BCC Minutes 01/02/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 2, 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 9:02 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the
Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
CHAIRPERSON: Bettye J. Matthews
VICE CHAIRPERSON: John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant
Lieutenant Paul Canady
Item #3 & 3A
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call to order the Board of County
Commission meeting for Tuesday, January the 2nd, 1996. Mr. Dotrill,
will you lead us in an invocation and pledge.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, at this the first
business day of the new year, we give thanks and look forward to 1996
with great anticipation and hope for a prosperous and business new
year for Collier County and its residents. Father, we give thanks for
the Christmas holiday that we have had the opportunity to enjoy with
our loved ones and family. We give thanks for the opportunity to
recognize and appoint new leadership for the Collier County commission
this morning. We give thanks always for the citizens of this county
who choose to participate in the government -- governmental process
and the hard work and support of our employees, and we'd ask that you
bless our time here together this morning, and we pray these things in
Jesus' name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We are at approval of the agenda
and the consent agenda. Mr. Dotrill, I don't see a change list.
There are none?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wow.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wow.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the agenda and
__
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a minute. Commissioner
Norris, do you have any changes to the agenda? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, I presume
you don't?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would assume not, no.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner MAc'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one, I'm afraid.
16(D)(4) I would like to have a brief discussion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I have that highlighted
also.
MR. DORRILL: 16(D) (4) will become 8(D) (1).
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 8 (B) (3) ?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 8 (D) (1) .
I have one question, not necessarily to take it off of
the consent agenda, but, Mr. Dotrill, 16(B)(7) deals with the EHS
station at Orangetree.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It says this item is continued
indefinitely. Is that the same EHS station for the Big Corkscrew, or
are -- are we talking about two separate ones?
MR. DORRILL: My understanding is that this is a
separate issue, but I'll let Mr. Conrecode help me out.
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am. For -- For the record, Tom
Conrecode from public works. This item is the same item that was
continued before. When we continued it previously, we said it would
be on this agenda.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. CONRECODE: We haven't resolved all those funding
issues, and so we're telling you now that we're going to continue it
indefinitely and bring it back to you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine. Thank you. So 16(D)(4)
becomes 8(D)(1). I have no other changes. Could I have a motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the agenda and
consent agenda as amended.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second that motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. All in favor,
please say aye.
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Opposed? Excuse me. Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me. I'd like to make a couple of
notes for the record on the agenda as you approve it, please.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. That would be that 16(A)(12), a
resolution number should be reserved for the designation being made
there. 16(D)(7) lacks a legal description, and the approval of the --
of this item on the -- on the agenda, consent agenda should note that
a legal description should be reviewed and approved by the county
attorney office.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Which item is that?
MR. WEIGEL: 16(D) (7).
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: And -- Pardon me. 16(D)(7) is -- is a
document that needs to be recorded. 16(D) -- Pardon me. A legal
description is missing on -- 16(B)(3) is the one where the legal
description is missing. So if the record would note that, that we
would review it and make sure it's correct. And I apologize for the
interruption. I wanted to make the record clear.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And my motion includes Mr.
Weigel's comments.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Second accept, I presume?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. We're going to vote
again?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're going to vote again because
I didn't call the opposition.
All those in favor of approving the agenda as amended
and the consent agenda, please say aye. Opposed?
There are no -- no opposition. Motion passes five to
zero.
Item #4
HINUTES OF NOVEHBER 28, 1995, REGULAR HEETING AND DECEHBER 5, 1995,
REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Next item on the agenda are approval of minutes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion
to approve the minutes of the November 28 regular meeting and December
5 regular meeting.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the minutes of two stated meetings. All in favor, please say
aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 15-19, 1996, AS DR. MARTIN LUTHER
KING, JR. WEEK - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda are proclamations and service
awards, and it gives me great pleasure to ask Miss Joyce Harris,
president of the NAACP to come forward. Miss Harris, you can come
right up here, and we'll give you a few minutes afterwards to tell us
the great plans that you have in mind. Good morning. This is a
proclamation. You want to turn around so the people at home can see
you? Thank you.
Whereas, the Congress of the United States of America
has designated the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior, as a
national holiday; and
Whereas, the president of the United States signed
legislation authorizing Dr. King's birthday as a national holiday with
observances to commence on January 15, 1996; and
Whereas, Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior, received
national and international recognition for his stirring struggle
against injustice and his -- his leadership in espousing brotherhood,
self-discipline, and non-violence; and
Whereas, the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People, NAACP, will hold a commemorative celebration of Dr.
King's birthday by sponsoring the Martin Luther King Day, Junior,
parade on January 15, 1996, honoring his life-long efforts to achieve
freedom for all.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed that the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of
January 15 through 19, 1996, be designated as Dr. Martin Luther King,
Junior, Week in Collier County, Florida, and urge all citizens to
remember Dr. King's outstanding accomplishments by participating in
commemorative celebrations to be held during Dr. Martin Luther King,
Junior, Week.
Done and ordered this 2nd day of January 1996, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida. Bettye J. Matthews,
Chairman.
Colleagues, I move that we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
accept the proclamation. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Miss Harris.
MS. HARRIS: Good morning. To Chairperson Miss Matthews
and to the entire county commissioners, on behalf of the executive
committee and the officers of the Collier County branch of the NAACP,
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, I would
like to thank you for setting aside this day and accepting our
proclamation.
On the week of the 15th of January, beginning on the
15th which is a Monday, we will honor Dr. Martin Luther King's day by
having a parade in the City of Naples, downtown Olde Naples. And
convening at the Cambier Park, we will have a celebration and luncheon
for our youth in the community, and we'd like to invite the entire
county of Collier County to participate with us. There is a way that
you can participate in the parade as well as the program ceremony by
dialing 455-2886 which is our NAACP office number. You may leave a
message, and someone will get back with you. There will be other
celebrations which probably are not totally designated at this time.
But on behalf of the NAACP, I'd like to say thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARD - PRESENTED
Next item on the agenda are service awards. Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, we have one
service award this morning. Celebrating five years with us in the
water department is Alan A. Ott, and we have for Alan a certificate
and his five-year pin.
MR. OTT: Thank you very much.
Item #5C
COHMISSIONER NORRIS SELECTED AS CHAIRMAN AND COHMISSIONER HANCOCK
SELECTED AS VICE-CHAIRMAN
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We are at that point in our
agenda where annually we select a new chairman and vice chairman. I'm
going to open the floor for nominations for chairman.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, first I want
to thank you for the past year --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- serving as chair. You did
a good job, and I appreciate all the work you've done, and I'd like to
take this time to nominate Commissioner Norris as chairman for the
year 1996.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
elect Commissioner Norris as chairman for the year 1996. Any further
discussion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How much time do we have to think
about this?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Five seconds. No more.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One, two, three, four, five.
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chairman --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Nominations are now open -- I'm
sorry. Nominations are now open for vice chairman for 1996.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chairman, I'd like to
nominate Commissioner Hancock for the vice chairman position.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
nominate Commissioner Hancock for vice chairman for 1996. No
discussion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sure you'd like time to think
about that one.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. Same five seconds.
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero in each count. We'll take a
five-minute break now. Thank you.
(A short break was held.)
Item #SB1
PROPOSED WIGGINS PASS INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVED IN CONCEPT AND
REVIEW REQUESTED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We'll reconvene our meeting this
morning, and I believe we're ready to move forward to 8(B)(1).
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You won't take it personally if
the first few times I call you madam chairman, will you? Just a
habit.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I hope you won't be offended if
I answer.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's cut all this
friendliness out.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let's -- Let's get back to
squabbling.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can't actually enjoy one
another.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Good morning, Mr. Huber.
MR. HUBER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Harry Huber from the office of capital projects.
The objective of this item is to obtain conceptual approval of the
Wiggins Pass inlet management plan and to obtain authorization to
submit it to DEP for their approval and subsequent adoption.
On June 30, 1992, the board entered into an agreement
with Coastal Planning and Engineering to prepare the Wiggins Pass
inlet management plan, and your executive summary indicates a
chronology of events and the effort that was put in -- put forth as
far as a review of this document. You know, it's quite lengthy. I
won't go through -- through it all. But as a result, we have -- this
is the Wiggins Pass inlet management plan which consists of about, oh,
464 pages, I believe. What I've included in your agenda package is
the actual recommended plan which is included in here. Essentially
the plan involves widening and deepening the existing channel to a
width of 250 feet and a depth of minus 12 foot mean low water, and
that is all based on maintaining an operating depth in the channel of
minus eight foot with a maintenance dredging program scheduled at two
-- two-year intervals. It also involve -- includes a monitoring
program and also adopts a three-foot-draft boat as a planning and
design standard for the Wiggins Pass basin.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Huber, is there anything
significantly different today than what we heard the last time we
looked at this issue?
MR. HUBER: No, sir.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: There's not?
MR. HUBER: I -- I think -- I -- I do want to go through
a little bit the implementation of the plan once it's approved by DEP
and the cost associated with that, the fiscal impact. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got a question. On the
fiscal impact, it says, none at this time. Yet if we pass this and
DEP likes it, then back in the white pages --
MR. HUBER: That's why -- That's why I want to make you
aware --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 600,000, another two fifty
almost a year.
MR. HUBER: Right.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just ask why the
executive summary says, fiscal impact, none, and then there's almost a
million dollars in expenses over the first couple of years?
MR. HUBER: Well, maybe that -- that was my fault but --
but I do want to make you aware of the future cost at this particular
point in time if this plan is adopted and implemented. And as you
see, on the -- in your package, it indicates that the initial cost of
the new project would be $617,000 then with the annual operating cost
of, say, 234,000. Now, all those costs are -- if you remember, when
you approved the financing plan for the beach renourishment project
and we had the -- the TDC spreadsheet that projected costs through the
year 2010, these costs are included in that -- on that spreadsheet and
so -- you know, based on that approved financing plan, they are
accounted for in the projections through the year 2010.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: So the addition of these expenses
doesn't affect the beach renourishment program at all? MR. HUBER: No, sir.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner
Hancock, you had a question, or was that it?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, you've -- you've
answered my questions.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. I see on the inlet
management plan -- I mean, this is -- is a plan that I've been looking
to come forward now for quite some time, and when we were discussing
the Pelican Isle project a little over a year ago, one of the concerns
that I had was that we would eventually be having to dredge Wiggins
Pass and the waters behind Wiggins Pass much more often than we had
ever done before, and that's exactly what this plan is now showing.
And it was also my understanding a little over a year ago that the
rock subsurface would not be removed, and this plan calls for that to
be removed now, and I'm -- I'm questioning why we're doing all this.
MR. HUBER: I think there is -- If you look on the --
page 167 where it shows the recommended plan, there is a note on there
of the limit of the sur -- subsurface rock, and that's a ledge on the
side of the -- the channel, and this is indicating that that would not
be removed, and that was the -- You know, in reviewing it with the
different organizations, they were adamant that that rock ledge not be
removed, and I think that -- as far as I understand, that was the
concern about removing that but not the rock that was actually in --
because we have to remove the rock that's in the main channel to get
down to the -- the advanced maintenance depth to --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I guess that's the
point that was trying to be addressed last year, was that Wiggins Pass
would wind up being a deeper -- a deeper channel that will -- even
though we're going to adopt a three-foot-draft design, it will handle
boats of considerably larger size. We're also going to make the
channel wider, and I don't know, but I've got to go back some years to
dredge up the buoyancy equations from physics, but the wider boats,
short -- smaller draft; narrow boats, deeper draft, and -- and, you
know, the -- the length of the boat all works into that as well. So I
-- I really have to question if we aren't going to wind up allowing
boats that are much bigger than can currently use this pass to use
this pass in the future.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Matthews, two points
I think are important here. This dredging plan isn't about Pelican
Isle.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are hundreds of residents
who rely on this pass for their property values, for their access, for
their recreation, and it goes well beyond Pelican Isle.
The second aspect is that draft and beam are -- are not
directly related. You can have a 12-foot beam and a three-foot draft
depending on the boat design. A 16-foot sailboat will have a deeper
draft than will maybe a 23-foot Sea Ray. So that -- that correlation
in -- in -- for boats really doesn't exist.
The reason that you have to go deeper initially is the
same reason we had to put more beach on the sand initially because the
characteristics post dredging are that it will slough off into the
channel, and as it sloughs off, you want to be able to maintain a
three-foot draft. If you just dig to three feet, it may slough off to
be less than that. Is that correct, Mr. Huber?
MR. HUBER: That's essentially correct. And the
recommended plan is, you know -- you know, with the in-fill over the
two-year period and the shoaling and what have you, that -- that
equates to a three-foot-draft boat for the overall design.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And I apologize. I wasn't here
for Pelican Isle but --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm -- I'm aware, Commissioner
Hancock, that you can't just dredge to three feet because you have
wave action and swales and all of that stuff and you're trying to
accommodate a three-foot draft at mean low tide at the low -- at the
low point of the swelling, even so. I mean, I'm aware that you can't
do a three-foot dredge and expect to accommodate a three-foot-draft
boat, but I'm also aware that right now we only dredge to minus eight
or minus nine, and we're talking about something several feet deeper
than that once the subsurface rock is taken out.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve
the item.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion. Is there a
second?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second.
Before we call that, let me ask Mr. Huber one last question. In
future years the -- the cost for maintaining the pass is -- is always
scheduled to come out of TDC funds; is that correct?
MR. HUBER: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Thank you.
If there's no further discussion, I'll call the
question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's four to one with
Commissioner Matthews objecting.
Item #8B2
BID 95-2441 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR LANING IMPROVEMENTS TO RATTLESNAKE
HAMMOCK ROAD (U.S. 41 TO POLLY AVENUE) - AWARDED TO BETTER ROADS, INC.
IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,555,716.95 AND COST REIMBURSEMENT APPROPRIATED TO
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT SIX IN AN AMOUNT NO LESS THAN $385,471.24 AND
JOINT PROJECT AGREEMENT WITH SPRINT/UNITED TELEPHONE IN A REIMBURSABLE
AMOUNT NO LESS THAN $84,794.00 - APPROVED
We'll move on to 8(B)(2), award the -- awarding of the
bid for four-laning improvements to Rattlesnake Hammock.
MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Adolfo
Gonzalez from your office of capital projects management.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, can I interrupt?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Sure.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think this is something we've
seen several times before.
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And it's the four-laning from
U.S. 41 to Polly, and we've consistently approved it. I'd like to
make a recommendation that we -- that we award the bid.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. Is
there any public speakers, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, that was a great
presentation, Mr. Gonzalez.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Very convincing, very convincing.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Quite a salesman.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
Passes unanimously.
Item #SD1
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE BIG CORKSCREW FIRE AND RESCUE
DISTRICT WHICH PROVIDES FOR A HAXIHUH EXPENDITURE OF $49,913.07 FROM
THE GAC LAND TRUST ALLOWING THE DISTRICT TO PURCHASE MOBILE, PORTABLE
AND BASE STATION RADIO EQUIPMENT FOR THE COUNTY-WIDE 800 HHZ RADIO
SYSTEM - APPROVED
That brings us to 8(D)(1) which was -- 16(D)(4), I
believe it was, removed from the consent agenda. Mr. Ochs, how are
you today?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had asked to remove this
item from the agenda -- the consent agenda. The top of page two on
this agenda item, it says, the district applied for a grant to
purchase the radios and were turned down because the infrastructure
was not in place. I'm wondering to whom did they apply for that
grant, and is the infrastructure now in place or will -- when -- when
-- when will it be in place.
MR. OCHS: For the record, Leo Ochs, administrative
services administrator. Let me answer the second question first if I
might, Commissioner. The infrastructure is essentially in place for
the system. The infrastructure basically is comprised of about eight
tower sites -- six tower sites, two microwave sites for your
800-megahertz radio system. That infrastructure has been installed
essentially in about the last 90 days. There's still some
installation remaining and testings obviously. The system is
scheduled to go on line in April of this year. We'll bring the
administrative departments on first, and when we're sure that
everything is working perfectly, the public safety agencies will
follow right after that.
In terms of the other state grant, I believe that is the
state grant that was applied for. Their cycle, I believe, is early
summer. Our infrastructure last summer was not yet in place. So I
think that accounts for the -- the phasing. And I believe that the
district will apply again this summer, and there's a stipulation in
the agreement with the GAC land trust that if they receive any grant
monies, those would go back into the trust to reimburse the trust.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we somehow assure that
they will, or would you just kind of ride herd on them and make sure
that they do apply again?
MR. OCHS: Well, I --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think once the money's
here, the incentive isn't quite as strong so -- MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And as long as we can get
reimbursed from that, I'll make a motion we approve the item.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second by --
Commissioner Hancock, I believe, was first on that second. And if
there's no further discussion, all those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
Those opposed?
That's unanimous as well.
Item #BE1
NAPLES INSTITUTE REQUEST FOR $300,000 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT REVENUE,
CATEGORY C, SPECIAL EVENTS - APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS
And we're down to 8(E)(1), funding for tourist
development revenue, category C, special events for the Naples
Institute.
MS. GANSEL: Good morning, Commissioners. Jean Gansel
from the budget office. At the November 27, 1995, TDC meeting, there
was a vote of five to four to reject funding for the Naples Institute.
The Naples Institute had requested a $300,000 grant for advertising.
The institute's a non-profit international center for executive
education. The executives visiting Collier County as students for the
center would stay at the local hotels. They had estimated that in the
first year of operation during the summer they would generate
approximately 1,000 room nights. There are sufficient funds in the
category C.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Gansel --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: How much -- How much funds are
available in category C?
MS. GANSEL: At the present we have 360,000 that's
available for grants. If you might recall, we have a million dollars
that's in reserves that can be allocated for special events, but at
the present time we're using that as a reserve for economic disaster
should that come about.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Right. Okay. Commissioner
Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Of those funds, this is for
fiscal year or for collections starting October lst? In other words,
from October 1st of 1995 through October of '96, in essence, we have
$360,000 left after the fourth month of that fiscal year. Is that --
MS. GANSEL: Okay. We have 360,000 as of September 1 --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: September.
MS. GANSEL: -- '95.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. GANSEL: October 1 of '95.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: October 1 of '95.
MS. GANSEL: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that is -- In essence, that's
supposed to last us for 12 months of -- or however many events come in
in that time frame, and then that fund regenerates October 1 of -- of
'96.
MS. GANSEL: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My only concern -- I know that it
was the -- the urging of the accommodations that we set that $1
million aside. My concern is that this -- and I -- I -- after reading
through the application, I'm -- I'm fully supportive of the Naples
Institute, and I think -- hope we can find a way to -- to do something
today. My concern is we're eating up what's left there, and I guess
if we are going to make a hard and fast rule not to dip into that one
million, then I have some concern. If we, on the other hand, are open
to, you know, recommendations from, you know, the -- the hoteliers
that -- that certain events are worthy of going into that million,
then -- then -- I'm just concerned about the flexibility there, and I
wanted to put that out as a point of discussion for this board.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I ask --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- I know we set the
reserve aside, and we can go back and review the minutes, but my
recollection was that if there were things that came forward that were
required, we had -- the board had kind of informally agreed we'd look
at that. And I don't want to -- I may or may not support this, but I
don't want to withhold from any particular project thinking, well,
there might be something else come up a month from now or six months
from now. We may scale this back. We may -- but I -- I hate to have
that be the dominant criteria.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. And I'm -- I'm not
trying to hold one application hostage, but I do know of at least one
thing that's coming forward that -- that is of -- of significant
importance at least for, you know, the coming year, and -- and I'm
trying to look at the whole picture. And I -- I appreciate your
comments, and if that's the general feeling of the board, then I'm '-
I'm fairly comfortable with that.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine's
recollection of the discussion is -- is what mine is, that we had
asked Miss Gansel to alert us if we were dipping into that $1 million
which -- which she has done. This category C also replenishes itself
to the tune of about six to $650,000 a year. So we have --
figuratively then already this year have collected about $150,000 or
200,000 replacement funds. So what we are doing are -- would -- are
being asked to award last year's money while we're collecting even as
we speak. So I'm -- I'm not terribly concerned about the funds by
dissipating to -- to the point of being zero.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's a little irony that
many of the hoteliers wanted us to move all the category C funds to
category B because we had so little use for them, and now we've
received a number of letters in regards to this project saying, oh,
don't spend it, wait, there's a lot of things for category C coming
forward. So I hope there are, but it's a 180-degree turn from where
we've been.
MS. GANSEL: Commissioners, just in addition to what you
said, that million dollars that's in reserves in category C we are
also building up because of the 5 -- we will be able to reduce that
because we're collecting the 5 percent on category B and C. So that's
the maximum that we would use. As we collect more money, we'll be
able to reduce that reserve proportionately.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Gansel -- and I apologize
for not giving you this question in advance. Just off the top of your
head, category C grant applications that have been granted by this
board, what's the total dollar amount in these -- these past few
months that we've achieved?
MS. GANSEL: In the --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I mean, that we have -- we have
issued?
MS. GANSEL: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's about 300.
MS. GANSEL: Not necessarily in the first few months of
this, but from last year and this year, there were 830,000 that were
granted in applications. Of course, the $500,000 for IntelliNet
obviously --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. GANSEL: -- is a major chunk of that.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I have a question too, Hiss Gansel.
It appears what we're being asked to do here is to fund a --
something more akin to a convention than the type of event that we've
normally seen which would be an event that would -- would be a public
-- publicly attended event of some sort to generate funding. Does
this fit our criteria at all? Can we fund a convention like this
technically out of our law?
HS. GANSEL: One of the -- That -- That was a question
or similar question that was brought up at the TDC meeting, and the
staff position -- and the attorneys supported this -- is that category
C was for special projects and local -- local projects, special
events, and this was -- could fit into the category of a local
project. It would be available for all people to come. The money is
for the advertising of the project to bring people here as opposed to
a convention that may have some other implications.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I know we have some speakers on
this one. Let's hear from the speakers at this point.
MR. DORRILL: We'll -- We'll begin with Mr. Cox, if you
would please, sir. And then Miss Adams Field, if you'll stand by.
MR. COX: Mr. Chairman Norris, let me congratulate you
on your first opportunity to participate in the difficult decision
between the Naples Institute and -- and some others who have been
involved. And Mr. Vice Chairman Hancock, congratulations. I'm Joe
Cox, a resident of Collier County and chairman of the Naples
Institute. You brought up some points that we have been addressing
over the weekend and as recently as five minutes ago in the hallway,
and in the spirit of compromise, the Naples Institute is willing to
work with those individuals and institutions and fine corporate
members of the community, our hotelier friends, and we've come up with
a reduction. We're going to cut some corners, and we've reduced the
request to 200,000, and we think based upon our discussions in the
last few minutes that 200,000 will be totally acceptable for those
institutions and individuals who had some concern about depleting the
reserves and also feel that they can work with that figure, and I hope
they'll speak to that. And, yes, I think -- I think I spot one in the
back, but we'll let them speak for themselves. Anyway, we have
reduced the request. In our presentation, we will still present the
entire dollar amount, but we will be scaling back in certain critical
areas yet to be determined at the five-minute review of it. But this
was a real exciting weekend as we bounced back and forth on the phone
and negotiated.
Anyway, the Naples Institute, who we are and what do we
do -- it's a non-partisan, non-profit, tax-exempt entity formed in
1989 by Mount Ida College. It's composed of 20 members who comprise
the Board of Governors, and the Board of Governors is composed of
leading corporate and civic-minded citizens along with a lot of
retired corporate and governmental executives which I'll address a
little later.
These 20 Board of Governors, in effect, implement the
policies created by eight separate policy councils dealing with arts
and culture, economics, government, foreign policy, social issues, and
science and technology. These 80 or so members of the policy councils
are I might say not literally a who's who of corporate America, but
for years we in the civic world of Naples have felt that there were a
lot of retired corporate and governmental executive that we just
weren't finding. Well, we had a couple of members who went out and
found them, and our policy councils and our board is composed of
executives from International Paper, AT and T, IT and T, NBC, ABC, the
World Bank Ambassadors and Generals, and literally some of the best
people I've ever been associated with in my 22 years in Collier
County. So we have a dedicated group who is committed to leadership.
And the goals of the Naples Institute are to develop leadership, and,
in fact, we are doing that right now in the school system. Another
goal is to involve citizens in government, which I'm sure will
lengthen your agenda and this is really what we're doing today, and
creating foster public/private joint ventures which is really what the
-- you might say the Tourist Development Council is, a joint venture
between the public sector and the private sector, and to also educate
and inform the public on local, state, and national issues.
Now, the institution -- the institute has already, I
think, proven itself with holding over 40 seminars both here and in
Newton Centre, Massachusetts, outside of Boston. Some of those were
financing higher education, Senator Warren Rudman, schools and
colleges working together through the Internet before the Internet was
really popular. Arthur Schlesinger on multi-culturalism -- he spoke
and wrote a paper. David Osborne who is the advisor to Governor Well
of Massachusetts and Governor Chiles of Florida spoke here in Naples
at the Registry Hotel. We've had FEHA experts come in on disaster
relief. And at this moment we're working with the former heads of
several Latin American countries to set up a seminar in Naples dealing
with trade, leadership, and education with our friends in Latin
America, and we will be having that meeting in Hiami Friday at nine
o'clock. Additionally, some of our corporate entrepreneurs are
working with Enterprise Florida and working with the Economic
Development Council and Florida Gulf to create a more entrepreneurial
setting in Southwest Florida by funding it and Florida Gulf -- the TDC
-- TDC will not be involved but the Economic Development Council.
the Naples Institute is out doing a lot of things. Now -- Okay. How
much time was I given?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, Mr. Cox, you've been bitten
by our traditional --
MR. COX: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- five-minute limit for -- for
public speakers. Are you about finished? Can you wrap up?
MR. COX: I have 30 seconds.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thirty seconds is fine.
MR. COX: Yes, sir.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Go right ahead.
MR. COX: I'd like -- The reason why I think this would
be successful is that we have a very good board that's committed,
number one; number two, the location of Collier County as a draw;
number three, we have Penny Fields who has done these programs before
and who will speak right after me. She has done programs like this
with great success. And last, but not least, is the Center for
Creative Leadership which is the leading leadership training institute
in the United States. I think that combination of four will guarantee
the success of this. So what I will do is let Penny Fields discuss
the details of the budget and the program as to how it operates, and
then I'll close later. Thanks for the extra 30 seconds. Don't take
it from Penny because hers is far more interesting than mine. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Cox.
MR. DORRILL: Miss Field.
MS. FIELD: It's more interesting because there are
audiovisuals.
MR. DORRILL: Then Hiss Grieve will follow Hiss -- Hiss
Field.
MS. FIELD: These reflect the handouts that Mr. Dorrill
is handing to you right now. We have proposed the creation of a
center for leadership that will establish Collier County as a
destination for premium executive development programs. This --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I '-
MS. FIELD: Yes, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I interrupt to ask -- since
we're going to have handouts, maybe they show that to the camera or
the room or something?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mmm-hmm. Turn it right around.
We've got the same thing here in front of us.
MS. FIELD: This grant will provide funds to initiate a
familiarization campaign with Collier County to those executives we
are attracting. The target market consists of upper-level executives
who make key decisions regarding things as location for annual board
meetings, location for conferences, vacations, and second homes.
These executives also refer their associates and colleagues to places
like Collier County where they've had great experiences in these
conferences and recreational activities.
Further benefits lie in the incremental spending. We
have oftentimes referred to the participant and their incremental
spender because many of these bring their family members along with
them when they come to these programs. These programs encourage
incremental spending in the community, and off-site activities are
built into the program. This is a leadership program. We're looking
for teamwork. We're looking for a lot of time-outs. It's a very
intensive sort of programming so you give them time out, whether it be
on the golf course, charter fishing boats, time out on the tennis
court, but you want these people out in the community at various
points in the program so that they have time to work in small groups
together and have their discussions.
The length of the stay -- These programs run five, six
days on average, and the length of the stay -- obviously it helps to
motivate additional incremental spending, and we will be working with
the chamber of commerce tourism division to make certain that we were
recommending activities surrounding the program on the weekend, before
or after, that these participants can get ahold of and enjoy.
We have projected hotel room nights over a five-year
period as we build a reputation of the center. This is not a program
of instant gratification, and let us put that right up front.
However, I believe we've been very conservative in the projections
that we're giving you. The application itself, the initial
application from October shows what I believe would be a worst case
scenario. I believe that those numbers are actually quite low. The
projections you have in front of you today are what I believe to be a
very realistic view of what we can accomplish with these programs. We
anticipate doubling the number of participants every two years, so we
will see volume growth over this time.
The impact on Collier County is going to be to generate
hotel revenues in excess of $1 million during that time, incremental
spending in excess of two -- two-thirds of a million dollars during
that same time. We believe these numbers are also a reflection of a
fairly conservative estimate, given that the average corporate expense
account is a little higher on a daily basis. The return to Collier
County with this particular grant is five times greater than the grant
request.
I know that there have been a number of questions about
budget, and so the next slide that you have in front of you -- I'm
afraid we don't have a foam-back for everyone else to see, but I
wanted to go through these numbers with you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm really sorry to interrupt
and I won't do it again. I promise. The return on investment you
just went through and said five times greater -- so this will be the
one and only time you'll ever apply for a grant? This won't become an
annual --
MS. FIELD: That was not our intent. Now -- now that
we're working out compromises, I don't know exactly how to answer that
particular question.
MR. COX: The 300,000 was very adequate funding we felt,
and we would not have to come back because that seed money would be so
meaningful in the marketplace, we could contact so many people that we
felt we wouldn't need to come back, but now we're at 200,000. That
will reduce our marketing, therefore reduce our seeding of the
marketplace to 75,000 contacts. So that's up in the air as to whether
we come back. However, if we're successful and come back, I think
this will be an easy sell. If we're unsuccessful, you won't see us.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't disagree; however, to
say the return to Collier County is five times greater than the
initial grant would lead one to believe that that will be the only
grant. And if we're giving $300,000 a year for five years and in five
years it generates -- MS. FIELD: No.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- 1.7 million, then there
would be a $200,000 gain so --
MS. FIELD: That particular estimate was based on a
one-time grant of $300,000.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MS. FIELD: If you have the projected marketing costs in
front of you, this grant application was per request of advertising,
and we have estimated the direct mail, display advertising, and
telemarketing costs before you. It was never our intent to have you
pay for general administrative costs. The associated expenses under
telemarketing were never part of what you were funding in the initial
request, and the administrative costs of about 48,000 was not
included. At this point, if we back off to a $200,000 request, I
probably have to delete the personnel and training and find a way to
fund that through early revenues of some sort. So what you would --
in essence, with a 200,000 grant be paying for is direct mail, display
advertising, and a portion of the telemarketing expense.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Field.
MR. DORRILL: Miss Grieve and then Mr. Keller.
MS. GRIEVE: My name is Carla Grieve. I'm a resident of
Collier County, and I'm a member of the Naples Institute Education
Council. I'm speaking to you because of my experience with executive
education and leadership training. In the -- In June of '92, I took
early retirement from the IBM Corporation where I worked for more than
25 years. In the last six years of that, I concentrated on executive
succession planning and executive training. In '91 and '92, I was the
director of executive development programs which involved running
internal one- and two-week programs for the corporation's current and
future executives. In that capacity I hired the Center for Creative
Leadership as a consultant to come in and help us modify our programs.
An additional duty that I had involved sending executives to non-IBM
programs across the country either run by colleges and universities or
by organizations such as the Center for Creative Leadership. People
like me at other corporations met every -- every year, and in 1989 we
met at the Marriott Marco Resort to talk about executive education.
I've been out of that business for several years, but I did take the
opportunity to call several of them over the past few weeks to find
out if the Center for Creative Leadership still has the high
reputation as a deliverer of quality leadership training. I talked to
the V.P. Of management development at Philip Morris, the person who's
now running management development at IBM, somebody at Avon, somebody
at Peat Marwick, various corporations, past contemporaries of mine. It
still has -- It's regarded as the Cadillac of the industry. And when
people send executives to programs, it's good for them to have a
choice of, would you like to go to a program at Penn State University
or would you like to go to one in Collier County. So location makes a
difference in the selection of these kinds of programs.
What we're -- This proposal between the Center for
Creative Leadership -- this joint operation between the Center For
Creative Leadership and the Naples Institute is not starting
leadership development programs from scratch. When you do that, it
takes a while to develop the right kind of program, the right mix of
speakers, et cetera.
The Center for Creative Leadership has been in existence
for 25 years. Its -- Its programs are based on solid research, and so
what this is doing and why we feel so strongly about it is that it's
taking an existing -- existing quality product, the offerings of the
Center for Creative Leadership and wrapping Collier County around
them, and that's why we feel comfortable that it will be a successful
program. Thank you for your attention. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Keller and then Mr. Watkins.
MR. KELLER: George Keller, concerned citizen.
Apparently this effort has been well planned, and it appears that it
may be very worthwhile; however, 300,000 is one-half of the yearly
income from this total category C budget. 200,000 is one-third. Now,
you know, we plan our -- we plan our budget in the county, and I
honestly think what -- letting people come in here from time to time
with a deal is not very sensible and financially sound. We should set
up a program on this -- on this particular category C and set up a
budget for the year so that -- and -- and -- and -- and have people at
least come in six months before they want the money and -- so that we
can program how we're going to spend this money and so -- so -- also
so the Tourist Development Council can decide where the money would be
best spent overall. So, consequently, I -- I think we're going and
putting the cart before the horse here because that is a big amount.
And what about some -- some other people are going to come in and ask
for money?
I -- I wish that we would set up some type of a budget
for this particular program, and also let's -- let's make it more
concise so that we know what category C encompasses so that the
Tourist Development Council doesn't have a problem deciding whether it
comes under that category. Just -- Just because we're getting money
free doesn't mean that we should just spend it without thinking. And
I -- I -- I honestly think that we -- that this thing -- that we
shouldn't make these hasty -- hasty decisions. There's no emergencies
involved and that we need a plan. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Watkins is your final speaker.
MR. WATKINS: Happy New Year. I'm Mike Watkins
representing the Naples Beach Hotel, not any other organization with
which I'm affiliated. I am not speaking in opposition in any way to
the Naples Institute nor the Center for Creative Leadership. I think
both of those organizations will be strong contributors to our economy
for the long-term. What I am addressing today is a suggestion that
with the quantity of money that has been requested, $300,000, that you
can give strong consideration to reducing that amount. Given the fact
that this is a startup, first-year activity in our area with a great
proven track record elsewhere, I believe it will be successful in the
long-term.
From a hotel promotion standpoint, $300,000 is a heck of
a lot of money to spend in the next fiscal year, the remaining months
of the fiscal year, and it's my belief and -- and perhaps the -- those
involved with the institute have -- have considered now the
possibility of reducing that amount to enable a -- perhaps more
efficient use of the money given the time frame involved, and then if
it's successful, we'll support it again next year. I do support the
concept. I can support it at a reduced funding, but I'm concerned --
This is the first time in my recollection that anybody from the
lodging industry has addressed you on a category C applicant, at least
in any kind of alternative view. We have -- We have sort of remained
silent on category C, and it's been concerning to us that there hasn't
been a great return on investment approach taken on the use of
category C monies.
So I'm hopeful that this will be the start of an ongoing
dialogue, and perhaps through workshop we can give some consideration
to some of the issues which you're faced with and the TDC is faced
with regarding a repayment program on the seed money programs that are
intended to be repaid by organizations like Fillabelly. I think the
Marco Cat has to pay back their applications. Where does that stand
in the pipeline once those monies have been given out? When -- When
-- When can they be used again as in -- in recharging that account?
Another question I have is -- is the -- the 5 percent
that's going aside every year to the emergency funding. That's 5
percent, I believe, of the 40 percent of the $4 million which is
around $80,000 a year. Well, if this 950,000 or so I think, Jean,
that's -- that's in that category is set aside and was sufficient,
perhaps the 80,000 that -- that's being set aside additionally each
year can come back into category C.
Our industry is beginning to address category C. We've
been focused on category B in the past, and we're now trying to come
up with some programs that would meet the criteria, the new guidelines
of category C which will be good investments for Collier County with
its bed tax dollars. We're very concerned about the use of the
dollars as an obvious direct impact on our business. We're very
conscious of the decisions that have been made, and we will try to be
good citizens and -- and participants in the use of the bed tax monies
in the future.
So I guess some questions that I have in terms of -- of
the grants versus these -- these seed money programs that have already
been allocated, I think the concept of looking at each of these
programs as they come up is -- is challenging for you all because
there's a lot of money that's been allocated, and I think that this
project is a better one than some that have been allocated already
from category C, and we might not have done it, but I think that's
another issue that needs to be addressed at another time and also the
concept of this 5 percent. So I hope I have -- can -- can encourage
you to support this program on a reduced level and see how they go and
then consider for future funding in the -- in the future. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock, you had a
question?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Watkins, real quickly, Mr.
Keller's comments, some of them mirrored some concerns I have
regarding the way in which we kind of have a piecemeal approach to the
-- the category C funds. We just kind of take them as they come as
far as applications go. Do you think that as -- as a hotel member of
the TDC that possibly looking at a -- a two-phase approach or a
single-phase approach to reviewing all applications on an annual basis
or semiannual basis would help get a larger grasp of things, and --
and is that something the TDC would be willing to -- to discuss and
look at? Is there any merit to that, is what I'm asking, because it's
something I've considered previously.
MR. WATKINS: I'm not a member of the TDC. I'm -- I'm
on the -- the Naples Area Tourism Bureau which is an applicant for
funding. I think that's a good idea, but I think that projects will
come up, and good projects deserve consideration as they come up, Tim.
I -- It's -- It's -- It's a good approach to try to get as many
together as possible.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. GANSEL: Can I answer that?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, I -- I
think Miss Gansel can answer your question and that previously we were
accumulating money and accepting applications as of November 1st each
year for the distribution of the money already collected. We did make
a change, though, this year to accept these applications ongoing
through the year.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We tried it that way, and it
didn't work.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We tried it that way, and it
didn't work --
MS. GANSEL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and now we're trying it a
different way.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. GANSEL: Initially we had it as an annual
application cycle, but there was a provision that if there were
additional funds available, that applicants could make application
throughout the year. And as you're all aware, category C has always
had surplus funds. So that's how we kind of came into the idea of
having applications come in at one time.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Well, we probably won't
solve that today, but I -- I -- it's something we might be able to
work on.
MR. WATKINS: I think Commissioner Constantine makes a
good point, that for all of our history with the TDC so far there has
been all this surplus money and everybody's been coming forward and --
and now there -- because of that 950,000 being set aside, there wasn't
any of that windfall dollars in category C. There have been some
strong applications that have come forward, and -- and the money has
been allocated, and now others are coming up with strong programs. So
it's going to be competitive, I guess, in the future.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Watkins. Before we
started this discussion, I had a number of questions. Host of those
have been answered to my satisfaction. And then with the -- the
gracious offer of the Naples Institute to cut their funding request
back and the -- the acceptance of that by the -- the -- the opposition
that they had for this grant, all of my concerns have been answered at
this point. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Perhaps someone
representing the applicant can help with these. Projected revenue for
summer 1996 tuition is $504,000. How -- How many dollars or how many
students, whatever the appropriate term is, are committed at this
point right now?
MS. FIELD: No one is committed. We have not yet begun
our marketing campaign. That's what the seed money is for.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess one of my concerns as
I look at the budget and -- and I fully agree -- Let me preface this
by saying I fully agree with the concept. I like the idea of who
we're targeting and what the potential that has for Collier, but I
have a number of concerns with the application. MS. FIELD: Sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that is, we're projecting
total receipts of -- and I'm using the old $300,000 number but
804,000. Yet other than the tourist tax money, there is none except a
projected money that will '-
MS. FIELD: That is correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- will be brought back.
MS. FIELD: You're -- We're back to our basic cash flow
problem. We have to have the seed money to begin the marketing
campaign to draw those leads in before they actually come on board and
participate in programs in the fall.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was a procedural question I
had also, is if we're basing the matching funds on future tuitions not
yet collected, it's again a cart-and-horse question. Is there a -- I
guess my first -- Is there a legal problem with that, first of all, on
-- on using a projection of funds as matching?
MS. GANSEL: That's been very consistent with the other
programs where it's a new program -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. GANSEL: -- or a one-time event. The revenues that
would be collected are often from participants in the event.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Hiss Ashton, you look like you
wanted to get something on the record. Do you have something for us?
MS. ASHTON: Mr. Weigel asked that I just comment on
your previous question regarding the use of funds for this purpose.
First and foremost, you need to make a finding that this is tourist
related and promotes tourism. That is the most important criteria. I
think your ordinance is broad enough that if you want to classify this
in your discretion as a local activity and project that you can do so.
That's all. I just wanted to comment. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- This is the first year
of this program, and there is nobody committed to it right now. So as
of this instant there are zero people scheduled to come here.
MS. FIELD: That is correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's a market program
which hopes to change that. How many people -- I know we have 1,032,
I think, bed nights, 1,008 or something bed nights. How many people
is that and -- and for how long do we anticipate each of those things?
MS. FIELD: Those participants, about 144 participants
plus faculty, and bed nights are typically six nights per program.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And how many competing
programs are there like this around the country? I've got to -- I
talked to Joe this morning. I said there -- I'm familiar with one in
Washington. I know obviously there's the one that this is based on.
You mentioned Penn State or somewhere and --
MS. FIELD: I don't know that I would call these
competing programs. The Center for Creative Leadership has a number
of programs in its catalog. It's a very broad program base, and
different programs are often offered in various sites. The programs
we're looking to offer here are not offered anywhere within certainly
a close proximity, other than possibly North Carolina. But typically
we -- I think Naples has a better draw than Greensboro, North
Carolina, for executive --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. I -- Of course,
we're a little bit biased, but I like to think we've got a better
destination than most places. But if there are 150 programs out there
or there are three programs out there, what's the market we're
competing with? Because if we anticipate bringing 144 different
people in, are we -- you know, who --
MS. FIELD: No. Actually, that -- that is not going to
be a difficult number for us to achieve given this program. I believe
that if we seed this properly at the very start and pull those
contacts in, that we can easily hit that particular target. This --
Executives in the country make up a very deep market if you can get to
the right people who are helping them decide on which programs to get
to. We have to find the Carla Grieves, corporate America, and make
certain that they are there to say this is a program that the
corporation would very much like you -- for you to attend, and here's
your chance to do that in this particular time frame. We've chosen
months of the year that are very, very active for corporate
development. This is sort of executive development programming, and I
believe that those -- those numbers will certainly be forthcoming.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of other concerns.
The first year, 1,032 rooms scheduled, and it says grant funds per
night, and I realize that number has changed since we lowered the
grant fund, but it says $291. The third year, it has twice as many
hotel nights, and yet it's $64.60, grant fund. Is that because there
was an anticipation of --
MS. FIELD: There may have been with the original grant.
I'm afraid I did not work on the original grant, so I -- I don't
want to misspeak. However, the information as it stands today is that
we are looking for a grant for this year that we project will seed
several years of programming. So, yeah, that number obviously for the
1,000-and-some room nights for 1996 will come down from the almost
$300 figure if -- if you look at it on just an annual basis. Like I
said, this is not something that you want to consider immediate
gratification because I -- I think you won't be as happy with those
numbers. If you look at us as an ongoing concern bringing economic
value to the county over a period of time, then I think that that's a
perspective that we could --
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: You're very well rehearsed.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: While I guess I'm supporting
the concept, I guess I have a little concern at even 200 or little
over $200 per room night, is essentially what we're spending.
MS. FIELD: I -- I guess I don't understand if that's
always your sort of performance criteria for evaluating particular
applications. What I would hope that you --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me interrupt. That's not
my sole criteria. That's '- MS. FIELD: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I said I have a concern with
that, and I mentioned half a dozen concerns, and you've taken them off
so far, but this is one of those concerns. MS. FIELD: All right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine, could
I interject? The -- The $291 appears to me to be the grant fund per
night if this were only for one year. And as we moved through the
five-year period generating what this says is 9,900 rooms, it will
drop to $30 per room night over a five-year period.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The question I had there was
assuming -- I was assuming the same grant amount each year, and with
twice as many rooms, it was only one-fifth of the cost which didn't
make any sense mathematically to me, but it's -- it's a moot point
anyway. If you may not be pursuing the seed money later, that helps
but --
I guess I just have -- My other question which you
didn't get a chance to answer was, at $200 per night, is that a
bargain? I mean, maybe it is, particularly with the people we're
bringing in this program, but is 200 bucks of tax dollar per night a
bargain?
MS. FIELD: Well, if you want to evaluate this on a --
on a one-year basis, I'm not certain that you would necessarily
consider that a bargain. I believe these are people that will bring
in good incremental spending capabilities. They typically spend two
and a half times greater than anyone else who would visit these
particular facilities, and that's a good demographic from solid
statistic collectors. I think you also have to consider that these
are people who strongly influence decisions about many other
conferences and boards meetings and vacation plans and second homes
for Collier County. And at that sort of economic investment, no, I
don't believe that that's a bad investment at all.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I guess if -- if all
that comes about, it's -- it's not a bad investment. Where I think
the concern of $200 a night started for me is on page two of the
application, page three of the agenda item, it says Naples leadership
center clearly is planned as an institution that may have large
impacts. Its influence may come and could eventually bring -- Results
can't be realized -- Ought not to be measured. But everything seems
to be may, could be, might, and so on. I realize you can't say will
because you don't know, but that takes me back to my point, is we
don't know.
MS. FIELD: We don't, and I'm certain we've couched that
very carefully so that we don't -- you don't consider that to be a
guarantee that we're going to be personally liable for it. However, I
think that we've added many elements of success to this particular
team, and I don't want to understate the fact that we've brought a
considerable amount of past experience to bear with us and selected
the Center for Creative Leadership because it is absolutely world
renowned for this particular type of programming and will make us far
more successful in wrapping Collier County around such a program.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Final question. How will
your pieces -- your phone calls and so on, all the advertising promote
Collier County? Will the pieces that go out specifically push the
benefits of Collier as well as the program; and, if so, how?
MS. FIELD: Absolutely. What we need to do is -- is
basically target this market for bringing them to this particular
destination. You've already pointed out, they can go other places for
similar programming, if not the exact programming. What they need to
be convinced of is that this is the place they'd like to come because
attending a program here would be far more enjoyable and beneficial
and be something that would get them out of the office and possibly
accelerate their enjoyment of the program rather than go to, say,
Buffalo, New York, to do this program. So I think that our program
targeting in the particular fliers that you will see will be very
Collier County-specific because that's exactly what we have to
familiarize them with to bring them here.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: A couple of weeks ago we
approved, I think, $73,000 for the Fillabelly, and I looked at the
application afterwards and after talking to some people, found that
they had a projection of 50 room nights. That's $1,500 a room. The
reason we did that -- and it was going out on a limb for this board I
think -- is because it was, in essence, seed money that would allow
them to continue having the Fillabelly year after year after year, and
there was a long-term benefit. And I -- I still -- Again, that --
that's one decision we made that I, you know, was -- was in the gray
area at best. This particular effort seems to me to have the backing
of some -- some people that have achieved successes in the community
and other areas and not to mention -- and I'm not terribly familiar
with Mount Ida College, but the -- the voluminous material you've sent
me has been read, and I'm equally impressed. I would like to make a
motion that we approve the grant request with reduced funding to
$200,000.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. Third.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Does that motion include the
findings that we have determined that this is a tourist-related
activity?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. My motion does include
the comments made by Assistant County Attorney Miss Ashton regarding
findings.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and second by
Commissioner Mac'Kie. And all those in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
Opposed?
That goes down unanimous after all that lengthy
discussion.
MS. GANSEL: Commissioners, we'd like to say we will be
coming back with a contract. Included in that contract will be the
revised budget for the $200,000.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Gansel.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not that important of a
point, but just for purposes of the record, the previous records for
Fillabelly showed 50. I think they were hoping to project as many as
500 which brings that down to about 150 bucks a night. I just didn't
want people thinking --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. No. I'm sorry. I didn't
mean to mislead anyone there. I just thought it was kind of ironic
but point well taken.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The Fillabelly is -- is also to
be -- is also money to be repaid.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Fillabelly is to be repaid
also. I'm just -- again, as a reference point.
Item #9A
SETTLEMENT OF GULF COAST COHMUNITIES V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO.
95-2052-CA-01-TB - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, we're ready to go to
9(A), the recommendation of a settlement.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Thank you. Mr. Pettit will address
the board in that regard.
MR. PETTIT: Good morning, Chairman Norris,
Commissioners. Mike Pettit from the county attorney's office here
today with a proposed settlement of a lawsuit, Gulf Coast Communities
versus Collier County. This suit arose out of the request for an
alternative impact fee calculation filed by Gulf Coast on behalf of a
project known as Sherwood Park. The present terms of the settlement
are set forth in the executive summary, and I believe we have now
gotten settlement documents distributed to all commissioners. So I'm
here to answer any questions.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews first.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Pettit, I remember the
presentation made to us, and it was predicated upon these condominiums
being used or sold to essentially retirees, and there would be a
second home and essentially seasonal --
MR. PETTIT: That's --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- use.
MR. PETTIT: That was what the --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that's what the reduced
impact fee calculation was based upon. MR. PETTIT: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is there anything in any
documents anywhere that will ensure that these condos will never be
used, number one, year-round and, number two, by the perennial family
of four?
MR. PETTIT: Not -- Not to my knowledge.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. Are
there any speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: If there are none --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I ask one more question --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Sure.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- to Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is it really to the county's
best interest -- and -- and I'm -- I'm sure it is because you've
brought this forward. But this settlement agreement kind of meets the
impact fees halfway between the -- what -- 112 that they were
searching for and -- what is it -- 400 and something that we're
settling on.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm -- I'm just questioning, are
-- are we short-changing our capital infrastructure on potential use
years out by -- by -- by agreeing to not go forward and charge the
additional $300,000.
MR. WEIGEL: No. We are not -- We're not compromising
ourselves in that regard. The executive summary does mention that in
the considerations that the board has with any project concerning
impact fees, that there is a potential for the board consideration
approval of alternate impact fee considerations ultimately coming up
with a different fee, and part of our consideration and recommendation
that we make to the board in regard to the settlement with a fee of
approximately -- I think $450,000, as opposed to a higher fee based
upon just an ad hominem application of our -- of our impact fee
ordinance is that we recognize some of the merit as what has been
presented by the petitioner, the developer for an alternative
viewpoint of the -- of the impact fees. So in regard to future, the
county obviously, I think one could say, would love to have more money
rather than less for infrastructure in the future, but the basis upon
which the impact of a particular project comes forward is subject to
its individual consideration, and we think it's been fairly done here.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
That passes unanimous. We're going to take -- There's
some speakers on the next item, so we're going to take a very short
break right now, ten minutes, and then we'll be back.
(A short break was held.)
Item #9B
LEGAL RESEARCH REPORT REGARDING APPLICATION OF COUNTY CODES TO NATIVE
AMERICAN ISSUES - PRESENTED
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We'll reconvene, and we are ready
to hear issue 9(B).
MR. MANALICH: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. For the record, Ramiro Manalich, chief assistant
county attorney, also Shirley Jean McEachern, assistant county
attorney. Very briefly, on December 19, a Mr. Nicky Betman appeared
before you and raised questions about the applicability of the county
codes to the Seminole Gaming Palace structure in Immokalee. You
directed that the county attorney's office report back to you
regarding the applicability of the county codes to that facility and,
in general, the native American items. There's two items that I just
want to inform you of today based on our research. The first one
regarding Mr. Berman's question, the conclusion of our office is that
the county codes are not applicable to the gaming palace. It is land
which is held in trust and is equivalent to reservation land. There
might be some unique circumstances. For example, if there were some
massive off-site impact, that could raise a question as to
applicability of county codes, but as we were able to research in this
two-week period, we do not believe that you have the ability to apply
the county codes to that structure.
The second item has to do -- and this is just
informative. It does not require any action on your behalf today, but
it's just informative --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mr. Manalich.
MR. MANALICH: Yes?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Quickly, that, in essence, wraps
up what Mr. Betman had requested though; is that correct?
MR. MANALICH: Well, I've spoken with Mr. Betman. He's
here today. From his perspective, I think he would like to address
you. I think he disagrees with my position on this, and he thinks
there are some other aspects to it, but that's from -- from the
perspective of the county attorney's office for the time being, yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead.
MR. MANALICH: The second item again I stress does not
involve any action on your part. It is merely informative for you as
-- In regard to the general question you asked about the
applicability of county codes, there is pending a code enforcement
case which has not come to that board in which there's been a citation
issued by county code enforcement for chickee structures located on
private land in the general unincorporated area of the county,
non-reservation land. As I indicated in the summary, to date the
research done by the county attorney's office indicates that off of
the reservation we cannot find any authority which would exempt from
regulation of the county codes those structures. Now, we have been in
communication with representatives of the Billie family, the Seminole
-- Well, I guess there's two groups, the Tradit -- Independent
Traditional Seminole Nation of Florida which is, I believe, the Billie
family representatives, also with the Seminole Tribe of Florida as
well as the Miccosukees, and we have -- at the county attorney's
office, indicated that we are willing to consider any legal authority
that they can furnish on that point to exempt those structures. As of
now, there are county code provisions governing those structures, and
we do not-- have not found any authority exempting them.
That is just an informative report and update to the
board on that point. Wewre not requesting action to be taken by you.
This is pursuing a different line through the code enforcement
channel.
With that said, if therews any other questions on either
point, Iwd be happy to address them; otherwise, I believe we have some
speakers from the different interests involved.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Letws hear the speakers.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Reiner, youill be first, sir.
Following he, I have Mr. Terry. Mr. Terry, if I could have you stand
by, youill follow Mr. Reiner.
MR. REINER: Thank you very much, and good morning. My
name is Samuel Reiner. Iim an attorney for the Miccosukee Tribe of
Indians of Florida, and Iim here on their behalf and on behalf of
various members of the Miccosukee tribe who are engaged in the
fabrication of chickees, and I have had an opportunity to speak with
Mr. Manalich and his -- his assistant, and Iive had an opportunity to
review his executive summary, and as an Indian attorney, Iim familiar
with federal and Florida trust responsibilities and Indian laws that
pertain to situations of this type.
Mr. Manalichls report is absolutely right insofar as the
Seminole bingo palace or the gaming palace is concerned. I donlt --
Thatls not part of my -- my -- my reason for being here this morning,
but I just -- I want to throw that in because itls absolutely clear
from his report. The United States Supreme Court precedents are clear
on the point. Itls -- Itls a litigated issue. Itls a done deal.
There are other aspects of this report that are not so
clear, and with respect to the code enforcement provisions and code
enforceability of chickee structures, that is a gray area, and it is
an area that requires further study. In speaking to Mr. Manalich
before the holiday, I -- I had indicated that we would be willing on
behalf of the tribe and the traditional chickee structure builders to
provide additional materials that would give maybe some guidance, some
clarification, but itls an issue that hasnlt been litigated in the
supreme court as -- as the Seminole reservation issue has been.
The -- The base -- As youill hear from probably -- from
certainly better -- better-informed speakers than myself to follow,
chickees are traditional native American structures. They play a
significant role in -- in community and cultural affairs.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mr. Reiner.
MR. REINER: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just a second. What youlre
discussing now is a code enforcement case that is in a process. If the
result of that code enforcement case is not satisfactory, this board
will hear the -- the content of your discussion at an appropriate
time. This executive summary prepared by the county attorneyls office
was in response to a public petition on a specific question. I would
rather not at this time get into the extensive discussion of the code
enforcement case. I would rather that go through the proper channels,
and if it needs to arrive at this board at some later date, that, I
believe, would be the appropriate vehicle for that.
MR. REINER: All right. Well, I -- Iim not -- Iim not
speaking in -- in particular regard to Mr. Billie, only to -- to the
potential outgrowth of any action by this board as a result of the
executive summary and the report.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And, once again, we're not taking
action on that point of the executive summary today, and we would not
because the code enforcement board is charged with making that -- that
decision.
MR. REINER: Okay. All I -- All I wanted to do is by
virtue of press reports, by virtue of general interest in the
community and concern, a lack of information, because our -- our lines
of communication are more attenuated in some respects than -- than
yours. I wanted to address the board and -- and just indicate that
the Hiccosukee tribe on behalf of its members who are engaged in this
traditional income-producing activity have a significant interest in
-- in the outcome of that case and the potential ramifications for --
for their activities and chickee construction.
The -- The -- The issues that I'll be talking to Mr.
Hanalich a little bit more about relate to federal preemption. This
is -- This is an area in which the federal government has a
significant interest and has spoken, at least in our view. There --
There are significant individual rights. I -- I -- Please. I just --
I just want to let you know the things that I'll be talking to Mr.
Hanalich about because they are interests to the community. There are
-- They're individual issues as -- as relates to individual rights to
live in traditional ways and -- and in property that -- as -- as -- as
a -- As a younger Indian attorney, I fell into the trap of saying that
this land used to be -- belong to the Indians, and it didn't. It
belongs to the world in their view, and they still hold that view, and
it is a traditional religious view, and we're not here to argue those
issues. They are -- You know, they -- they -- they do live in the
manner in which they -- they would like to live and that they're
entitled to.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess the irony for me as
-- as we talk about -- and I've sat down with the Billies and some
others on this -- is -- The irony for me is you -- you can't have it
both ways. If you're going to live in traditional ways, you can't
have open electric cords running across the ground for a couple
hundred feet. The nature of many of the code enforcement violations
-- again, which we're not going to get into in detail today -- but
aren't just a matter of is it traditional or is it not. There is open
and unsafe electrical connections and -- and cords going into these
chickee huts. There are a number of things. I mean, I don't want to
get into a debate on them.
MR. REINER: Sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But my point is, it's not
strictly, gee, is traditional okay or not. There are a lot of other
issues involved in it, and this isn't the forum for them.
MR. REINER: With that -- and with due respect, I think
you've fallen into the same trap that I was just trying to expose by
-- by passing on what you would believe to be traditional or not
traditional. You've fallen into an area with which -- with due
respect, you're not -- you're not familiar.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, my point is, I don't
think cable TV and electricity are hundreds and hundreds of year old
traditions.
MR. REINER: Right. And we have not said that they are.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. --
MR. REINER: What they are, they're a manifestation of
-- of a --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're code violations is
what they are.
MR. REINER: Well, you can call them that, with due
respect, sir, but they're also --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I'm going to ask -- I'm going
to ask that this particular line of discussion not happen today.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yeah. I agree. This is not a --
This is not really on our agenda today. This discussion is not a part
of our agenda today.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You could compromise the code
enforcement procedure.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I -- That's what I want
to ask a question of. Since this board sits as an appellate board to
code enforcement, for us to be hearing any argument pertaining to --
to this issue I think is inappropriate.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I don't -- I don't think that you've
heard anything particular to the -- specific to the code enforcement
problem or issue that's before the Code Enforcement Board, but the
record has been made clear that you're not here to act on it today and
not here to consider it, and -- and you have addressed and admonished
the speaker not to go forward. So I think that this is the proper
juncture not to go forward any further.
MR. REINER: Let me apologize. Let me thank the board
for the time. It was only in response to an executive summary that we
were furnished and to which we do have some concerns and potentially
disagreements.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. HANALICH: Mr. Chairman, it might help the process
-- I have indicated to all of the representative parties involved
here that the code enforcement case has been pending pending
resolution of these differing legal issues as to the applicability of
the codes. And I have, as the representative county attorney,
welcomed the input of their representatives with regard to any legal
authority they might have on that, and that's where that matter is at
right now. And, you know, we're still willing to work with them on
that aspect and the code enforcement process.
MR. REINER: And I will furnish those things.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Go ahead.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hanalich, the pending
action is against the landowner which is whom?
MR. HANALICH: It was Pacific Land Company.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. REINER: Thank you very much.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. Other speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Terry. And we'll have Mr. Billie --
Mr. Danny Billie, you'll follow Mr. Terry.
MR. TERRY: Hello. I'm Steve Terry. I'm the land
resources manager for the Hiccosukee tribe, and I've been in front of
this commission before and met with you on code enforcement problems
in the past that we've had, and I'm just here to say that one of the
things that amazed me about this is that I had to hear about this via
the Indian grapevine. In other words, I was not contacted by any
member of the county staff, the county attorney's office, code
enforcement, or anything that there is an issue in front of Collier
County that has to affect with Indians, and here I am with the
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Once again, Mr. Terry -- Once
again, Mr. Terry, it was just our legal staff giving us an opinion.
We are not going to take any action today.
MR. TERRY: I -- I realize that.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Please.
MR. TERRY: I just wanted to make that one point.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Excuse me. We just made it clear
to the gentleman who preceded you that we're not going to get into a
debate on this subject today because we have a case pending, and if
you're not willing to accept that, I don't know what we're going to
do, but we're not going to discuss the issue today.
MR. TERRY: I -- I don't want to discuss the issue --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
MR. TERRY: -- about code enforcement today. I just
wanted to make you aware that I had to find this out through some
other method, and we would appreciate if Indian -- Indian issues came
up in Collier County, that you would contact the Miccosukee Tribe of
Indians because we do have tribal members that live in the county and
could be potentially affected by any code enforcement or decision that
the board makes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If this --
MR. TERRY: I'm not here to talk about the code
enforcement. I just wanted to talk to you about the issue of
communication.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If this board were to take
action, it would be publicly advertised as all board actions are, and
that is available to all residents of the county. So I think that
would -- would -- is both legally and proper -- legally sufficient and
proper.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just -- the same thing -- just
wanted to say, though, sort of from a different perspective, a lot of
people are here and have things that are very valid and important to
say, and -- and it's important for you to know from us that were there
a decision being made today, it isn't something you would have had to
hear through the grapevine. So instead of going away from this
meeting feeling rebuffed, I hope you'll go away knowing that, in fact,
this commission was not going to do anything, take any action that
could have harmed or negatively affected anyone because, otherwise,
you would have known about it through something other than a
grapevine.
MR. TERRY: Well, once I've gotten in touch with the --
Mr. Manalich, he sat down and cooperated with us fully. Our attorney's
been talking to him. I've talked to him, and we've got -- we've
established a line of communication which is another item. I wanted
to let the board know that we are working with the attorney. And if
we can find anything out that would help him in what he wants to do,
we'll be glad to provide that.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, I indicated to Mr. Terry --
MR. TERRY: Thank you.
MR. MANALICH: -- when he called last week, that he had
not been contacted only because in dealing with the parties involved,
simply your name had never come up. MR. TERRY: Right.
MR. MANALICH: Obviously we tried to include as many
people as possible. We called as far as Montana to a resource there.
We talked to George Vega, a local attorney here. So we have made that
effort. I think Mr. Terry raised a very important point which is
we'll certainly need to contact you on Indian issues, but it was not
intentional. We did not, simply out of not being aware that you were
interested, at least from my office.
MR. TERRY: Right. I understand that. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Billie.
MR. DORRILL: Good morning. And then we'll have Miss
Hall.
MR. BILLIE: Have you made that recommendation to the
county board yet?
MR. HANALICH: Mr. Billie, I think I have indirectly,
but I'll clarify that. Mr. Billie obviously being one of the parties
affected by the code enforcement case had asked me as a part of the
negotiation process and this whole item that his attorneys -- he was
planning to get further legal counsel during the month of January
here, if we could have a further continuance of the code enforcement
matter so they would have an opportunity to have dialogue with the
county attorney's office. I told him I would have no problem taking
that to the board. I would agree to that, although we eventually have
to get this case to resolution one way or another. So I have no
problem with that. But, Mr. Billie, they do not have any power over
the code board. I will simply tell them that that's what I'm going to
recommend in regard to the code case.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Will there be a specific time
frame for continuance?
MR. HANALICH: I was going to suggest to Mr. Billie 60
days because they were telling me that within January was when they
were going to get their legal representation in order, and I thought
that would be sufficient time. Also Mr. Reiner is now involved.
that should expedite things.
MR. BILLIE: Sixty days? Well, what I -- communicating
with Hanalich, that's the solution that we came up with for the time
being, and that's all I'm here to do, is just confirm that, asking the
board and the department code of enforcement to give us that time to
get that legal counsel and --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's fine, Mr. Billie. This board
doesn't do that. That will be the Code Enforcement Board that -- that
grants that time extension.
MR. BILLIE: But from my understanding of this county
board meeting on this issue was that it was -- native issues was going
to be discussed, and that's the reason why some of the people came
here.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We apologize for the confusion, but
we're not going to make a decision on that today.
MR. BILLIE: Okay. Well, for me that's all I have to
say.
MR. DORRILL: Thank you. Ms. Hall. And then following
Ms. Hall, I have Ms. Osceola '-
MS. HALL: I have a lot --
MR. DORRILL: -- Betty Osceola.
MS. HALL: -- of things to say. I've been up here once
before. And by looking at y'all, you won't -- seem like you won't let
us talk. It seems like -- We're supposed to have rights. We've been
here longer than some of y'all.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Excuse me. Can you identify
yourself for the record, please?
MS. HALL: Celeste Billie Hall. I have been here
before.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: It doesn't matter. We need you to
MS. HALL: Well --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- identify yourself for the
record.
MS. HALL: -- that was how y'all handle things and --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, excuse me, Miss Hall. We're
not handling the thing. That's the -- That's the important thing that
you need to understand. We are not handling the issue '- MS. HALL: Not yet.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- today '-
MS. HALL: Not today.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- and, therefore, it's not a topic
of discussion. We've said that now probably a half a dozen times this
morning.
MS. HALL: I have heard you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I'm sorry you don't understand
that, but we're not going to discuss that issue today.
MS. HALL: But, anyways, it seems like every time we try
to do something, someone's always thrown something at us or -- It's
all right. I don't need to say nothing.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Osceola, Betty Osceola. And then
following her, I've got -- Mr. Osceola, Senior, will be next.
MS. OSCEOLA: My name is Betty L. Osceola. I'm a member
of the Hiccosukee Tribe of Indians. I'm here on my own away from
Steve Terry or whoever the attorney is here for the Hiccosukee tribe.
But I've heard you tell several other people that you aren't
discussing the case or the issue. It's a part for the code board.
Will the -- Are -- Will the Indian people be let known when that
meeting will be so that if we want --
MR. HANALICH: For '-
MS. OSCEOLA: -- to be there?
MR. HANALICH: For clarification for you and for the
board, as Hr. Cautero just reminded me, just to clarify, this case has
not yet come to the code board. It has been in the process of
discussion with regard to staff and the county attorney's office
regarding the prosecution and the affected parties. So obviously '-
MS. OSCEOLA: Maybe --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd just say the reason too that
it hasn't -- because there's a real misimpression I'm -- I'm -- I'm
observing here, is that the reason it hasn't come to the code board
yet is because of the county -- county's desire to work with the
native American attorneys and to -- to have a dialogue instead of just
this all holds barred, you know, prosecution. So there's been a great
deal of attempted negotiations. I'm -- I'm really sorry that this
confusion has arisen today because just the opposite is what the
county's intending to do.
MS. OSCEOLA: It may be just the opposite, but they're
also just looking at just the people involved, but anything that has
to do with native American issues involves all of the native American
people, not just those people that you're actually looking at because
any outcome that comes from that affects myself and my family and my
future grandchildren. That's why a lot of us here showed up today.
And also just like Mr. Terry, we heard through the grapevine that this
-- there was something going on today, and we didnwt get the proper
information.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me put this in a nutshell.
MS. OSCEOLA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What today is, is a public
petition came forward, a single person asking this board to form a
Bureau of Indian Affairs to enforce Collier County codes on
reservation lands. Our county attorney -- We directed the county
attorney to find out whether thatws even legally possible before we
even talk about any desire to do it. The county attorney has made a
determination that itws not possible, period. Thatws what today is
about. This has nothing to do with the code enforcement issue.
MS. OSCEOLA: Yeah. I can understand that. I just was
asking the attorney that -- the county attorney thatws involved, in
the future whenever -- even though it doesnwt come up before the
board, if therews anything that is really important that is relevant
to us, that we be made aware.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I think --
MR. MANALICH: Well, again, I -- I --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- hews made it clear that therews
-- Excuse me.
MS. OSCEOLA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Hews made it clear that the line of
communication is open. Therews just -- There was no communication
because therews nothing happening today. MS. OSCEOLA: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: There is no issue here for you to
speak on today.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unless you disagree with the
county attorney.
MR. MANALICH: Thatls happened before.
MS. OSCEOLA: Yeah, because I kind of disagree because
he has communication involved with Mr. Terry and the other people, but
that doesnlt necessarily mean hels got communication with all the rest
of us who are concerned.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Iim -- Iim certain that the county
attorney is not going to personally call every Seminole Indian in the
State of Florida every time therels an issue involved with Indiana
affairs.
MS. OSCEOLA: I was just asking that whoever he
disseminates his information to, as he requested, that it be given to
the people pertinent because Iim sure -- Iill be asking if you send it
to the Miccosukee tribe.
MR. DORRILL: If -- If those individuals -- in addition
to their address here, if youill put your phone number on the slips
that you provided to me, I can assure you that as this or other
code-related matters come before us, we will -- we will endeavor from
the staff perspective to make sure that youlre contacted either
through the mail or -- or we will call you if youill give me the
courtesy of doing that.
MS. OSCEOLA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Thank you. Mr. Osceola, O.B. Then Ms.
Osceola -- Tina, youill -- youill follow Mr. Osceola. Good morning.
MR. OSCEOLA: Good morning, Commissioners. My namels
O.B. Osceola. Iive been a resident 61 years in Collier County, and
Iim 61 years old. Everybody knows now. But I just --
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: You were born here.
MR. OSCEOLA: -- Appreciate what have been hand down to
county attorney, and what I have listened so far, I really impressed,
and -- and I got no comments to make, and I appreciate y'all listening
to us to a certain extent, and I -- I understand what's your reason
about codes because I live that kind of world. So I appreciate to you
comment on a few things by attorney. He checks things out, and that's
what we really interested to do, and I appreciate you listen and
county attorney, and I thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Osceola.
MS. OSCEOLA: Hello, Board. My name is Tina Osceola,
for the record. I'm not here to speak about code enforcement again.
I was here because I -- I spoke with Commissioner Constantine, and he
answered my questions about the December 19 meeting. Was it December
19 where this Bureau of Indiana Affairs -- That's -- That's so funny
to me. It's almost comical. Thanks for the laugh, Nicky.
Anyways, I came here today to answer any further
questions that your board may have. You know, Mr. Manalich has been
very, very helpful, and basically I -- I'm here for you. So I'd like
to defer my comments until the end in case you have any more questions
pertaining to this specific issue since I have been the spokesperson
for the Seminole bingo issue concerning Coreei (phonetic) Corporation
to this board, and that is the -- the issue that has brought this to
fruition. It just came in to parallel with another issue. So that's
why I'm here. So I'd like to defer.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask a question just for --
MS. OSCEOLA: Sure.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- information purposes?
MS. OSCEOLA: Sure.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It has nothing to do with this.
If on reservation land -- let's say the bingo hall -- someone is
injured, you know, what I've been told is there is a full indemnity
that the Seminole -- you know, that the operators of that -- that
facility are held harmless. Is -- Is that really true or is that --
MS. OSCEOLA: To my knowledge, yes. To my knowledge,
yes. I wish I was an Indian attorney to just Clay Reiner, (phonetic)
but in keeping up with the daily activities of federal -- federally
recognized tribes and in relation to their reservations, yes, that is
true.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Should there be a big sign that
says we're not responsible over the door?
MS. OSCEOLA: Are you kidding? We have every insurance
claim jumper in the world coming into our facility.
MR. MANALICH: Commissioner Hancock, if I can just
briefly add to that, our research indicates that Florida Statute
285.16 does confer some limited jurisdiction on Florida courts with
regard to individual lawsuits. That is, if an individual is -- on the
reservation is subject to a crime or a tort, an accident by another
individual on the reservation, but as to the tribe, it --
MS OSCEOLA: Right.
MR MANALICH: -- becomes much more problematic.
MS OSCEOLA: Right.
MR MANALICH: But there they have to consent --
MS OSCEOLA: The tribe has --
MR MANALICH: -- to be sued.
MS OSCEOLA: The tribe has sovereign immunity, a
limited form of sovereign immunity as defined under federal law when
it pertains to American Indian tribes. However, when it comes to a
civil matter, person to person, there's no sovereign immunity applied.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Then Mr. Berman. And, Mr. Berman, you
are, in fact, sir, the reason why we are here today. MR. BERHAN: Yes, I am.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: On the subject.
MR. BERHAN: Good morning. My name is Nicky Berman.
I'm a businessman out of Cape Coral. There's a couple of things I'd
like to answer before I go on with my presentation. First of all,
it's not county ordinances that we're looking after. It is state
statutes that we're looking for the building department and code
enforcement to enforce. I don't know if they've passed out to you
yet, but this is a copy of Florida Statute 285.16 which gives the
state jurisdiction on Indian reservations. The second part of that
Florida Statute says that the civil and criminal laws of the State of
Florida shall obtain on all Indian reservations in this state and
shall be enforced in the same manner as elsewhere throughout the
state. So I'm looking for the state statutes. We have a state
plumbing code. We have a state electrical code. We have a state air
conditioning code. I'm looking for these state statutes to be
enforced, not the county ordinances.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Berman, the county doesn't
enforce state statutes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Period.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The state has to.
MR. BERHAN: Through the -- Through the code
enforcement, you sure do.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, we don't.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: No, sir, we don't.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We either adopt them as local
county ordinances, and then they fall under our jurisdiction or we do
not, and I don't think 285.16 is going to be adopted by this board as
a county ordinance anytime soon.
MR. BERHAN: Okay. The second thing I'd like to address
was Tina's mention of the sovereign immunity of the tribe. I have
with me a copy of the corporate charter of the Seminole Tribe of
Florida.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That wasn't her mention. That was
my question.
MR. BERHAN: Your question. Well, in answer to your
question, the tribe --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I got my answer.
MR. BERHAN: It was incorrect. I do have a copy of the
corporate charter of the Seminole Tribe of Florida. They waived their
sovereign immunity in section nine --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please make a copy available to
my office.
MR. BERHAN: Sure. I'd be more than happy to.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. BERHAN: I guess I'm done. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
MS. OSCEOLA: Unless you have any -- Tina Osceola, just
for the record.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I think we're ready to move on.
MS. OSCEOLA: Yeah. I'm ready to move on. I need to
get back to work. I took my hour lunch already.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you for coming.
MS. OSCEOLA: Thank you.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 96-6 REAPPOINTING L. WOOLSEY & R. BROWN TO THE ISLE OF CAPRI
FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Moving right along to item 10(A).
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, two members,
two applicants. I'll make a motion we approve -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- those two applicants.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I did have one question. I
received a letter regarding advertisement on this. Miss Filson, could
you clarify that for me, please?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes. Would you please put your
little statement on the record for us, Miss Filson?
MS. FILSON: Yes. These two members are up for
re-appointment. I did advertise. It went out to 43 different groups
and organizations. It was not advertised in the newspaper.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which we have no control over.
MS. FILSON: I have no control over that. It was posted
on three floors in this building, and I sent them out to every
organization who requests them by fax. And also I need to ask the
commissioners to waive section 7(B)(1) if they -- if they do plan to
re-appoint the two members. Mr. Lloyd Woolsey has served two terms,
and you need to waive that section of the ordinance. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let the record reflect --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll include that as part of
the motion.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So does the second.
MR. WEIGEL: Reserve --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in --
MR. WEIGEL: And would you please reserve resolution
numbers for each of those appointments, and we'll prepare the
appropriate resolution.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes. We'll reserve a resolution
number.
All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
I have zero.
Item #10B
APPOINTHENT OF MEMBER TO THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY - TO BE READVERTISED
And 10(B), appointment of member to the Airport
Authority.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On this item there's only one
applicant, but I have a concern. Hiss Davenport has a -- on our brief
Airport Authority history, has a history of opposing much of the
authority work and, in particular, the work at the Everglades Airpark,
and I'm not sure that that is an appropriate application, or an
appropriate appointment anyway, for the authority. So I'm going to
suggest we deny that particular application and readvertise.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If that's a motion, I'll second
it.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a comment to make on --
on this. Historically this board has accepted the fact of a single
applicant when there's a single position available, and Hiss Davenport
has been very active in the community of Everglades City and as well
as the county and as well as -- as political subdivisions of the
state, i.e., the Big Cypress Basin Board. I -- I'm convinced after
having spoken with several people that Hiss Davenport's opposition to
the sheriff's facility at the Everglades Airport and so forth was a
misunderstanding and of not having a proper explanation given to her
as to what the intended result was going to be. So that -- With that,
I'm -- I'm not going to support the motion that we -- we readvertise
this, merely because we've not done so before when we have an adequate
applicant.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed that we haven't in the
past when we had an appropriate applicant, and in my opinion we don't
have one here. Enough said. We disagree on that, but I think
considering the history of Hiss Davenport and the Airport Authority,
she's isn't an appropriate applicant.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion to readvertise and
a second. If there's no further comment, all those in favor signify
by saying aye.
Opposed?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Passes four to one, Commissioner
Matthews dissenting.
Item #11A
USE OF CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS TO ACQUIRE TITLE TO A SPECIAL PURPOSES
CAPITAL ASSET (HELICOPTER) - APPROVED
We are all the way down to item number ll(A). Sheriff
Hunter is here with us today.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, you have one speaker in
addition to the sheriff's presentation.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Sheriff Hunter, I think our
executive summary is fairly complete. I'd like to ask a question.
Let's start off with -- Let's start off with asking some questions.
The --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Go ahead.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: This is to be funded 100 percent
through confiscated trust funds, this request today; is that correct?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: It has no ad valorem impact as
presented here today?
SHERIFF HUNTER: None today. None this year.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: What about the future though? What
about future operating costs and maintenance for this --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Future -- Yes, Commissioner. Future
years would be incorporated in the regular operating budget of the
Collier County Sheriff's Office. We expect that to be just -- I
expect that to be just operating costs in terms of fuel lubricants and
any inspections -- inspection costs, recertification costs that may
occur over a period of years.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. There was a figure given in
here -- let's see -- $138.71 per hour as an operating -- hourly
operating cost for the helicopter. Is -- Does that have maintenance
reserve in it? That seems a little light actually.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes, it is. That -- That includes all
of the costs associated with the operation, care of the aircraft as
estimated by the transfer agency, the military.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- It raised a couple of
points. The -- One of the major expenses is overhaul of the blades,
overhaul of the engine, and so on. How -- How -- How much time is --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Remains?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- currently on each of those
and -- yeah, how much time remains before overhaul?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, let me say this first of all.
I'm no helicopter expert and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just play one on TV.
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- my -- my experience is riding in
them as a SWAT team member and narcotics member, but we -- we're
fortunate to have Mark Cherney here who is chief pilot for me, and he
has some of those answers. But you're right. We have a 1970 aircraft
and a 1973 aircraft offered, and one of the considerations obviously
would be replacement of parts or refurbishment of parts, and that has
all been thoroughly checked. And, f I may, I'll ask Mark to come
forward to speak on those issues.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As he's coming forward, may I
just ask -- in -- in answer to Commissioner Constantine, when you had
-- I think what you've just said, is that $140 an hour, does that
include maintenance -- does -- does that mean -- does that include
replacement and refurbishment? Is that a part of maintenance?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Let -- Let Mark speak to that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I mean, it should be.
MR. CHERNEY: Mark Cherney, Collier County Sheriff's
Office. Yes. That 138.71 is a number that has been published and
being published by the Department of Defense through the Military
Surplus 1208 Program which is the program under which these aircraft
are given out to the local governments. That number that they have
references back to Bell Manufacturer and the operating costs of the
206B-3 Jet Ranger which is a comparable civilian-type to this
aircraft. So that is actually a Bell helicopter figure given to the
military that they have put out. It does include all fuel lubricants,
maintenance, your inspections, your reserve for component overhauls,
engine overhaul.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: But does it address the fact that
these are 20 years old?
MR. CHERNEY: Well, you have to keep in mind -- yes,
they're 20 years old, but it's not like a car that's 20 years old.
Aircraft go through certain inspections. Components have to be
replaced at certain times and dates. So essentially the air frame --
as long as it doesn't obtain major corrosion or doesn't have a cycle
limit on the air frame itself, the air frame can live forever as long
as you keep replacing those components, and that's what I believe
Commissioner Constantine was asking about, is how many hours do we
have left on those components. I can tell you that the particular one
we're looking at and our choice of one just came out of major overhaul
in Corpus Christi, Texas, and it only has ferry time on it back to
Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, where it's currently based. It does have
a few hours of flying up there but not many. The last time sheet that
I got from the military, we have only four components that are
relatively inexpensive that would come due within the first 200 hours.
The next component due would be one main rotor blade at 550 hours
approximately. And on those parts, what we're attempting to do is the
military, as they release these aircraft, are also releasing surplus
parts available for a transfer fee as well, and we can go and screen
military bases, pick up those parts, bring them back, and put them
into inventory or to storage parts that we know we will have to
replace, and we're going to make our very best effort to get as many
of our parts as we can through that as well as other law enforcement
agencies throughout the state and even the country within airborne law
enforcement have set up a network because so many of these aircraft --
There's over 2,000 of these aircraft going out to civilian law
enforcement agencies from the military over -- well, starting two
years ago and for the next four years. So what we've done was start a
parts network where if one guy gets a lot of one type of part and we
get a different type of part, obviously we could never use 30
generators or so forth, but we could eventually trade with somebody
for a different part that they have that they've got a lot of, and so
what we're trying to do is get a clearinghouse going nationwide to be
able to swap these new parts that are being put out by the military.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The amount of flight hours
remaining on the engine is?
MR. CHERNEY: Before it needs its first and second stage
turbine wheel overhaul is 1,637 hours.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- And to put it in
perspective, how many flight hours do you anticipate annually?
MR. CHERNEY: Annually we're -- we're anticipating an
average of 500 annually, so we're looking at three years before we
really hit a major component time overhauls.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- You -- You're putting
in about $30,000 worth of avionics; is that right? MR. CHERNEY: Correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But that is -- Should we
decide to sell this aircraft or if for any reason we -- we need those,
we can remove those avionics again and use them in another aircraft --
MR. CHERNEY: Correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- or market them or do
whatever we want with them?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes.
MR. CHERNEY: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have one question for Mr.
Cherney. You mentioned the most recent use for one of these birds was
ferry time. What about -- I mean, when -- when you buy a used car,
you like to know if it was a little old lady who drove it on Sundays
or whether it was a teen-ager who -- who raced it. Can you give me a
little history on each bird?
MR. CHERNEY: Yes. If you want both of them here, the
aircraft we're looking at as our first choice has -- is a 1973. As of
October 25, it had 2,754 hours on it. And the second helicopter or
second choice is a 1970, and as of October 22, it had 3,111 hours.
Now, I don't want to mislead you. I'm not saying that they're not
being flown. These aircraft are still in operation by the military
until their replacements come, but they fly very little, basically to
keep them flyable, and they would have to ensure that they are in
flyable condition when we take delivery of these helicopters.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. My concern is if something
was used as -- you know, to ferry generals from one point to another,
it's generally experienced pilots. If it was used for training, we
might have some structural concerns that we otherwise might not have.
Do we have that information?
MR. CHERNEY: I -- I have no way to know. They won't --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. CHERNEY: -- release that information. I -- I have
been unofficially informed that one of these aircraft was being
utilized by the Seal team commander at Willow Grove of Pennsylvania.
So it was a Seal team aircraft.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- And when you said
ferry time, you just meant from the overhaul -- place of overhaul back
to --
MR. CHERNEY: Yes. Just --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- its current --
MR. CHERNEY: -- physically flying it from Corpus
Christi to Pennsylvania.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The other two questions I have
are for Sheriff Hunter. I find it ironic that when we were talking
about the acquisition of the -- the airplane that we recently went
through, I made a joke about building a fleet of aircraft, and now
here we sit with two airplanes and -- and possibly two helicopters,
and pretty soon the -- you know, the Collier County sheriff's, you
know, air fleet.
SHERIFF HUNTER: There would be a transport plane and --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
SHERIFF HUNTER: No. That's not happening.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you get a C130 in there, you
might be able to start a small country. SHERIFF HUNTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My -- My concern is that
obviously every time we add equipment, the personnel to support them
comes on, additions to the budget. You know, we keep talking about a
tight budget in the sheriff's office. You know, you -- You know, we
went through the -- the -- the issues of -- of your budget constraints
and looking at personnel pay raises and so forth. So I do have a
little concern about that fleet growing and nothing being sold. The
second -- The second concern --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Say it again. Say that last part
again.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We had one airplane --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Your last comment is all I want
repeated.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing being sold.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Nothing being sold meaning--
SHERIFF HUNTER: Nothing being sold.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and the point is we're-- we're
adding inventory. And I guess my question is -- is -- you know, can
we phase anything out to -- to supplant some of the cost?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Actually we did, Commissioner.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
SHERIFF HUNTER: We did.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And that may fold into my second
question. Let me give you that, and then I'll shut up. And that is,
where's 188,000 coming from in your budget?
SHERIFF HUNTER: As has been already pointed out by
Commissioner Constantine, we are getting the 188,000 out of
confiscated trust funds --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- by a request to you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So that's not a budget
item but is -- that --
SHERIFF HUNTER: That's out of confiscated trust funds.
The full operation and acquisition of the aircraft, outfitting it with
avionics, the FLIR unit, and the Nightsun all coming from confiscated
trust funds by a request this morning which is the action that we're
asking you to take. I'm requesting just the funding from you.
We lost two aircraft, if you will, through trade-out and
transfer back to -- I believe that was a military surplus aircraft.
We had a UH1B that was used from roughly 1973 to maybe 1983, 1984,
somewhere in there, a Vietnam-era vintage aircraft which we used in
cooperation with civil defense here. That was lost in roughly 1983,
'85 by my removal from your fleet. The -- We then had a Bell 47
which we used for surveillance purposes. It would -- I think the top
speed was around 84 miles per hour -- 86 miles per hour. MR. CHERNEY: No. 60 miles an hour.
SHERIFF HUNTER: 60 miles per hour. 60 miles per hour
-- that we used until 1990, I believe, and that was --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the two-seater?
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- surplussed out -- Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Was that that little two-seater?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Yeah. That's the little two-seater,
little bubble two-seater, and we surplussed that out because it was,
quite frankly, too expensive to continue to repair. The parts were
not available, and we lost that aircraft. That money was rolled in as
a current year refund. I believe that was returned to the board in
1990 as a current year refund or portions of it.
We're not building a fleet. We're trying to replace
what we -- what we recently had. "Recently" meaning the last couple
of decades. We've been using helicopters in the sheriff's office for
a long period of time. What we haven't had available is an aircraft
-- a helicopter capability since 1990 roughly. I'm not trying to
build a fleet at all. We have two offered this morning. I'm making
the proposal to you. The request is to fund one of those. Certainly
there's an advantage to having two but -- for replacement parts --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: My concern --
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- but what I'm asking for is one.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- wasn't the fact that you're
trying to build a kingdom, the perception of continually adding --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, I'm sorry that you have that
perception. We're not building a kingdom.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No. No. No. I said --
SHERIFF HUNTER: We're trying to carry on law
enforcement.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I said that was not the intent of
my question was to say that you're trying to build a kingdom. SHERIFF HUNTER: Okay. Good.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The intent of my question was
that the perception of adding pieces continually --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Right. And that's all we can do.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it all costs money to operate,
all have budgetary -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- increases down the road. You
know, that -- that's my concern, is -- When I sat on the productivity
committee, we made the recommendation and support of a helicopter for
the sheriff's office.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Three, actually.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Two operational --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- one for parts.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Right. Right.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I remember that. And I still --
I still stand behind that recommendation. But on the other side of
putting the dollar signs with it, that's my concern again.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Let's do that. Let's -- Let's put some
dollar -- I don't have the -- the figures this morning for you, but
let me -- let me talk about in broad terms the philosophy behind the
helicopter which is exactly what was provided to the productivity
committee back in 1991, '92. The point being made with the helicopter
capability -- and -- and I believe there's about 32 counties currently
operating helicopters -- some of them have fleets of as many as 12
birds. I'm told Marion County have 12 -- has 12, a county not too
unlike or dissimilar from us. It's not a Duval County. It's not a
Dade County. It's not a Broward County. The point is it's a force
multiplier for patrol capability, crime-supression capability, pursuit
capability, search-and-rescue capability. Instead of hiring five, six
deputy sheriffs with patrol vehicles, you can cover the same territory
with a helicopter in much quicker time in a much more efficient manner
by being up and looking. We're talking especially in the Golden Gate
Estates area when we're having a daytime burglary problem, and we have
had a nighttime burglary problem in some of our gated communities
recently if you've been watching the paper and watching our crime
reports. That gives us the capability with this aircraft properly
fitted with forward-looking infrared capability which we could
demonstrate to you on the video that we brought this morning as a
refresher. What a FLIR -- What that forward-looking infrared
capability would give us in terms of being an observation platform
looking for burglary suspects and suspicious activity around
commercial and residential structures, at some of our car lots where
we lose -- from time to time, we lose vehicles through motor vehicle
theft. That is really what we're talking about. It's a force
multiplier. Instead of coming back to you looking for a certain number
of patrol deputies, we're -- I'm saying to you and certifying to you
that this aircraft is a means of helping with the patrol function
where we can't buy the 66 patrol deputies we should have had last
year. We asked you for 28. Help me out a little bit right now, and
help this county out to provide for that patrol function, and that's
what this will give us.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Is there a time restriction on when
this helicopter could be resold?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Not -- Not to my knowledge, no.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Matthews.
SHERIFF HUNTER: We have to have it airworthy within a
year and use it within a year. We have to use it for two years
according to Mark.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I --
SHERIFF HUNTER: I haven't seen the contract yet, so I
-- I can't respond to some of these questions. We're basing it on
past experience.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've either read in the paper
this morning or -- or heard over the weekend that the range on this
vehicle was 312 miles; is that correct? How does that equate in
flight time?
SHERIFF HUNTER: 312 miles at top speed?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, whatever.
MR. CHERNEY: It's -- it --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Come on up, Mark.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm not a helicopter person.
Tell me.
MR. CHERNEY: Basic endurance on this -- on this
helicopter, operationally for us if you take into account reserves --
fuel reserves are mandated by law and so forth -- we're looking at two
and a half hours operationally in the air at a time, and that would be
with a full fuel load.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And it flies at what top speed?
MR. CHERNEY: Approximately -- Let me quote you their
number so I'm not wrong here. They quote 121 knots.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which equates to how many
miles an hour?
MR. CHERNEY: About 134 miles an hour.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So you would be able -- You
would be able to cover from the Gulf to the eastern boundary of the
county in about 40 minutes' -- MR. CHERNEY: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- flying time?
MR. CHERNEY: Yes. Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: 40 minutes out, 40 minutes back
optimum. It would still give you roughly an hour to search before you
have to put down and refuel?
MR. CHERNEY: Yes. Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two quick questions and then
a comment. This roughly $200,000, the value -- if you were to pick up
a 1973 OH-58 with a virtually brand new, recently overhauled engine
and -- and plenty of time on the blades, what's the value on that?
SHERIFF HUNTER: We're told roughly $400,000 per
aircraft.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- Commissioner Hancock
made the point, gosh, you know, how are we going to use this, what
will this be used for, are we building a fleet, and so on, and I
remember our discussion a couple of years back on a new aircraft, and
I had some concern. I think we were looking at 1.2 million or
something for the purchase, and then the cost per hour was
considerably higher. I think it might have even been over 300 per
hour but -- and I guess, in my mind, at the time, the return to the --
it wasn't a matter of do we have a use for the helicopter, but the
return dollar for dollar wasn't there. I think with this it clearly
is. We're getting an aircraft that will suit the needs we have for
essentially 50 percent or better of what it would normally cost and
allows you to do some of the things we've been handicapped on up until
this point.
My only other question -- and then I'm going to make a
motion to approve the item -- is, where will the aircraft and our --
the airplane we recently acquired or in the process of acquiring,
where will those be stored and maintained?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, we hope to store it near the
existing hangar, and we certainly would like to see a hangar
constructed to house the helicopter and any other aircraft that might
be acquired by the county. Right now I understand we could rotate out
one of our aircraft, the fixed-wing, and store the helicopter in the
existing hangar. I would like to see some -- some additional hangar
space. We could go for tie-down, a facility outside immediately just
for the interim period, and that shouldn't cause any major concern.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How is our new facility, Mr.
Dotrill, equipped to assist in this effort?
MR. DORRILL: The new facility was designed to
accommodate the sheriff's 172 and at that time was not contemplated --
and I -- I don't believe that the twin engine would or could fit in
there in addition to the helicopter. I -- I agree with the sheriff
that if you take the 172 out, you could put both the county's
helicopters in the facility. There's no on-site ramp space that would
accommodate either one of the fixed-wing aircraft. We're on a lease
there. We would probably have to acquire some additional property in
order to build the -- the necessary outside ramp.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, I think renting some tie-down
spaces commercially off of the airport would be minimal expense if
that's what --
MR. DORRILL: It would not be on this site. It would be
back towards the east.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, that's fine. I don't think
it would cause any hardship to drive to one location of the airport or
another.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Location is not critical. We have
rented ramp space before for tie-down, the old Arrow Commander and
whatnot for -- for as far back as I can remember.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: With that in mind, I will
make a motion to approve the item.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. Is
there any public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: You have one. Mr. Keller.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Keller.
MR. KELLER: George Keller, concerned citizen. I've been
involved in aviation for about 30 years as an accountant. I owned my
own airplane for 25 years and flew at least twice a week. I honestly
think that this is probably a necessity for the sheriff to have. I
was concerned, as Mr. Hancock mentioned, about building a fleet. I
don't know if we need the Navy on too. Maybe -- Maybe he's got some
good reason to have three airplanes, but definitely if we had any, we
should have the helicopter. That probably is the most practical of
any of the airplanes. The 172 is -- can be used for checking speeds
on roads and stuff; however, everybody speeds anyway, and nobody gets
picked up for it anyway, so there's no big deal on that. All you have
to do is get on 1-75 in Collier County, and if you don't drive at
least 75 miles an hour, they run you off the road.
So I would say that you should go, and this is a good
deal. It's a cheap deal, and it's a government -- government
aircraft. It has been certified, so there's no problem. And as far
as aircraft and age, it's like some human beings. They never get old,
but aircraft -- aircraft have a very long life if taken care of
properly. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: I did have one question from -- from our
perspective. Is -- Is there a prohibition against us getting the
second aircraft to use for parts? And the only reason I say that is
that one of the main reasons that we sold the county's Hewey
helicopter was a rapidly declining availability of parts, and we got
to the point where we were having to budget $60,000 for used
refurbished rotor blades, and I know there's a huge difference between
a Hewey rotor blade and whatnot, and I'm just thinking, can we not get
the second ship for the availability of parts, or do they both have to
be serviceable and flying.
SHERIFF HUNTER: And that question has been answered in
this manner. The second aircraft, which is a flyable aircraft as
well, if donated to Collier County Sheriff's Office, would be expected
to be put into service as a flying unit rather than as surplus parts.
Although there may be some -- some exception that we could trade out a
part here or there to keep one of the aircraft flying while we waited
for one -- for -- for a new replacement part or for a surplus part to
be delivered, it would not be recommended as such.
MR. DORRILL: That answers that question.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a
second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed?
That's four to one, Commissioner Matthews dissenting.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I seem to be on a --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: She's on a streak today.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm on a streak today.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: She's on a tear. Okay.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We're down to public comment. Mr.
Dotrill, do we have any public comments? MR. DORRILL: No, sir, we do not.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Sheriff Hunter, I would encourage
you to let the media representatives know so that you can maybe
publicize periodically how high tech that forward-looking infrared
radar is and what it can do and why criminals shouldn't be hanging
around our county.
SHERIFF HUNTER: We will certainly do that. I intend to
publish captures and publish the use of the forward-looking infrared
unit.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The joke in the military was
they're great for hunting.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Any public comment, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
Item #14
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Any -- Down to communications from
the board. Commissioner Matthews?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. I have one -- one item.
It should be fairly quick, and I'm not sure what we can -- can do
about it, but I've been notified obviously in the last week or so from
Everglades City, Chokoloskee, Plantation Island, Ochopee area of a
real disaster that is in the making economically. The national park
is shut down; therefore, 90 to 95, possibly 99 percent of the citizens
in that area are out of work, and I'm wondering if this board would
want to entertain a proposal for a resolution asking the governor to
consider an economic disaster proclamation so that -- I don't know
where these people go to get money to live, but I -- I think we need
to do something about the economic disaster that's very much in the
making so long as -- as the people in Washington D.C. Continue to spat
over the budget and not get them back to work.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, Commissioner Constantine,
as Bob Dole's future running mate --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He's been watching Loveday
and Lytle again.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not familiar with the process
by which the state declares economic disasters --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Neither am I.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and I may be overly
optimistic, but my feeling is that within the next, you know,
hopefully few days and definitely week, there will probably be a
return of employees, you know, within -- within the federal
government.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My sources tell me --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, you know, I don't know enough
about declaration of economic disaster to either support or not
support, you know, that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I certainly would
like this board to maybe direct our staff to look into how we might
propose that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I wouldn't have any
opposition to exploring that, and if we can do something to assist our
-- our own residents, we certainly should.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. The -- The -- And I don't
know what the mechanism is. I know for a weather disaster it has to
come from the local government up through the chain, and I would
presume this would have to go sort of the same way.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would like to find that out.
So whomever is appropriate, Mr. Dotrill, to do that research.
MR. DORRILL: And I saw some news coverage over the --
the holiday that that's -- the same is occurring in Arizona and also
California, and they're actually petitioning the state to operate
facilities in the interim or provide the funding necessary to operate
it, but we'll explore that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. It seems odd to me that
we have national park service rangers on duty to keep people out. It
seems to me they could just as well be on duty to let people in but
whatever.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Two things. First of all, I
would like to thank my colleagues for their vote of confidence as vice
chair, and hopefully Commissioner Norris will be here at all meetings.
And, secondly, I'd like to thank Max for your -- your very nice
letter, and thank you for all your work.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm afraid I have two items.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One, I just wanted to mention
on the ever popular Treeline Drive -- and I need to preface it by
saying my thought and where I have come from on that up to this point
is with the new university, the state has certain responsibilities for
a four-year university, and that is to get the structures up, to get
some books and equipment in there, and fill them with teachers and --
and have a place, the physical place and the physical structures in
place. Local government responsibility is to get some of that
infrastructure in place so you can drive to and from it and drink
water when you're there and do those things, and that's been kind of
the background on where I came from with my initial request that we
assist in the infrastructure there, and we did make that commitment.
Most recently, though, there has been a question brought
as to a mini mall that's going to go up there and will they benefit,
and I have a concern. My commitment to the university is as strong as
ever, and my commitment that we should assist in the local
responsibility is as strong as ever, but I do think we need to do a
little homework and find out, if there's a private benefit from the
infrastructure, then the private entity should be paying for that, not
the local government.
So I -- I just want to let you all know this coming week
I'm going to have a conversation with a number of people including
Commissioner St. Cerny and some of the university people and see if we
can at least have some of the answers to those questions because while
I think our commitment to the university needs to stay strong, our
commitment to private developers doesn't and -- and -- not in the way
of paying for their infrastructure. So at least we'll be informed on
that decision.
And the second item is -- is I've sent each of you a
memo. Hopefully you've seen it, but I know with the holidays, you may
not all have gone through your in-boxes, and that is Senator Dudley
had requested specifically me -- and I don't know why -- and -- and,
John, if you want to be there as well, obviously any of us are welcome
-- but to give just an update on any issues we may have as a board
that the state delegation may want to be aware of prior to going to
Tallahassee, and particularly with our lobbying effort --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. Our --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we probably want to take
advantage of that so --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Our workshop is scheduled for
the llth. So we should be able to --
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, I -- I scheduled for next
week's meeting an item on the agenda so that each board member can
bring forward their favorite little legislative items for this year,
and we can compile those in and take them in in a coordinated manner.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- Yeah. Hopefully we'll
-- they are anxious to work with us as always.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We should see that by next week.
So if all the board members would have their little items ready, we'll
-- we'll talk about that next week.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. That's all I have.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's all you have? I just-- I
don't have anything other than to offer my thanks and appreciation to
all the board members for their vote of confidence and look forward to
a good year.
Mr. Dotrill, anything left?
Item #15
STAFF'S COHMUNICATIONS
MR. DORRILL: Only one informational item. We were
contacted this morning and advised that there are a group of counties
throughout the state that are going to be meeting this week to explore
the possibility of collectively condemning and acquiring the assets of
SSU Utilities whose crown jewel is probably the Marco Island Utility,
and it's my intent to send a staff person to that meeting in Tampa
sometime this week because it affects Commissioner Norris directly.
As soon as we get some additional detail, we will advise you of those.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is that condemn like fix a price
and pay for it?
MR. DORRILL: And every county in the state in which SSU
owns or operates a for-profit utility, yes.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's interesting. Miss Filson?
MS. FILSON: I just have one small note. The CAC has
advertised for the EAR public hearing for March 30 at 5:05 -- March 20
-- I'm sorry -- at 5:05.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: All right. That being the case,
Hiss Filson, we're adjourned.
***** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner
Hancock and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "QUAIL WEST PHASE III, BLOCK K, LOT 97"
WITH STIPULATIONS, CASH BOND, AND CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
See Pages
Item #16A2
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE ON
PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 127 AND 129, ROSEMARY HEIGHTS ADDITION,
OWNER; HELEN HOWL
See Pages
Item #16A3
WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR LEXINGTON AT LONE OAK, UNIT
TWO - WITH STIPULATIONS
OR Book Pages
Item #16A4
LIST OF QUALIFIED HYDROLOGICAL CONSULTANT AND CLEANUP CONTRACTORS
PURSUANT TO RFP #95-2380
Item #16A5
WATER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR VILLAGE WALK TOWN CENTER - WITH CASH
BOND AND STIPULATIONS
OR Book Pages
Item #16A6
FINAL PLAT OF "CANDELWOOD TWO" - WITH STIPULATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION &
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
See Pages
Item #16A7
WATER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR CYPRESS COMHONS - WITH STIPULATIONS AND
LETTER OF CREDIT
See Pages
OR Book Pages
Item #16A8
WATER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR SAFE HARBOR - WITH STIPULATIONS
OR Book Pages
Item #16A9
RESOLUTION 96-1 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "TOLLGATE COMHERCIAL
CENTER, PHASE THREE"
See Pages
Item #16A10
RESOLUTION 96-2 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "THE ESTATES AT
WYNDEMERE"
See Pages
Item #16All
RESOLUTION 96-3 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "LAKE LUCERNE"
See Pages
Item #16A12
RESOLUTION 96-4 DESIGNATING THE CITY OF NAPLES COMMUNITY SERVICES
DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE AS THE ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE ON THE
REGIONAL HARBOR BOARD (SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL)
See Pages
Item #16A13
WATER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR SHOPS AT EAGLE CREEK, PHASE 2 - WITH
STIPULATIONS AND CASH BOND
OR Book Pages
Item #16B1
BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD AMOUNTS FROM FY 1995 FOR
ROAD PROJECTS IN FUNDS 313, 331, 333, 336, 338, 339 & 340
Item #16B2
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 RELATED TO NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT
PLANT FORCE MAIN EXTENSION AND NEW 10% CHANGE ORDER
See Pages
Item #16B3
EASEMENT AND CERTAIN WASTEWATER TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONVEYED TO
IMMOKALEE WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT TO SERVE THE IMMOKALEE JAIL CENTER
AND COLLIER COUNTY JUVENILE DRILL ACADEMY
See Pages
Item #16B4 - Deleted
Item #16B5 - Deleted
Item #16B6
ADJUST WATER MANAGEMENT CIP BUDGET (FUND 325) TO REFLECT REVISIONS IN
CAPITAL PROGRAM AND CARRY FORWARD FROM PRIOR YEAR
Item #16B7 - Continued Indefintely
Item #1688
PURSUE RECD FUNDING FOR THE ROYAL COVE UNIT 2 SEWER SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION
Item #1689
AWARD THE PURCHASE OF A COURTHOUSE SECURITY SYSTEM AWARDED TO EG&G
ASTROPHYSICS RESEARCH
Item #16B10
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR POND C ON THE BATHEY PROPERTY
Item #16Bll
PROPERTY OWNER STIPULATIONS AND ACCEPT ADDITIONAL DEVELOPER FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE FOR PURCHASE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION LAND FOR THE NORTH
NAPLES ROADWAY HSTU (LIVINGSTON ROAD) PROJECT - WITH STIPULATIONS
See Pages
Item #16B12
A MODIFIED SOVEREIGN SUBMERGED LANDS EASEMENT (EASEMENT NO. 21494)
GRAiNTED TO COLLIER AND LEE COUNTIES RELATED TO THE BONITA BEACH ROAD
PROJECT
See Pages
Item #16C1
THE PURCHASE OF VARIOUS PARKS MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT UTILIZING ANNUAL
STATE AND FEDERAL CONTRACTS
Item #16D1
THE TRANSFER OF BUDGETED FUNDS FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVES TO THE COUNTY
SECURITY COST CENTER, FUND 001-122255 TO FUND ADDITIONAL STAFFING
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE IHMOKALEE COURTHOUSE AS APPROVED BY THE BOARD
DURING THE JUNE 19, 1995 BUDGET WORKSHOP
Item #16D2- Deleted
Item #16D3
A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN MARCO ISLAND FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT AND
COLLIER COUNTY FOR SHARED USE OF A FIRE STATION TO BE USED BY THE EHS
DEPARTMENT
See Pages
Item #16D4 - Moved to Item #SD1
Item #16D5
RETAIN PURE AIR SERVICES INC. FOR INDOOR AIR QUALITY REHEDIATION AND
INVESTIGATIONS FOR COUNTY OWNED AND OR OPERATED BUILDINGS FOR A THREE
MONTH PERIOD
Item #16D6
THE HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
AND THE MARCO ISLAND FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT
See Pages
Item #16D7
THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MARCO ISLAND FIRE CONTROL AND
RESCUE DISTRICT AND THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
See Pages
Item #16El
THE PURCHASE OF STREET LIGHT POLES FROM HUGHES SUPPLY INC. IN THE
A_MOUNT OF $23,459
Item #16E2
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH LEE COUNTY CREATING SOUTHWEST FLORIDA FILM
COHMISSION OFFICE
See Pages
Item #16F1
RESOLUTION 96-5 SETTING TERMS OF OFFICE FOR MEMBERS APPOINTED TO THE
COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COHMITTEE
See Pages
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATES FOR CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1992 REAL PROPERTY
NO. DATE
211 11/27/95
1995 REAL PROPERTY
NO. DATE
117 11/17/95
121 11/27/95
130 11/29/95
131 11/29/95
132 11/29/95
137 12/01/95
142 12/06/95
143 12/11/95
Item #1662
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
See Pages
Item #1663
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AN/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #16H1
ACCEPTANCE OF THE JOINT REPORT SUBMITTED BY FINANCE DEPARTMENT
REGARDING THE NUMBER AND DOLLAR AMOUNT OF INTEREST PENALTY PAYMENTS
MADE DURING FISCAL YEAR 1995 AS OUTLINED IN THE COLLIER COUNTY
PURCHASING POLICY SECTION XI, PARAGRAPH C
Item #1611
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE PGA TOUR, INC. AND THE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND INTELLINET INC. WITH RESPECT TO
THE GRANT OF $500,000 FROM CATEGORY C, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX FUNDS
FOR THE PGA INTELLINET CHALLENGE
See Pages
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:32 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
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: Christine E. Whitfield, RPR