BCC Minutes 03/04/1997 R REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 4, 1997
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 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F"
of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
CHAIRMAN:
VICE-CHAIRPERSON:
members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
Timothy L. Hancock
Barbara B. Berry
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
Hike HcNees, Assistant County Hanager
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
(The following proceedings commenced, Commissioner
Constantine being absent.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. I'm going to call to
order the Tuesday, March 4th, meeting of the Collier County Board of
County Commissioners. It is a pleasure this morning to have Pastor
Robert Jacobs of Messiah Lutheran Church here. And, Pastor Jacobs, if
I could ask you to lead us in an invocation, please.
PASTOR JACOBS: We make our beginning in the name of our
great God, the father, the son and the holy spirit. Lord, the
Psalmist said it so well. This is the day which the Lord has made.
We will rejoice and be glad in it, and there is much more reason for
us to rejoice, for daily you come into our lives, and you bring us the
joy of the forgiveness of all of our sins through your son. But also
you assure us that your care and your constant looking after every one
of our needs. You have given us your holy word in which you describe
for us how we can have that relationship with you and relationship
with one another. But you have also established a government, a
government which is for the betterment of the lives of your people.
And so on this day we ask your special blessing upon each of these
commissioners as they discuss and analyze and then make resolutions
and decisions which will affect the welfare of your people. We pray
that each of these will be to the betterment, that each of us can live
in your peace and your joy and enjoy all which you give unto us. So
we ask your blessing upon all of their decisions that it may give you
the glory through Christ our Lord, amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, Pastor Jacobs, thank you for
spending some time with us this morning.
We next have -- do we have any changes to the agenda
this morning? Mr. McNees?
MR. McNEES: Yes, we do. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. We have four changes. The first is to delete Item
7(A), a public petition regarding an impact fee. We believe we're
going to have that worked out at the staff level, and you hopefully
won't hear anything more about that one. And that's at the
petitioner's request who has scheduled a meeting with the staff to
work this out.
Two items to add under Board of County Commissioners,
Item 10(F), discussion regarding the funding of Naples Landing.
That's at Commissioner Constantine's request; and Item 10(G),
discussion of offshore oil exploration and drilling. That's at
Commissioner Mac'Kie's request.
We have one continuance, which is Item 5(A)(6), a
proclamation regarding Friends of Barefoot Beach Week. That would be
continued to the meeting of March llth. And that would be all of the
changes that we have.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have no other changes. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I would like to add one thing also
under Board of County Commissioners. It has to do with the parking at
Chokoloskee, Highway 29.
MR. McNEES: That will become 10(H).
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. For the record Commissioner
Constantine is absent at this point.
I have nothing to add.
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Nothing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve the agenda and
consent agenda with changes as noted. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Seeing none, motion carries 4-0.
Item #4
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 11, 1997, - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a
motion to approve the minutes of the February llth regular meeting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Noting that that was a happy
birthday to my mom, I'd like to second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sure that was in the minutes, but
it is in these minutes now. We have a motion and a second. Any
discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION EXPRESSING GRATITUDE AND APPRECIATION TO THE OFFICERS,
DIRECTORS, MEMBERS AND VOLUNTEERS OF THE FRIENDS OF THE MUSEUM OF THE
EVERGLADES - ADOPTED
Seeing none, 5(A) proclamations. Commissioner Berry,
5(A)(1).
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This morning we
have a proclamation regarding the Museum of the Everglades. I don't
know if we have any of those good people here this morning, if they
would come up and stand up here in front, please.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is your big chance to be on TV.
I hope the VCRs are rolling at home.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: If you'll turn around and face the
camera, and I will read the proclamation.
Whereas, the Friends of the Museum of the Everglades has
played a significant role in preserving the history of Collier
County's early growth and development; and
Whereas, since 1992 the Friends have actively worked to
restore the Everglades City laundry building, a designated Florida
historic landmark and one of the few remaining structures built by
Barton Gift Collier; and
Whereas, the Friends have collected and pledged over
$55,000 in gifts of money, time, and materials to restore the laundry
to serve as a regional history museum and a lasting reminder of
Collier County's founding in 1923; and
Whereas, in partnership with Collier County Government,
in 1996 the Friends were instrumental in securing a special category
historic preservation grant of $360,902 for the project from the
Florida Department of State; and
Whereas, without the tireless efforts of these dedicated
volunteers an important part of Collier County's early history would
be forever lost.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that sincere gratitude and
appreciation is extended to the officers, directors, members, and
volunteers of the Friends of the Museum of the Everglades who
generously contribute their time and energies to ensure that the
historical and cultural resources of our community are responsibly
cared for and preserved for the education and enjoyment of present and
future generations of citizens.
Done and ordered this 4th day of March, 1997, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Timothy L. Hancock,
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I move this proclamation.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. For the
record Commissioner Constantine is here. Is there any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Congratulations.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Feel free to say something on the
microphone if you'd like to.
MS. REEVES: It's -- I just wanted to say it's been a
long-determined effort, and we hope within a year that we will have a
museum in Everglades City that both the county and ourselves will be
proud of. Thank you.
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1997, AS ROTARY
INTERNATIONAL GROUP STUDY EXCHANGE TEMA DAY - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you for all your work.
It is my pleasure this morning under proclamation to
welcome, as the chair gets the opportunity every year, the Rotary
International Group Study Exchange Team. Mr. Davis, if I could ask
you to present the team, and then I will -- will read the proclamation
and present it to you. Then I understand you and Mr. Drobinski have a
presentation this morning.
MR. DAVIS: About an hour.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: About an hour? We'll recess for 55
minutes and be back.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Whereas, we welcome the Rotary
International Group Study Exchange Team from Rotary International
District 2340 Sweden to Collier County, Florida; and
Whereas, the Rotary Foundation of Rotary International
Group Study Exchange Program has sent to us a team of four
professionals who are visiting Collier County to study our institution
and ways of life; and
Whereas, the team members will also observe the practice
of their own professions and exchange ideas; and
Whereas, the team is able to personally experience
family lifestyles as they are hosted by Rotary Clubs of Collier County
and given accommodations in local homes; and
Whereas, the Rotary Foundation is a nonprofit
corporation supported by Rotarians and others worldwide. Its
objective is the achievement of world understanding and peace through
international humanitarian and educational programs.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Tuesday March 4, 1997,
be designated as Rotary International Group Study Exchange Team Day.
Done and ordered this 4th day of March, 1977, Board of
Commissioners, Timothy Hancock, Chairman.
My colleagues, it's my pleasure to move this
proclamation.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion? All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome, and congratulations.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You forgot the parchment, my dear
friend.
MR. DAVIS: Sorry about that.
On behalf of Rotary International and all the Rotarians
in District 6960 and particularly over 750 Rotarians here in Collier
County, I'd like to thank the board for this recognition today. The
board has been very supportive of this program over the years, in
particular with many of the team members that have come from county
government. We alerted a lot of them today: Stephanie Sauser from
our motor vehicle department, Joe Delate that works in capital
projects, Terry Bolle from the sheriff's department, and Sam Saadeh
from our manager's office who was on a trip to India, you may recall,
a couple years ago.
Today for the remarks and introduce -- introduction of
the team, we have a change in the guard, if you will. They're kind of
putting me out to pasture, and I think appropriately so. I don't
know. I'd like to introduce George Drobinski from our county
probation department who led a team to Italy last year who will be
taking over the duties as our district chairman pretty soon. Our
upcoming trips are -- we're going to have an exchange with both Japan
and the Philippines. And, yes, commissioners can apply for this
program. It is -- it is acceptable. With that I'd like to intro --
introduce George Drobinski.
MR. DROBINSKI: Bon Giorno, mi nome George Drobinski,
Capo Squadra del Groupo Studia Escambia da Napoli, Florida. Thank
you, Commissioners. I'm George Drobinski, as Mike stated. And I was
today at one minute after nine o'clock that there would be a changing
of the guard, and I would be making this presentation. So -- and
that's part of group study exchanges, is that you have to learn to
basically think on your feet because there's a lot of presentations
that are made. And as the proclamation has stated, for money, world
peace, and understanding is really what the core of the program is
about. It's a marvelous vocational and cultural exchange, and we had
already stated where we're going to, but it might be interesting to
state where we had gone to already, and that's Columbia, India, the
Netherlands, Italy. England is about to depart next month, and then
Sweden is here now, and Sweden will be departing soon as well. What
group study exchange does is make the world a little smaller, which is
nice. And we stay in people's homes, and we live as they do, and it's
a great experience that we encourage everyone to participate in,
Mr. Olliff.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Especially Mr. Olliff.
MR. DROBINSKI: And it gives me great pleasure to
introduce the team leader from Sweden, Robin Sundren (phonetic). MR. SUNDBERG: Sundberg.
MR. DROBINSKI: Still working on the Swedish language.
And he will introduce his team.
MR. SUNDBERG: Thank you. I'm Robin Sundberg, and I'm
the team leader of this team from -- from Sweden. And I am the only
one who is Rotary member of ours, of course. And my -- I work in the
postal service in Sweden, and I be glad to visit your post offices
here and look -- most people laugh when I say they spat.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're actually hoping you'll make
some recommendations.
MR. SUNDBERG: Perhaps. It's interesting, anyhow, to
see how -- how you work with these issues.
And we are -- it's -- I'm not the head person in this
team. Of course, it's a team, And I'll introduce them now. Marie,
will you please step forward, and tell the board your name and what
you are doing.
MS. PETERSSON: My name is Marie Petersson, and I work
in a bank in Sweden, which called Node Bankin (phonetic), North Bank,
as a finance advisor.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Welcome.
MR. JOHANSSON: My name is Bengt Johansson, and I'm work
at the power company in Sweden, the third largest one. And I work
with power system planning and things like that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Welcome to you.
MS. LARSSON: Hello, my name is Carina Larsson, and I
work as a I.T. administrator at the local medical health -- and health
authority in Westeros (phonetic).
MR. SITBERG: My name is Leonard Sitberg (phonetic), and
I work for the mortgage lender in Sweden called Statsubutake
(phonetic), which roughly can translate into the Urban Mortgage Bank
Group of Sweden.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. Thank you.
MR. SUNDBERG: And Rotary is fantastic. For the moment
I live with a family who visited us in Sweden last August, and it's
people from here who were traveling around in Sweden, and they called
-- wrote letter to my club and asked, can you take care of us for
some days and make program for us, and we did. And now I am here
visiting them. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They wisely didn't ask to stay at any
commissioner's home.
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 9-15, 1997 AS FRIENDS OF EAST NAPLES
COMHUNITY PARK WEEK - ADOPTED
Next is Commissioner Norris, proclamation regarding
Friends of East Naples Community Park Week.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have
Russ Mullet here today to accept this proclamation. Nancy Markham,
are you here? There's Nancy. Would you come forward, please, and
Carol Fries. The proclamation reads:
Whereas, the friends of East Naples Community Park are
an integral part of the Collier County park system; and
Whereas, during the past year the East Naples Friends
organization has supplied $2,800 in revenue; and
Whereas, this money will be distributed to park
improvements and program scholarships for children; and
Whereas, the Friends have run various special events
such as the East Naples Community Celebration; and
Whereas, the friends of East Naples Community Park have
supplied the park with over 1,000 hours of service; and
Whereas, the East Naples Friends have pledged to
continue this endeavor of enrichment of the East Naples community; and
Whereas, the friends of East Naples Community Park
contains six members and many additional volunteers; and
Whereas, the quality of life in Collier County would be
reduced without their presence.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that gratitude and
appreciation is extended to the membership of the Friends of East
Naples Community Park for their successful partnership between the
public and private sectors of the East Naples community. It is
accepted by both that an investment in our public parks is an
investment in our future. We, the Board of County Commissioners, do
reaffirm our commitment to a high-quality public park recreation
system by proclaiming March 9th to the 15th be designated as Friends
of East Naples Community Park Week honoring these citizens who have
given time and service to Collier County.
Done and ordered this 4th day of March, 1997, by the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida.
And, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we accept this
proclamation.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Seeing none, congratulations.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Get a few more projects, Russ.
You're getting kind of low.
MR. MULLER: I need to get up here more often.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Somebody needs to say something.
Carol, you going to say something?
MS. FRIES: Talk about impromptu. Drawing a blank. I'm
sorry the whole team could not be here today because, just as the
Rotary group said, it is a team effort. It is definitely a team
effort. We had started back in September of last year with a group
and said, okay, what are we going to do for our community. And we are
just so proud of the park, all the improvements that have gone in in
the past year or two that we said let's have a celebration. And we
also wanted to work with the Avalon Elementary School. We're very
happy what had been happening over the past year or two in the
Bayshore area with the cleanup of a lot of the crime in the area. And
since we were all so enthusiastic, we just set a date and said let's
have a party, and let's invite the entire community. And we're going
to move forward. We're going to give our recommendations to the parks
and recreation department what we can do for the citizens that use the
park.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you all have done a fine job
out there. That whole part of the community is -- has really seen a
great deal of improvement recently, and it's -- it's in large measure,
of course, to your efforts. Thank you very much.
MS. FRIES: You're welcome.
Item #5A4
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 9-15, 1997 AS FRIENDS OF VINEYARDS
COMHUNITY PARK WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Next we have a similar
proclamation for Vineyards Community Park.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we can have Carolee and
Steve come up, we've got a proclamation for Friends of Vineyards
Community Park. Doesn't look like a -- well -- MS. STEELMAN: We changed Steve.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to say, gosh.
MS. STEELMAN: We're better looking than he is.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Whereas, the Friends of
Vineyards Community Park are an integral part of the Collier County
parks system; and
Whereas, during the past two years the Friends
organization has raised and donated $3,790 to the recreation program
of Collier County; and
Whereas, this money is set aside for Vineyards Community
Park improvements; and
Whereas, the Friends have organized and provided several
special events such as the 4th of July Bash, the Lippizon stallion
show, and Rudolph Lights Up the Night;
Whereas, the Friends of the park at Vineyards Community
Park have a regular membership of five members with many additional
volunteers; and
Whereas, the programs of events and quality of park
service would be reduced without their efforts.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that extreme gratitude and
appreciation is extended to the membership of the Friends of Collier
County parks at Vineyards Community Park for this successful
partnership between the internal and external customers -- customers
of parks and recreation. These cooperative efforts and ventures are
an investment in the future of our service to and with our public.
We, the Board of County Commissioners, do reaffirm our commitment to a
high-quality parks and recreation system by, to, and for the public of
Collier County by proclaiming the week of March 9th through 15 Friends
of Vineyards Community Park Week honoring these citizens who have
given time and service to Collier County.
Done and ordered this 4th day of March 1997, Board of
County Commissioners, Timothy L. Hancock, AICP, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve this
proclamation.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none, congratulations.
(Applause)
STEVE PEFFERS: I just want to thank the Friends for
their hard work, both at Vineyards Community Park, East Naples
Community Park, and the other community parks. We do have a growing
Friends group at all the community parks, and we're very proud of them
for the effort they've made for their own community, and parks and
recreation thanks them as well.
Item #5A5
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH AS COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
MONTH - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And just to make sure a commissioner
wasn't left out today, we have a fifth proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, I think this is one of
the more important of the day, sort of the umbrella. And I'd like to
ask, please, if Marla would -- I'm sorry, Marla Ramsey -- I forgot
your last name -- if Marla Ramsey would come forward and accept this
on behalf of the parks and recreation department. Marla is the
relatively new director of parks and rec. This proclamation reads:
Whereas, on February 22nd, 1972, the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners established a department of parks and
recreation to offer recreational facilities and programs for residents
and visitors to Collier County; and
Whereas, February 22nd, 1997, has marked the 25th year
of the county parks and recreation service to our community; and
Whereas, this year over 5 million visitors and residents
visited and utilized the recreational facilities and parks in Collier
County; and
Whereas, the current county parks department provides
over 400 acres of community park lands and includes over 700 acres in
its regional park land inventory; and
Whereas, the Collier County Parks and Recreation
Department has made progress in providing parks and recreation to the
public in the last 25 years; and
Whereas, residents and visitors to Collier County are
encouraged to visit the parks, beaches, and to participate in
recreational programs offered by the Collier County Parks and
Recreational Department throughout the month.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of March 1997
be designated as Collier County Parks and Recreation Month in honor of
the 25th anniversary of the parks and recreation department.
Done and ordered this 4th day of March 1997, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida. And I'm pleased to
move that we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Seeing none, congratulations.
MR. CAMP: Commissioners, for the record Skip Camp,
facilities management director and ex-acting parks and rec director.
I'd like to thank you for the proclamation. I'd like to welcome Miss
Ramsey. And I also want to let you know that part of the 25-year
celebration was held this weekend where over a thousand of your
citizens attended the -- the pool party, and it was a great success,
and I just want to thank you again for your support and welcome
Marla. Thank you.
Item #5A7
PRESENTATION TO SKIP CAMP FOR HIS SERVICE AS ACTING PARKS AND
RECREATION DIRECTOR WHILE STILL MAINTAINING HIS POSITION AS FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Skip. And, Skip, don't go
anywhere. Come here. We also want to -- you're not in trouble,
Skip. Come on up here. Also want to recognize one of our parks and
recreation board members. Max Hasse here, obviously a friend of the
parks and a hard worker. Max and Louise, thank you for all your work
and effort. We appreciate it.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Think of Max as the father of the
park system in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Skip, for those that don't know, when
we had a void in the parks and rec area, Skip stepped up and filled it
while continuing in his duties as facilities management director. And
instead of paying him double, we pocketed the extra change and just
let him do both jobs. What I have this morning is a presentation, a
plaque for Skip. Skip, if you could come on up, please, it says, Skip
Camp, in appreciation for dedicated service to Collier County in a
dual role as acting director of parks and recreation and facilities
management director from October 1, 1996, to February 28, 1997,
presented March 4th, 1997, Board of Commissioners, Collier County,
Florida. Skip, for going above and beyond the call of duty and
serving this county as well as you have, we all want to say thank you
and recognize you this morning for that effort.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As soon as we can clone humans, Skip,
you're in line.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're in line.
MR. McNEES: I thought Marla would have a hard act to
follow, but she's been here barely a week, and she's already got her
own month; so she's doing very well.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It was a coup stealing her from the
Y.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
On to service awards, Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's
have Cartie Morningstar come forward, please. Today we're celebrating
Miss Horningstar's fifth anniversary with the Collier County EHS
system.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Relative rookie in EHS.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Congratulations. What do we say,
one-sixth of the way there?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Something like that.
Item #7B
DEDE POELTL, PRESIDENT - COLLIER COUNTY MEDICAL SOCIETY ALLIANCE
REQUESTING A WAIVER OF PERMIT FEE FOR THE SECOND ANNUAL WOMEN'S HEALTH
WEEK - STAFF DIRECTED TO WAIVE THE PERMIT FEE
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 7(B), Dede Poeltl, president of
Collier County Medical Society Alliance requesting a waiver of permit
fee. Did I pronounce that right? MS. POELTL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right.
MS. POELTL: And that's not easy.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning.
MS. POELTL: Good morning, Commissioners. I am
president of the Collier County Medical Society Alliance. I'm here
today to tell you a little bit about our Women's Health Week campaign
and to ask for your help. Women's Health Week is in its second year.
We choose a women's topic each year to showcase in a week-long
format. This year our focus will be preventing cancer through a
wellness life-style. Our mission for Women's Health Week is to
promote community awareness, education, and support of important
women's health topics. We've chosen a week so that we can reach more
people with a variety of programs.
Some of the features of the week are a morning women's
wellness forum which will have experts from the area speaking to women
on topics ranging from women's cancer and osteoporosis to diet,
exercise, nutrition, stress reduction, and self-esteem. That morning
will culminate with a keynote speaker luncheon featuring TV
personality Linda Ellerbee, who's coming to Naples. She's a breast
cancer survivor, is going to share her story. We're also going to
have an in-service luncheon at Naples Community Hospital during the
week which will be for allied healthcare professionals to again have a
panel discussion on the topic of wellness and cancer.
The kickoff event of this week is a very visible race at
Vineyards Community Park. It will be March 15th. And last year we
had 250 people out at the race. We're hoping for more this year.
There's not only a race, there's a one-mile tribute walk and a family
fun day. We've heard about the parks this morning. They are a
wonderful asset to our community. I'm at Vineyards Park at least
three times a week with my son and his soccer activities.
What we're asking today is that the board waive the
customary $125 for permitting. All of the proceeds from all of the
activities of Women's Health Week go directly back into the
community. This year they will go to local cancer, education, and
support groups. And last year, just for your information, our Women's
Health Week campaign raised $35,000 and reached 25,000 people in the
community. So we'll hope you'll look favorably upon our petition.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Are there any questions?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just an indication of support
from me. I'm happy to support the request.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have a motion on the item?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that appropriate? If it is,
here's a motion. So moved. Being in the public petition, I wouldn't
be confident that that was --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's not. It's really to give staff
direction, but I think entertaining a motion would be --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have no objection to give staff
direction to do that. That's what we have been doing. That's been
Our Custom '-
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- in the past. I don't know that
we need a formal motion.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Either way.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We haven't normally done that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Then we have one commissioner asking
staff direction to waive the permit fee for this event.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two of those.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a consensus on the board.
Thank you for your presentation. Mr. McNees, if you will get with
Miss Poeltl and give her the course of action from here.
MS. POELTL: And feel free to come out and run.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Only if they have a king-sized
insurance policy.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I notice there's the shorter
one-mile one. I thought maybe there was a hundred-yard division for
us.
MS. POELTL: You can just come to the bounce house.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The run may be safer.
Item #SA1
RESOLUTION 97-151 GRANTING A TWO YEAR EXTENSION TO THE HERON LAKE PUD
TO MARCH 4, 1999 - ADOPTED
Okay. Item 8(A)(1), staff review and recommendations
relative to Ordinance 90-79, Heron Lake PUD. Good morning, Mr.
Bellows, as he races to the podium.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows of current
planning staff presenting the petition for sunsetting Heron Lake PUD.
It's located at the east end of Recreation Drive just north of 1-75.
The subject 101-acre PUD was approved for 271 single-family dwellings
and 236 multifamily for a total of 507 dwelling units. It's located
within the urban residential district on the future land use map. The
base density is 4 units per acre. The subject PUD is consistent with
the density rating system because half -- 36 acres are within the
density band which allows for a total density of 5.1 units per acre.
This subject PUD is in that 5 units per acre, which is consistent with
the future land use map.
Staff is recommending that the document or the PUD be
extended for two years. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to
answer them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Bellows, this was originally
approved -- approved in '83 and amended in '90; so we are already
dealing with a 14-year-old PUD. The amendment in 1990, was it a
substantial amendment or a reduction in density?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, it involved a reduction in density
changing the master plan layout. They went down to the 507 units. I
don't recall what the original was.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So it's had approximately six-plus
years to figure out where the market is and -- and --
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The surrounding density, the Green
Heron PUD to the south, is at 5.4. Berkshire Lakes to the west is 4
units per acre. Sherwood Park to the southeast is 4.2. Plantation is
at 5 units per acre; Sabal Lakes, 3; Twelve Lakes, 5.2. So it is
consistent in density with the surrounding developments.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Being next to 1-75, I don't have a
real problem with the density simply because you're going to have to
do some work. Buffering is going to chew up some land. Are there any
other questions of staff? Do we have registered speakers? MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is the petitioner here to add any
comments they feel pertinent or necessary?
Seeing none, do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll move staff's
recommendation.
MR. BELLOWS: Staff is recommending for a two-year
extension.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there a second on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any
discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none, that receives a two-year extension. Thank
you, Mr. Bellows.
Item #8A2
RESOLUTION 97-152 GRANTING A TWO YEAR EXTENSION TO THE NAPLES GOLF
ESTATES PUD - ADOPTED
Item 8(A)(2), this is still your baby? That works out
really nice. Ordinance 88-83, Naples Golf Estates PUD. Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: Again for the record, Ray Bellows. Naples
Golf Estates is a 614-acre PUD. It's approved for 790 single-family
residential units. The PUD also contains commercial uses which is a
part of the 1-75 interchange activity center. The interchange
activity center is one that permits commercial and industrial land
uses. The land uses listed in the PUD document are deemed consistent
with that. In addition, the district permits residential dwelling
units at density of 1.5 units per acre since it's in the urban
residential fringe center. Since the PUD permits a total of 790
multifamily units on the 614 acres, that results in a density of 1.3
units per acre, which is consistent with the plan. Therefore, staff
is recommending that the Board of County Commissioners grant a
two-year extension.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Bellows, do you have the
last page of the summary, executive summary? MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Is it staff recommendation?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you read that to me.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Based on a comprehensive review of
this PUD document, staff recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners grant a two-year extension of the Naples Golf Estates
PUD.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ours says Heron Lake.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The last page -- I think all
of us have the last page of the other -- MR. BELLOWS: That was corrected. I don't know how you
got the wrong one.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's that darned printer.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: What is your recommendation?
MR. BELLOWS: Board of County Commissioners grant a
two-year extension for the Naples Golf Estates PUD.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The only concern is there may be
other information on that page that we would have wanted to review, so
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This page is not exactly the same
as the one on the previous --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's in the Heron Lake. It's not
the same.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's not the same as the one on
Heron Lake. It's a little different.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Someone just left it in the text when
it was typed.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It is a little bit different,
though.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good. As long as it's the
appropriate page, but that is a significant typo; so we'll note that.
Are there any questions of staff on this? Any
speakers?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
is urban fringe?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
acre?
MR. BELLOWS: 1.5.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
This is -- let me ask one -- this
Which is maximum density 3 units an
1.5, I'm sorry. And this is at 1.37
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any
discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none, the motion carries 5-0. Thank you, Mr.
Bellows.
Item #8A3
REPORT BY STAFF ON HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS IN THE LAKE AREA KNOWN AS AYALA
LAKE - PRESENTED
Item 8(A)(3), a report from staff on the Ayala Lake in
Immokalee. Good morning, Mr. Cautero.
MR. CAUTERO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. Vince Cautero for the record. I have good news and
bad news. The bad news first, which isn't so bad, is that after
consultation with legal, we have found no mechanism in our weed,
litter, and exotic ordinance or Land Development Code that would allow
us to cite the property owners for debris, litter, or any other
material that may be found at the bottom of the lake because it is all
allegations. The litter and debris on the ground has been abated.
The good news is we have had some very serious discussions with a Mr.
Hateo Ayala, who we believe is the brother of Mr. Jesus Ayala, and he
has voluntarily agreed with other surrounding property owners and
relatives to fence the area, and we believe that that will be
completed within the next two or three weeks. So we have no official
code enforcement action that we can take. Before we ask you to do
anything or spend any money, we're going to pursue this as far as we
can go, and we believe that they are willing to comply, and we feel
very good about it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Great. I think in the end that's
what we were looking for. Are there any questions of Mr. Cautero?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: No. That's good news.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you for the update, and thank
you for the work on that.
MR. CAUTERO: Okay.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 97-153 APPOINTING WILLIAM E. J. HCKINNEY TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 10(A), appointment of members to
EPTAB.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, it appears that
of the two only one is qualified, legally qualified. And we only have
one opening; so I'll suggest that we go ahead and appoint William E.
J. HcKinney.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Is there any
discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #10B
REVIEW OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AD HOC COHMITTEE ON BUDGET PROCESS
REFORH'S FINAL REPORT - PRESENTED AND STAFF DIRECTED TO IMPLEMENT NOS.
2 AND 4 OF THE REPORT AS BUDGET POLICY
Seeing none, Item 10(B), review of Collier County ad hoc
committee on budget process reform's final report. I added this to
the agenda after our discussion two weeks ago. I'd like to introduce
the people in the audience today that worked on this report. In the
back we have Mr. Dick Baker, Mr. Eric Walter, Miss Janet Vasey, Mr.
Ken Abernathy, and Fay Biles is not here who also worked on it. Did I
miss anyone there? I think that covers everyone.
Hopefully you've all had the opportunity to review the
ad hoc committee report. I think, in my opinion, there's a lot of
extremely useful information in here. I'd like to just hit on the
surface of these and then ask for your direction. If you have any
detailed questions, that's what the balance of the committee is here
for, and probably Miss Janet Vasey would be the one to answer the
majority of those. Out of the report there are six major issues, and
we'll just go through those quickly: One, programs should be funded
by benefitting organization requiring earlier review and cost
allocations. I think that's pretty straightforward. Number two,
accurately estimate reserves, revenue, and carryforward. We've taken
a step in that direction this year by taking what was the -- if you
remember correctly, we had a discussion last year about how we tended
to underestimate revenues and underestimate reserves when -- one or
the other is a fine conservative measure, but both -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: On top of.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- causing a difference of 2.5
million dollars in taxes collected that were unnecessary. Once we
resolve that, it's a onetime fix. After that -- it's not 2 1/2
million dollars a year. It's the first year, and then after that
you're -- you're on par, on course.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two and a half million tax
dollars ain't half bad.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, it ain't. So that's something
that Mr. Smykowski updated us on last week, but it's already started,
but we need to take a very careful look at revenues this year and make
sure they meet past, you know, past courses or past patterns of
occurrence. And one way to do that is a little bit later in a format
in which the budget can be presented that is a little bit different
and shows outyear projections. The third item is need to prioritize
programs or reduce current programs to pay for new ones. And this s,
again, something we've taken a step toward, as Mr. McNees will tell
you, that we've recently -- they've recently prepared a list of all
the things we do, so to speak, for the board to prioritize. So to
begin looking at adding new programs, they look at where they fall in
the priority list. And rather than just making them an addition,
maybe there are programs that are less important that can be removed
before looking at making budget additions. The recommendations in
this report go a little more in detail, are a little more specific
than that. But I think, again, if there's a direction given staff,
we've started that way, and I think it can be -- can be done a little
bit better.
The fourth item is need to identify cost in future
years. This is one of my favorite ones. It's, in essence, a five --
five-year outlook. And the first thing that comes to mind to me is
the sheriff's budget. Where there are new grants that occur to the
sheriff's budget in a given year, how long do they last, and at what
point do they become ad valorem-based liabilities as opposed to grant
liabilities? We have some of those in our own departments, you know,
grants for parks and rec and so forth. So that format, again, is
included in one of the -- one thing that I think is important, and I
will be asking the board to -- to implement particularly.
Number five is the need to monitor the execution of
programs. There's a Schedule 4 attached that you may or may not
recall. But this is one of the -- what I will call the visual aids to
the budget process that we're all looking for. It's very difficult to
get that snapshot in -- in an explanation or in verbiage, and we're
all looking for better ways for the budget to be presented. I think
with some work with -- with the -- with OMB and with the county
manager's office we can accomplish that, and that's a good step.
And six is recommend BCC be central focus on all new
local taxes, and this really kind of came out of the -- I think you
can look at the jail tax as an example. You know, we didn't really
pour through every element of that expansion before putting it on the
ballot, and I think as a result, there wasn't a lot of information
available. Right now we don't have -- I mean, as of today we don't
have a jail expansion need. They're not at capacity today yet.
Something may -- so, again, if we're looking at any new tax, I think,
you know, providing a greater public forum to review those, and this
board has to be the conduit for that is, again, a reasonable
recommendation.
That is in a nutshell the six areas and recommendations. The ones
I am particularly interested in is No. 4, need to identify cost in
future years. I'm interested in all of them, but the ones I'm ready to
take in form as presented, and that's -- understand we need to hear
from our staff on this, too, is the outyear cost. The second thing is
the -- the Schedule 4, the -- the quarterly --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I love that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- report that shows quarterly
expenses by department. It gives us trends and patterns within a
fiscal year so you can move to the next year and find out, you know,
what -- what is the pattern throughout the year in department X versus
department Y, how are they carrying out their -- their -- they're base
-- basing their -- their year's activities on 2,000 calls for
service, and they're getting 1600 but spending the same amount of
money. Where is the money going? It causes you to ask the right
questions in the right place, and I like that presentation
particularly.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the suggestion is to have
those forms uniform between us and all the constitutional officers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Certainly. I think we have to take
the lead and, in essence, try it one year and get the bugs worked out,
and then bring everyone else on board once we show how effective it
can be. For all we know, the constitutional officers have a form of
that themselves. I haven't asked them. But I would like to see us
take that on for one year before going to the constitutional officers
to make sure that it's in a format that's usable and presentable and
then -- then talk to them about it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We -- we would be in a position
voluntarily asking -- or asking the constitutional officers to
voluntarily adopt that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Correct? Because we don't have,
really, the authority to force them to do any of this.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. And that's why I said it
would be easier to show them the benefits after doing it for a given
year. But those are really the two things that I think have an
immediate impact on our budget process and some -- for some part in
this year, but really we're already looking at next year as to what
we're talking about today, what impact it's really going to have with
the exception of the carryforward and the revenue projections.
I know that, Mr. HcNees, you have -- you and Mr.
Smykowski have had an opportunity to review this report. And I do
want to say that the committee has been extremely complimentary of Mr.
Smykowski. I think the words were -- and this is unusual coming from
this committee -- you ought to pay him more.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hey, Hike. Pay him later.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, he's objecting to it.
MR. HcNEES: No special pay raises.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Could that be in the form of a motion?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, they're just words, Hike. But
they were very, very complimentary of your office and all the work you
do and the volume you do. This is probably what I would call the
least threatening report we have seen on -- on being a -- on the basis
of being a review and recommendations. The meetings with Neil before
he left were very positive, but then the written response from Neil
was -- was counter to that meeting. So there's a little confusion
there; so it was my decision, then, to bring it to this board for your
review and staff direction. And if staff feels uncomfortable or
unclear in a certain area as to how to implement, then now is the time
to talk about it before directing implementation. So with that --
first of all, I'll ask Jan, is there anything you want to add at this
point before we go to staff? She's shaking her head no. Okay. Mr.
HcNees.
MR. HcNEES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll make a
couple comments, and I'm sure Mr. Smykowski will have some other
things to add. First of all, by and large we agree with most of what
the committee said. In fact, much of what they've recommended in some
way or another we either are doing or have done in the past or have,
perhaps, changed certain things, but there are a couple things from a
practical standpoint that I would -- I would like to bring up in this
forum so that -- so that we understand how we are doing things and how
that differs a little bit, but maybe not as much as you might think
from what's been proposed. One of the particular things that we would
-- and I guess I'll take the exceptions first, where we would look a
little bit differently, perhaps, than the committee did is on this
issue of providing more quarterly or periodic detail to the county
commissioners for your review. You made a decision last year, and --
which was a continuing of a trend that you started a couple years ago,
that you wanted at this level less of that specific detail where cost
center by cost center in this forum you looked less at specific -- we
call them object codes or specific line item details, and you looked
more at the fund level picture and the increases and that sort of
thing. Now, the type of information that the committee is talking
about we use in great detail at the staff level, at the point where
the department gives that in their budget to the budget office and
where they review it for what's appropriate when it comes to the
county manager's office for review. It would be staff's position that
that kind of detailed review is not appropriate in this format when
you all are reviewing the budgets, that that's the staff's job to hold
departments accountable to those kind of, you know, year-to-date
figures and, you know, actual cost figures and prior-year figures.
And to try to do that kind of analysis in this forum takes entirely
too long and -- and precludes you from looking at some of the big
picture kind of things. You tend in here, then, to get wrapped up in,
gee, does department X really need a thousand dollars more to buy copy
paper and that that's not the kind of discussion that you all decided
you wanted to have in this forum. So we think it's a good idea, but
we think it should be done earlier rather than to bring that kind of
information to you here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I've got a comment on that
but, first, Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Does -- does your staff have any
objection to at least compiling and formatting the information
quarterly in -- on this form or this type of form, because even though
-- even though we may not want to have it presented during our budget
hearings, it would be something that would be useful to have available
if -- if we can have it at least compiled and presented on these forms
on a quarterly basis. If you're doing the work anyway, all I'm saying
is simply format it like shown on this form. MR. HcNEES: No, we certainly have --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It may be something that -- that
you could make a policy decision staff -- at the staff level and say
if we see a disparity of X picking them out, then we want to -- to go
into this particular little department and take a closer look and find
out why we have this disparity. Now, I understand that -- that you --
you could get into thousands of discussions at budget time, and that
may not be the proper thing to do, but having information here so --
visually available for -- for discussion, if -- if necessary, I think,
is a good idea. That would be my comment.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the reason I did not want the
type of the detailed level of information we were getting is because
it wasn't useful to me. When I looked at it, it didn't tell me
anything. It didn't --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Patterns.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It didn't -- it didn't foster the --
the atmosphere of pertinent questions. What it was was a deluge of
information, and the manner in which presented was not useful to me in
the budget process. That's where this format differs to me, is I look
at this, and it has a usefulness to me. I can see it. I can see a
snapshot, whether it be one or two quarters, whether it be the year.
And -- and it's the format that makes it useful, not the information.
So I agree. I don't want to get up here and talk about
every detailed expenditure of county departments, but should I have a
question in a department, I want to be able to say -- to go to that
information. And even the way it was presented in the past, that
didn't really give me the opportunity to do it. Hike could probably
read it and tell me. I could ask Hike a question. He could tell me,
well, that's on this line or that line, but it wasn't at my
fingertips, you know, on a piece of paper in front of me. So I think
that's the big difference. It's not that we don't want the
information. It's that we want it presented in a useful manner to us,
the non-OHB people, the nonbudget people. I think that's the
differentiation.
MR. HcNEES: You two are talking sort of about two
different things. To answer your question first, Commissioner, we
have no objection at all to bringing quarterly. We already bring you
quarterly revenue reporting, to add to that, some expense reporting.
In fact, somehow at one point the clerk's office did that, and I think
they abandoned it because they didn't think -- I think, frankly, they
didn't think anybody was paying attention. So they -- they kind of
stopped bringing those reports forward. I think -- we have no
objection to adding to the revenue side some quarterly expense
reporting as well. That's -- that's -- we're happy to do that.
In terms of the actual format of the budget
presentation, I'm going to kind of yield to Mr. Smykowski for two
reasons: One, we are a certain length down the road for fiscal '98
budget preparation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand.
MR. McNEES: What I'm not certain of is that -- that
what -- what is being proposed is that much different from what we
already provide. But I'm going to let Mr. Smykowski answer that one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Rather than going into a detailed
answer on that, you already, at least, have heard from -- from one or
two or maybe more commissioners that that information is helpful.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm just not repeating. If you
need a consensus, I support exactly what both of these gentlemen are
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess what I'm saying is, you know,
I'm not asking you to take five steps backward and begin the process
again for this fiscal year. I understand the timing issue. However,
we're going to look at the way it's presented this year, and if that
doesn't meet what is the snapshot criteria, if you will, that I'm
looking for, then that will become a recommendation for next fiscal
year. I don't want you to have to go back and start over, because we
don't have the time to do that, but at least you hear a consensus of
the manner something can be presented. It appears to be
understandable. That's really what we're looking for in that
information. So if what you present this year is even better, fine.
But this, in essence, is a benchmark now for me to compare things to
as -- as to understandability for me in the process.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'll just -- I don't want to
drag this out, but what's so wonderful about the work that this
committee has done -- and I just thank you so much -- is that I knew
that I didn't have the information. It was on the paper. Mike could
see it. He knew what it was -- what it said, but I couldn't glean it
from the piece of paper. Now I have a comparison that I know I can
understand if I get it in the format that's been, you know, developed
by this committee. I think we're just talking about formatting more
than anything else.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mike, do you have anything to add on
that?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Quick question, just so I'm clear as to
what it is you would be looking for. Again, we are a certain point
down the road. The budget instructions are essentially about 99
percent done, and they're ready to go out to the masses this year
based on our budget policy discussion on February 4th. So I would be
hesitant, again, as you indicated, as well, to go back and take five
steps backward at this point. So I guess if you can tell me what it
is you would be looking for, just so I leave the room with a clear
understanding.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would agree with
Commissioner Hancock that we don't need to reinvent anything here, but
I don't want to prohibit us from -- because it might be inconvenient
from redoing some things, because one of the things we've done is in
my first year on the board we had public show up in September, and we
said, well, essentially the budget is done. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's too late.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You need to come back sooner
next year. And the next year they came back in during the June budget
hearings, and we said, well, the policies are already in place. We
can tinker with the numbers here, but the policies have all been put
in place and put into practice by our staff. You need to get involved
earlier. And I just -- your -- your ad hoc committee here has done a
great job and has been, I think, pretty early in the process. I just
don't want to prohibit us in any way from putting into practice some
things here because since February 4th you've given some instruction.
I know it -- it may be inconvenient, but I don't know how early -- we
put the -- the budget to bed in September. I -- I don't know if we
need to have the public come to us in October for the following year,
but it still seems pretty early in the process to me.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess if there's a direction, I'm
hearing it's that we're looking for information during the budget
process in some readable format similar to Schedule 4. Now, if what
you're saying is that is already being prepared in some format, then
when we get it we can review it as such. But this is readable and
understandable and seems like something that could be helpful to me.
And I guess that -- that's as simple as direction as I can give is
let's get as close to that as we can with the time allowed.
Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you saying, Hike, that you
have all the information to develop this -- is that Schedule 47
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I'm not even saying that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. HcNEES: The Schedule 4 -- excuse me. The Schedule
4 that I'm holding is not really a form for presentation of the budget
itself. This is the quarterly report that we would bring to you that
we're saying, absolutely, we'll be happy to bring this form. This is
not a form tailored for the presentation.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think we're -- we're
arguing. Put the information down on Schedule 4 so us nonbudget types
can actually read it.
MR. HcNEES: Fine.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And we know that that is not for
the budget presentation. That's for the quarterly reports.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That would be -- you're talking about
the first quarter of FY'98 you would be looking for something on these
lines.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what I'm saying.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I'm just saying this is something you
would not see in June of this year. For one, there are not currently
performance measures in place. So if you are looking for quarterly
performance measures and their relationship to budget expenditures,
those currently do not exist. So those would have to be created, one,
leading into the FY'98 budget process.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was going one step further. At
budget time I would want to see last fiscal year's quarterly reporting
form compared to this fiscal year's first two quarters to look at
trends. I was going one step further. Now that can't all occur this
year but that they -- they be cumulative so that I can look at trends
from one year to the next.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're standing there; so I assume
there's something you want to add to this.
MS. VASEY: Janet Vasey for the record. The quarterly
review is really not a part of the budget as you said. It's a review
that would be something provided to you for analysis a month after the
end of a quarter. It is particularly useful for putting that
information side by side with the budget when it's prepared because it
will show you some trends and good information. To address Hike's
point on the workload or activity measures not being available, they
are probably not currently being collected this year, but they were in
the past up until, I guess, last year all of that information was
collected on a regular basis. So it should be possible in some time
frame to go back and get that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was a part of that less detail
that you were talking about, Mr. HcNees, when you said, you know, we
had all of these activity measures, but they didn't mean a heck of a
lot when I looked at them. I think maybe it was the fact that there
weren't trends building up to them or projections with them. I don't
know. But that was part of that detail that we dropped out.
MR. HcNEES: At the time we've scrapped the activity
measures, it was at that point in time decision was made that they
were more trouble to collect than value we were actually getting and
accuracy we were getting from them. Now, that doesn't mean that they
can't work for us at this point. At that time that's the decision we
made, but we can sure go back and revisit that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Well, Schedule 4 we'll begin
getting activity measures again. MR. HcNEES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All right. That was -- that
is probably the -- you know, the biggest part of this that I really
wanted to see acted on. The others, I think, almost act as guiding
recommendations, particularly Issue 1 regarding how programs should be
funded and, 2, which is reserve revenue and carryforward estimates.
Janet, is there anything you wanted to add on either one
of those, because they seem to be more of guiding effort than actual
physical implementing document. Is that a fair assessment?
MS. VASEY: I'd say basically that's true.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I would like to --
particularly No. 2, to take that entire section of this report and --
and recommend it and, again, we've already got -- started down that
road, but let's be very careful with revenues, that we project
accurately on those also so we can avoid having to, in essence,
overtax in a given year. And last year it was what? A
2.4-million-dollar spread?
MS. VASEY: It was 2.5 this last year, and it was part
of a trend, though. The year before the carryover increase after the
end of the year was two point -- 2.4. It was 2.4 and then 2.5.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Of the net carryforward positive
variance in the general fund, which as of the audit was about 2.2
million dollars, approximately 1.5 of that was from additional
turnback revenue from the constitutional officers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. What we estimate at the time
of budget versus what we actually physically determine two months
later.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Right. And that was addressed as part
of the budget policy. And part of the reason for the better financial
picture in terms of the potential need for a tax increase in FY'98 was
based on the fact that at the staff level we recommended and in my
analysis included constitutional officer turnbacks at the -- more in
relation to what they have historically been -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- to give you an as accurate picture as
possible. However, that 2 1/2 million dollars that rolled forward
this year, the taxpayers will see the benefit of that because the
millage rate that will be required in FY'98 will be offset by that
2 1/2 million dollars.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand that it's not -- it's
not additional taxes because it carries over year to year to year to
year, but I'm just saying a more accurate projection and accounting
makes more sense to me.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct, and we agree. I mean,
that was part of the budget policy discussions. I mean, we brought
that forward of our own volition. So we're in complete agreement.
There's no issue there.
MR. HcNEES: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to add one
little piece of perspective to this discussion. When I walked into
the budget office as director, I guess it was '88 or '89, we were
facing massive revenue shortfalls. And if you'll recall, the buzz
words those days were hiring freeze, layoffs. And so there's --
there's an inherent hazard to policy making based on one year's budget
activity. And we had a year in fiscal '97 where we had some
significant carryforward variances that were positive, and hallelujah,
that's great. And we want to -- our watch words have always been
budget reality. Don't fudge over too much in one direction and
overbudget what we really think is going to happen. I just need to
add the perspective here that it is a real-life situation we have
lived through in this county to be 3 or 4 or 5 million dollars short
in revenue at the end of the year; so we don't want to be overly
conservative or overly progressive in either direction. And we'll
continue to bring you recommendations with that in mind.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I would expect that we do, you know,
an accurate trend projection and that we also maintain a sufficient
level of reserves, period.
MR. HcNEES: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those two things combined is security
enough, I think. I'm sorry, Commissioner Hac'Kie first.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just before we get off of the
second issue, the second point, there's a note in the white paper and
a little bit in the blue about actually how much money does Collier
County spend. And I think that somehow -- and you guys have to tell
me, or maybe you can. I notice there's not an implementation proposal
in the paper yet, but that our budget is not 350 million dollars, it's
200 million dollars, and it's perceived to be 350 million dollars
because of the interdepartmental transfers. I'd like to see a
200-million-dollar budget instead of a 350-million-dollar budget. I'd
like to know how much we're collecting and how much we're spending,
and I don't care so much about how it's transferred between
departments. Or I would like to know all of that, but I would like to
see that we really have a 200-million-dollar budget instead of a
350-million-dollar budget.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: A major component of the overall
350-million-dollar budget, though, is reserves which are dictated by
bond covenants, by good financial, sound financial practices, to have
money, rainy-day money available in the capital funds, in the impact
fee funds you're accumulating impact fee money until that point at
which you have to build that next project to keep up with growth.
to a certain degree there's not any really -- there's no way around
that in that the total -- that is a component of the total budget that
gets you to the 350 million dollars.
MR. HcNEES: Commissioner, we're with you all the way.
We show you fund summaries every year that show actual expenditures
and then break out separately any reserves, any transfer payments.
The people who don't want to buy the fact it's a 200-million-dollar
budget essentially is the press. And they want to report that bottom
line. And we are required under state law to report our budget and
under the governmental accounting rules in certain ways. And we are
required to advertise in certain ways, and we can't beat those
things. But we'll try as best as we can to iljustrate actual
spending. And -- and, you know, nobody knows better than Mr.
Smykowski the more you try to explain, the more you get accused of
hiding the numbers or cooking the books. So we want to bring you the
most accurate information that we can.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. HcNees, are you saying that it's
in some way popular to say they collected 350 million but only spent
200? That wouldn't factor into the story if it's not entirely true,
would it?
MR. HcNEES: I would say not.
COHMISSIONER BERRY:
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
COHMISSIONER BERRY:
interesting --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
That's my fault.
Mr. Chairman?
Yes.
I think you've touched on a real
Yes, Commissioner Norris was next.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Back to -- to the discussion just
prior to this one where we were talking about how tight can we get the
revenues and expenditures, how tight should we run that, carryforwards
and reserves and all that business. The point I made to Hiss Vasey in
one of our conversations was that for all the time period that -- that
I sit on this board, have been on the board and have been through
these budget discussions, we have enjoyed a pretty much level --
levelly expanding economy. And we have not seen any dips in revenue
particularly because of the economy. But if the general economy were
to go into a recession, even a mild recession, you could see some
upsets in -- in actual revenues that you were not projecting.
that's the only cautionary note that you need to put into these
discussions about how tight are you willing to project your revenues
and expenditures.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, and I'm -- I'm not suggesting
bare bones, but I'm just saying we can tighten a little more than what
we have, which we started doing this year.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: And actually that process began a few
years ago when a -- as fallout of preparation of the quarterly revenue
report is that on a quarterly basis you get an accurate picture of
what sales tax revenues are looking like, what impact fee collections
are looking like, etc., and the timing of the third-quarter report.
That's typically presented the first or second week in September which
coincides with the public hearing process and the budget. And over
the last few years we have, in fact -- and taxpayers have benefitted
from that additional information because the board -- just to take
this last year for an example, we reduced taxes 2.1 million dollars at
the final hearing as a result of increased -- increasing the estimated
constitutional officer turnbacks, additional sales tax revenue
projected, etc. So we are attempting to tweak that to the extent
possible. The last large pot out there, so to speak, that has not
been touched was addressed in this year's budget policy, and again,
there was a constitutional officer turnback. So we're in general
agreement, you know, obviously we -- we take a conservative stance.
We don't want to be too conservative, but yet again we don't, as Mr.
McNees alluded to when he started, there was the year when we weren't
talking about a 2 1/2 -- what are we going to do? We have a
2 1/2-million-dollar surplus? It was, what are we going to do? We
have a 2 1/2-million-dollar shortfall. And that obviously is a much
worse situation to be in.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have just a few comments
regarding this. I, too, met with Miss Vasey and certainly enjoyed the
comments that she -- in the presentation that she had here.
As I read through this, talking about programs and --
and evaluation of programs, this is -- I do have some concern as to
how -- how the county -- how you do evaluate programs and make a
decision whether you keep something or eliminate it. What are the
criteria for doing such? And I think it's something that we need to
look at every year. In light of whether you keep something in the
budget or -- or say no more, you know, how do you decide? What's --
what do we have in place that lets us know?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have, you know, mandatory
discretion. Essentially, we assign something on the front end. There
are some things that we are required to find and get them out of the
mix right away. We then narrow it down to those that are --
everything else, then, is subject to priority. And this year Mr.
McNees has put together a list of all of those other items in which we
are going to prioritize. And I think that --
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Well, that's nice, but what
criteria? Do we have a criteria that we judge these programs on? In
other words, are they effective or ineffective? How many people do
they serve, or do they not serve anybody? That's the kind of thing --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's depending on who you're
talking to. The first criteria should be should we be doing this.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But, you know, that -- that's going
to -- that really is an individual decision on how you prioritize, and
that's the interactive part of the process as each department comes
before you and explains those things. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Another comment, I find that the
words "accurately estimate" kind of seem to me as being, you know,
kind of opposite ends.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: A little oxymoronic.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. You're either accurate or
you're estimating, you know. And I'm not --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How about more closely estimating?
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Well, I -- I -- those two words
kind of -- I kind of found that they were a little bit at opposite
ends.
I would like to see some of this information, but I
don't think that it needs to be something that is in a formal
presentation. I think that it might be beneficial to us to have this
information, perhaps, at the time that -- that the budget -- we start
looking at it, but it's not something that, you know, Mr. Smykowski
has to stand up here and -- and go through page by page by page, but I
do think that it would be beneficial. But I was more in tune with the
quarterly report --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Uh-huh.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: -- kind of thing. I really like
that part of this and would certainly like to see it.
In regard to the government accounting, I think that's
one of the biggest problems in looking at budgets. From my past
experience to this experience, it's the same thing, to accurately
reflect reserves that you have and projects that come on line and that
you pay for something in one part of the year and you have to carry
funds over to the next. And this is very difficult for the public to
understand the accounting process, and it's -- I don't care what you
do with the budget. I'm not sure that you ever get entirely around
that. Trying to look with the different -- different funds that you
have to deal with, it just becomes very cumbersome and, again, using
the pie charts, you know, kind of at the front of the budget to kind
of, you know, generally break out some of these things. But I -- I
think that's what makes the budget, government budgets, so hard to
understand, is the funding from one year to the next and -- and
carryover funds and where -- and then when you throw grants in on top
of that, grants are one of my biggest concerns. It's nice -- I -- I
don't know what departments are writing grants and what money is
coming in from those grants and at what point the grant ceases in the
-- then they come to government saying you have to take over now. I
have a real concern about be careful what you wish for, and you get a
grant, which everybody is just really happy about, and then in three
years it dies. And suddenly people are in the mode of having this
grant, and now it's an entitlement to them, and the government has to
pick up the slack. And so I have a real -- I would like to know at
some point in time what grants we are securing, what the strings are
to those grants, and when they die, because I think this -- this has a
-- certainly has an impact on our budget, or I would assume it does.
Maybe it doesn't, depending on the number, but I would assume that it
does. So these are the questions, Mr. Chairman, that were raised when
I read over this report so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's true. And this board, I think,
has been cautious about even the grants in which we are applying for
given the long-term potential that at some point the grant dries up
and it has to become part of the general county budget as opposed to
being a grant fund budget. And at times this board has turned down
grant applications just on that -- on that basis.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: I'm pleased to hear that. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Along the lines of
prioritizing things, Mr. McNees brought a form where we could rank
each different discretionary item anywhere between 1 and 5, which I
think is a good start. I have a suggestion that might put each of us
in a little tougher spot, but I think might go a step further toward
getting a true priority, because it's very easy if you don't like
something to just kind of give it middle of the road three, and then
you don't look too mean, but you haven't given it strong support. I'd
like to see us put them in order. There are 23 items or 30 items or
something on there. Let's put -- we had a discussion a couple of
weeks ago on economic development, said, well, goodness, this is one
of our top priorities. Well, you're right, it is. And I think most
of the board agrees with that. But we ought to put it on ourselves to
take that list of how many ever items it is and rank them 1 through 25
or how many ever items and -- and we can do a point score as well if
you want. But I'd like to have them in some specific order of what's
most important and what's least important, and then you combine the 5,
and we see from that, okay, what floats to the top of the list, but
it's not simply, okay, 25 points because all of us gave it a 5.
Theoretically, all of them could get 25 points, or all of them could
get 5 points. It just forces us to put them in a true order.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I like the idea. It might be a good
idea to do both, give them a point ranking and then prior --
prioritize them within groups, submit those rankings, combine them,
look at the scores and get a total ranking.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: We are currently refining that list.
Would you like to see a breakout between ad valorem-supported programs
and enterprise?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: While we're discussing this --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- this is a concept that had been used
in another city, and we're banefitting from something that has worked
for them in the past. If that's something you're interested in, it's
relatively easy to do but --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, I think we need to do that. I
mean, one -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Just so you're clear as to the funding
structure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, your enterprise funds are
really operational, what needs to be done to keep the water flowing or
the -- the -- the sewer system flowing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And they're point one. Their
user is paying for the service.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Versus what should government be
doing, which in an enterprise fund is not the question, but in a
general fund it certainly is.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: And just to be clear, that list is one
page, and it was designed to be one page. It is not inclusive of
every last program that the county offers. It talks about things in
broad terms, parks maintenance, parks recreational programming,
natural resources, comprehensive planning. So it's not going to be --
you know, otherwise it would be -- there would be 500 items, and that
kills the purpose. The idea is to make it simple and succinct for --
for you all, for our benefit as well.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that level of detail comes into
play in the lower-ranked items where we start looking where they can
or can't be cut. And that's what we're going to have under the detail
you're talking about. So that makes sense.
Is there anything further on the report or questions for
staff? Miss Vasey, did you have anything to add at this point?
MS. VASEY: No. I think you've covered pretty much
everything.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. My -- and I'll just ask if
there's a consensus to this. You know, No. 4 and No. 2 under the six
major issues, No. 2, which is accurate estimate of reserves and
carryforward, understand the board's discussion today is don't go bare
bones on this so we end up with a deficit, but let's be maybe a little
less conservative. Let's make a projection based on trends similar to
what we've already done. But let -- I would like to see that as
something that is in the current budget process as a -- as a
direction.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The staff responsible is in agreement
again.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Number 4, identifying cost in future
years. The recommendation of the board is a five-year. I like that
idea. I'd like to see the format presented that gives us that
information, and there is a schedule in the report -- MS. VASEY: Schedule 3.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Schedule 3, thank you. That has a
suggested format. Something similar to that shows those projections
quite well. I like that. Those are the two that I think have the
most immediate impact. The rest are, in essence, policy setting, and
I'm seeing that the majority of the board is saying let's -- let's do
something in those areas, but not with the immediacy that those two
have. Is that a fair direction?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just with one -- one addition
from my perspective. I'd like to formerly -- formally adopt these as
policy so that it isn't just a study and it doesn't languish so that
we -- we make it real clear to staff that to the extent they can be
implemented this year, and I think you've described that extent, they
do so, but that we adopt these as policies, accept this formally.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with you there. And
just -- I don't know that we need to adopt 3 as policy, but 3 talks
about prioritizing, and I just wonder if there's general consensus to
follow the format we just talked about as far as prioritizing during
our budget season.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's fine with me.
MR. McNEES: If I may -- and let me know if I'm sounding
like a bureaucrat here, but you have formally adopted a budget policy.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct.
MR. McNEES: You do that every year. Perhaps what we
could do is work these things into the process as best we can this
summer. When you start talking about policy, you know, we would
probably like to see that centralized somewhat so that you don't adopt
a batch of budget policies today and next month you adopt a report and
make that part of your budget policy.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe this could work.
MR. McNEES: We're happy to work them in, but --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe you could work it -- for
this year we adopted as a supplement to the previously adopted budget
policy and for next year we incorporate these into the official budget
policy.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If that's a motion, I'll be
happy to second that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That is a motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does the motion maker include staff
direction that I stated previously regarding Items 4 and 2
specifically?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there any discussion on the
motion? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none, I think we owe a big round of thanks to
Miss Vasey in particular and the balance of the ad hoc committee.
Thank you for your work.
(Applause)
MS. VASEY: Thank you very much, and the committee was
more than pleased to -- to work to help in this area. And I want to
thank them very much. It was -- it would have been impossible to do
it without them and especially Eric. He had a lot of good input. And
I'd like to also say that the committee is unanimous in recommending
that we are available to help with the implementation of this if we
can help you in any way to put your forms together, if you have any
questions.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Put them to work.
MS. VASEY: We will continue to be available.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just say yes, Mike.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you guys want to relax, you better
leave now because there might be something we send you on soon.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: We do have some quarterly expense
reports from other counties, and we don't want to get them to the
point where it's expenditures in second quarter at the first quarter
where it says boilerplate. We want it to be as meaningful as
possible; so I'd like to perhaps share those with Miss Vasey for their
comments as well so we can get something that is useful to all of us.
MR. McNEES: One last item, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to
extend my invitation to the committee to participate as they did a
year ago where the real action is. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. McNEES: Which is to come sit in with the budget
reviews with the department and the county manager. They're welcome
to attend again this year as they did last year. Like I said, that's
where -- that's where the action is. If they want to make some real
differences, that's where a lot happens.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For what it's worth for county
commissioners, I sat in last year, and that's where I got the most
information. That's where I found out about that 2 million dollars in
the development services budget, etc. I don't know. Mr. Weigel,
could more than one of us be in Mr. McNees's meetings without sunshine
problems?
MR. WEIGEL: No. You can only be there with compliance
with the sunshine law.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I show up and Mr. Norris also
shows up, does one of us have to leave? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You have to leave.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How about -- I would advise that if
you're going to attend, go through Mr. McNees's office. If he gets
two requests, he can coordinate with Mr. Weigel for advertisement of
both of you being there or both of us.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's extremely beneficial. I
recommend it.
MR. HcNEES: Those meetings are not for the squeamish
sometimes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why don't we go ahead and -- Mr.
Smykowski, thank you. Miss Vasey, thank you. We're going to take a
five-minute break and be right back.
(A short break was held.)
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 97-154 OPPOSING LEGISLATIVE ENACTHENT OF HOUSE BILL 207 -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're going to call to order the BCC
meeting for March 4th. We are on Item 10(C), resolution opposing
legislative enactment of House Bill 207. This was discussed last week
by Commissioner Constantine regarding the exclusion of part time --
basically all commissioners from Florida retirement system and school
board; is that correct?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's correct. As I said
last week, essentially this penalizes anyone who chooses to do public
service full time.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There's certainly no part-time
commissioners around here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Got that right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's not what Butt told me when
I talked to him about running. I got turned down.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we will avoid the obvious on
that one. Just kidding.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: No, you're not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did you have --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If there's no public -- I'll
make a motion we approve these resolutions. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I will second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #10D
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY JAIL REPORT BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PRODUCTIVITY COHMITTEE - COHMITTEE TO CONTINUED TO WORK WITH INTERIM
COUNTY MANAGER AND STAFF TO LOOK AT IMPLEMENTING A NEW LAW ENFORCEMENT
IMPACT FEE WITHOUT AN INCREASE TO THE NEW HOMEBUYER BY WAY OF FUTURE
IMPACT FEE STUDY REDUCTIONS
Seeing none, we're on Item 10(D), presentation of the
county jail report by the productivity committee. Commissioner Berry,
you are now the -- as vice-chair sitting on that committee, and what
an experience that is.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, it is. It's a great
experience. I have to tell you I think of all the committee -- I know
that we have several committees for the Board of County Commissioners
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We wish we had only several.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- but this is a great committee.
And I've only been at two or three meetings at this point in time with
them, but it's been very rewarding.
The jail report that we have this morning I have -- Mr.
Jack HcKenna who chairs this particular committee is with us. And I
think that we have some items here, and also there are other members
of the committee, which if you all feel inclined and have any
questions, I'm sure they'll all be happy to answer some questions for
you. But at this time Mr. HcKenna would like to give some information
regarding this report.
MR. HcKENNA: Thank you. For the record my name's Jack
HcKenna, county productivity committee. Several months ago we were
asked to look into using impact -- the possibility of using impact
fees as a financing mechanism for the jail expansion, and our
committee -- typically we break into subcommittees to -- to look at
specific items. It quickly became evident that this was such a
complex issue that we kind of looked at it as -- the committee as a
whole. We had meetings with Sheriff Don Hunter and Captain Greg
Smith, who I think is going to be joining us here shortly, Crystal
Kinzel with the sheriff's office, Ted Brousseau, Mike Smykowski and
Adolfo Gonzalez from your staff.
It became pretty apparent right from the get-go that
using impact fees to finance this expansion was not a viable
alternative. We do see impact fees as being worthwhile for future
expansions. The -- our understanding of the impact fee ordinances is
that they're not to be used as a catchup mechanism. They are only for
future needs.
So that being said, we took the liberty to still study
the expansion a bit further, look -- it seemed to us that sales tax is
a very viable alternative, although in this county and probably
everywhere the word tax is not thought of very kindly. The -- I
believe that the public doesn't really understand the need for the
jail. They feel like it's an issue that will go away, and we don't
believe that it is an issue that will -- that will go away. It's in
our Growth Management Plan. The need is stated, and as I understand
it, there's a possibility of moratorium, and there's all kinds of
negative issues that could be tied to this. So we feel that public
relations efforts are probably the number-one goal here and that the
county manager and the sheriff's office should be tasked with trying
to inform the public of this need and what the implications are if the
jail expansion does not happen.
Furthermore, the jail expansion was based on a 1990
study. We feel like this study should be updated to bring it up to
the current standards. We feel that this should be done as a team
effort in-house between OCPH and the sheriff's office, and if this
commission would so desire, the productivity committee would be happy
to be involved in that to facilitate that effort.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I got to tell you, Jack, I
read -- as I read the bottom of that, it says without incurring the
unnecessary expense of an outside consultant. I just scribbled a note
in there, bravo, bravo.
MR. HcKENNA: We think that could also help timewise
because we think time is of the essence here. This shouldn't be a
year-long study. It should be get everybody into the room and hammer
out issues and bring it to a head as soon as possible.
The -- clarify the scope of the expansion, the items
that went before the voters last election really included some other
facilities beyond the actual jail expansion, and we feel that if this
is brought up before the voters again, we should isolate those
individual issues, not be looking at coolers and other -- other
facilities, parking lot and so forth, but really look at the items
that are specific to the jail expansion.
We also feel that alternate methods of construction,
perhaps, should be considered. In the 1990 study the OCPH had done a
good job. They had a master plan of the expansion. Technology has
changed. There's some modular cells, and that, as I understand it,
may reduce the cost, certainly 30 million dollars or whatever,
something that's hard for people to swallow. So as part of the study
we feel like in updating that, we should be looking at alternate
methods and possibly alternate sites. There -- we had a lot of
discussion in our meetings about changing sites. There's a lot of
convenience issues tied into the fact of having it here on this
campus, and we realize that. There may not be a better alternate
site. But it's something that perhaps should be considered.
Here again, we feel like sheriff's office needs to be
working in partnership and as a team member with OCPH to come up with
this, and we would also be happy, if so directed, to be part of that
committee to help facilitate that. We -- Judge Brousseau spoke to us
about the work release center concept. Initially in hearing of that
it seemed that perhaps this would buy us some time. I think as a
group we've now come to the conclusion that the time that would buy us
is quite minimal. However, we feel that the work release center is a
very good thing. We feel that it shouldn't be used as a substitute to
the jail expansion in any way or to think that we can relax pursuing
that need.
Lastly and not leastly, it's our understanding that
there is no real master plan for the campus here. We feel like it
would be -- the county should develop a master plan for this overall
complex, and that should be considered as part of this jail expansion
also. Right now we're kind of putting pieces in without really
knowing where we're going to be in 20 years. So we feel like that's
something that your staff should be able to look at.
With that I'll open it up to any questions. As
Commissioner Berry mentioned -- by the way, it's been wonderful having
Commissioner Berry on that committee.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Beats that last idiot you had.
MR. HcKENNA: It was wonderful having you also.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. -- self-deprecating humor always
gets a laugh. The -- you said something that as it is -- and I've
heard it from the sheriff, and every time I hear it I just -- I have
to -- I just bristle, that we can't use impact fees because that would
be, in essence, retroactive or fixing a standing problem. I have a
real problem with that because right now, according to everything I've
seen, according to architects who have come to look at the -- at the
jail for a potential business venture of being the architect to design
it, of what they're hearing and what they're told and what they see,
we have capacity right now today. We have capacity. If we decide
that in two years we won't have capacity and need to build a jail and
begin collecting impact fees, that is no different than if you build a
roadway that has a capacity of 50,000 cars and you have 48,000 on it
today. When it reaches 50,000, impact fees could be used to expand
the roadway. We have capacity today. There is no need to build a
jail today. So when I look at impact fees -- and I keep hearing --
and I hear it from -- and I hear it from -- I've heard it from Don
Hunter, and I have to assume that's where it keeps coming back to,
because I don't hear any of us saying it can't be done, that, you
know, the idea that impact fees are not viable or couldn't be used.
Maybe they can't get the job done entirely by themselves, but the idea
they can't be used, if implemented, I have a problem with. And I'm
not -- I'm not taking issue with you, Jack. But, Mr. Weigel, if I am
incorrect in that assumption that when we have capacity today, that we
can use impact fees for the expansion when it's needed, tell me
because that -- that's -- that's how we do it with roads. That's how
we do it with everything else.
MR. WEIGEL: You're right on target.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, from now on when I hear that, I'm
going to interrupt anyone who's saying it on the spot because it's the
perpetuation of incorrect information.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, let me just clarify a
moment. I think what you've said is absolutely correct. However,
until you know that you're at capacity and until they -- until we have
this before us, if we were to go out today and build this jail, you
could not use impact fees, okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, you can -- you can build a
roadway before it's absolutely necessary and use impact fees if you're
building it to meet a projected need.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: I'm not -- I don't know.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's my understanding.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Okay. I did not think so, and so
if they made this statement again today, it was probably because of
what I said.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: So I will -- I will take the heat
for this. You have to be very careful. It is for growth. Impact
fees are for growth.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
building.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
COMHISSIONER BERRY:
Uh-huh.
You can't use them to renovate a
Right.
Okay. You could not go over and
take the current jail and use impact fees to renovate that building to
accommodate growth.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. You can only use it for the
expansion.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: For new construction.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But to add capacity you can, and
that's the issue we have.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. It's not renovation. It's
adding capacity.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Okay. But in the process, if you
renovated, if you were to use the current jail site and you were to go
in there and renovate that jail, the new area that you ten -- that you
add on you can use impact fees. I don't think there's any
misunderstanding there. But that is the problem. And this brings you
back to -- and what we got into a discussion on the productivity
committee -- there is no overall plan for this government complex. So
when you start to look down the road to see what we have, we don't
know whether that's the best place and the best idea for the jail.
And it ends up that you're building -- you may go ahead and build the
jail there now and in two years, three years, ten years, oop, bad
idea, you know, and everything else is growing here. And it's -- we
renovate this building, and then we renovate another building, and we
move a group here, and then we move somebody else. What -- what is
the overall plan for this government complex? And until you know
that, how do you know whether it's best to build onto the current jail
or build another facility on adjacent property?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't know whether it was before
you came on the board -- COMHISSIONER BERRY: Probably.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- or since then, but we have had
that discussion and actually are either in the process of developing a
campus master plan, close to it. Mr. McNees, where are we on that?
MR. McNEES: We are developing, in coordination with the
different constitutional officers, a needs analysis and an RFP. You
authorized us to go out and hire someone to actually do that master
plan for this complex. In addition, we're beginning the process of --
essentially, your next square foot of office space triggers a DRI for
this complex. We're in the process of putting a package together to
actually go and apply for the DRI. So that master planning is
underway.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Unless, of course, we subdivide the
existing parcel, build on a new parcel.
MR. McNEES: As a planner you would know more about
that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But we get back to the current jail
expansion. Until this is in place, how can you go ahead and say, you
know, where are you going to put this jail if you're going to go ahead
and use a current structure and add on to it or build a separate
facility? And I think that's where the -- the productivity committee
-- that's where we're falling out at this point in time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Until there's an overall master
plan established, we don't know that that's in the best place, you
know, for what we're looking at.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't think anyone's going to
disagree with you. We'll have to wait for the results of that to
answer those questions.
MR. McNEES: Well, we need to understand what's the cart
and what's the horse here. In terms of the master planning, we need
to understand, and I note that the three recommendations here, from
our point of view, probably -- I know they're not in priority order,
but in terms of calendar order they need to be reversed. The first
one that needs to happen is to clarify the scope of the expansion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right.
MR. McNEES: The second that needs to happen is let's
identify the cost. The last thing we need to worry about is public
information campaign until we have some good information. MR. HcKENNA: Absolutely.
MR. HcNEES: In terms of the actual master plan itself,
the information regarding what do we need for jail expansion in what
period of time needs to come first so we can plug that information
into the master planning process. We need to not wait till the master
plan's done and then say, okay, here's what we got left. Now where
are we going to put the jail? We need to do that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good point.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Simultaneously.
MR. HcNEES: Simultaneously, exactly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. HcKenna, you mentioned earlier
in your discussion the work release center. Was any discussion given
to the -- the offer from the assembly center to -- to make available
space and -- and actually design their building to accommodate the
work release center?
MR. HcKENNA: No. No, we really didn't look into that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That offer, as I understand it,
still stands. And since they're still in the design phase, that's
something maybe we should be -- perhaps we should take it up as a
policy item by the board soon before they finish their -- their
planning because you could probably -- just rough guess, you could
probably build that work release center for half price or less of what
a stand-alone center --
MR. HcKENNA: Sounds like a good program.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm still interested in getting that
center constructed at some point that I would be happy to entertain
that as a discussion item on an agenda in the very near future because
if we knock that price down, now is the time to do it and look at it
in this year's budget discussion. So, Commissioner Norris, if you
would like to add that to an agenda either next week or the week
after, notify Judge Brousseau. I would be -- unless the board has a
problem, I would like to see that as a discussion item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd love to.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have that on two points. One
-- one has to do with the -- and this is just maybe more for Captain
Smith just since you're in the room, just on the -- on the public
perception issue. I would encourage you to allow some cameras in that
jail to get some actual pictures of what -- you know, having toured
the jail, I'm pretty clear on what the need is and having had that --
that facility explained to me and seeing what's actually on the ground
there. I'd encourage you to -- to send some news reporters in there
with their cameras and let that be shown. And I'm sure you have some
privacy considerations as well for -- especially for unconvicted
criminals, but I'm sure -- oh, that was an oxymoron. Unconvicted --
let's see, anyway, arrestees. How's that?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Suspects.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Suspected criminals. Thank you.
But I would encourage you to do that.
And then for the committee a question that keeps coming
in my mind is what about privatization of the jail? Has that been
addressed at all? Was that considered by the committee as an
alternate means of funding? Let's have one of the private companies
come in and build it and run it. Sorry.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Wackenhut (phonetic).
FEMALE VOICE: Yeah, look at that.
MR. McKENNA: That was discussed briefly, and perhaps
Captain Smith could speak to this. Apparently many of the services
provided within the jail are -- have gone to private -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aware of that.
MR. McKENNA: And again, I would ask Captain Smith to
speak to it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If I could try to redirect, I think
that's a very appropriate question, but determining the need and the
funding source first and foremost, then that becomes an operational
restraint, and the more appropriate discussion may occur down the road
on that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I wasn't suggesting we have
that discussion today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just wanted to be sure that
that issue was included in this mix of how we might address the
problems we have.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It has been noted.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I agree with
Commissioner Mac'Kie. I think that's a good idea. As I mentioned
before, I think you're absolutely right, Jack. We do need to update
our status from seven years ago and -- but I appreciate your
suggestion that we do that in-house with a combination of our people
and the sheriff's people. And you write time-wise and money-wise we
should be able to save some there.
I particularly liked the next item after that one, and
that was clarifying the scope of expansion. And where it says it --
it -- I mean, we've had that discussion on this board as to, okay, why
did the voters vote 2 to 1 to turn this thing down. And some people
will tell you, well, they didn't like the work release center. Some
people will tell you it was the sheriff's administration. Some people
will tell you they just didn't like a tax.
And the idea of bringing that to the voters separately
is very appealing so that, okay, we know it's 9 million dollars for a
jail or whatever it happens to be, and we know it's X number of
dollars for sheriff's administration, or we know it's -- if our work
release center -- it sounds like it may be even less expensive than
originally anticipated, but the idea of breaking that down so the
public has a clear understanding of what they're getting for their
money, I think, makes it much easier for them. And I -- I think most
people understand, gosh, if you run out of space in the jail at some
time in the near future, that's a problem. But they need to know
what's the cost to fix that problem by itself as opposed to lumping
everything in. So I -- I like that recommendation a lot. I think --
I think I heard a couple other members say that, but I'd like to see
us do that and have a specific breakdown of each of those things
individually.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I like that, too. I divert a little
bit on that in that if we're talking about solely a jail expansion and
we say at this point the jail's necessary and we get to that point and
we need to expand the jail, going to the voters at that time is
immaterial. We're not given an option or a choice. And it's not that
I don't want the voters to voice their opinion, but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With some things --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It has to be done.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If it has to be done and our hand is
forced, you know, we just need to make sure that we have natrowed the
scope of that to the greatest extent we can so that we're not asking
the taxpayer to fund the crystal palace when all we need to build is a
jail. So, you know --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just -- I'm a little concerned that
all of those decisions are put out on the ballot because, I'm sorry,
we were elected to make some of those decisions when -- when there is
no other option.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, agreed, but I think your
point that if we're not there yet -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, agree.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- it gives us a little bit
of leeway so that when that time comes, at least the public has some
say in how do we pay for it?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think that was one of the
problems with the ballot question, however, but that there was also
the word out there that at this moment the jail is not needed, and
then when it came time to clarify what exactly the needs were, there
were a lot of other things that became rather -- and -- and kind of
clouded the issue. We talked about this in the productivity committee
when it talked about administrative offices. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Everybody has a picture in their
mind of what you're talking about in administrative offices. And when
we spoke with the people in the sheriff's department, it was a totally
different picture. They're talking about evidence rooms. They're
talking about all kinds of things like that, but if you asked
everybody administrative offices -- and what are you going to think?
You're going to think -- the first thing that comes to your mind is
that the sheriff is going to have this beautiful office sitting over
there, and it's going to be grand and glorious. And there was never
anything in my mind, to be honest with you, that said anything about
evidence rooms or securing evidence and all these kinds of things. I
didn't know it was even necessary. I don't know anything about a
jail.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Didn't you watch the O.J. trial?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. But anyway, those are the
kinds of things. And we pointed out that this was not -- you know, we
talked about public information, that this was not clarified to the
public and that this certainly was a problem. As far as which came
first and what should come first, I -- I agree with Mr. McNees. I
don't think that, you know, there was anybody that said, well, this is
the way it has to be. It's got to be this and this and this. It was
just a matter that these were concerns that we saw and things that
should have been addressed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I for one, first of all, thank you,
Jack, and the productivity committee. I know the difficulty you have
because I know many of your members. They'll appreciate that. But I
-- I, for one, would like to give board direction to continue working
with Mr. HcNees's office to -- to continue in this because this is
exactly what we need. We need someone bringing this to a public forum
and really, in essence, doing the background gathering and information
gathering for this board, and that's -- I can't think of a better
function of an advisory committee than to do just that, and I
appreciate that effort. So I for one am -- am -- would like to go in
that direction. The second thing is that, Mr. HcNees, we have time
and time again had impact fee study after impact fee study. Are we in
the process of doing another one now where utilities are concerned?
MR. HcNEES: In a couple of different areas, yes, we
are.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Here's my -- I'll just make it
plain and simple. I know in utilities there may be an adjustment
downward in the multifamily and some areas of impact fees. What I
would like to do is that may give us the opportunity to initiate a law
enforcement impact fee without a net increase to the new home buyer.
I would like to ask that if it -- if the board agrees, that at the
earliest possible moment when we are discussing any change in impact
fees, that we consider the inclusion of a law enforcement impact fee,
even if it is not the maximum that we could -- could do and do it
commensurate with other leveling and adjustment so that there may not
be a net impact, but yet we have an additional funding source that we
begin collecting sooner than later for jail expansion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I like that a lot. And
as I've expressed before, one of my concerns -- while it's a
convenient method, it also puts homes out of reach for a lot of the
first-time home buyers. And I won't get into the statistics of that,
but back 1993 when we brought that up, one in four people who had been
approved under a hundred thousand would not have been approved If we
had increased the value as 1200 bucks at the time. So while it
doesn't sound like a lot, if you're building a big house, for those
people who are building their first house or fifth house, for that
matter, at $80,000 that's a big hit for them. So I like your
suggestion a lot.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there any additional direction or
comment from the board? Can we take those two as consensus for
direction to staff and the productivity committee?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I think so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. HcKenna, thank you again
for your work, and thank the committee on behalf of the board.
MR. HcKENNA: Thank you.
Item #10E
DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS' LOBBYING POLICY - NO
ACTION
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 10(E), discussion of the BCC
lobbying policy. Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is far simpler than I
think perhaps it's made out to be. And contrary to Gina's article in
today's paper, it's not about gift disclosure. It's about lobbying in
active RFPs. And we have a policy that I don't know has been
practiced, and I'd just like to see our policy perhaps formalized into
an ordinance and then put into practice. And that is when there is an
active RFP for a big dollar item -- say you're expanding a sewer plant
or something. For those people who are proposing during that
four-week period, or whatever the time frame is while the RFP is open,
probably should not be having contact with the board. We have that
policy anyway, but it has not traditionally been practiced anyway
while I've been on the board.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I've never had anybody want to
take me to dinner during an --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And it's not even -- and I
know in the newspaper it's a dinner, and I'm saying even meetings
during that little four-week or five-week RFP period, I have had
people inquire and want to sit down. And I just think if you're going
to have a multimillion-dollar item -- I think we're lucky in Collier
County; we've got a great reputation. We've had boards who are
straightforward, and some of our neighboring counties have had trouble
with that. I don't anticipate a problem with this, but I just think
public perception, that if you've got some request for proposals that
may be a 17-million-dollar plant improvement or something, that while
that's out there and while the details are being filled in on their
proposal, they probably shouldn't have contact with the board.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me -- let me at least issue an
operational problem with that. For example, a company I work closely
with on the Naples Park project, they were already selected, but
worked closely with them on that project, is Agnoli, Barber, and
Brundage. If what you're talking about is an absolute, then if they
have an RFP on another related item, I can't meet with their project
engineers on the Naples Park project. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's problematic. What you're
talking about is already -- as I understand, it throws them out of the
RFP process. If a consulting engineering firm sits down and wants to
talk to me about a project they have an RFP on and I found out they
have an RFP, I'm going to notify the purchasing office right away
because they have violated what has been set forth in that RFP. The
RFP says you shall not lobby or otherwise contact commissioners. I
don't mind an ordinance restating that, but it seems unnecessary as
long as the five of us are acting ethically, which I have no reason to
believe anyone on this board has done.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nor do I. That's all I'm
asking, is that we formalize that policy. Your example is a good one,
and the newspaper reporter had inquired in a scenario similar to
that. I think much like the sunshine law is often confused, I can
talk to you about how's your daughter doing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: She's fine. Do you want to see a
picture?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When I see you in public, I
can't talk to you about items coming before the board. And it's the
same idea. Obviously if there's a firm out there that does other
things with the county that we -- need to be talked about, we can, but
they can't talk about their specific proposal. It is a policy. It's
just kind of been loose out there. All I'm suggesting is we formalize
that into some sort of ordinance that has a little more teeth in the
way -- because you're right. They are supposed to be tossed out of
the process. And if we do it by ordinance, it just makes it a little
easier to do that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie -- I think, Mr.
Weigel, did you have something?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I did. In fact, the purchasing policy
specifically addressed bidding -- bids as opposed to RFPs, but the
purchasing department had, as you acknowledged, that standard language
that goes out with RFP, the proposal, request for proposals. When the
request for proposals goes out, it has language indicating that the
board members are not to be lobbied individually or collectively and
that it may be grounds for disqualification if they do so. It seems
to me that probably the most convenient vehicle would be to go back
into our purchasing policy about the resolution and the ordinance that
we have there. If the board makes that recommendation, that's
probably the first place we'll look, is to implement particularly the
RFP language that is included in the RFP packages that go out and
build that into the ordinance and the -- and the policy resolution
that goes with our purchasing policy ordinance.
Secondly, another area you may wish to consider, since
we're going -- it appears that we will be going to address this is
that what currently is in place is when the RFP packet goes out or is
made available, it's from that point and beyond that the commissioners
are not to be lobbied individually or collectively. On some of the
major projects that the board may embark upon -- an example could be
the potential privatization of the landfill of a couple years ago, for
instance. The board gives a direction of an RFP to be prepared. That
takes significant amount of time, and it doesn't actually hit the
street until some point weeks or maybe even months later. And
arguably there is a window period there where potential RFP responders
could technically lobby the commissioners individually or collectively
because the RFP with its admission has not been created yet. And if
you wish, we could address that too. I just thought I'd bring that up
before you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess -- Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, and that -- that sort of
plays into what I wanted to mention. I certainly support your -- your
suggestion that we make this an ordinance, because by the grace of God
we have not had this problem right now. But let's, please, be sure
that we make that the law of the land for -- for future.
But I see two other avenues where this should be
expanded, and one is what you just described, Mr. Weigel. And that is
today I just said I'm interested in talking about privatizing the
jail. I think it would be inappropriate -- I would -- I would not
accept dinner invitations from Wackenhut and others who might some day
be making that proposal to the county. But I think that -- that you
have described exactly one situation that -- that needs to be
included. If we're going to do this, let's do it thoroughly. And I
think that's another place that it ought to be done.
And then the second area of expansion is others who --
who appear in front of the county for requests that have financial
benefit to them. It may not be that they are contracting with the
county to do work, but for which they will be paid directly by the
county, but they are applying for approvals from the county that will
result in financial benefit to them. And likewise, we should not be
receiving those special benefits from those people as well. So I'd
like for us -- if we're going to have this policy, let's expand it to
something broader that -- that addresses all of the issues that I
think we're all appropriately dealing with, but that we need to be
real careful.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I've got a problem with that last
One.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want to be careful not to
-- and I mentioned before, because Gina had brought up the question
the other day -- I want to be careful not to confuse gift disclosure
with lobbying. And my -- and I -- if we want to have a discussion on
gift disclosure, that's fine; but I see the two separate, I guess, in
that if there are multimillion-dollar items going on, the discussion
shouldn't probably happen or individual questions shouldn't be
happening in my office where the public doesn't have an opportunity to
participate in that. I just see that as separate from gift
disclosure. There are -- we have existing laws on gift disclosure,
and obviously we can't accept -- or if we do accept anything of any
value, we have to report it. So I think we have a mechanism to
address that, but I mean, you gave a great example of the -- the
landfill or the jail expansion, or we did the 800-megahertz item a
couple years ago; that's a 12-million-dollar item. And I guarantee
you we all got calls trying to set up appointments from all three of
the large vendors wanting to sit down and talk to us about it. And so
I just think it -- when you get into those big dollar items and you're
looking at taxpayer funds, we ought to try to reserve that. I like
your suggestion of maybe stretching that out from whenever the
discussion starts as opposed to just the RFP process.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, on your -- your last
suggestion there, Commissioner Mac'Kie, I think we got to be very
careful that we don't at some point start restricting legitimate
access --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- to the commission, and I'd be a
little leery about going maybe as far as you suggested on that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, that last suggestion, in
essence, if Bob and Mary Smith wanted to build a boat dock extension
and they wanted to come in and tell me why, they could do that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like for them to come in and
tell us why, but not over dinner at the fancy place, you know.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't know who's asking you to
dinner. Apparently I'm not eating well enough as a commissioner.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not suggesting anybody is --
is doing anything untoward. I'm just saying -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We already have a disclosure
requirement on all issues that come before this board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How does that differ from whether
or not I should have dinner with Wackenhut? I can discloses -- if
Wackenhut invites me to dinner and it costs a hundred bucks, I'll
disclose it.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I think you're missing part of
it. We're saying -- not dinner; we're saying no lobby, I mean, can't
come to your office.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're not saying dinner. That's
covered separately under gift disclosures and all of those -- those
things like that. We're just saying just no lobbying, period.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm saying on those
big-dollar items like that, those discussions ought to take place in
the public. And, again, all of us have said it -- but not that any
one of us are crossing the line ethically, it's just a public
perception. If they're in on the discussion on a 12-million-dollar
800-megahertz system or a big landfill contract or on privatizing the
jail, I think the public is more at ease.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The last thing we need to do is put
common sense in legalese. I mean, this -- you know, this is just
simply if someone has a petition before you and they say, oh, well, I
want to talk to you about it. Let's just go to lunch. Let's just
have lunch, or let's just go do this. Come on. Wake up. I mean, you
know when you're being lobbied, and you refuse those invitations if
you've got an ounce of common sense to you. You know, you meet with
people when it is a mutual benefit to you as a commissioner and to the
community as a whole, period. And if you do anything other than that,
I don't care what laws they have on the book. If you're unethical,
you're going to be unethical. You know, let's not -- let's not try
and replace common sense with an ordinance.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I think what -- Mr. Chairman, one
of the things that concerns me, what if I don't know. What if I don't
know that they're coming before the commission?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, and I can give you an example
of that.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I stopped -- when someone calls and
wants to meet with me on something, I have my assistant get the
subject of that meeting before the meeting is scheduled so that, you
know, if they want to meet with me about a land use project or
something --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- that is not on our agenda, well, I
know they're going to ask questions about something that may come
before us. I know that that, in essence, is a lobbying meeting, if
you will. However, the access that Commissioner Norris was talking
about, if we cut that off, we cut off the access of the people who
oppose projects to us also.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, we can't do that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So you have to take the one with the
other. You have to know when you're being lobbied and use your sense
to not put yourself in that position or understand it while you
maintain an open door to those people who may not object or may
support something that --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Right. Well, the situation is that
sometimes it's a vehicle for us to get information too. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, that's true.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Berry brings up a
good point, though. If there's an RFP out there that the board's not
aware of -- does it ever happen, RFPs are issued? MR. HcNEES: It probably could happen, yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Road projects, perhaps. There may
be an instance where there's an RFP out there that we're not
particularly aware of and somebody calls to come in and talk to us
about it, and we would be, then, technically in violation of the law
if we pass an ordinance against that sort of thing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, even though we wouldn't --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: On the other hand, and totally
innocent, in effect, because it's not our doing, and -- and we find
out about it later, there was an RFP on the subject. Well, at that
point we find out there is an RFP, we have redress. We then notify
the purchasing department, as you said, and that potential respondee
is then disqualified.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, you have something?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I do. In fact, obviously you can
dictate the direction of any proposed ordinance change, but it may not
necessarily have to be punitive to the commissioners, but it may be
punitive to the lobbyists, as far as that goes, as far as that -- you
-- you will have your own internal policy. You're -- you're already
guided by our resolution and state law concerning quasi -- matters of
a quasijudicial nature that you will be voting on later at some point
later on. In fact, you can meet with the people that have points pro
or con in regard. You merely have an obligation to -- to indicate at
the advertised public hearing that you've had those contacts. Those
contacts should be made -- brought into the record. And, in fact, I
can clarify you don't actually have to state on the record when you
get to the meeting that your opinion is solely based on what you've
heard that very day of the hearing. But by bringing forth the fact
that you've had contacts and disclosing those contacts, you can, in
fact, use the information gathering that, in a positive sense, may
have occurred at that prior meeting. But -- so there are several
checks and balances on the commissioners already in -- and your common
sense and internal policy can -- can work.
What currently exists with the RFP policy that's
implemented on an ad hoc basis with the RFP packages that are put out
as well as with the bid -- bidding arrangements, that is already
addressed in the purchasing policy, is that that is a type of punitive
measure against the -- the proposer of the project, but it goes no
further than disqualification of that project. You may be
contemplating some teeth in the form of the ordinance to have other
punitive effects against the lobbyist if they should violate the
ordinance that might -- that might be adopted in that regard.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So we already have -- we have gift
disclosure by state. We have verbal disclosure on quasi-judicial. We
have the Sunshine Law. Pretty soon I can get an unlisted phone number
so nobody will be able to talk to me.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just kind of put in a
nutshell what I'd like to achieve here, and that is simply adopting an
ordinance that prohibits a vendor whose looking to make a buck at the
public trough from speaking to us during an RFP, active RFP process,
or perhaps we can set some period of time prior to what we anticipate
being the RFP process.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't have a problem with that
because it, in essence, is a restatement of existing policy and
clarification, without getting into too many additional levels. So I
don't have a problem giving direction with that. That makes sense to
me.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I guess my problem is it's just
more duplication, and I don't -- I really don't see any need to do it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just want to formalize it,
that's all.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's see it brought back. And is
there another member of the commission that wants to see it brought
back? Two doesn't make a majority, so with that there's not
sufficient direction to bring the item back.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Lobbyists, welcome,
Come on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The policy is already there.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Mr. McNees.
MR. McNEES: If I may, I got so engrossed in the jail
discussion, I neglected to call your only two public speakers of the
day on that subject. Would you care to hear them now?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We -- we must, yes, please.
MR. McNEES: It would be Ty Agoston and Judy
Leinweber.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This has nothing to do with
flooding?
FEMALE VOICE: No, it doesn't.
MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My
name is Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates. And I was part of
the TAG's effort to defeat the jail tax when it was proposed for a
sales tax, and I'm not quite sure whether I am any happier today than
I was at that time. I believe that the original sales tax drive was
somewhat cavalier with the taxpayers' money. It was going to some
30-some-odd million. There was some mistakes made that amounted to
substantial portions of the proposal, and it -- to me, at least,
showed the committee's disrespect to the taxpayer.
Last night in this chamber there was a presentation made
by the Florida Tax Cap Committee. The handout -- to the republican
executive committee. There was a handout showing the various tax
bites today. Seventy percent -- seventy-two percent taxes on a bottle
of liquor, forty-three percent tax on a bottle of beer. On a somewhat
less frivolous area, there is 45 percent taxes on cars, 31 percent on
bread, and 54 percent on gasoline. I believe that the public in
general are essentially up to right about here (indicating) with
taxes, and they really don't want to hear any more about it.
And when we are talking about public relations, what I
have seen -- and I have underlined that we want the public relations
effort. I have a purchasing marketing background, and I have very
often used the public relations efforts to mean let me hustle
somebody. And to be perfectly honest with you, with my imperfect
English, it still comes across exactly that way. I believe that the
public, depending on what survey you're looking at, has a very, very
low respect for government in general. And it might be well-earned if
you consider that this tax proposal for building a new jail has
originally surfaced some nine years ago. And if we did not need a
jail in the last nine years, obviously someone had mischaracterized
the need.
There are people talking today about trying to enact a
constitutional amendment for a complete tax moratorium. We are
suggesting here the work release is something that we need, and we
could well be needing a work release and many, many other things like
most of the families living in this county also need. They need a
mother who could stay home and raise her children that we were in the
process of getting her out to get a job so they can meet -- make the
ends meet, and they may not meet all the needs.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We've got to bring this back to the
jail, Ty.
MR. AGOSTON: I'm bringing it back to the jail. We were
involved in the DRILL program a little while ago. And as I understand
later, it came out that it has been considered and used before, and it
failed. So my question is, why would we embark on something that
failed somewhere else, and is there any history currently on the
success of a work release program? And if there isn't, should we be
or are we that wealthy that we should be experimenting?
And I have a final suggestion, is that the public most
certainly should be in part of the decision-making process, and I
think that any major project like this should be broken down in -- in
understandable chunks so they can absorb it and readily see that the
government that they paid for is working for them. Thank you.
MS. LEINWEBER: I am Judy Leinweber. Good morning.
First of all, I think we should also look at why do the criminals keep
coming back into the jail system. Our jail system is a joke.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Miss Leinweber, with all due respect,
the issue before us today was talking about funding mechanisms and
recommendations for jail expansion. We've got to stay on that topic,
please. I -- I -- I -- a lot of your questions and Mr. Agoston's
comments probably need to be directed to the sheriff as the gentleman
who is responsible for the operation of that facility. We can't
answer that for you.
MS. LEINWEBER: Mr. Hancock, if you just give me a
second, I will get to that point.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm asking you to stay on topic,
Miss Leinweber.
MS. LEINWEBER: I am staying on the topic.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, continue then.
MS. LEINWEBER: Our standards for our jail system are
some of the highest in the world. In most jails the prisoners have to
supply their own food, and they stand a better chance of dying in the
jail system than they do coming out alive. We have some pretty hoity
toity sys -- jail standards. I think we should pitch tents and stack
them up. The main idea, I think, is make their life as miserable as
possible. Sheriff Hunter has made the comment that a lot of our
prisoners are tourists. In that case I would think they would qualify
for the tourist tax. Thank you. Did I meet your qualifications?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, ma'am, but that's okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we leave behind 10(A),
Commissioner Mac'Kie, when we started the conversation on the lobbying
policy, you said you liked the idea of formalizing it, then when we
get to the end of the conversation you said, never mind. I just
wondered what happened and what transpired in between.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What happened was I liked the
idea of -- of formalizing it if we were going to expand it in some
way. And -- and what I heard proposed or settled on is just that
we're going to make an ordinance out of what's already an existing
policy, and I think that's redundant.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Based on the public comment we
had on the jail item, I might suggest you request a town hall meeting
with the sheriff. You know, you can stand up here and say whatever
you want about the sheriff or about our jail system. The truth is
these five individuals do not set the policy for operation at the
county jail; the sheriff does. So I suggest that he as an elected
official make himself accessible to you and you demand that access and
ask him those questions. It's just frustrating. We can't answer your
questions, not on those areas.
Item #10F
DISCUSSION REGARDING FUNDING OF NAPLES LANDING - DISCUSSED
Item 10(F), Naples Landing, Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a couple of quick
comments on this. I understand the city's going to undertake
discussion tomorrow as to whether or not the county can be an active
participant at this public facility or not in the future. Top sheet
just kind of outlines the breakdown of expenditures, and the line cuts
off for the first year what the expenditures will be, and it shows a
hundred and sixty thousand from the county, seventy from the state,
and thirty-two from the city. There is further expenditure next
year. But the interesting thing is the second page is a letter from
this past November from Dr. Woodruff asking that our sixty thousand
contribution become a hundred and forty so that the request from the
city has been for an additional eighty thousand which would have
increased. The percentage we're paying this year anyway is five times
as much. Overall the percentage isn't that high, but it would have
increased the county's participation. Mr. Olliff hasn't brought that
request to us. I don't know that we're going to fill it anyway. I
just thought that was an important point to bring out as the
discussion is going on, whether or not we'll even have use of that
facility, that -- at the same time they're requesting further funding
from us.
Moving on in your little pile, there's a letter, January
7th, to County Manager Dotrill that outlines six -- seven projects
that the city is working on, the Pulling property -- if you look at
the last sentence it talks about justifying a 50-50 capital
contribution. Number 2 is Cambier Park Phase 2. The third and fourth
from the bottom of that, city-financed funds are available from both
city and county. Naples Landing Phase 2, this project is financed
50-50 by city and county. Item 4, Fleischmann Park, next to the last
line, funding to be split 50-50 between city and county. Beach ends,
the same thing, would be split 50-50 between city and county. Central
Avenue median, 50-50 funding match. And Item 7, historical Naples
pier, of course, we've already participated in and there have -- have
looked for more, again, 50-50 matching.
My point is the squabbling between the city and county
is kind of silly. We do participate. It's not simply in Naples
Landing. It's not simply in whether or not we choose to participate
on a fuel dock. We are participating, and they're asking us to
participate on other projects as well in a number of things. The
residents of the city are residents of the county. One would hope
that we all refer to Collier County as greater Naples. When you see
any of the publications, it talks about the Naples area, and so
obviously we do have a -- some sort of responsibility to participate.
We all use these facilities.
But I'm just hoping as we go to tomorrow as the city has
their discussion tomorrow and we look at, frankly, current and future
relationship between that council and this board, traditionally we've
done pretty well at sharing responsibilities. This list shows we have
every intention of continuing that. And -- and I'm just asking the
city that -- that -- to realize, to step back. And I know it may not
be representative of the whole city council anyway, but at least a
couple of them have spoken up and threatened to take different uses
away from the county. I just don't think it's productive. I think
we've worked well together in the past, and we need to strive to
continue to do that in the future.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, just if I
may, just as you referred to the city, I think what we've been hearing
from are two individuals who sit on the city council. And obviously
when I hear something like that, the first thing I do is pick up the
phone and call Mayor Barnett and ask him what's -- what's the deal?
What's going on? Is there a consensus? Is this the general feeling?
I think even a letter was written by Commissioner Norris to that
effect to Mayor Barnett. I'm not hearing it from anyone else.
I think what's going to happen tomorrow at the city
council is they're going to take a position similar to that I
expressed to Mayor Barnett, which is when there is a project that is
of joint benefit to city and county residents that qualifies for joint
funding, we will look at it individually, we'll decide what levels are
fair and appropriate, and we will work together to accomplish that
project as we have on Naples Landing, as we have on the pier, as we
have on other things. So this perception of city-county feuding
really is nothing more than a voice or two voices and then a volley
being thrown back, and it's really petty and silly. I think it's
going to come to an end, but the city and county as bodies are
continuing to work together very, very well.
I do have some issues with -- I did meet with Councilman
Van Arsdale yesterday and wanted to get to the heart of this. And the
heart is, as I read this letter that has 2 1/2 million dollars of
undiscussed commitments in it as a request from the city as, in
essence, this is all boiling out of tax equity. There is a tax equity
base for some of these discussions because certainly all this brouhaha
can't be about the Bayview Park facility. It's just not that big a
deal, and it's not. So the base of the issue is, according to
Councilman Van Arsdale, is is the city getting its dollar's worth.
You know, I asked him, is Marco Island? Is Pelican
Bay? I mean, you know, they're -- that -- that question is throughout
the county, not just within the city, and you're never going to
resolve it a hundred percent. It's just the way the system works.
So, you know, I think we have some real matters to discuss, and they
won't be discussed in the newspaper. They'll be discussed face to
face, and they'll be resolved, and we'll continue the relationship we
have now. Mayor Barnett has assured me that there is no problem with
that. Other city council members have assured me there's no problem
with that. So I'm very confident tomorrow's meeting will be -- will
be exactly what we expect it to be, and we'll continue on a very
workable relationship.
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As I regularly do, I appeared at
the city council workshop yesterday, and this of course -- since the
press covered that this was going to be added to today's agenda -- was
an item of discussion. To say that the city is considering taking
away the county's residents' use of certain facilities would be like
saying that the county doesn't want to move the landfill. I don't
want to move the landfill, but that's one person speaking. And so
let's don't all get excited when one person speaks. So I think that
this has been blown way out of proportion, and I would like to help
make that stop.
I have to, though, on the tax equity issue make a point
that when we talk about tax equity, Nobody is talking about dollar for
dollar. And you're right; it's never going to be dollar in, dollar
out. But there is a genuine tax equity discussion that needs to be
had, and what needs to be done is we need to have a policy about is 50
cents a reasonable return on our dollar. Is a quarter? You know,
what is reasonable for Marco Island to expect as a return or for
Pelican Bay to expect and for the City of Naples to expect? I think
that that is the tax equity question. Nobody is talking about a
dollar for dollar.
And the other point that I want to make, and then I --
it's just informational, is as we discuss our benevolence in funding
these, quote, city projects, it's important to note that, for example,
Naples Landing we're being asked to put in, what is it, about 40
percent of the money -- no, 38 percent of the money when the usage of
that facility for boat launching is 70 percent nonincorporated --
unincorporated areas. As you said, Commissioner Constantine, we're
all Collier Countians, but it's 70 percent used by unincorporated
residents. So we're paying 48 percent and 38 percent to get a 70
percent usage; that's a pretty good deal.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This isn't really that
important, but actually I have a letter from Richard Woodruff that
says the county for nonincorporated use is 49.1 percent. But I think
the point is --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, yesterday they said 70.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we split it -- I think
your bottom line point is good. County residents who don't live in
the city benefit from that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of course.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we should participate.
And my point is just in that project and in seven others here, we are
participating. And -- and I think everyone is making the point very
well that perhaps that's not the city as a whole, and I think maybe
for the media and for the public at large, we need to get that point
across that by and large the mayor and the city council and the county
commission are communicating fairly well and are cooperating on
issues.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And just to finish up that on the
-- the issue that maybe was the straw for the camel or something here
on the fueling facility at Bayview Park, I -- my perception of our
joint meeting was that we as the county commission had a great deal of
questions about the land base impacts of that possible facility. I
think that it would be prudent for the city council to provide answers
to some of those questions, like, what exactly were you thinking of
putting on the land? What would it look like? Where would it be?
You know, how big is it? Where would those facilities go? How would
it interfere or would it interfere with the traffic flow and the use
of the park, that there might be -- I have made no indication that
this board is waffling in its position as -- as presently espoused
that the Bayview fueling facility is not a good idea. But I did hear
commissioners ask questions that I think it would be good
communication to answer. So I've asked them to do that, and when I
get the answers for some of those, I'll be providing them to you. And
I would encourage you if you have specific questions, to please
provide them to me so that I can pass them on to the city, and they
can -- they can include those in the package of information they're
going to give us.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I do have a question in relation
to that, though, that I would like to have answered, and that is what
is the real reason they want the fueling depot. Because it was
presented to the county commission on the basis of, number one, saving
boat trips on Naples Bay and, number two, an economic benefit to the
different -- to both the city and the county. We would split the
income. Well, as far as boat traffic goes, the information that was
provided to us by the city staff said 500, plus or minus, boat trips
per year.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One and a half a day.
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: That's less than 1 1/2 boat trips
per day. So the issue is not boat traffic according to the
information that we received from the city staff. That didn't make
any sense.
The economic data that was presented to us at the same
time by the city staff once again showed that it would not pay debt
service. So where is the economic benefit? So my point is that they
presented it to us on two main issues, boat traffic and economic
benefit, and their own staff showed that there wasn't any, neither
one. So if they would tell us the real reason that they want the
fueling depot there, perhaps we could look at that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll include that. I'll ask for
clarification on all of those.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And facility expansion at the site.
You know, obviously it's going to increase demand. We have a problem
there. If the facility can't be expanded, why add an amenity that is,
in essence, a draw?
The tax equity issue you brought up, I am going to
provide to Councilman Van Arsdale a list of general fund services that
are available to city residents. I'll provide copies to all of you on
that. But what I encouraged him to do is go back and read the city
charter, because the city charter, in essence, assumes responsibility
for certain areas. You become a city to provide more specific local
level of service that you desire. And when you move in the city, you
move in there knowing that you are going to pay county and city
taxes. There are no surprises here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So just because we -- if they
disincorporate tomorrow, we have to provide law enforcement. We have
to be ready to do that either way.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the reality here is that the
people on the coast are always going to pay for law enforcement in
Naples Manor. And they want to. They're willing to. They're happy
to. But let's define if 25 cents on a dollar return is appropriate or
50 cents or 75 cents.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Slippery slope but --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: She's -- are you suggesting that
we expend staff time to develop these figures?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. I'm -- I'm suggesting that
I'm going to try to get some of that information, do that analysis,
and bring it back to you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I have no interest as one
to -- to expend staff time to try to --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, no, I'm not asking for that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- chase the elusive dream of tax
equity, no matter where it is.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm Not asking for that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You can't do it. I mean, the
guy's house next to you might be 25 percent higher, and you both
receive exactly the same services. Where is the equity? I mean, that
-- I'm not going to expend any staff time for that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm not asking for that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there any further discussion on
that item?
Item #10G
RESOLUTION 97-155 OPPOSING OFF SHORE OIL EXPLORATION AND DRILLING -
ADOPTED
Seeing none, oil exploration, Item 10-6, Commissioner
Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This I -- I doubt will be very
controversial at all. I brought copies of --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Someone have a motion here?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- a resolution we passed in '96
that I'd like to ask us to pass again --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to discourage oil exploration.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Oh, if only they were all that easy.
Item #10H
DISCUSSION REGARDING PARKING AND PUBLIC BOAT RAMPS AT CHOKOLOSKEE -
DISCUSSED
Item 10(H), Highway 29 parking, Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: A few weeks back direction was
given -- actually, a report was given regarding Highway 29 down at the
Chokoloskee area, to have our staff go down and pursue parking
remedies down there that have been a continual problem. Several years
ago there were no -- no parking signs put up across from a marina down
there to eliminate what was perceived to be a dangerous situation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just so you know, I think everyone
here -- we have talked about this on a limited basis on two separate
occasions.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. So having said all that --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- that the problem still persists,
and they did have a meeting down there, a citizens meeting and are
continuing to work on that particular situation. A bigger problem is
coming out of this as well, and it -- that whole situation is very
detailed in terms of the current marina down there and the national
park service, etc., etc. What I'm looking for here is direction, if
the rest of you see fit to not only look -- they're going to pursue
that area, okay, so that kind of is being addressed, but it has raised
a larger question of public boat ramps in that particular area down
there and trying to pursue this and see -- and see what might be
feasible in terms of public boat ramps.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A discussion that occurred in the
last month or two Commissioner Matthews was on the board was that she
suggested we build a public boat ramp, and I think the location she
chose is less than a mile from the existing boat ramp. And the
discussion, as I recall, was that, look, you know, there is a
facility. Even though it's a private facility, it's available for
use. The private facility is clammering for more parking that we
could provide. Why would we build a boat ramp that close to an
existing one that the public can use? And I don't even know if they
charge a ramp fee there. If they do, it's not much. COHMISSIONER BERRY: At which one?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: At the private ramp that's down
there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The one with the no parking
signs.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, the one with the no parking
signs. So that has been broached as far as building another boat ramp
in the area, and I don't think there was a lot of discussion about
it. I think it was pretty much a 4-1 decision.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. I guess what I was looking
for in terms of whatever the outcome of this particular one, in the
future of public boat ramps in that area, what -- what might be -- you
know, what is there -- what's existing, so we know what's existing,
what is for a fee private and what is -- are any public areas down in
there. But it's a very complicated situation, and I didn't know how
you felt about directing staff to pursue this, if you felt it was
worthwhile or what the situation is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think Mr. Olliff can bring you up
to speed on board action on the last meeting that that was discussed.
And from that if there are specific questions, then we can bring it
back up as a board item at another point, but I think it's a facility
planning question. With limited funds where do we go and what are
priorities? Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Just real quickly, I think Commissioner
Berry's got a good point. In long term there is going to be more
demand and need for public boat ramps, and we'll be happy to provide
the board with a report about not only what is there but maybe what
some of the options are, because we have looked long term, and I think
there are some options for future or for long-range planning.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So we just know the one option that
was presented was not very palatable, so I think Mr. Olliff will have
a better recommendation.
Okay. We are to public comment. Mr. McNees.
MR. McNEES: You have none.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have none. We have no advertised
public hearings. We are on to that little word that says adjourn.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: None.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris? Commissioner
Berry? Commissioner Constantine? Mr. HcNees? Mr. Weigel? Sue?
MS. FILSON: Nothing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think Mr. Weigel had a maybe.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A maybe? I'm sorry. I zipped right
over you.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, quickly, I just want to take the
opportunity to introduce to you a new attorney with our law office,
Mr. Larry Pivacek here in the front row. He comes with a strong
litigation background and will be a strong litigation component of our
office in the future. So I appreciate that he could be here today to
meet you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We'll try not to keep you busy.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sure we will keep him busy.
Okay. Thank you. We'll adjourn.
***** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Hac'Kie
and carried 4/0 (Commissioner Constantine out), that the following
items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
CHAIRMAN AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE APPLICATION FOR THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ARTIFICIAL REEF GRANT FOR THE ARTIFICIAL
REEF PROGRAM OF COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 97-144 PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSHENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 66, PORT-AU-PRINCE MOBILE
HOMES, OWNER: JOSE LUIS CATETE AND LUCILA CATETE, CODE ENFORCEMENT
CASE NO. 60819-079
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 97-145 PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSHENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 13, BLOCK 4, NAPLES MANOR
LAKES, OWNER: DELIO AND JOSE CONDOHINA, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
60920-022
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 97-146 PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 6, LELY COUNTRY CLUB, OWNER:
MIMON BARON, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 61104-114
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 97-147 PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSHENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 16, BLOCK 6, NAPLES MANOR
ADDITION, OWNER: LLOYD G. SHEEHAN, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 61107-060
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 97-148 PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSHENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 38, BLOCK 13, NAPLES MANOR
LAKES, OWNER: LLOYD G. SHEEHAN, TR., CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
61016-055
Item #16A7
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF VILLAGES OF WYNDEHERE WITH CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A8
RESOLUTION 97-149 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF NORTHBROOKE DRIVE
Item #16B1
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO JOHNSON ENGINEERING FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE EAST
NAPLES PARK SKATEBOARD FACILITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,440
#1682
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO WORK ORDER NO. WHBP-FT-96-4 WITH WILSON, HILLER,
BARTON AND PEEK, INC. TO PROVIDING LIGHTING AND SIGNALIZATION DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR LIVINGSTON ROAD PROJECT NO. 60061, CIE NO.
53 IN THE AMOUNT OF $44,860
Item #1683
BOARD APPROVAL TO REIMBURSE THE COCONUT RIVER CIVIC ASSOCIATION UP TO
$2,500 FOR THE DREDGING OUTLET OF COCONUT RIVER AT JUNCTION WITH MAIN
GOLDEN GATE CANAL
Item #1684
RESOLUTION 97-150 AUTHORIZING THE BCC TO ENTER INTO A TRANSPORTATION
ENHANCEMENT PROJECT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR ROADWAY WIDENING AND
RESURFACING ON C.R. 846 FROM S.R. 29 EASTERLY TO THE HENDRY COUNTY LINE
BETWEEN THE FDOT AND THE BCC
Item #16C1
AUTHORIZATION TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR TO A CONSTRUCTION
AGREEMENT FOR A GRANDSTAND AT SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK BETWEEN THE BCC AND
GULFCOAST SKIHMERS
Item #16C2
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BCC AND THE CITY OF EVERGLADES FOR
MINOR PARK IMPROVEMENTS IN EVERGLADES CITY IN RETURN FOR COUNTY USE
Item #16D1
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT REGARDING A COLLIER COUNTY EHPLOYEE
Item #16E1
BUDGET AMENDHENTS 97-165; 97-171; 97-172; AND 97-181
Item #16G1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been filed and/or referred to the
various departments as indicated:
Item #16G2
CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY
APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1995 Real Property
No. Dated
267 02/24/97
1996 Real Property
No. Dated
79-80 12/31/96
84 01/03/97
89-90 01/07/97
92-93 01/22/97
96-97 01/27/97
99-101 01/30/97
104 02/07/97
107-110 02/18-02/20/97
1996 Tangible Personal Property
No. Dated
58-59 02/07-02/14/97
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:45 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Barbara A. Donovan