -- you know, I can't -- I don't think that's a
legitimate argument that you are trying to help the disadvantaged in
Collier County.
MR. DUANE: No, I just made a statement of fact,
Commissioner, that that's what the project is intended for.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- my question about this, I
-- I like you, Commissioner Hancock, am -- am pleased to hear that
there's more than one or two people who think that -- that residential
is an ipso facto better than commercial and that maybe we want to --
and I hope that staff is paying attention, you know, as we go through
this EAR process that maybe that is a policy that could be addressed
by this board and changed.
However, I don't -- I don't want to -- I don't want to
change it midstream. I don't think that's fair. And if we have
existing policies in place that allow this conversion, I don't think
it's fair for us to just think it up today and do it to one property
owner --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, but there's a difference
between --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- instead of as a policy.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. There's a
difference between allowing and requiring. And -- and while it may
allow this change, it doesn't require this change. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Understood.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So I think yes, he can make
this request under the current thing, but he's not guaranteed that it
will be approved. And I think there are enough faults with this that
I'm not going to be able to support it anyway.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews?
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. Mr. Duane, you mentioned
that the developer wants to do this with affordable housing at -- at
what level? I mean, I want to justify 16 units per acre. Is he
talking moderate income or low income?
MR. DUANE: I'm not -- I don't know the mechanics of the
financing of this project other than I understand that that is how it
is going to be financed. If the commission wants some more
information as to what the rental levels are and some of the specifics
that I'm not able to provide you, then I would suggest that we
continue this hearing until I can get that information.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I see Mr. Hihalic coming up. Do
you know the answer to that, Greg?
MR. HIHALIC: I wanted to say that I've never talked to
the developer of this project about this being an affordable housing
development at all. So -- excuse me. I'm Greg Hihalic, housing and
urban improvement. So I don't know what thoughts the developer has in
how he's going to develop this project because I have not discussed it
with him.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We definitely ought to back up
then.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I -- I think, you know,
for 16 units an acre if it's low income housing, I mean, I can accept
that. I may not like it, but I can accept it. But if it's 16 units
per acre for moderate income housing which is the wage level
Commissioner Constantine was talking about, we're talking what? In
the 42, $44,000 a year?
MR. HIHALIC: Well, again, not speaking to the
developer, I can only guess what he's --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
MR. HIHALIC: -- going to develop. However, he could
have as little as 20 percent of this development being affordable
housing and still get tax credits and maybe some bond financing. But
I really can't speak to what the developer has in mind because I have
not talked to the developer to the best of my knowledge.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Perhaps the developer can speak for
himself in this case.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And again, I suspect, you
know, they're not doing it out of the goodness of their heart so --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We don't mind that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We respect their --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, there's nothing wrong
with that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We -- we all work in this world
or most of us do to earn a living.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We respect the right to make a
buck.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But don't use the helping out
the human condition as an argument in favor of the project if the
actual motive is to make a buck. And there's -- there's nothing wrong
with making a buck. Just don't tell me one thing and do another.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Here's where I'm coming
from, and whether this is heard or not is probably irrelevant. Where
I'm coming from is up to 16 units an acre in an activity center means
that there has to be a compelling reason to reach the maximum. It's
not just a given. And I think everyone in -- in the planning side in
Collier County understands that up to means just that.
And in order for me to feel comfortable with 16 units an
acre which on this thing produces a net density of 17, almost 18 units
an acre by the time you take the lake and the preserve out, this
area's become density corridor. We've had affordable housing projects
on Davis and Radio that have come in for requests and approvals. So I
think we do have to be a little concerned about the continuing added
density along this corridor.
So I'm looking for a compelling reason for 16 units an
acre. If I don't see a compelling reason beyond it's in the growth
management plan that you can request up to that, I for one am not
comfortable with the net density in the location on this particular
project.
And if that statement means that you want to either
withdraw your application or continue it until you can in some way
educate me to show me the benefit to the community or the -- or the --
the reason why this should be approved, from what's been presented,
I'm not compelled to grant 16 units an acre on that piece.
I don't see it's worth the elimination of the 150,000
commercial because residential does produce a strain on the system
that commercial doesn't. When you start talking about facilities, you
start talking about provision of services, it's more than just
traffic.
And we keep looking at what the traffic difference is.
What about the other differences? What about, you know, if we're --
people are -- and I mentioned to Commissioner Matthews, people are
going to go to the grocery store. The question's which one. But
every time we add a unit in this county, we're adding people that go
to the grocery store.
So, you know, there's -- there's a difference there that
I need to see a more compelling reason for 16 units an acre than
what's been presented today. Otherwise my feeling is, is it worth the
conversion of commercial zoning to add density? Somewhat, but in this
case not at 16 units an acre. And I -- I just feel, again, if we're
being candid, that's where I sit.
MR. DUANE: Yeah, and let me just try to respond to the
justifications. I'm adjacent to 20 acres of commercial land use which
is going to be a shopping center which is located immediately to the
west of the subject property, so I'm going to be adjacent to a
shopping center. I've got an institutional land use to the east of
me, you know. So I'm in between two, if you will, two non-residential
land uses.
I mean, that is -- you know, in my mind when you combine
the fact that the northern portion of this property already has almost
100 units and -- and that density was derived also based on the 16
units per acre, I'm talking about the piece in between that has
non-residential land uses on both sides and residential land use at 16
units per acre on the northern portion of this. So by my way of
thinking you can't get more compatible than that from a land use
perspective.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure I
understand what you said. Having 291 rental units in between 2
shopping centers is a picture of compatibility?
MR. DUANE: No, I have an institutional land use that's
located to the -- to the east of me. That's the -- the parcel
immediately to the east. I have a -- a shopping center, the Shops of
Santa Barbara, that is located immediately to the west.
I've established on my master plan -- as was encouraged
by the growth management plan, we've -- we've -- have an
interconnection to our shopping center next -- next door so people --
the residential component of the project can get into the shopping
center. And -- and the same provision was made in the Shops of Santa
Barbara to accommodate this traffic through a reset -- a strip that
was reserved along the northern end of the shopping center component
of the property.
So my way of thinking putting residential, you know,
relatively high density albeit, you know, next to commercial providing
an interconnection to it, having a relatively benign land use to the
west which is an institutional use that was approved for a church, you
know, when you look at the overall distribution of land uses, I think
that's good planning.
And again, we have almost 100 units that's approved on
this portion of the project. And I'm -- I'm basically trying to treat
this portion of the project the same as the residential component that
was a -- previously approved in 1990.
So I don't know that I can give you more compelling
justification other than the justification that's been provided by
your growth management staff which they believe to be in compliance
with your plan.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let me -- let me first thank you
for pointing out to us here today that it's an affordable housing
complex because I don't -- if it's in our material, I missed it. MR. DUANE: No.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And the staff may not be aware of
it either.
MR. DUANE: No. And frankly we were not here asking for
any affordable housing density bonuses.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: But, see, it's important because
there's -- there's a big difference between 16 units an acre of market
rate apartments which you have to compete in the marketplace for and
affordable housing units which are generally maybe two-thirds the
square footage size-wise as a general rule.
And the -- the type of -- of units that you're then
asking for, as was pointed out here, there are or have been already
multiple projects put in along this corridor.
And, you know, that causes me some concern because for
one thing, our growth management plan is supposed to provide that
affordable housing is distributed more equitably throughout the county
as we were talking about last week. And the other thing is simply
that we constantly hear complaints of cjustering, if you will, this
type of housing out in one locality.
So having it being presented as market rate is one thing
and affordable housing type units is another irrespective of where the
financing comes from.
MR. DUANE: Yeah, and I wasn't trying to hide anything
from the commission.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Oh, I understand. That's why --
MR. DUANE: But frankly, I -- I -- I hadn't -- I -- I --
I hadn't anticipated this discussion today. That's my problem, not
yours obviously because I'm sitting in the cat bird seat here now.
But if the size of the units and the rental rates that are going to,
you know, be charged or -- or -- or passed onto the, you know, tenters
is information that you think -- that you believe would help aid in
your decision, I would like to continue that hearing so I can get that
information to you, today's hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I think those are part
of the concerns. Mr. Mihalic, what -- what section -- I'm trying to
remember, but we had elongated discussion last week on the one
particular section that dealt with equally distributed or --
MR. MIHALIC: Section 1.4.1, Commissioner --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. MIHALIC: -- I believe to the best of my knowledge
which talks about equitable distribution throughout the county.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- and I think
Commissioner Norris's point is well taken there. And when Mr. Mihalic
says that it could be as few as 20 percent of these to -- to actually
still qualify for tax credits, that means out of 261 it may be 48 of
those units are actually affordable. There's -- it's very vague. But
I think the -- it's a valid concern that, as you said, it's turning
into affordable row there up and down Davis and Radio.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: You said that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No, I said that.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Oh, he said that. He said that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, several people have
said it now. And I do think that goes in the face of 1.4.1 that we
had our little discussion on last week at the EAR. And that in
particular is of concern to me along with some of the other things
that were outlined.
And I guess I disagree. When you say you're trying to
be compatible with the 91 units that were approved in the original PUD
in 1990 and simply extend that or expand that, I think actually you're
trying to triple a very intense residential use there on that
property. And -- and I like to think that our predecessors on the BCC
had some wisdom and had some reason why they went ahead with what they
went ahead with six years ago, five years ago.
And so I'm not immediately inclined to just
automatically jump over and say, well, let's triple the number of
residential uses in a very, very intense -- and I think you a moment
ago said, well, albeit moderately intense. And I don't know of
anything too much more intense than 16 or a net of 18 or 20 units per
acre.
MR. DUANE: Well, I've got -- in fact, the other side of
the institutional use that I spoke of to the west of us is Wild --
Wild Wood, and that's developed at a -- at a similar density if I'm
not mistaken, about 16 units per acre. I -- I don't know if that
answers your question or not. But there's been other intensity levels
in this vicinity, you know, established that approach that which was
part of what the staff reviewed when they analyzed this petition.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which, again, I think
teenforces my point that we don't want to have just a row of very
intense uses. We don't want to just have a row of affordable houses
all stuck in one section of town. It does fly in the face of the
section that says it will be equitably distributed.
MR. DUANE: Well, let me -- without being facetious,
what does the commission have in mind as -- as to what is a reasonable
use for, you know, this particular component of the project? I'm
talking about, you know, that portion between my 16 units per acre in
the northern portion and that commercial along Davis Boulevard.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I don't think that's
our job. And more importantly, there is an existing PUD.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Mr. Duane was kind of
heading down the road that I had requested. If we're going to look at
a maximum density allowed in this county for this type of zoning,
there needs to be justification. And you were somewhat going down
that road, but you lost me at a certain point. The Shops of Santa
Barbara which are permitted but not built --
MR. DUANE: It has a preliminary plat that has since expired, and
it's zoned for several hundred thousand feet of commercial development.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commercial PUD, typically C-3 type uses.
MR. DUANE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: On the other side you have a church.
MR. DUANE: That is correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To the north, what is to the north? Is it
just ag. zoned?
MR. DUANE: It's ag. -- it's ag. zoned land.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. DUANE: I understand that -- well, I've -- I've -- I've heard
some secondhand things about what their intentions --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. DUANE: -- may be but --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But you -- you've kind of hit on something,
and I understand that down the road there may be other uses, and that
actually works against your case based on what Commissioner Constantine
said. If there are higher density projects around it -- MR. DUANE: One.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One, okay -- then we want to
avoid developing a high density center in that area. But the
transition that we're talking about from commercial to a church -- and
you used institutional. I was trying to find out what that was. From
commercial to a church, to me 16 units an acre is just a half notch
below commercial use. A church is significantly below a commercial
use when we're talking about land use types.
So if we're talking about a transition, I put 16 right
up here next to commercial and well above the intensity of a church.
So when you say what does the commission have in mind, I agree with
Commissioner Constantine. It's not our job to tell you what -- you
know, what -- well, I guess in a way the voters do ask us to tell you
what we want to see there. And what you're hearing is I don't think
we want to see 16 units an acre.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'd say the board told
them in 1990 what was a reasonable use there when that -- when that
PUD was approved.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if you're going to convert it
to residential zoning, I'm looking for that transition between C-3
type uses and a church, and I'm not seeing 16 units an acre. I'm
seeing something around 12 units an acre or maybe 10 units an acre as
a transition from one to the other.
And I think that's what -- when we talk about
transitional zoning, the goal is to strike somewhere in between the
two intensities. And I think at 16 units an acre we're above what I
would call a transitional zoning from a C-3 use to a church.
And, you know, maybe it won't have a negative impact on
the church, but I think throughout the community that's what we're
looking for when we talk about transitional zoning.
So I guess, you know, you were heading down that road.
And had that been an approved commercial development on the other
side, I would have every reason then to support 16 units an acre
because you are sandwiched between two high intensities uses. But
you're not. You have high intensity on one side that you need to
buffer from, but you have a low intensity on the other.
So I'm looking for something more transitional than 16
units an acre as a land use. And that -- to be honest, that's where
I'm coming from at this point.
MR. DUANE: And I don't think this will help me, but I
-- I think you can appreciate, you know, my dilemma. You know, I've
got a plan that en -- it says up to 16 units per acre. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh.
MR. DUANE: But if our higher density development is to
go in these activity centers, by virtue of that, all the adjacent land
uses are going to be lower intensity; okay? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh.
MR. DUANE: And I guess I'm at odds as to how I advise a
client or how I proceed through the planning process because I've got
a plan on one hand that tells me I can have up to 16 units per acre,
and I'm in a discussion right now where I'm not sure, you know, what
the density that the board may approve.
It just puts me and my client that certainly he
proceeded at his own risk to make applications for permits. But we're
at this point in the process where either rightly or wrongly I didn't
anticipate having this kind of a -- of a discussion today because I
thought this was the most appropriate location for this kind of a land
use.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I believe we're getting repetitive
in our discussions here. Mr. Mihalic, do you have --
MR. MIHALIC: Commissioners, I would just like to say
that I like to know about affordable housing developments before they
come to the board. And I would like to talk to this developer and say
that I want some very low income units in this development. At least
20 percent of the units I would like to be very low income to try to
deal with the lower income ranges of working households that we see.
And I've never spoken to this developer about this development.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Dotrill,
there are no public speakers?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So he don't have a plan, but he
does.
MR. DUANE: Well, I would -- I would like to continue
today's hearing if for no other reason to try to get the information
to your housing and urban improvement director, give him some more
information about what the rental rates are, what percent is going to
be affordable, moderate, et cetera. I realize that may or may not
change the disposition of the board. But I'd like to at least keep
the window open to see if what I can provide you is of any use to
you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I think I'm hearing the board
members say that this proposal in its current form no matter -- I
think we're saying we know enough information about the current
proposal not to support it and, therefore, don't feel any reason to
continue it. Is that what I'm hearing from -- from the board?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My -- my personal feeling is that
you would have to be dramatically devoted to very low income housing
to look at 16 units an acre here and --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Next to Countryside?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And -- and even at that, we have
to then consider where it's being put. So unless you're willing to
look at a density of 12 units an acre which I feel is transitional in
nature for this parcel, I don't see any reason to continue the item.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, if you'll close
the public hearing -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I'll make a motion to deny
the petition PUD-89-17, sub 1.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
MR. DUANE: Do I have an opportunity to discuss this?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I did -- I did --
MR. DUANE: I -- I am requesting a continuance to see if
any additional density below 16 is acceptable to my client. I was led
to believe it was not, but I would at least like to have the
opportunity to discuss this with him before we deny the project.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's -- what's -- what's the
harm if we -- if we continue this if -- I mean, what -- what's the
harm?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- the harm is --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Objection runs more to the -- the
aspect of affordable housing in this particular location than it does
to the density itself per se.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I agree. The harm is
it's a moot point because in my eyes it is in conflict with 1.4.1
which doesn't have anything to do with whether it's 16 or 12.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And in fairness, though, for now
I feel the need to withdraw my second because I did tell Mr. Duane
before the public hearing was closed that if this were at 12 units an
acre I would have reason to consider it regardless of whether it's
affordable or not because to me that's a fair transitional zoning for
that parcel understanding the uses and where it's located. I'm only
one of five. But that -- that's my -- my feeling.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need to clarify one comment
Mr. Duane said then because he indicated there was only one other
bordering intense use, and that's not accurate. There are three.
Santa Barbara Landings is one. There's one being moved ahead right
now in Plantation that's already got the zoning approved. And then
there's Wild Wood. So this is actually the fourth potential intense
residential even at 12 that goes in that area.
So I think there's -- that further buffers -- buffets
the argument that it's not appropriate. But again, I go back. My
argument isn't even just the intensity issue. It's this goes against
our own comprehensive plan, 1.4.1, where we say it will be equitably
distributed. And this is turning into affordable row. Up and down
Davis and Radio Road are boom, boom, boom. It's probably six or seven
existing.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Osprey Landings right down the
street.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Osprey Landing. There's two
on Radio Road. Plantation will be the third. Santa Barbara Landings
exists, Wild Wood now. This would be number seven.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So -- but this -- sorry.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That is nowhere close to
being equitably distributed.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sorry.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. My -- my question is just
what's to be harmed by leaving this open. They can always withdraw
it. I think it's pretty clear what it is the will of this board will
be.
MR. DUANE: And I may not be back.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hay not be back. But why -- why
not leave it open and let them see if they can bring something back.
What do we have to gain by shooting them down except for that they
can't come back for six months? Why not leave it open. If they have
something they can bring back, they bring it back. If they don't, it
goes away.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I personally because of the
statement I -- I issued -- and I don't disagree with you on the
affordable. But I think we may have difficulty, and Mr. Weigel would
probably help me on this. But if we -- well, actually you're citing a
policy, so you're -- you're fairly safe there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Citing a policy that's up --
been upheld in court cases. We have successfully used that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, did you have something
you wanted to add here?
MR. WEIGEL: No. It's just that the statements that
you're making such as Mr. Constantine's making would need to be
recited in the actual action that you take if you go along that
direction.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: As our official legal findings?
MR. WEIGEL: As your findings so you can create the
record appropriate.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Is -- is your proposal, Mr. Duane
-- I'm granting you some leniency here because you have some concerns
even though I've already closed the public hearing. Is your proposal
to dramatically alter this and -- and to move into something other
than affordable housing and that's why you want a continuance?
MR. DUANE: If I come back before this board, it will
not be for the proposal I presented to you today. That is obvious.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Will it contain affordable
housing?
MR. DUANE: I need to see whether a lower density is one
of any interest to my client. And two, I want to try to get some more
information of what benefits there may be to this project if it is
approved from the standpoint affordability so I can address some of
the other issues you raised today.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I've got to assume it's
going to include affordable housing because that's what the tax
credits are based on. So if you take that element out, he no longer
gets the tax credits which means it's no longer a viable project as it
is currently presented. Is that a fair statement?
MR. DUANE: I -- I understand that he was going to use
tax credits which would result in rentals less than -- than the market
rate. I -- I -- I don't know how to respond to you any different than
that. I just would appreciate -- I would just appreciate a
continuation so I can address some of these issues today. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, look, I --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's not a second on the --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Excuse me.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I'll second the motion to get it on
the floor. But -- but I would be willing to consider a continuance if
I can have an answer to the question would it do any good -- will this
come back with affordable housing as a component, or will it not? If
we can answer that, then we'll consider a continuance. I'll reopen
the public hearing. Please identify yourself.
MR. ZIMMERMAN: Commissioners, my name is Howard
Zimmerman, and I didn't come today prepared to address you. I came as
an observer. Let me tell you that I'm part of the development team
that proposes to do the project, and I -- my role in the project was
not to determine number of units, how they were going to be financed,
and how they're not going to be financed. My role is more of the
getting the job done.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Uh-huh.
MR. ZIMMERMAN: But let me say this to you: That I've
been through this process for some 25 years. I understand what
happens at commission levels. I understand concerns, and I understand
criteria change and policy changes. I would like to ask, as the
discussion was going, for a continuation. I will go back to the
principals of the -- of the development team, express what I've heard
here today, say to them what I've heard you say, and find out from
them if coming back with a non-affordable housing at a lower density
is in the cards and if the owner of the property will work with the
development team to make this project viable at that level.
If it won't work at that level, then we will withdraw
the application, and we will not be back before you. But we would
like the opportunity to deal with those concerns that we've heard you
express.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will you agree, Mr. Duane,
not to return if it's an affordable housing component? And the reason
I ask that is it takes four votes to get that approval, and it appears
you have at least two who are questioning whether it meets 1-4-1 of
our policy. And so, I mean, if you're going to bring something
different back, there's no need for you to wait six months to do
that.
But if you're going to bring back 1.4.1, then let's -- I
mean, if you're gonna bring back affordable housing which relates to
1.4.1, let's go ahead and -- and deal with that today because it's not
so much the number of units there as it is dealing with that issue.
And I can deal with that today regardless whether it's 12 or 14 or
16.
MR. DUANE: Okay. Well, we will not bring an affordable
housing component back to you if that's what your desire is.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. That's fine, and we'll
accept that as -- as your commitment and would like to point out that
if you do come back with a proposal, one of the commitments that I
will ask for will be a PUD notation that affordable housing will not
be a component.
MR. DUANE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: For the record then, it should be clear
that if Mr. Duane and petitioner are coming back, it would either be a
date certain within the current advertised period, or there will be
readvertisement or that it's actually being withdrawn at this time.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. What -- how long would they
have to get back within the current advertised period?
MR. WEIGEL: I think this is the first advertised date,
so they've got up to five weeks from now to bring it back, but it
should be told the dates --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Do they have to re-go through the
planning commission?
MR. WEIGEL: I -- no, they don't have to. It really
doesn't have to do with the weeks. But no, they don't necessarily
have to go through the planning commission.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Is five weeks acceptable?
MR. DUANE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In the event that it goes
longer than five weeks, who -- who picks up the tab for
readvertising?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, unless it's stated on the record, it
would be the petitioner's requirement. But as I understand it then,
five weeks from today's date is the date that's being suggested to
bring it back, and the record will reflect that.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay? Would you withdraw your
motion?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll withdraw my motion as
long as we set that date certain because I'm going to notify a few
folks of this as well. So we'll set it date certain for five weeks.
I'll make a -- I'll withdraw my initial motion and make a motion we
continue this item for five weeks.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
MR. DUANE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Put it on my calendar,
please.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
That is continued then for a five-week period.
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 96-14 INCREASING THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS ON THE COUNCIL OF
ECONOMIC ADVISORS - ADOPTED WITH CHANGE
Next item is 12(C)(1), public hearing for board of
commissioners to discuss and approve an ordinance to increase the
number of members on the Council of Economic Advisors.
MR. MIHALIC: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the
record, Greg Mihalic, director of housing and urban improvement. And
on January 16 during the annual report of the Council of Economic
Advisors, Mr. Jim Loskel, the chairman of that council, came before
you and discussed the need to increase the number of members on the
council from 12 to 18.
This specifically allows some expertise to be appointed
to the council in the areas of healthcare, agriculture, education,
hospitality, manufacturing, and international business. This
ordinance reflects those recommendations made by Chairman Loskel.
I would like to point out that we do have a change on
page 6 of your stamped agenda, numbered page 6, in the effective date
language of this ordinance. The new language will read, this
ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Secretary of
State, period. And there's been an inserted page in the original copy
reflecting that.
Mr. Loskel was out of town. He would have liked to be
here today, but it was impossible for him. I'd be happy to answer any
questions.
MR. DORRILL: We have no other speakers.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
MR. HIHALIC: Thank you, commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Opposed?
No one's opposed to that one.
Item #12C2
ORDINANCE 96-15 AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 88-90, AS AMENDED,
RELATING TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE ORDINANCE,
AMENDING FRANCHISE PROVISIONS, MODIFYING INSURANCE PROVISIONS, AND
AMENDING BONDING PROVISIONS - ADOPTED AS AMENDED
12(C)(2), recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending
Collier County ordinance number 88-90 dealing with Collier County's
cable television franchise ordinance.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, while they're coming
forward, I'd like to just for those of you who -- who do not know, I'd
like to introduce to you Jean Herritt who's doing some work on your
staff and also in the audience Mary Lobisco who is doing some
part-time work and at least tell you that we have some amazing talent
that has come our way recently to help with utility rate and franchise
administration matters.
And I don't mind at least embarrassing them briefly to
let you know that Ms. Herritt is a former deputy secretary of state
for the state of Indiana now living in Collier County.
And Ms. Lobisco is former chief of staff to three or
four United States congressman all from the Grand Rapids, Michigan,
district but both of whom are now active and involved as temporary
part-time employees of -- of yours pending the creation of this new
utility rate regulation department. But we're delighted to have
them. I just want to introduce them to you today. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
MS. HERRITT: Thank you very much. Hay I please for the
first and last time correct the county manager. It was the state of
Illinois. However --
MR. DORRILL: Excuse me.
MS. HERRITT: -- I also have been spent most of my
career in the state of Indiana as the commissioner of the department
of human services and the associate superintendent of public
construction. But I am very glad to be here. Thank you very much for
that fine introduction. And because I've only been here one week, the
amendment to the ordinance will be discussed by Heidi Ashton. Thank
you.
MS. ASHTON: Good afternoon, commissioners. This
ordinance amendment was directed by the commissioners in a -- on a
consent agenda item a couple months ago. The majority of changes are
to improve our ordinance. As we went through the Marco Island Cable
application process, some of these amendments were developed at that
time.
In addition, we've provided a couple other amendments
that are a result of the cable litigation. I can go through each of
the amendments if you'd like.
One additional amendment I'd like to point out was
requested by the cable committee to the county manager, and that is
amendment to the gross revenues provision. Currently gross revenues
are collected in March of each year as an estimate of the fees, and
then at the end of the year there's a -- an audit, and then the cable
operators settle with the county if there's been an underpayment
made.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if
you want to go through all 12 of these. I have a question on one
specifically.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Please ask it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On item 7 it says, the county
manager's time to review the application which is currently 90 days
may be extended upon request by the county manager. Request to whom
by whom? It just seems like the county manager's office is the one
reviewing it, and they can say, gosh, we need extra time and
indefinitely continue that. And I don't know that that makes a whole
lot of sense.
MS. ASHTON: I think the idea is that that would go on
consent indicating to the board that additional time is needed for the
review. And that's something that was developed probably a year ago
by the cable committee and as a -- as a result of the processing of
the Marco Island Cable application.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the request then would be
to the board of commissioners?
MS. ASHTON: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Oh, okay. That solves that
problem.
MS. ASHTON: I can clarify that in the ordinance.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Do we have any questions on any
other of the items?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does item 13 mandate we all
get these neat little gavel pencils?
MS. ASHTON: I'm sorry?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just kidding.
MR. DORRILL: You have two speakers, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And when do we get a shot at this
agreement in whole? At the renewal? When is that? MR. DORRILL: '98?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Next year.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Seven, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. Can't wait.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Would you call the public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Fuchs, and then following Mr. Fuchs is
Mr. Gaston. Mr. Gaston, if you'd stand by, please.
MR. FUCHS: Good afternoon. Ken Fuchs, district
manager, Continental Cablevision. Thank you for allowing me to speak
today.
There have been a significant amount of changes,
modifications, additions, and evolutionary processi (sic), if you
will, to the telecommunications world from a regulatory perspective.
And we are pleased to bring many of these technical advances right
here home to Collier County.
Items that have been modified of late are the
telecommunications act of 1996, something known as the social
contract, and also some changes in our industry when it comes to
ownership.
And if I may just take a moment, please, the
telecommunications act of 1996 opens a tremendous amount of
opportunities for telecommunications providers to expand service
offerings as well as enter each other's businesses if you will. It
also al -- creates a pathway for deregulation of our industry. And
that deregulation is scheduled to come to a cl -- that regulatory
window, if you will, will be for the most part coming to a close in
the year 2000.
A special agreement which has been reached known as a
social contract was reached with Continental Cablevision and the
Federal Communications Commission in October of 1995. And it offers a
variety of -- of opportunities. And you are currently now in a 45-day
window for comment and consideration of certain aspects of that social
contract.
In short, Continental Cablevision is -- is -- is now
committed to invest millions of dollars right here in southwest
Florida increasing the num -- the channel capacity of its cable system
to 112 channels. We'll also be stabilizing our rates and creating a
rate structure in which our customers will know between now and the
year 2000 precisely what their rates will be. There will no longer be
a question as to from a year-to-year basis what our customers' rates
will be.
Additionally, the eight channel a la carte offerings
that we have have been modified by the FCC and will be reduced to
four. And four a la carte services that are in our cable plus tier
will be migrated, if you will, to a -- cable plus service offerings.
From a rate perspective, there are several -- several
items that are taking place. Number one, there will be a rate
reduction taking place in the fourth quarter of this year. Coinciding
with that rate reduction, there will also be an opportunity for
Continental to modify its rates upward to for all intents and puts --
for all intents of purposes nullify the rate -- that particular rate
reduction, again, in concert with the social contract as well as the
beginning in August or September of 1996 with a credit program which
should last approximately one year and for qualified customers be
receiving -- each customer on a monthly basis will be receiving a
credit of about a dollar a month for ten months. The credit program
that was going to be introduced here in southwest Florida equals to
and is approximately $500,000 in credits to qualified customers.
The -- additionally, we have a commitment to offer cable
television service free of charge to our public schools as well as
offer at no charge to schools Internet access through cable modems.
And as soon as we offer that product, that service, to our -- to our
community, from a retail basis we will be offering it to our -- all of
our public schools within our service area at no charge.
With respect to the modification of ordinance
eighty-eight ninety specifically, there are some items that I would
like to bring to your attention. Number one is this particular --
these adjustments that are being considered do not affect your
incumbent cable operators and Continental inclusive.
Section 4 of the amendment has language that speaks
specifically to the review of finances. Section 3 -- excuse me, 3
dot 3-J discusses portions of the ordinance where a review process is
-- is con -- is considered. And section 3 dot 11 also talks about
franchise fee payments and the calendar thereto.
We find that the -- the modifications to the franchise
fee area is extremely burdensome. And, quite frankly, with today's
software package, we do not have the ability to account for our
franchise fee payments on a monthly basis and account for that. It is
extremely burdensome, and we look forward to discussing these items
with your staff through the renewal process. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. FUCHS: And would like to reserve an opportunity to
comment after the next speaker speaks. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I don't think we have that
procedure.
Next public speaker, please.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Gaston. Mr. -- Mr. Fuchs had asked me
that if Mr. Gaston poses some particular questions of him would he
have the opportunity to come back. And I told him that -- that he
would but at the discretion of the chairman, not knowing what Mr.
Gaston might say.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, I don't think this board is
the correct forum for two cable operators to be asking questions of
each other. If you have something to say for five minutes, then
that's fine. You can ask or you can tell, but you got five minutes.
MR. GASTON: Okay. For the record, William R. Gaston,
president of Marco Island Cable. I have two comments and one
modification request.
First off, Marco Island Cable does support the
modifications as per the draft agreement or the draft of the
modification of eighty-eight ninety as presented. I would like to
make a request that the franchise fee payments be made by the 20th of
the month rather than the 10th of the month, make them somewhat
similar to the way sales taxes are made.
Cable companies and anybody else has to pay sales taxes
by the 20th of the month. The computations are almost the same except
for 5 percent versus 6 percent. And it just would make things a
little easier to do it -- pick it up and do it one -- one time a
month.
The other comment I would like to make or one other
comment I'd like to make is right on the first page of the draft
agreement you have -- you're going to strike -- this is on page 1 --
of origination, transmission, and distribution of electronic signals
by cable and associated and similar devices including but not limited
to installation along, under, over, through, across, and upon public
rights-of-way.
Now, that's -- the last part through access (sic) and
upon public rights-of-way is -- is very significant because let's say
you had a situation like at the Radisson and the Hilton which are two
properties that are side by side. If you take this out of the
provision, it would make it -- or out of the ordinance, it would make
it so that the Radisson and Hilton could not put in their own cable
system and operate it together.
The cable definition, the FCC cable definition, is two
buildings of non-common ownership. A franchise is required if you
have two buildings of non-common ownership or management. Also you'd
experience a problem possibly in trailer parks.
So I don't know whether you want to open up this -- this
particular can of worms by striking this -- this -- this provision.
As a cable operator, it's definitely to my advantage to continue with
that -- to keep that provision.
One additional comment, you have a -- a place in the
current franchise that says a certified financial statement is
required. The accountants do not recognize a certified financial
statement. It's not in the dictionary of accounting, so to speak.
They recognize audited, compiled, but not certified. Possibly a
clarification on audited or certified should be made or just say that
you want an audited statement.
That's really all I have. I do support it and hope it
passes.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you. Mr. Weigel, could you
quickly comment on Mr. Gaston's contention there about the through,
across, and upon the public right-of-way statement?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I heard it. I understood it as I
heard it, but I don't know exactly the problem. Maybe Miss Ashton can
comment further in regard to the language here. And Mr. Gaston talked
about striking through, and I guess he was referring to striking
through something other than the strike-throughs that are here, but
maybe Heidi can explain here what we've got.
MS. ASHTON: Okay. I'm not sure if I understood exactly
his comment, but what I think he was talking about is the across and
upon the public rights-of-way or the whole section? MR. GASTON: Correct.
MS. ASHTON: Okay. The reason that is deleted is -- we
discussed that among the cable committee, and the -- this section is
being amended to make it consistent with the FCC rules and the
legislation that deal with federal legislation.
There are FCC orders. I don't want to get into all the
details. But you don't necessarily have to cross a county
right-of-way in order to require -- to be required to have a franchise
in Collier County. And that's based upon the FCC's interpretation of
the federal act. And we felt that if we kept that language in that
there could be some confusion as to the interpretation of the
section. And that's why we --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And it appears you were right.
MS. ASHTON: Pardon me?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: It appears that you were right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: About the confusion.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: About the confusion.
MS. ASHTON: Right. So we thought that this simplified
that there was another section that -- that describes the type of
facilities that are provided that would require a franchise so --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Questions from the board?
MS. ASHTON: Does that answer your question? I'd be
happy to talk about it further with you, Mr. Gaston.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I'm just a little
confused. Does that then mean Mr. Gaston is correct? If two hotels
side by side want to hook up with the same cable deal, they would be
considered a franchise and be required to go through all the hoops
attached therein?
MS. ASHTON: I believe so.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aren't they just --
MS. ASHTON: They're unrelated. I mean, it depends on
the types of services that they provide which is under another section
which I'll get for you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually I think rather than
being concerned about them becoming a franchise he'd prefer they use
his service. You know, it's -- it's -- you know, it's -- the way it
is now that in order to become a franchise they would have to go
through some county right-of-way.
MS. ASHTON: No.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. ASHTON: That's not our interpretation.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In that case I join the
confusion. Never mind.
MS. ASHTON: No. And if you look at the section of the
strike-through, it says including but not limited to. And then you go
through that list. So that's why we deleted it. We felt that there
was some confusion as to the interpretation of that section, and we
defer the interpretation of the laws to the FCC and the courts as
they've decided so far.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. So the interpretation that
we are using is the one that has been upheld by courts.
MS. ASHTON: Well, the interpretation is the FCC's
interpretation, and the court hit on it slightly in a United States
Supreme Court case, so that's why, but it's not the direct issue of
that case to answer your question.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you never did answer my
question. The changes -- are the -- are the changes we're making
affecting the hotel scenario, or that's just the way it is anyway?
That's the way it's always been. That's the way it is now, and this
doesn't have any effect on it.
MS. ASHTON: The intent is not to change the application
of the federal law. It's to clarify our ordinance where we thought it
was confusing.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me. I'll be right
back.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think -- I think I understand.
It's that our ordinance could have been read in a way that's
contradictory to the FCC interpretations, so in order to eliminate
that possibility we're changing the language. MS. ASHTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that whatever the FCC
interprets, it can without question be applied to our ordinance.
MS. ASHTON: Right.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's all fine, but I'm still
going back to Mr. Gaston said it allows for X to happen. It allows
for two hotels to jointly get a system and become a franchise the way
it reads now.
MS. ASHTON: Well, they would have to go through the --
the franchise application. I'm -- I'm no expert on cable, and I'm,
you know, kind of here by default. But as I understand it, there's a
-- you know, you can have a master head, and maybe Mr. Fuchs could
comment on that where if it -- you know, if it comes into -- like an
apartment complex, they can provide the service among the complex.
But once they start serving other unrelated condos, then
they would need a franchise or once they start bringing in
single-family homes -- that's the way the FCC has interpreted certain
sections. And we have the same section in our ordinance in a separate
area. They've said once single-family homes are thrown into the mix,
then it doesn't matter if you cross county right-of-way or not.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So these changes don't
materially affect the ability for that to happen one way or the
other?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right.
MS. ASHTON: That's the way I read it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
MS. ASHTON: I mean, there are some other provisions
that do make other changes, but this particular one we did not feel
made a change.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Is that it for the public speakers,
Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What about the 20th instead of
the 10th each month?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That makes sense.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: It's fine with me. I have no
objection to that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you, Miss Ashton? I mean,
does the committee to change the 20th to the 10th?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The 10th to the 20th.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean the 10th to the 20th.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: 10th to the 20th.
MS. ASHTON: Yeah. I think the intent of the committee
was to start collecting monthly after the renewal process, after the
renewals are in effect. And so I don't think the 10th is the
significant factor. It's the monthly collection. So I don't think
that that would be a problem.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: It doesn't make any difference
anyway except for the first month because you'll -- you'll -- you'll
miss ten days -- you'll be ten days out of schedule, and then it will
be exact monthly ever --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thirty days after.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- evermore from that point on. So
it won't make any difference, and that's fine with me.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. If it's harmless, let's go
ahead and do that.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Any objection to that?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, huh-uh. I think it -- it's
really reasonable because so many companies really in ten days it's
difficult to close the books.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Sure.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question. Mr. Gaston
raised the financial statement question. What was the intent of the
committee on that? Was it to have audited financials? MS. ASHTON: Let me take a look.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He said certified, and he said
there's not -- there's no such animal.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, there -- there's only
three levels of service: Compile, review, and audit.
MS. ASHTON: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: I think, Ms. Matthews, perhaps you ought
to give us some advice there. And if your recommendation is to go to
audited financial statements --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I'm interested in what --
what the committee wanted to achieve. If -- many times the word
certified is substituted for audited. And if that's what they
intended, then -- then that's what it should be. Obviously only
certified public accountants can do audits. I mean, that -- that --
that's by law. So that's what I think they intended.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if we replace certified with
audited, we're clarifying and not changing the intent. Is that a --
MS. ASHTON: I'm sorry. I don't see the -- which
section you're specifically referring to.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Just a matter of terminology. It
doesn't matter the section. The --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's an area that said
certified financial statement or certified --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Financial statements.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. And change that to audited
financial statement. Is that --COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Normally when -- when people
refer to certified statements, they're talking about audited
statements. And -- and that --
MS. ASHTON: I'm getting information from our financial
people that audited is fine.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Audited's preferred?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
MS. ASHTON: Yeah, I'll make that change. Also for the
record I'd like to mention that the effective date is -- is going to
be amended to the date of the filing with the secretary of state.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve with the change
of the 20th from the 10th and replacing certified with audited as it
appears in the document.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Is there a second?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. Second. I'm sorry.
You aren't out there alone.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not that late, folks.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #13A1
PETITION V-96-2, BILL HOOVER REPRESENTING CORAL CAY ADVENTURE GOLF,
LTD., REQUESTING A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FEET TO 10
FEET FOR THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND A 5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED 15 FOOT SETBACK FOR SIGNS TO 10 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
2205 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL - DENIED
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, commissioners.
Chahran Badamtchian from planning staff. This variance is for a golf
course located on the East Trail. They used to have 30-foot front
setback. But because of the taking by the state, the setback has been
reduced to ten feet.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As I always do, I apologize
for interrupting. But primarily this is just caused because of the
widening of U.S. 41 by state DOT. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, there is -- there
was a discussion at the planning commission -- when I read through
this, I saw a seven-two vote at the planning commission. So I called
a representative. And turns out I called one that -- that had a
discussion that initiated it. And it's something I think needs to be
clarified. And hopefully, Mr. Hoover, since that time, you've --
you've got the answer to this. When the FDOT takes property, if they
affect a business adversely, they pay the business for that adverse
impact.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If this business has been paid
for adverse impacts yet it's function is not affected and by granting
this variance we're allowing it to continue as it always has, I want
to know if they've been paid for their business being impacted
adversely. And if they have, I'm not going to approve this variance
until I get -- until I talk to the FDOT. I put a call into them
yesterday, and that was obviously too short of notice.
But my problem here is if the FDOT said, well, you've
received a 10 percent impact to your business and here's additional
months -- monies on top of the land cost, yet we issue this variance
and it causes no interruption in their business and there is no
reduction, the taxpayers are getting hit for something they don't
deserve to be hit for. And so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's normal. It is normal
for that to be --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Goes on all the time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- for that to be included in the
compensation.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They were paid for it, but I don't
know if it was adequate amount or not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it has to be adequate under
the state law.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But do you see where I'm getting,
though? If --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Arnold?
MR. ARNOLD: If I might, Wayne Arnold for the record.
One other issue that arises is the fact that our Land Development Code
makes provisions for right-of-way acquisition. And it provides that a
front yard may be reduced by the amount of the taking not to exceed or
to have a minimum yard of ten feet or greater is what it essentially
says.
So what they're trying to do here is ratify that
ten-foot setback that our code grants them administratively, allows
them to have a ten-foot setback. They would like that vested through
a resolution so they can have this that runs with the property. I
think that's the primary issue.
To me that was the issue as opposed to the issue of
whether or not they were compensated. They have been compensated for
the taking. And I believe that they've been through the proceedings
and have probably received a payment.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have a problem with --
with the variance itself. My problem comes in that when the property
was taken, a value of that property was assigned, and they were paid.
In -- and this is a double -- a double hit that I've been introduced
to recently that I don't understand.
In addition, if they can prove to the FDOT or show the
FDOT that their business has been adversely impacted by this, they can
get a percentage additional on top of what the property cost is.
However, if we grant this variance, thereby their
business all -- being allowed to continue to operate as it always has
with no reduction in revenues, then they should not be compensated for
that. And this is one of those cases of one government arm doing one
thing, another doing another, and the taxpayer may be footing the
bill.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me throw out an expla --
potential explanation as to why we can't address that is if you -- if
you suddenly have three more -- three lanes of traffic directly
adjacent to your property, potentially someone with small kids that
might have gone to that place to do their miniature golfing may have
less of a desire to be there. Obviously there's fencing and
otherwise. But there are impacts over and above what can be
immediately pointed to, okay, here it is in concrete, gosh, because
your building isn't here, you're definitely going to get X number less
customers. I think realistically if you have a less appealing
situation, particularly for a family environment, there will be an
argument. I'm not arguing for them, but that's an argument that could
be made --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that potentially you may
lose. But I think Mr. Arnold's point's the -- is the important one is
all we're being asked to do is ratify existing policy. I don't
disagree that two governments from time to time get taken advantage of
because --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We often pull at each other.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask Mr. Arnold a question
because my note on here as I read through it is that this seems to me
our growth management requirements, why wasn't it administratively
granted. You're telling me that it was administratively granted, but
the petitioner is asking for it to be ratified. What's the difference
between the two? There's a reason he wants it ratified.
MR. ARNOLD: I guess my easiest explanation -- and we
had a little bit of this discussion with the planning commission -- is
that the Land Development Code is subject to change. We could decide
that that provision is not the acceptable policy for the county to
move forward where we've had right-of-way acquisitions. This, in
fact, was a state taking. But it could, in fact, apply to a county
taking.
But by the same token, the issue I had is that -- we
discussed blanket variances and how we were going to handle this whole
corridor. And months ago it was decided not to have a blanket
variance.
My biggest concern is do we want to go ahead and set a
ten-foot setback minimum if, in fact, we may at some point in the
future look at redevelopment potential along this corridor not knowing
what that might bring.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. ARNOLD: That's my -- my only professional concern
in granting it because today we have the administrative ability to
give Mr. Hoover what they're asking for.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- my thought was -- was that
again, I wouldn't want to change something midstream on somebody. So
if administratively they're permitted to do this already by our code,
fine.
But before I was on county commission when I was on that
development advisory committee, we started talking about that blanket
variance. And I couldn't be more strongly in opposition to anything
than I am to that. That absolutely means that nothing will ever get
better. I don't want to do anything to discourage the redevelopment
of that area. And I think these variances do exactly that. I don't
-- I'm going to oppose this for that reason. I -- I don't even like
the administrative ability to do it much less the -- doing it in the
board's forum.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to continue with what I
was trying to get to. Right now if it's an administrative variance,
if we change the Land Development Code, that variance changes also.
Does -- does that put him into some sort of a legal non-conforming
status?
MR. ARNOLD: I think technically it would if that policy
change would then require the full 25-foot setback, for instance, on
C-4 zoned property which -- which it currently is.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And -- and if something happened
to the property that caused greater than 50 percent damage, he would
not be allowed to rebuild. MR. ARNOLD: Right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But if we grant this variance,
he's -- he's got it forever.
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. But I think what they're
looking for from --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ding, ding, ding.
MR. ARNOLD: -- from the applicant's perspective is they
currently or before the take enjoyed that right. And they would --
for instance, if they wanted to expand their facility to include a
restaurant or snack bar, whatever, they could have done so and well
exceeded the 25-foot setback.
But because of the taking, now they're within 12 feet of
the property line. They, in fact, want to make sure that they can
move forward within ten feet of the property line. And I understand
that. But that's where Commissioner Hancock's point --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now we're -- now we're tying in
what I was talking about.
MR. ARNOLD: Then you're tying it back to what you said.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If they got -- if they got that
payment, why give them the -- the eventual long-term, do what you
want, we don't give a rat's behind approval that we're being asked to
do here?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just say no.
MR. ARNOLD: I think this certainly raised an issue that
we as staff recognized we may want to address, and we --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A rat's behind.
MR. ARNOLD: -- definitely need to discuss this with Tom
Conrecode and George Archibald in terms of road projects and how we
apply this policy. But it's something we may want to bring back to
you for more formal discussion in a possible Land Development Code
amendment sometime this summer.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, I -- I wouldn't be surprised
if Mr. Hoover wanted to say something. What do you have to say for
yourself here, Mr. Hoover?
MR. HOOVER: Actually I'm not the most familiar person
on this case. David Rynders couldn't make it today, and he's at a
bond closing that's going to take the whole day and part of this
evening.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Have him check his arbitrage
certificates.
MR. HOOVER: And anyway, I would like to put on the
record that we're not double dipping as was mentioned at the planning
commission, that there was a concern of that. And as a taxpayer I
would have a concern about that also.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wait. I need to clarify that.
You're telling me that beyond the exact, to-the-penny value of the
land, the property owner hasn't received a dime over that.
MR. HOOVER: Oh, no.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. HOOVER: No, because there's -- there's a whole
bunch -- in other words, they took, I think, 5,800 square feet. So
you pay like -- there's an appraisal -- probably $8 or $10 a square
foot. Okay. Then we're going to have to shut the facility down this
summer for several months while we're actually losing like five or six
golf holes. And you can't have a 31-hole miniature golf course
obviously.
So what we're doing is the FDOT made a settlement with
our client based on the fact that they assumed that the -- the Land
Development Code -- I forget the exact section now that Wayne's
talking about. They acted like that was permanent. And David Rynders
and I have a concern as well as the client that that's -- very likely
could be changed some time in the future.
So if we're basing the settlement on a certain dollar
fixture and acting like the Land Development Code is permanent, that's
the reason -- one of the key reasons we're applying for a variance.
The other factor is our building is very unique compared
to anything along there. It costs almost two million dollars now to
put up one of these adventure-type golf courses. And we're going to
put over $200,000 back in this thing. And if we do, we want the
structure, the actual little building on there, to be conforming
because if it's non-conforming -- and I think as Commissioner Matthews
pointed out, if you -- a non-conforming building has -- can have lots
of problems down the road here. And we've got 25 percent extra
parking spaces on this site. And so we could actually expand that
building a little bit if the market dictated that.
So my concern as a planner is that a non-conforming
building, we're not being reimbursed for having the building
non-conforming. So we would like to keep the building conforming, and
that's how we feel that we're not double dipping.
But if we invest several hundred thousand dollars on
making this a nice course, again, and making it a little bit more
modern, we would like to protect that investment for as long as we
Can.
Additionally, we're sticking about twenty -- I think
it's 27 new live oaks on the property. We're going way out of our
way, and staff has already reviewed the -- it's called like a mini
SDP. It's called a site improvement plan. We're going way out of our
way to make the landscaping as nice as possible. And we're meeting --
that's not required. We're just going above and beyond that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question of staff. Is there any
way a -- this particular approval can run with the current use and not
with the land in perpetuity?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Usually variances, they run with the
land unless you stipulate that way.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because the point you make, if
you have been compensated in no way for the fact that you're left with
a legal non-conforming use -- or excuse me, a non-conforming use, if
there's been no part of your compensation package that recognizes the
fact that you have a non-conforming structure -- I believe that's what
you told me.
MR. HOOVER: That's the way I understand that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, and understand if I check
and find out different, I would bring this item back. But if -- if
that's the case and you have not been compensated for that, then what
you're looking to do is maintain the rights of your use. I don't see
a problem with that. But as Commissioner Hac'Kie said, what happens
is if it runs with the land, two years from now, you know, it's --
someone buys it and does something else with it. And we're stuck with
a --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You just defined -- you just gave
the two different legal definitions. One is one -- the one that runs
with the land, that is a variance. The one that runs with the use,
that is a non-conforming use.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that -- is that true?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You can't --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In other words --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A variance can't run with a use.
That's what a non-conforming use is is a variance for the use.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I think our staff is telling that
yes, you can stipulate that in a variance.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If you stipulate that this variance is
only for the existing building, that to me would run with the existing
building.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're mixing legal theories.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It sounds like to me there's --
there's -- under a non-conforming use, can he expand his building, Mr.
Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: No, he can't. But correct me if I'm wrong,
staff, but by virtue of the administrative variance it's not -- it's
not non-conforming, but you can't do anything beyond it and come back
and -- later on. I mean, it's just sort of recognized as conforming
because there's administrative variance that's granted. But you can't
come back -- maybe it's a distinction without, you know, words. But
you can't come back and do changes later within the -- within the
variance area.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There is a provision in our Land
Development Code allowing expansion of non-conforming buildings if
they are not increasing the non-conformity. They can always expand
toward the back, not toward the front or the side where they need a
variance. They can always expand it if they want to.
MR. HOOVER: I think that's -- if I'm not mistaken,
that's limited some, but I might be wrong. I haven't looked at that
in a while.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We'll close the public hearing at
this time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move denial.
MR. HOOVER: Could I -- could I make a comment? I
didn't realize you were closing the petition that quickly. But I
think I'd like to request a continuance that -- so I can bring
Attorney David Rynders to the hearing and explain what actually got --
we got compensated for and make that very clear because I don't -- I'm
pretty sure I'm telling that correctly to Commissioner Hancock, but I
-- if -- but I'm not positive on that.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, Mr. Hoover, I wouldn't want
you to sell yourself short. I thought you did an excellent job of
explanation.
MR. HOOVER: Okay. Thank you.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, we've got a motion
on the floor. I'm not going to second it quite yet. But I'd like the
petitioner to know that if we grant him a continuance that what I'd
like to see come back is a non-conforming use, not a variance.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Did you second it?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to second the motion.
This just doesn't sit right with me.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. If
there's no further discussion, all those in favor signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes four to one.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You look shocked.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I did indeed.
Item #13A2
RESOLUTION 96-161 RE PETITION V-96-3, GUADALUPE GONZALES REQUESTING A
VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONTAGE OF 60 FEET OF 15 FEET AND 30
FEET RESPECTIVELY FOR TWO LOTS IN THE "VR" VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL ZONING
DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 6, BLOCK 4 OF THE CARSON'S
SUBDIVISION IN IHMOKALEE - ADOPTED
Next item is 13(A)(2), petition V-96-3.
HR. NINO: For the record, Ron Nino, planning services
division. What we have here is a lot in a village residential
district in Immokalee immediately south of lots that are zoned
commercial that front upon the south side of West Main Street or S. R.
9 -- S. R. 29.
We have a -- the village residential lot which permits
mobile homes and which have been permitted by county staff for two
mobile home units. There are currently two mobile homes on the
property. And as is the case in Immokalee, mobile homes tend to be
rental. They tend to deteriorate at a rapid rate, and they tend to
get replaced.
This petitioner wishes to replace one of the mobile
homes on the property with a more modern version of mobile homes. And
he was faced with the procedure that we currently use which is a
non-conforming use alteration.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Let me understand. He's --
he's merely requesting to replace an old one with a new one.
MR. NINO: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's difficult under our
code?
MR. NINO: Well, it -- it -- it requires a
non-conforming use alteration application every time he wants to do it
which is $425 every time he wants to replace a mobile home.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, why --
MR. NINO: So at the suggestion of staff, at -- at the
suggestion of staff, we urged this petitioner to apply for a variance
to create two legal lots because after all, the village residential
lot in question is larger than is required in terms of area for two
lots but doesn't meet the minimum frontage requirement for the VR
district.
The variance would have, as is shown in your package at
page -- I don't know if you have Exhibit A -- would show this lot
restructured into two lots, a dog leg lot. And the variance would be
to recognize frontages of 30 and 45 feet respectively instead of 60
feet.
Now, in the process, the petitioner has agreed to re --
reposition the replacement and the one that's going to stay there in a
manner that would be consistent with all yard requirements for the
village residential district.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you guys have that picture in
your packet?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to see it. We don't
have it.
MR. NINO: I'm sorry. You should've had it in your
packet -- which means that mobile home there is going to be -- that
mobile home there is going to be moved --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You can't talk without the
microphone.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: On the microphone.
MR. NINO: Well, I talk loud.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Doesn't matter.
MR. NINO: It means that the existing commercial -- the
existing mobile home will be moved about 30 feet further -- further
north than its current site. And the new -- the new mobile home, the
replacement mobile home, will meet both the setback and side yard
requirements that are applied to the village residential zoning
district.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This sounds like a decent
solution for this particular project. Are there similar ones where
we're discouraging people to improve the conditions of these mobile
homes? And can we do something more global if there are?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A bigger question is --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was pretty big.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This reminds me or this makes
me think of our -- as we do our EAR work, there were a number of
changes, and there were a number of additions. How many deletions did
you see requested on the EAR? Seems like there ought to be as part of
that process a little trimming out of that thousand-page book we read
too but -- in the for-what-it's-worth category.
MR. NINO: In any event, planning commission when they
reviewed this unanimously recommended approval. And, as a matter of
fact, if you read their minutes, they thought it was a very good
customer service response to the situation.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good thing you brought that one
out, Ron.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Third.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
approval. All those in favor signify by saying aye. And opposed?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, before we get
into communications, PUD-89-17-1 -- that was 12(B)(3) today, Mr.
Duane's item -- we suggested we continue that for five weeks. Five
weeks is April 30. We don't have a meeting on April 30. So we need
to either make that four weeks or six weeks and readvertise.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would propose four weeks and
notify Mr. Duane; if that's problematic, bring it back to
communications next week, bring back to the county manager.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's what I would --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dotrill, you'll contact
Mr. Duane?
Item #14A
TALLAHASSEE UPDATE FROM COMHISSIONER HANCOCK - DISCUSSED
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Well, that does conclude our
regular agenda. We'll be down to the communications section.
Commissioner Matthews?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, I have nothing.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: At the board's request, I did
advance the resolution to all members of the -- the delegation. And I
got a fair response, even those that were sponsoring it. I did not
speak to Senator Dudley. He was very busy as usual. Senator Jenny --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll give you his direct
line.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I know. Well, he's on the
House floor most of the day. But in the House of Representatives --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Senators on the House floor?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Just visiting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I didn't talk to Senator Dudley.
But I did speak to all the representatives in our delegation including
Greg -- or in addition to Greg Gay who's up out of Cape Coral. And
they all seemed very supportive, so I -- I don't think that that
bill's got a snowball's chance.
In addition, on behalf of the property appraiser and the
Florida Association of Counties' position, the presumption of
correctness that has lied with the property appraiser in the past is
under attack. A -- a group of businesses have in essence put together
a bill that is being -- really it's already got, I think, 80 House
sponsors.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, it's got quite a few.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. It's gonna go through
unless there's a delay put on it. What it does is removes -- removes
the presumption of correctness for a property appraiser. If that
happens, that means that the property appraiser has -- has to bring in
the team of experts on every single item that comes up on Value
Adjustment Board. And it's -- it really has the ability to -- to
transfer costs to the average homeowner in the county because those
commercial businesses that will bring in 12 appraisers and fight like
mad and get their -- their values knocked down, that burden will be
borne then by -- by others.
So the presumption of correctness is kind of under
attack, and it's -- it's being promoted by big business in a large
way. And I think it should be a concern for us.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How has it gamered so much
support, and are those 80 sponsors on a House bill? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we need to -- obviously
it's gonna pass there. We need to shoot it down in the Senate?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Senate has equal --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's got -- it's got a lot of
support in the Senate too.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One -- one thing advocated by FAC
is to -- to amend it to -- to re -- remand it to -- to a study
commission for one year because there are a lot of problems in it.
That's probably the best thing we can do.
But there are a lot of problems. It was lobbied hard by
big business. Your places like Publix supermarkets that may have 20
stores in a county has every reason to spend $150,000 on an expert to
try and argue their assessment. And even if they drop their
assessment 5 percent, 10 percent, those taxes have to be made up
elsewhere in the county.
And the presumption of correctness sits with the
property appraiser just as it does with other areas of county
government. And I see no reason on our part to support or to not get
behind the effort to kill this particular idea.
So on behalf of Mr. Skinner, I -- I discussed that with
each member of the delegation, and what I -- the sense I got is you're
standing in front of a moving train, buddy, you know. You better jump
now.
So I think we need to support the FAC position in
remanding it to a study committee for one year because of the problems
in implementation and the financial cost to our -- our taxpayers.
MR. DORRILL: Did you speak to Mr. Harris about that?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, I did.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. Because we received a call
yesterday from FAC asking my office if my office would at least speak
to him either in -- I believe it's Lake Placid or Tallahassee and
leave a message for him.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I spoke to Butt Harris. Butt was
very sympathetic. However, he said it's been presented to him that
this -- this just evens the playing field when, in fact, it does just
the opposite.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The lobbying has been very, very
effective and very intense early on in the process for this. And
we're -- we got the tail of the tiger right now. And so I don't -- I
don't know how effective we can be, but that's going to be something
that's going to be an extreme financial importance to our taxpayers.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I was reading a fax this
morning from the -- from the FAC on -- on that very thing. And each
of you may -- may have them in your mail. But the presumption right
now is state-statute driven. If the appraiser beats -- I think it's
nine key points, he's presumed to be correct.
And -- and under the new law, if he misses just one of
those points, it's an arguable situation then, and we're going to be
having some difficulties in the Value Adjustment Board, those of us
who sit upon it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And again, the key element here
to remember is that big business painted this as -- the bigger
businesses painted this as an unfairness question that they -- they
were not winning their cases when, in fact, 57 percent of all appeals
last year of the Value Adjustment Board in the state of Florida were
won in a court of law. So the court does provide the -- a playing
field that is not --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: A relief.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: A relief should someone feel the
need to press it that far. So it's not as if they have no recourse.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Should someone feel the need
for relief.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
Item #14B
FUTURE LAND USE ISSUES SCHEDULED FOR 4/2/96 - CONTINUED TO 4/9/96
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a -- a request, and I -- I
don't know that it can be granted very simply, but I want to put it
out. I memo'ed everybody and told you I have some family issues
requiring me to miss next week's meeting. And I know we continued the
EAR hearing until I believe next --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Next week.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- week, and I am vitally
interested in the future land use issues.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Better get back.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I wonder if we could continue
that for an additional week.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What -- what does that do to our
advertising schedule?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What does that do to our
advertising schedule?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, you'll have to have a -- at least a
perfunctory meeting that date to continue it to another date. And it
might serve the public and persons that might come just to get the
word out informally or through the media anyway that that's the action
that's expected to occur.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I certainly have no objection
to doing that to fit Commissioner Hac'Kie's schedule.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So -- so we have to have a
meeting then the night of the 3rd at 5:05 --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, the afternoon.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- to continue.
MR. WEIGEL: The 2nd.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, yeah, but --
MR. WEIGEL: The 3rd. Pardon me. The 2nd -- the 2nd is
a Tuesday. The 3rd.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We were going to finish up the
-- the EAR on the afternoon of the 2nd and then our second public
hearing --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We don't have to have one.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We don't have to have -- okay.
I thought it was scheduled for the 3rd. MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We changed that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is just going to be part of
the -- part of next Tuesday's regular agenda. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'd appreciate it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So on Tuesday we adjourn this
meeting. We call that one and immediately continue it again.
MR. DORRILL: Correct.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dorrill, would you be so kind
as to prepare a press release with that information that that is
anticipated so that the folks who are interested need not come down to
watch us continue it? And you can -- you can cite in that press
release that it's all Commissioner Hac'Kie's fault.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two things. One, I made the
comment, and we all kind of chuckled, and I moved on. But it does
disturb me a little that there are zero deletions in the EAR. I would
hope that as we have 25 people looking at something, they would see a
few things that perhaps don't need to be there anymore.
So I don't know how we address that from here, whether
we do that in the six-month process or what. But rather than
continually adding more government, more government, perhaps we could
cut a few items out of there that aren't as appropriate, aren't as
applicable.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There's always been discussion
that when somebody wants a change, find us two to take out.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Uh-huh. The --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's -- that's a good principle
that we could apply here.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd really like to find a
process by which to do that and not wait till five years from now and
have that board request that citizens' committee to do it.
Second item is there was a memo issued from the manager
to Ed Day on creating or on assessing a need -- needs for the utility
control --
MR. DORRILL: Rate regulation?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- rate regulation. A little
bit of a concern, pretty good concern. The memo says something to the
effect that you envision it similar to the office of management and
budget.
And -- and I know when -- maybe you did. But when
Commissioner Norris and I brought this forward, I didn't envision a
full department handling this. And again, I go back to the comments I
made during those public hearings that while it will be very busy when
a rate increase is requested, I can't imagine, since the vast majority
of the time those aren't ongoing, that 40-hour weeks for several
people are going to be filled. And I --
MR. DORRILL: The -- the comment there was that it would
not be in any division, that it will be what is considered another of
the just executive offices. The budget office is not in a division.
It reports to the executive office of the county manager, and that's
what the intent there is.
We may have a staff of two in addition to a secretarial
position. But then we've said that we're not going to hire a -- a
bevy of utility rate analysts or cable franchise analysts the same way
that we have budget analysts. That's not my intent at all.
What I -- what I said and I believe what you told me was
that you wanted during those peak times we would contract with firms
that specialize in that work.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that was my -- you've
answered my question pretty much. That was my concern when I saw -- I
had this vision of seven or eight people wandering around.
MR. DORRILL: I think I understand exactly what you all
wanted to do.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As you come back, as Captain
Day completes his report on that, you'll share that with us as to what
you envision those people doing?
MR. DORRILL: I need a budget amendment, and I may need
you to approve or at least authorize certain of those positions. And
all of that is due back on April the 8th or the 5th. I can't recall.
I'll have to check.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Whatever the case, I think
each of the private -- large private utilities here paid somewhere in
the neighborhood of $400,000 annually to the PSC. Obviously we'll be
considerably less than that. So --
MR. DORRILL: But that's why I need a budget amendment.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- end -- end result should
be the customers get a little bit of a break here.
Item #15A
REQUEST BY COUNTY MANAGER TO RETAIN OUTSIDE COUNSEL, IF NECESSARY TO
ASSIST CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, do you have anything
for us today?
MR. DORRILL: Two quick things. I wanted to advise the
board that we -- we had a -- an extremely different administrative
hearing yesterday that you may -- Mr. Hancock was there. You may have
read about. I can't ever recall the county manager -- in this case
the Lely Barefoot Beach Homeowners' Association invoking that clause
within the Land Development Code. But I sat as an administrative
hearing officer between them and the Code Enforcement Board.
Mr. Hazzard who's the attorney for the homeowners' association has
raised a number of technical legal points concerning a potential
conflict of interest on my part because I work for you and because of
certain things that you have said in advance of this being cited and
scheduled to appear before the Code Enforcement Board.
He asked a series of specific questions about who Mr. Bryant was
there representing yesterday on behalf of the county. And I believe
that it's always been the attorney's office that in those particular
cases, the assistant county attorney is working for the code
enforcement department to present a case in front of the independent
Code Enforcement Board.
My only reason for saying that is because he raised several
important legal issues that I don't fully understand, I may be asking
of the county attorney whether we should retain special counsel only to
provide some legal opinions and to assist me in drafting the order
because otherwise I do not want to -- to create a potential legal
conflict. And I know that on at least one previous occasion we have
retained special counsel to offer similar assistance to the Code
Enforcement Board.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On at least two occasions
when I served on the Code Enforcement Board we did that.
MR. DORRILL: I'm just telling you that I may need to do
that because of a series of what I consider to be legal technical
issues that I don't otherwise have a basis to -- to offer.
Item #15B
LETTER FROM SHERIFF RE TIME CONSTRAINTS OF SUBMITTING BUDGET ON
SCHEDULE
The final thing is my budget director has expressed some
concern that the -- the board maintain the schedule that you have
otherwise adopted for the submission of constitutional officer budgets
and those of the county manager as a result of a letter that the
sheriff has sent.
Unless you instruct us otherwise, while the sheriff has
expressed some concerns about his ability to have his budget in here
on May the 1st, he doesn't say in his letter that he's refusing to
have it here on May the 1st.
This is all leading up to the very important -- we need
-- by the time we get the certification in the millage on June the
1st, it's our intent to try and schedule the general fund budget
during the very early part of your workshops that begin the third week
of June.
And in order for us to meet the time that you said that
you wanted all of those to be made public, it's -- it's very important
that everybody stick to the schedule that the board has adopted. But
if you have any second thoughts, you probably need to tell us that
within a week or so.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we certainly gave
ample notification. Our own staff said it would be difficult and
there might be some late nights but they -- they could get a done.
And I'm -- I've got to guess the sheriff if his people work late
nights could get it done as well.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We -- we asked for this simply to
accommodate the public and -- and the request from the public to have
this made available to them for review before we get into our budget
hearings. I would hope that the sheriff would be responsive to the
public as we are. And I'm sure he will be once he considers the
reason for our request in the first place. MR. DORRILL: I'm finished.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I -- can I ask Mr. Dotrill a
question on that Lely Barefoot question? Lely Barefoot Beach
association, what -- whatever, requested an administrative hearing,
and then they complained that you have a conflict? MR. DORRILL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I just wanted to make sure
I heard that right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Creative lawyering.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Just fee generation.
Yes, sir. Mr. Weigel, do you have something?
Item #15C
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO REVIEW CONVEYANCE DOCUMENTS RE PURCHASE OF LAKE
AVALON SITE
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. It just relates to today's
agenda. Item 8(C)(2) which was the item concerning the conceptual
approval agreement of the $854,000, Lake Avalon, Tom Olliff got back
with me. And they did talk with the -- the state grant people and the
attorney that's reviewing it. And they indicated that they would
allow no changes to this particular agreement.
I reviewed this agreement again, however. And -- and
this is the first step of a couple steps of agreements. The next one
to come forward is the grant award agreement. And I would certainly
look to see if we can get a letter of understanding or something to go
with that one.
The board -- this board can pull the plug at any time at
least up to November 8 without problem and even after accepting the
money could pull the plug if they found to be a problem.
Additionally, I'll review the conveyance documents to
see any of the restrictions that are of record to us which would
certainly be passed on if the worse were to occur to anyone else if
the state were to attempt to acquire the property under these
agreements because there are limitations of use that I recall.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: When you say we could pull the plug
at any time, do you mean that in the literal sense? Ten years from
now if something were -- were to occur, we could simply pay back the
grant?
MR. WEIGEL: No. I didn't mean that far ahead. I meant
up until the time we've gotten the money and expended the money.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think -- and obviously
using the word logic when you're talking about two governments talking
to one another is a scary prospect. But --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Scary, ain't it?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- hopefully somewhere along
the line the logic of the -- I think the intent of what they're doing
is so that we always maintain it to the utmost use for the public as a
regional park and -- and that if they would agree -- I don't even mind
having a reverter clause there if they would agree that should they
take it back that -- that it will remain in that use.
MR. WEIGEL: I -- I think most of the tenets of the
conceptual agreement before you today, in fact, are concerned with
environmental aspects and use of the park, preservation, and public
recreation. So it looks like it will be the same thing.
At this point I think the grant application, the grant
agreement award will have additional specifics that are alluded to
here that we can address directly when it comes through. And I'm
going to provide a memo from this item today to Tom Olliff, Steve
Brinkman, and Jeff Moore who is assisting in the grant application so
that they'll have a tickler as well as our office when the next
element of this comes through.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Miss Filson, we're
adjourned.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. Okay.
***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner
Hancock and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
consent agenda be approved and/or adopted *****
Item #16A1
APPROVAL FOR RECORDING OF FINAL PLAT OF HUNTING LAKES, UNIT TWO
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 96-150 AMENDING RESOLUTION 95-699 REFLECTING THE INCREASED
MORTGAGE AMOUNT FROM THE FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY FROM
$12,500,000 TO UP TO $13,000,000 AND AUTHORIZING THE SUBORDINATION OF
LIEN FOR IMPACT FEES FOR TURTLE CREEK APARTMENTS, A 268 UNIT AFFORDABLE
RENTAL HOUSING PROJECT
See Pages
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 96-151 ADOPTING CITIZENS PARTICIPATION PLAN AND COMPLAINT
PROCEDURES IN ORDER TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
COHMUNITY AFFAIRS POLICY ON THIS ISSUE
See Pages
Item #16A4 - Continued two weeks
Item #16B1
ACCEPTANCE OF CONVEYANCE OF REAL RPOPERTY FOR ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE
RIGHT-OF-WAY BY QUITCLAIM DEED
See Pages
Item #1682
RECOGNITION AND APPROPRIATION OF CURRENT YEAR REVENUE FOR SALES OF
MAPS, PRINTS, PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Item #1683
BID 96-2483 FOR EXOTIC VEGETATION REMOVAL FROM THE MASTER MITIGATION
PROJECT IN ORDER TO SATISY CERTAIN PERMIT OBLIGATIONS FOR VARIOUS
ROADWAY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AWARDED TO ENVIRONMENTAL WATERWAY
MANAGEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $45,808
Item #1684
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 9 TO THE CONSULTING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MCGEE AND ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR THE FINAL
DESIGN SERVICES FOR LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS IN PHASE V OF
THE LELY GOLF ESTATES MEDIAN BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT
See Pages
Item #1685 - Moved to Item #SB1
Item #1686
ADDITIONAL FUNDING APPROVED IN THE AMOUNT OF $69,800 FOR THE EMERGENCY
OPENING OF CLAM PASS
Item #16C1
RESOLUTION 96-152 REQUESTING AN ACCESS EASEMENT FROM THE STATE OF
FLORIDA FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN END OF THE DELNOR WIGGINS
STATE PARK
See Pages
Item #16D1
RESOLUTION 96-153 ADOPTING A GENERAL SIGNATURE AUTHORIZATION POLICY FOR
ALL AGENCIES UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
See Pages
Item #16D2 - Moved to Item #SD1
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 96-154 APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
See Pages
Item #16D4
RESOLUTION 96-155 APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
See Pages
Item #16D5
RESOLUTION 96-156 APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
See Pages
Item #16D6
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER HEALTH SERVICES, INC. AND COLLIER COUNTY TO
FUND THE IHMOKALEE URGENT CARE CLINIC THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
See Pages
Item #16D7
APPROVAL OF JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT PLAN OF SERVICE FOR THE 1996
AND 1997 TWO YEAR PLANNING CYCLE
See Pages
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 96-287 FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL TO PURCHASE/INSTALL
SAFETY PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE FISCAL INTEGRITY OF SCALEHOUSE COMPUTERS
Item #16G1
CERTIFCATES OF CORRECTION AS PRESENTED BY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1993 REAL PROPERTY TAX ROLL
NO. DATE
238 2/13/96
1994 REAL PROPERTY TAX ROLL
196 2/13/96
1995 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX ROLL
64/65 3/13/96
1995 REAL PROPERTY TAX ROLL
177/179 1/24/96
181/182 1/24/96
187/190 2/2/96-2/6/96
198/203 2/13/96
212/213 3/13/96
Item #1662
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
the following miscellaneous correspondence was filed and/or
referred to the various departments as indicated below:
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 3:50 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Shelly Semmler