BCC Minutes 03/25/1997 R REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 25, 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
members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE-CHAIRPERSON:
Timothy L. Hancock
Barbara B. Berry
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
Hike HcNees, Acting County Hanager
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Ramiro Hanalich, Chief Assistant County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. I'm going to call to
order the Tuesday March 25, 1997, Board of County Commissioners'
meeting. Ladies and gentlemen, if I could have your attention,
please. Thank you.
It's our pleasure -- our pleasure this morning to have
Reverend David Mallory here with First Assembly of God to start us off
with an invocation followed by the pledge of alliance. Reverend
Mallory.
REVEREND MALLORY: Our gracious and loving, Heavenly
Father, we count it such a privilege to be in your presence this
morning. I thank you, Lord, for these five commissioners that you
have appointed to rule and decide the business of the day. I pray for
wisdom for them.
Lord, we are overshadowed with the feeling of, again,
Collier County being impacted with the tragic loss of the two Burdette
children at the hands of a drunk driver. We ask, oh God, that the
peace of Christ will be with that family today and, Lord, that you
will uphold them and sustain them. And we ask, oh God, too, that
you'll help us to go on in faith. We thank you, Lord, that we can
call on you in times such as this. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
MR. PERKINS: But not in Hiami.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Reverend Mallory, thank you. We
appreciate you taking the time to be with us this morning. Good morning, Mr. HcNees.
MR. HcNEES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
We have just a few changes this morning. We're asking to add what'll
be Item 8(C)(2), time-urgent approval regarding a trip that a -- your
parks and recreation department is sponsoring.
We're asking that you delete Item 8(C)(1) due to the
inability of the Florida Extension representative to be here today.
One agenda item note, you had a request, I believe, from
the finance director that you delay the presentation of the
comprehensive annual financial report until after eleven o'clock. I
believe the finance director has to be in court this morning. I think
probably that same request would apply to 6(A)(4), which is also a
presentation regarding the finance department. You might want to
defer both of those items and hear them at the same time. Those would
be the only changes we have for you this morning so far.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And, Mr. Hanalich, welcome
this morning.
MR. HANALICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly,
Mr. Weigel is over at a bond validation hearing and should back in an
hour and a half or two.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Anything in addition from the
county attorney's office?
MR. HANALICH: None.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: One item under BCC, has to do with
the productivity committee.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That will be under BCC
communications. Mr. McNees, 10(D) then; is that correct? MR. McNEES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Fourteen or ten?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did you want that under BCC under 10,
or did you want it at the end of the meeting under 14 after public
hearings?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I learned last time is if
it's 14, there's no public input. If you have people from the general
public who want to speak, put it in 10. I learned that last week; so
just thought I'd mention it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It really doesn't make any
difference, because it could go either way. It's really, I believe,
our prerogative up here as to what we want to do with this in terms of
priority. And I'm -- I'm just asking direction from the rest of you;
so it can go under -- it can go at the end if you choose, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think for that 14 would be
appropriate.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So why don't we just leave it under
14 for Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That would be fine.
MR. McNEES: It will be 14(A) then.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 16(B)(1), if we can -- I'm
not going to have a discussion with the board. I just want to pull
that off and talk with staff before we vote on it; so if we could pull
that off and put that later on the agenda.
MR. McNEES: That was (B)(1).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 16(B) (1).
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, (B)(2).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: (B)(2). I was about to say (B)(1)
looked fairly innocuous.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That becomes 8(B)(2)?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. HcNees, is that correct?
MR. HcNEES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sometime after 10:30.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And I have no changes. Do we
have a motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion to accept the
agenda and consent agenda with changes as noted. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none --
Item #4
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 4, 1997 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion
that we approve the minutes of the March 4th regular meeting.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and second. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Seeing none, we are to Item 5(B), service awards. It is
a pleasure this morning to recognize one of our employees for ten
years of continuous service, and it's Miss Mary Havenet from public
works water department. Miss Havenet.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have two other employees that were
unable to be here this morning, and we'll get an opportunity to
recognize them later and make sure they get their certificate and so
forth.
Item #7A
KATHLEEN C. PASSIDOMO, SECRETARY - COLLIER COUNTY JUNIOR DEPUTIES
LEAGUE, INC. REGARDING A WAIVER OF PERFORMANCE BOND REQUIREMENT - STAFF
DIRECTED TO BRING THIS ITEM BACK AS A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM ON APRIL 1,
1997 - CONSENSUS
The next items on our agenda are Items 6(A)(4) and (5)
which are to be heard after eleven o'clock; so we're on to Item 7(A),
public petitions. We have Miss Kathleen Passidomo, secretary of the
Collier County Junior Deputies' League, requesting a waiver of
performance bond requirement. And you are familiar with our public
petition process, Miss Passidomo.
MS. PASSIDOMO: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. My
name is Kathleen Passidomo. I serve as the secretary of the Collier
County Junior Deputies' League. Today is actually a good day because
as we speak, there are 400 fifth graders out at the Florida Sports
Park enjoying the annual campout.
The reason we're here today is the Collier County Junior
Deputies' League, as you all know and many of you who have children in
Collier County public schools have had children go through the
program, is a program sponsored by the Collier County Sheriff's
Office. And one of the -- one of the benefits of the program is an
annual campout that the junior deputies do. And it's been going on
since Doug Hendry's day.
What happened a couple years ago, as Collier County is
growing and growing and filling up, the Junior Deputies' League
determined that it was in their best interest to purchase property to
have a permanent homesite -- campsite for its activities and so a year
and a half ago purchased 42 acres in the Florida Sports Park. And we
now have a permanent campsite for junior deputies' activities.
In connection with the purchase of the property there --
if -- if you all are familiar with the sports park, there's a 9-acre
lake on it. And back in 1986 the Swamp Buggy, Inc., which was a
developer of the Florida Sports Park, began the lake excavation
pursuant to the -- the approved site development plans. But they
never completed the lake excavation, and the lake was left at 4 feet.
And it dries up, and it's not very attractive. So when the junior
deputies purchased the property, it determined that the best interest
of -- of the property and the junior deputies was to complete the lake
excavation from its current 4 feet to the permitted 10 feet that the
county had -- had requested in the 1990 -- 1986 permit.
We've been very fortunate in that all of the activities
of the Junior Deputies' League out on the site have been through
volunteer efforts through contractors throughout the community. On
virtually a daily basis there have been contractors who have been out
there cutting trees, removing melaleuca. And we have been very, very
fortunate in that Joe Bonness St. and his company, Southern Sand and
Stone, has volunteered to complete the lake excavation and pay for all
of the costs incident to the lake excavation. So we felt very
uncomfortable asking them to post a performance bond, particularly
when they're doing the work for free. So that is the reason we're
here today, is to ask the county to waive the requirement of the
$25,000 performance bond and the simple reason that -- we know they're
going to perform. They've volunteered to do the work.
They are out there on the site waiting for the -- to
pick up the permit. The lake is ready to be excavated. And hopefully
within the next month if the board agrees to waive the performance
bond, we're going to have a 10-foot, 10-acre lake that we'll be
canoeing and using for junior deputies' activities. Any questions?
It's a very simple request.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Hiss Passidomo, the material removed
from the lake, where will it be deposited or --
MS. PASSIDOHO: Southern Sand and Stone is going to haul
it away. Some of it we're going to -- just a little bit of it is
going to be kept to, you know, do the latoral -- well, you're the
engineer, the bank stuff.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. So this, in essence, is a
commercial excavation permit?
MS. PASSIDOHO: Yes. And that's what it was received in
1986. They're going to take -- haul it away. Host of it's rock.
Whatever they do with it doesn't matter to us.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It -- nothing to do -- I'm sure
everyone is grateful for Mr. Bonness's offer, but any idea how many
yards he's removing here?
MS. PASSIDOHO: I -- I have no -- I have no idea.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Here's the problem I have, is the
material being removed from that lake has a value. I think fill is
about six bucks a yard now if you go out and buy it. And he is
removing it at no cost to the Junior Deputies' League, which is great,
but he's going to turn around and sell it unless you know otherwise.
So this is a commercial operation. It's not just someone who's
digging it and depositing it on site or grading it on site, which I
think would be a wonderful thing to do. So I have a -- because it's a
marketable commodity, waiving the performance bond might set an
improper precedent. And I just -- if I know how many cubic yards and
if it's a -- if it's a bunch of material that has a significant value
to it, then I -- I think the performance bond is appropriate.
MS. PASSIDOMO: I think our president, Earl Hodges, is
here and has spoken to him. I don't -- he might be able to answer. I
don't think it's that much. It's mostly rock, unfortunately.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. PASSIDOMO: But I --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My comment, just that the -- I'm
sorry. Was it Mr. Norris?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: He was. He was.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go right ahead, Mr. Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I was just going to say that this
is a public petition. We're not going to make a decision today. I'd
-- I'd be amenable to directing staff to bring this back next week
for full discussion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. Just to get the information to
make sure we don't go down a road we don't want to go down, I'd be
more comfortable doing that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can support that too.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So we'll -- it's consensus
we'll give staff direction to bring this back next week as a
discussion item.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is Miss Passidomo clear on
the information you need?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just simply looking for yardage to be
removed. I want to know this is truly a service, that it's not a
viable commodity he's removing. If it is, then it's a commercial
operation, and I'm not comfortable waiving the bond requirement.
MS. PASSIDOMO: I understand that. I did want to say
that I know that there's some blasting involved, and it's a lot of
money from their side in terms of what they're volunteering.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No -- I just want to have the numbers
in front of you that make sure of that, and then I'm very comfortable
with it.
MS. PASSIDOMO: Fine. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Okay. That was Item
7(A).
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is not a theater, sir. This
is a county commission meeting. If you can't hear, I'm sorry, but
that's the way it's going to be.
Item #SB1
REPORT TO THE BCC ON SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE SURVEYS AND REQUEST
FOR DIRECTION REGARDING THE STATUS OF FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS - TO BE
BROUGHT BACK TO BCC JUNE 25, 1997, TO DECIDE IF THIS BID SHOULD BE LET;
COHMERCIAL NOT TO BE SEPARATED FROM RESIDENTIAL IN BID; AND RESULTS OF
PILOT PROGRAM TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO BCC BEFORE BID IS LET
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're to Item 8(B)(1), report to the
Board of County Commissioners on solid waste collection service
surveys. Mr. Russell, good morning.
MR. RUSSELL: Good morning, Commissioners. The
franchise agreements currently in place were initiated in October of
1990. Those agreements were for an eight-year period. The end of
that eight-year period would be September 1998. In advance of that
date, in order to find out the status of those agreements and to make
a decision whether or not a automatic two-year extension would be
acted upon, staff has conducted some surveys related to customer
satisfaction and rates in this regard in order to provide you the
information to -- to make an informed decision on that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Russell, I'm sorry to
interrupt, but it just seems to me as -- as you read through the
executive summary, there's one option here that seems to be a
no-brainer, basic -- and I know you want to go through the statistics
of people satisfaction. But there is one option here, is we can
solicit bids for collection services and evaluate those in advance of
the notification period, and then we can either make the bid award, or
if we reject all bids, we can still continue on with the franchiser as
is. We still have the option of extending the bid. It just seems
like that's the best of all worlds. If we can take bids and if we're
unhappy with them, still do that in a time frame that allows us to
extend the existing one, if that's the best thing to do. I don't see
a downside to that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What are we taking bids on is my
question --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- because there are several things
that are proposed in here that -- first, I look, and I see a 90
percent approval rating. And if all government services had a 90
percent approval rating, we'd be in great shape. I don't think we're
that lucky in all areas. So obviously there's a high degree of
satisfaction, although there are still some things that need to be
worked out in our current contract. So I guess my question is not
whether -- I think when a contract comes up, it's prudent to go out to
bid, but what are we sending out and in what form, and that -- I don't
know that I have a high degree of comfort with anything here other
than the overall county contract.
MR. RUSSELL: I -- I believe --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a generic response to
that. I hope we don't consider lowering the level of service at all.
I know one of the options has been to lower it down to once a week. I
don't know why we'd want to do --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nobody is talking about that, I
mean, surely not.
MR. RUSSELL: I think the dilemma is that on the
residential side the score card is real good. The survey has
indicated that we have 90-plus percent satisfaction. The rates -- St.
Lucie County did a rate study and showed that Collier County's rate
was next to the lowest in the state, and we can be proud of that.
Part of that is due to our low tipping fee. On the other hand, on the
commercial side, which constitutes about 70 percent of the
franchisee's revenue, we're paying a premium in that area. Our
analysis --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You said --
MR. RUSSELL: -- in that area shows --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Russell, you said we're paying a
premium. You mean the businesses?
MR. RUSSELL: The businesses are paying a premium, and
we all know what the businesses do. They pass those premiums on to
their customers.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So they could either collect them
directly from the residential users or -- you know, by an increase in
their rates because, I mean, the pot of money has got to be a certain
size. It would only make sense. The cost of doing business is the
cost of doing business. So either we have the residential rates go up
directly, or we have the commercial users continue to pay a higher
rate that, of course, they do pass on through. But we don't have the
option of just paying less for the same service in most cases if I've
ever seen it.
MR. RUSSELL: I'll go out on a limb here and venture to
say that if we put this out to bid and we remove the commercial sector
and make that a competitive open market, that we can retain our low
rates on the residential side and afford the commercial side a savings
that's going to result in -- in literally millions of dollars. If you
compare --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, what's the basis for your
going out on the limb there, Mr. Russell? I mean, what's the basis
for your belief?
MR. RUSSELL: The rate studies that we've done.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you give me more
information?
MR. RUSSELL: Well, basically if you look at the
nonexclusive market for a commercial dumpster service, if you compare
us directly just with that group, the commercial rates are over 50
percent higher. And there's a disparity there, and I believe it's my
responsibility to bring that fact to you, that the commercial rates --
looking at the '92 full audit that was done at Waste Management, the
revenues related to the commercial side were in the neighborhood of 7
million dollars. Now, those are 1992 numbers. So we're talking on
the order of 3 1/2 million dollars --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you factoring into that --
MR. RUSSELL: -- as a premium.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How you introduced this
discussion was that our residential rates are lower; therefore, we
believe that the commercial rates are higher to make up for that. Are
you factoring that in?
MR. RUSSELL: No, I didn't say that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well --
MR. RUSSELL: I'm saying the fact is that our rates are
low. Part of that reason has to do with our very low tipping fee.
And what I'm saying is that we can maintain those low residential
rates very closely and save the commercial sector, which is the lion's
share of the franchise business in this county. We can -- we can save
that sector a tremendous amount of money. And I don't know if it's
particularly fair for the commercial sector to be subsidizing the
residential sector, in any case.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Russell, but -- I appreciate your
opinion on that, but there's a big difference between Subway paying a
monthly bill for waste pickup and someone who just got into their
first home, maybe a mobile home, who is paying an annual bill. The
difference is that that person who's living month to month on a fixed
income can't handle those increases as well as a business has the
ability to pass them through. MR. RUSSELL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Trash collection fees are not like
taxes. Your homestead exemption doesn't apply to your trash
collection fees. It's like a utility bill, like electric, or phone.
You've got to pay it if you want the service. And since we have a
mandated service countywide, we want to make sure that our residential
component continues to be one of the lowest, if not the lowest rate,
in the state of Florida.
If what you're saying is that by separating out
commercial we can lower the commercial and the residential will be
unaffected, on the surface I have to say I'm not sure that's a
possibility, and I have a little concern about separating the two out
because of my -- my concern that that really won't happen. I don't
want the residential person being affected and the rates going up 10
or 15 percent.
MR. RUSSELL: Well, since I brought this to you timely,
I think -- I think the bottom line and the point of my executive
summary is, if we go out to bid, we're in a position timewise just to
see the numbers and make a decision then.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess that's the key, is if
we can look at the numbers and not incur any risk, then there's no
harm in doing that. Mr. Russell, what I think I hear you saying is
perhaps there is a larger profit being made on the commercial side
than what's necessary. And there's nothing wrong with making a
profit, but if we, the consumer of that service, can make that price
lower, we ought to and -- and --
MR. RUSSELL: I think it's worth the effort to try and
get the lowest rates possible for everyone. Granted, I would propose
to bring a set of bid specifications back to you, and there are some
fend -- fundamental issues as far as, you know, whether or not the --
the commercial dimension is either in or out of the bid process. And
those are some decisions we'd have to make in that regard.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But the way you envision us
doing the process would not put the residential ratepayer at risk at
all.
MR. RUSSELL: No, it wouldn't.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we're free to look at the
numbers, and if we don't like them, we'll keep the same system we have
now.
MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. We can show them those
numbers with the scenario of excluding commercial and making that an
open market and have the benefit of looking at those numbers. We
could also add an option. Right now there's a pilot program in
progress looking at standardized containers. We could also see in
that bid package whether or not there was any cost to be included to
add standard containers.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I just sort of see a
two-person conversation going here going down that road. I'll tell
you that I think we got a lot more efficient op -- a lot more
opportunities to improve service in Collier County than to look at the
one that's got a 90 percent approval rating. If -- if you need more
to do, I think we need to spread, you know, add more to your job
description so that we aren't trying to improve a service with a 90
percent approval rating. I would like for -- you know, I hear the two
of you talking about this as if you think it's something that needs to
happen. I just wonder -- I don't think it needs to happen, and I
wonder if the -- if the rest of the board is going to weigh in on it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I still have the same
concern that's been voiced by Commissioners Hancock and Hac'Kie. In
direct response to Commissioner Hac'Kie's question, you denied saying
that -- that the commercial rates were factored into making the
residential rates lower, but then shortly thereafter you -- you,
yourself, used the word "subsidized" to describe that process of the
commercial rates subsidizing the residential rates, and that is the
same concern that I have. If that's -- if that is, in fact, what our
rate structure provides, then if you separate out the commercial rate
or the commercial package, it only makes sense that somewhere someone
to operate the residential side is going to have to raise the rates.
MR. RUSSELL: Well, maybe I misspoke myself, because
obviously that's a possibility for what's occurring in this county
now. The only point I'm trying to make here is that I think we owe it
to the commercial ratepayers to look at the possibilities and do
everything we can to have the lowest rates in all areas in solid
waste. I think our score card for our tipping fees and everything
else is pretty good. But as I did the rate survey and saw what our
commercial customers are paying compared to other communities, I feel
like my job is to try to get them better rates, too, if we can do it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Russell, when does the current
contract expire with Waste Management? MR. RUSSELL: September 30, 1998.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: September 30, so a year from this
September. When do we have the notification requirement in that
contract to notify them that we will either be switching or
continuing?
MR. RUSSELL: That's January of '98.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: January 1998.
MR. RUSSELL: Actually, there's a window. January
through May of '98 would be when we would have to notify that we did
not wish to continue the current franchise.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How long does it take from start to
finish if we decide to go out to bids and bid all or part of the
county's waste management services or waste disposal services? What
is the total time frame there?
MR. RUSSELL: Given the complexity of it, I think we
should have six months to do that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Six months. Okay. So we're talking
July or August of this year is the time in which a decision would be
necessary, according to your time frame.
Here's -- here's where -- where I see we have something
that may give us an advantage. There is a pilot program Waste
Management's currently doing that we're finding out is working well in
certain situations and totally unaccepted in others, which is the idea
of a pilot program. I haven't had call one from the residential, the
single-family home users of this new pilot program. I haven't had a
single call unless it occurred yesterday afternoon. So we -- and I
understand that that may help them reduce their cost in pickup, which
would give them an opportunity to even bring a lower cost to the
residential consumer maybe. I don't know. We're also finding that
program is not successful in manufactured home communities,
multifamily communities. It's aesthetically not what those
communities are looking for. I would like to get the results of that
to determine whether or not we want to include that as a bid, because
I know in the estates there's always been a problem with the 50- or
60-gallon containers, the lids coming off and there being, you know,
bags of trash and so forth. That's something these larger containers
can help solve provided you don't reduce service, as you said. And I
think everyone up here is saying that. We don't want to do that.
So that program will run its course in the next couple
of months, and I'd like to get some information from that. But I
don't think -- if what you say is true, someone can come in and
provide the same residential rate and lower commercial pickup costs,
then I think we should bid them together and see if they can do that.
The reason is the commercial pickup is the cream. It's the easy
stuff. It's dump down -- dump a big metal box on the concrete and
pick it up once a week with an arm on a truck that a guy doesn't even
have to get out.
The residential side is labor intensive. You've got
people getting in and out of trucks. You've got higher liability
costs and issues. So per pickup the residential is much more labor
intensive and costly to perform. So obviously -- obviously, if you
pull the cream out, someone's going to low-ball that because it's a
lot easier to do, and the residential component is going to end up
picking up the balance of the tab. That's my concern. So if what you
say is true and commercial can come down and not affect the
residential rates, hey, then let's bid them together and let's see if
somebody can actually do that. But I don't want to take the cream
out, if you will, the easy stuff where someone can cherry pick the
business and then leave our residential customers holding the bag on
that. That's a big concern for me.
MR. RUSSELL: Regarding the timing and the -- and the
pilot study, it would be easy enough to put a with-or-without option
on the standard containers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My point is, why? We don't have to.
If we have until July or August, we can wait until we get the results
of that and determine whether or not we want to make it an -- an
alternate in the bid. That makes sense to me.
MR. RUSSELL: But my point is, it's easy enough to get a
cost with or without it; so regardless -- like, say we may wind up
with a mixed system because it does work in some areas and doesn't in
others. If we got a per-unit price for both a standardized,
mechanized container system and one without, we could move forward
with the bid process now rather than waiting a couple months and --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I'm not going to argue with you
whether I think that's a good idea or not. Obviously I would like to
get the results of the pilot program and determine whether or not we
want to make those a part of a bid process. That's my personal
feeling. I'm one of five, and I'll leave it at that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I think you're the third of
five, and that's the important number.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Four of five.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Four of five, okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What have the four agreed to,
and you might get five out of five?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me put it in a couple of ways. I
think we need to make a decision on going out, putting a contract out,
bidding out on -- by July or August of this year. That's the first
thing that this -- this has brought to my attention. The second thing
is, in the meantime, I'd like the results of the pilot program to
determine whether or not we want to include that in the bid, you know,
when it goes out, but not just do you want to do it or don't you. I
want specifics because, again, we're finding out where it's acceptable
and where it's not.
And the third element is, I don't want to separate the
commercial out from the residential. If we're going to bid it, let's
bid it out together so that we don't go adversely affecting our
residential users.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That sounds like five out of
five. I do want to say one thing and -- regardless of what the number
is, whether it's 90 percent or the media survey of 77 percent. We do
get a high approval rating on this, and we do have a pretty good
service. But I disagree with Commissioner Mac'Kie on one thing. I
think even if we have a hundred percent approval, if we can improve
it, we ought to, and my -- my particular concern is in 1991 there were
no bids. There was no bidding process. We simply renegotiated, and
that was before any of us were here. But they simply renegotiated
with the current vendor, and there was some public outcry at the
time. And could anyone else have done it better or cheaper? Maybe,
maybe not, but we'll never know. And so I just think if we have an
opportunity to look and see if there is someone else out there or if
these guys can do it under a different formula and make no commitment,
and if we don't like the answers we get, still continue on, that's
great. But I agree wholeheartedly with your suggestion of how we do
that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So is it then sufficient staff
direction that we have three components? One is bring this back to
the board for discussion in July or August for a decision on going out
to bid. The second is to keep the residential and commercial
components together in any bidding process. And the third is to
receive the results of the pilot program by that time to determine
whether we want to put it in the bid or not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That sounds right on point.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Russell, would you have
those results by -- what's the last Tuesday in June -- the end of
June? June 24th? Just because we're not going to be here most of
July and I'd hate to have us --
MR. RUSSELL: Well, Waste Management had said that this
would be a minimum 90-day pilot, and it was open-ended; so I guess
maybe you'd have to ask them that when --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sure if we decide we want the
results to put it in a bid, Waste Management will provide those
results. I'm confident in that so --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And maybe we can shoot for
that meeting before we go on break. If we miss it, at least we know
it's when we come back. I hate to have it in August only because we
miss a lot of July and August.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is June 24th an acceptable
date to everyone?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's put it back on at that
time with those three -- are there any speakers?
MR. McNEES: There are no speakers. I'd like to say one
thing on Mr. Russell's behalf before we go forward. Clearly it's your
decision how we proceed with this franchise, I think. From a staff
point of view, if we can lead you through this discussion of the
options, that's our responsibility. I think we would be much more
open to criticism if we walked in here and said we don't want to talk
about bidding; we want to go ahead and just renew this franchise. I
think he's trying to do his job. And however you end up, we've led
you through the discussion of the options, and you've explained your
reasoning, and we think that's the appropriate process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I could just -- because I was
critical of that, and so I want to tell you what my intention was in
being critical is not that -- because you're absolutely right. If I'm
grouchy about this, I'd be much more grouchy if you didn't let me have
this discussion. I absolutely support that's the right thing to do.
What's troubling to me, though, as the budget time is approaching is
that we have this much energy and this much time to focus on a 90
percent approval exercise. And I just think that we need to use our
assets more effectively instead -- you know, we have some things that
have a 10 percent approval rating probably. Let's spend some time on
those.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. HcNees, if I may. Might I
suggest, Commissioner Hac'Kie, that you sit down with Mr. HcNees and
Mr. Russell and go over the duties within Mr. Russell's department,
and that might help give an understanding and either verify or
validate, you know, what you're -- you're considering right now.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good idea.
MR. HcNEES: Fair enough.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any speakers?
MR. HcNEES: Your first speaker would be Sheri Barnett
followed by Glenn Wilt.
MS. BARNETT: Good morning, Commissioners, Sheri
Barnett, resident of Golden Gate Estates and a resident of Collier
County since 1956. I've been, because of my past duties as a civic
association president for Golden Gate, in contact a lot with the solid
waste department, and I'm also a member of the LSCC board; so I know
David very well. I just wanted to speak on behalf -- when we took the
poll at the civic association meeting, we were surprised with what we
felt was a very positive response, because we've had a lot of
complaints and a lot of little problems out there. But because Waste
Management has been very willing to work with us, and they've been
trying to work with us in resolving those problems -- and we've come
up with some ideas that eventually we're hoping to bring forward --
that I think that the entity that is in place is willing to work with
us. I am also in agreement that if we go to a bidding process, I
think it should be all-inclusive of both residential and commercial,
because if you separate out condos, which in some cases are considered
commercial properties, from the residential, I don't know what you're
going to be doing with your basis of your commercial versus your
residential and how that's going to sway your costs, and that --
because I'm not in the business is something I think needs to be
considered. So I do agree with the board that they should be kept
together in the bidding process. I'm not against the bidding process,
however. I think it's a good, healthy situation.
But the Golden Gate area is about 90 percent, like they
say, in favor of -- of the service that we are currently getting with
a few little glitches that we're working on. And just from
retrospect, I'm on the committee to observe the big waste containers,
and in the estates area they've been very effective. We no longer
have the garbage being strewn in the specific test sites that we've
seen. We are having problem with people still leaving them out on the
curb, which is -- but they'll be very easy for code enforcement to
identify. You don't miss them.
The other thing I have noticed is there are some areas
that I believe there are some elderly people that have trouble, and I
believe in talking with Terry there are smaller containers that can be
purchased for those individuals. But I think it's something that we
do need to go through and see the whole works.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. Thank you. Maybe we need to
take this opportunity -- anyone who does have one of the large
containers and does not want it or wants a smaller one needs to call
Waste Management because I've been told by them they will accommodate
-- do their best to accommodate those individuals. Next. MR. McNEES: Mr. Wilt followed by Paul Reddish.
MR. WILT: Good morning, Commissioners. My name for the
record is Glenn Wilt. I live in Golden Gate. I've been here before,
and I chair the code volunteers out in Golden Gate, also a resident in
Golden Gate. I'm encouraged by your discussion this morning, what I
have heard here, of trying to separate the commercial out from the
residential. Being in business before, and the people on the board
have been in business, when you separate the commercial, they're the
people that are going to pay for it. And I don't care how you come up
with the aspect; that's just the way it happens. So I encourage you
to keep them together. I see nothing wrong with the bid process. If
you -- you go out for bid, then another contractor can do it at a more
economical rate, I see nothing wrong with that either. I think that's
good, American process, in fact, democratic process.
Now, let me go to the toter or the large container.
It's only been in our area in process approximately two weeks. We
have it on Golden Gate Parkway. We have it on Santa Barbara. And in
two weeks' time there has been an improvement in the amount of litter
scattered around. In fact, last Saturday I was with a Waste
Management representative trying to encourage them to come up with
more containers to put on somewhere -- other four-lane boulevards out
there and also on 40th and 41st Terrace, which is basically
multifamily area, and that's where you have real problems. That is
still open for discussion with them. We're working on that.
I would like to recommend -- and as part of your
discussion this morning -- to see the results of this before we go
forward. I also realize that in the not too distant past that Lee
County tried to put through an ordinance to enforce use of containers,
and I understand it went down to a flaming defeat a couple of years
ago. I do think containers are the way to go when you have
multifamily problems; that's our large problems out there with
litter.
The single-family resident person's proud of their
home. They'll take care of their litter. They'll take care of their
properties. We have problem with the multifamily area.
One other aspect that I have forwarded to the staff here
for their consideration, and that's what I call a move-out operation
in our multifamily areas where the landlord or the broker when a
tenter skips on them and they dump all their material that's left in
the apartment or the duplex in the road right-of-way. I've discussed
this with the sheriff's office as far as possibly a violation of the
state litter ordinance, if you put it in the road right-of-way.
There's also the problem we have, though, for rapid
response for picking that material up. You cannot expect a contractor
who's coming through with a garbage truck to pick up the normal
household wastes or landscape wastes, and yet here you have 5 and 6
yards of residue out of an apartment dumped in a road right-of-way.
I've discussed this with the Waste Management people. I've discussed
it with staff. I wish you would consider that in a future option that
some method, either through -- a contractor vehicle and crew could be
summoned to remove that stuff immediately so it doesn't have to sit
there for two or three weeks. Somebody's got to pay the bill. I
agree.
But what we've found in the past, when they say, well,
the tenter put all this stuff out there, well, I don't really think a
tenter that's skipping at twelve o'clock at night is going to take
time to dump all this junk out of his apartment onto the road
right-of-way. It ends up being the owner or the broker that's dumping
it out there. So bill them, lien the property, or put it on the tax
rolls of the property. Somebody's got to pay the bill. But as
residents we don't have to sit and look at it for seven or ten days
while we're going through the process of trying to get it done.
That's my comments. I think you're on the right track
as far as the process. I encourage you to keep up the good work.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Wilt.
MR. HcNEES: Paul Reddish followed by Kay Randazzo.
MR. REDDISH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Paul
Reddish, and I'm a resident of Marco Island and also have a business
here in Collier County. A couple of questions which I'd like to find
out the answers to are, first of all, this 90 percent approval rating
we keep hearing about. In the letter that I see that states that, I
see 21 and 15, 35, 36 responses are dictating this 90 percent we're
throwing around. I think with all the many thousands of people here
in the county, that certainly more than 35 questionnaires should be
returned at -- to answer a question like that that there's a 90
percent rating. I've got a lot of letters here myself from various
organizations, very large and very small here in Collier County, which
are very upset with not only the pricing, but the service of Waste
Management, the current user here in Collier County.
As far as also the talk about the residential, I can
tell you as a business owner, in the business for 23 years, that the
contract amounts for the residential, where they are now, I as a
business owner would love to sign a contract for those amounts today.
So I think the rates are great. So as far as the question and -- and
this -- in my opinion and many other people who I have here with me,
feel that the residential rates are plenty high right now.
The commercial rates at 19 percent higher, we aren't
even taking into account that using that number the tipping fees here
are some of the lowest in the -- in the State of Florida. So I think
when you add that in with it, it becomes even more of a -- a larger
number.
By putting this type of service out to bid, certainly in
my -- in my opinion -- you have the option to do it either way that
you choose, obviously. My feeling and my voice is that if you -- if
you would open the market up like every other state in the United
States -- Florida, by the way, is the last state in the country still
franchising rubbish removal -- that you would bring the prices down by
more than 19 percent, probably about 25 to 30 percent, and that's in
the studies that we have done, which also we can substantiate to you
if you -- if you wish on the pricing here in Collier County.
Another topic that bothers me also is that 18 years with
the same company without having to put this thing out to bid also to
me with the many, many, many million dollars that's spent here, again,
I think would only be to the benefit of everybody here in the county
to take a look at that type of a situation. I think 18 years with the
same contract is -- is -- is plenty long, and maybe other people
should have the option to try to bid on that. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. HcNEES: Kay Randazzo, and your last speaker would
be Edward Reddish.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did -- did I understand them correct
that we were talking about bidding this?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I just -- no, sir, you can't
-- you can't speak from there.
MR. REDDISH: You should have asked me while I was up
there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I wasn't asking you, sir, please.
Our discussion was to bid this; am I correct?
MS. RANDAZZO: County commissioners, I'm the president
of the Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners' Association, and we have quite
a few people here with us today, and we are concerned about this pilot
program. We're an over-55 community. Our community consists of
manufactured homes, as well as what I call cement block homes. We
only have -- we have 620 occupied homes; so you're talking about 1200
residents. A lot of our people are over 70 and 80 years old, and this
large trash container is not for us. We have a lot of widows that
even a small container they cannot manage, and if we go -- if -- the
idea to us was maybe fine if we had a smaller container, maybe 30
gallon. Now, even some of those widows could not manage because
they're very frail. They like to take their little bag of garbage and
drop it near the curb, and maybe they only do this once a week. So if
this program goes through, are they going to come out and pick up that
little bag of garbage aside from the container? We have to have it
going both ways for our people.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just -- just so you know, yes,
ma'am.
MS. RANDAZZO: They will?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. Right now even if you
have a container, if you put a bag out, that bag will be picked up.
MS. RANDAZZO: That's for now, but what about after the
90-day program?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There would be no reason to change
that, no, ma'am.
MS. RANDAZZO: We also have a lot of cul-de-sacs. I
live on one of them. I watch that monstrosity of a truck, and it
cannot get around even with the -- the larger can. The man has to get
out of the truck, has to walk to my house, and carry it over there
because he cannot get that truck around there to pick it up.
We have -- we have waste disposals. We have waste --
pickup for yard wastes. We do recycling. We have very little
garbage. So why do we need the big container? Even a 30-gallon
container is sometimes too large for our community.
We have written letters to John Norris, who is our
commissioner. We have written to Waste Management and to the county
through Charisa Wisenet (phonetic), and we certainly hope you would
take it into consideration. Those large containers are too big for
us. We have some sitting near the curbs yet that we -- hopefully
they'll come back and get. In the manufactured homes we would have to
take our car out of our carport to push this container there if we
could get it through the screen door. So you're ending up pulling it
on grass, which is a hard job. Then you have a little place where
you're supposed to store it so it can't be seen from the road, and
they won't fit in there. Our utility sheds are too small. They won't
fit in there. If you have a double garage and you have two cars, you
can't get it in there. Where do we put them?
Our residents are fine if they do not -- this is one of
the things in our covenants, and if they do not have it hidden, then
they get a fine. So who pays this? It is just a terrible thing for
our community, and I think they should have researched before they did
this pilot program to see what we're all about. We are an over-55
community. One in every home must be 55. We do have a few younger
residents, but most are in their 70 and 80s.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, ma'am. Well, this is the
research, and we're finding out from your community that this
program's not going to work with all neighborhoods. So that --
earlier in our discussion we were talking about when we enter into bid
process or negotiations with another contractor or the same
contractor, that we want to make sure that if we are going to a con --
container-provided-type system like this, that we make sure that we
can have provision to deal with neighborhoods such as yours in a
different manner and not have these containers. But we understand the
-- the -- the problems you've -- you've been very eloquent in
bringing the problems forward to us with this program.
But, like I said, this is the research. We can't do
research without trying it. And so the research says that it's not
going to work in your neighborhood, then that's fine. We'll -- we'll
be sure that we can do it some other way.
MS. RANDAZZO: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're welcome.
MR. McNEES: Your last speaker is Edward Reddish.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He passed.
MR. McNEES: Okay. That would be your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Board members, we've outlined
direction to staff. I don't know that it takes a formal motion. Is
-- are there any additions or --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just to be sure, I'll put it all
in the form of a motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please do.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I did.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Russell.
Item #882
RESOLUTION 97-184 AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM FUND 341 AS THE FUNDING
SOURCE FOR THE RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT
FACT SHEET AND RELATED EXPENDITURES IN ORDER TO SURVEY PROPERTY OWNERS
WITHIN THE RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION AREA - ADOPTED WITH FLEXIBILITY TO
CHANGE NUMBERS TO REFLECT MORE ACCURATE COST
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are to item -- this was moved from
the consent agenda. 8(B)(2) was formerly 16(B)(2).
Commissioner Constantine, were you able to get your
questions answered on this?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I did, indeed, Mr. Chairman.
This has to do with the potential for a special taxing district at
their own request to beautify Radio Road. The motion we need here is
a resolution -- is to okay resolution fact sheet and survey to go out
to these folks. The only thing I want to do is make sure we give our
staff the freedom to alter the fast figures involved in that because
we may have come up with a way to do it a little bit less expensive so
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So you're saying --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- do that, but just give
them the freedom between now and a week from now or ten days from now
when they alter it, if the costs are lower, that they have the freedom
to put the lower numbers in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Man, why don't we, like, globally
have a resolution that if you can do it cheaper, you're hereby
authorized --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm afraid we're not allowed to make
global resolutions, Commissioner Mac'Kie.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion to approve 16(B)(2)
with the flexibility to change the final numbers to reflect more
accurately the costs.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #8C2
RESOLUTION 97-185 APPROVING EXPENDITURES FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS
AND RECREATION SPECIAL EVENT, YOUTH MIDNIGHT BASKETBALL TOURNAMENT -
ADOPTED
Seeing none, Item 8(C)(1) was deleted. Item 8(C)(2),
parks and recreation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, this is
government at its worst. This is a -- a private entity raised some
money, gave it to the community center for the express purpose of
sending our midnight basketball team to Orlando to play against their
all-star team up there. Unfortunately, once the money was deposited
in our -- our funds, it requires our approval before it can be
expended, even though the money was given from a private --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you for the dissertation on
government at its worse. Motion and second. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Okay. Item --
MR. HcNEES: For your information, Mr. Chairman --
Commissioner Berry will also be interested in this. I've sort of
initiated an attempt to come to a meeting of the minds with the
clerk's office regarding some of these small-dollar expenditures that
-- that they routinely send back to you to approve and see if we
can't get some resolution of allowing some level of discretion at the
staff level on these kind of things. So stay tuned. Hopefully we'll
have some good news for you within the next month or so. You won't
have to see these again.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good. Not the first time we've had a
problem with past-due funds.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you.
Item #BE1
DISCUSSION OF JAIL CAPACITY ANALYSIS - STAFF TO BRING BACK RANKING
NOTICE AND SHORT LIST WITH COST DIFFERENTIAL AND USE OF REV. MALLORY
FACILITY
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 8(E)(1), discussion of jail
capacity analysis. This was an item we asked to be brought back today
to more appropriately or more in detail discuss how we want to proceed
with determining when and if and how a new jail is needed. Mr.
McNees.
MR. McNEES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A meeting was
held late last week with the finance, the jail manager, and the
capital projects person from the sheriff's office, your capital
projects director, your budget director, and myself. What became
readily apparent was that there was one thing missing from this jail
capacity discussion, and that thing that was missing was some sort of
clarity or some sort of baseline information that anybody had any
faith in whatsoever. And, I mean, we -- everyone has heard of the '89
study, and everyone has heard of the '92 study. The '89 study says
that in 1992 we needed to add 200-plus jail beds. The '92 study says
we don't need to add any jail beds before the end of the century. So
it's -- it's easy to see why there is so much confusion and
uncertainty regarding the nature of the jail expansion.
To cut to the chase, we have recommended a set of
recommendations for you how we might proceed to -- to bring some
clarity to this to get the project off dead center and move forward.
The first thing that we'd like to do -- and this is just a staff
effort; it won't take more than a week or two, and we will do this
regardless -- is look at what is the adopted growth management level
of service standard and make sure that -- that based on all the
assumptions that went into it, based on the most current information,
that that level of service standard is still appropriate and that it
-- and that we don't need to make some sort of change to that. Now,
that process to some degree has been done. But it was my fear that
it's been done just a little bit too mechanically just based on let's
get a number in the Growth Management Plan, and we haven't quite
clearly enough looked at those assumptions and found out from a
practical standpoint, from an operating a jail standpoint, whether
that level of service is still appropriate, and I think that's the
first thing we need to do. Staff can do that, and we can do that in
just a couple weeks.
The second thing that I think we need to do is bring
what I'll call statistical clarity to this subject. As I say, we've
already had a couple studies that -- that are in some ways
conflicting, and as much as I hate to say it, I think the only way
that we're going to get that -- that clarity and get to what I call
good, baseline data that has credibility and then that you can move
forward with, I think, is to engage in another study. And I'm not
real excited about telling you that, but I think that's our -- the way
we need to go.
I think there is some good inventory-type information
regarding the -- the size and the -- the -- the structure and the
function of the current jail that we don't need to recreate that can
be used. I think there is some good trend information, and for lack
of a better word, sociological information in the '92 study that we
may not need to recreate in terms of developing the arrest trends and
the types of arrests, which all go to time in the jail, and that sort
of thing that can be used. But I donwt see staff taking the two
studies and turning them to any -- into anything useful without the
professional assistance that a -- that a corrections-type, jail-type
consultant could bring to that.
What we recommend to you this morning is that you waive
your purchasing policy, and in -- this is not a competitive selection
under the -- the Consultant Competitive Negotiation Act; so you only
need to waive your own purchasing policy. And rather than bring to
you this morning a firm, what Iwd like to see us do is you waive your
purchasing policy, give staff authorization to go out there and
essentially cut our best deal among the three or four firms that have
kind of put us on notice they want to do this work. And instead of
asking you to approve firm X this morning, wewd rather go out there
and see what kind of deal we can make given the information thatws
already been gathered, bring back to you in two weeks a proposed
contract with a firm to actually complete this work, and then you
would at that time declare the emergency formally, and the emergency
being the time-sensitive nature of this study based on your desire to
get the impact fee study completed and -- and the budget cycle being
what it is. We would then come back to you, hopefully in two weeks,
perhaps in three, with a contract for the firm to bring some -- some
clarity to this issue to -- to clarify the numbers so that we -- we
actually understand what is necessary in terms of jail expansion.
The next step would be once that study is completed,
your capital projects folks would take on the task of assigning costs
to that, and thatws a relatively short-term project in terms of
getting estimates from some contractors and working informally to get
some costs identified. We believe that within 60 to 90 days we can be
back in here telling you this is the -- the size of an expansion you
need for the jail, this is what itws going to cost you. And that
information, one, could be used for the impact fee study. Most
importantly, that information can be used as you make your capital
decisions for next year. What do we have to build, and what can we
defer? Thatwd be the end of my presentation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. McNees, I assume there
are firms somewhere out there that specialize in correctional
facilities --
MR. McNEES: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- as opposed to just our
standard engineering firms?
MR. McNEES: Yes. And thatls what we would be
proposing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I just -- I realize
we need to give you the freedom to talk details with whomever it is
out there, and I understand we have a time-sensitive nature, but
have a little more of a comfort level if you brought back at least a
ranking. If you talked to two or three and you feel one is in the
best interest, thatls great, but at least have some sort of summary
that explains the services. I donlt know how many firms do that sort
of thing, but if there are three or four, maybe a summary of each of
those, why youlye ranked them the way you have and then what the
options are with the number-one firm or with the number-two firm. And
I donlt know that you need to go and negotiate contract with four
different firms, but at least have that ranking accompanying what
youlye negotiated with number one just so there is some level of
comfort that we've looked around at what's out there.
MR. HcNEES: That's fine. We can do that. In fact, I
couldn't even tell you standing here -- and that's intentional -- who
those firms are because I didn't want to have any kind of a slant of
who's out there, who has been willing to do this work. That's
research we'll have to do, and we can bring you our rationale and our
short list without any problem.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me -- may I suggest that -- I
believe we have public speakers on this item. MR. HANALICH: We have one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One? Let's go ahead and go to that,
and then let's get discussion from the board on what we feel is an
appropriate direction, if we may. Mr. Hanalich, who do we have?
MR. HANALICH: Mr. Agoston.
MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My
name is Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates. I speak for
myself. TAG was actively working against the last jail sales tax
charge that was promoted by a lot of so-called intelligent,
well-informed, and whatever adjectives you want to add to that in this
community. And it was our claim that we could never get solid
information. Consequently, how could you or anyone spend thirty-some
million dollars of taxpayers' money without any solid knowledge? And
I'd like to echo the county manager's remarks, and I would like to see
some current solid information myself as far as projections, where
it's going, because we're not talking about nickels and dimes,
gentlemen. We're talking about a great deal of money that will
affect, maybe not me -- but I brought my grandson. It will affect
him. Thanks very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ty. I -- yes.
Commissioners Berry and Hac'Kie were not listening to Mr. Agoston's
comments.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You said gentlemen; so I put my
fingers in my ears.
MR. AGOSTON: Did I say -- I did? I apologize, ladies.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Accepted.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let the record reflect Ty apologized,
and we're very grateful for that. Thank you.
There are a few things here that I jotted down as I was
listening to -- and, Mike, thank you for your -- for your information
on that. We have adopted Growth Management Plan level of service
standards for the jail, yet we keep hearing about the state
requirement for jail space. When it comes right down to it, that's
the eventual hammer. As far as I'm concerned, if our Growth
Management Plan says we should provide more space than the state
statute requires us to, I need to see a good reason for that. The two
should be the same in that the requirement for -- for necessary jail
space should be consistent since the state is, in the end, enforcer in
that. I understand that overcrowding creates safety issues, but let's
make sure those are consistent.
Under jail expansion needs I've jotted down a couple of
things. I'd like to get, one, operational suggestions. Commissioner
Hac'Kie mentioned the P word last week, privatization.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As evidenced by the telephone
calls she got from the S.O.'s office after.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's happening all over the country.
It is a trend and something we need information on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can it save money? Can it be
operationally effective? I'd like to see that, operations suggestions
approached, and funding options is something else. If someone goes
out and builds jails or designs jails or does these studies, they have
to have some idea of the funding options available; so I'd like some
information on that.
We need to define the scope in those areas, and I jotted
just before you said it "contact three or more firms." Let's not go
out and just find one. I don't know where they are or who they are.
I have an idea of one or two, but let's contact three or more
qualified firms, and let's try to include the effect of a proposed
work center. Again, it's something that we hear a lot of talk about,
but as Mr. Agoston said, we want information on. So if those things
can all be included in a motion, I -- I'm fairly comfortable with
that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would it be safe to say so moved?
I mean, I agreed with everything you said. I'd like to -- I'd like
to see all of that incorporated in this study. I think it's real
important about the three firms, that we don't just, you know, grab
one, that we look at three more. I think it's critical that we
include the work release center as a -- as a function there; so I move
those ideas.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that, and just to
-- for clarification, I assume we're talking about a short list of
three or four, whatever it happens to be. You'll bring us back a -- a
ranking of those with some sort of brief explanation of each, and then
if you go and negotiate with whomever your number-one rank is, that's
fine, but I assume that's what we're talking about as part of the
motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When he brings it back, I'd like to
see a projected cost of at least the top two so that -- you know, if
you rank one number one, I want to see what the difference in cost s
between that and number two.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the other thing is I'm
glad you suggested the work release center because that maybe can gmve
us some information whether that is -- it's a wonderful idea, but is
it a feel-good thing, or is it going to be cost effective, and
hopefully it's both.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And, Mr. HcNees, don't forget
David Mallory was here this morning. He has offered to provide space
at his facility for that. And in discussions with the sheriff, the
sheriff said that while it may not be the ideal situation, he could
certainly work with it. And I -- I think there's an opportunity there
to save a tremendous percentage of the dollars that it would otherwise
take to build a facility freestanding. So let's have that as part of
the investigation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Will the motion maker include
that also?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Second?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is that sufficient direction
for you, Mr. McNees, or do you want me to restate?
MR. McNEES: No. I think that's sufficient direction.
I'll just tell you in advance that as we try to put a contract
together and as we look at this thing -- when I looked at the old
studies, I think the one thing that most consistently makes this a
real hard animal to get ahold of is as each -- as you add a new
variable --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Uh-huh.
MR. McNEES: -- the analysis gets much harder to -- to
contain. So when you add the variable of if we build a work release
center and then you add another variable of -- I mean, if we add
another change in the -- you know, the judicial process or if we add a
-- any kind of program, it increases exponentially the difficulty in
trying to really get a handle on how many jail beds do you use.
Absolutely we want to use the best available information and include
the other facilities that are available. I just -- as a caution as we
begin to look at all of this, I want you to have a flavor for how that
complicates the analysis. We have to do it, clearly, but just so --
for frame of discussion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To simplify -- to simplify the
analysis, I see it as priority steps. First of all, let's talk about
need. We need to know when a new jail is necessary based on what the
state is going to require us to provide. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Agree.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The second one is operational
and funding. If -- when it becomes available, how can the operation
be altered to assist in the funding, and what are our funding sources
and alternatives? And then the third would be the effect of a work
center on either expansion or consistent with expansion, you know. So
I see three priority steps there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agreed. That's -- that's a
wonderful restatement of my motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. A motion and a second on the
floor. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none, thank you, Mr. McNees, for your work on
that, and we'll look forward to seeing that back as soon as you feel
that it's ready for us.
MR. McNEES: As soon as we can do it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Good.
Item #10A
PRESENTATION OF COLLIER COUNTY AGRICULTURAL STUDY BY CRAIG EVANS
We're to BCC, Item 10(A), presentation of Collier County
agricultural study by Craig Evans, and this was placed on the agenda
by Commissioner Berry. Any introduction necessary, or just let Mr.
Evans do his thing?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Let him do his thing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. PRIDDY: Good morning, Commission, and thank you for
the opportunity to appear here this morning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your name, please.
MR. PRIDDY: I'm Russell Priddy for the record. They
took the little sign off, and I forgot. We're here this morning to
describe the results of a study that was conducted by the Florida
Stewardship Foundation -- this study was funded by environmental,
agricultural, and business communities, which is somewhat of a rare
group -- on the contribution of agriculture to Collier County,
Florida. I'd like to just recognize the folks that came along this
morning that's interested in this just by raising your hand, please.
(Those applicable in the audience raised their hand.)
We're going to show you a very short videotape which was
part of a similar study that was done in Hillsborough County.
Virtually all of the statements in this video also apply to Collier
County, and this will be about -- about 3 minutes long. Following
that we're going to hear from two speakers, one of which is Craig
Evans, which is president of the Florida Stewardship Foundation, which
is a nonprofit organization formed for conservation, scientific
research, and educational purposes. And Craig's going to describe the
-- the findings of the Collier County study.
Following Craig will be Hike Taylor, who is vice
president and general manager of Collier Enterprises' agri-business
division. Hike will explain why this study is important to the ag
community, to everyone who lives in Collier County, and your future
decision makings. He also will describe the study's key
recommendations and urge you to consider implementing them.
We hope that this presentation will encourage you to
take a closer look at the economic forces that you have right here in
Collier County, and that's agriculture. We hope that you will
consider the recommendations included in the study, and we hope that
you will take the steps outlined in these recommendations to ensure
that agriculture remains a viable part of Collier County's future, not
just an economic force, but as a vast area of green space that can
provide wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge, and other
environmental values that can be utilized by future generations in
Collier County. And with that, I'm going to ask Craig to come up, and
we'll start the --
MR. EVANS: Thank you. I think what we'll start is once
Hike -- Russell is able to get the video going, we'll do a short video
clip which will kind of set the stage, and as Russell said, this video
was the result of a study in Hillsborough County.
(The video recording was presented.)
MR. EVANS: Imagine running a business without knowing
which activities generate a profit and which activities generate a
loss. Even worse, suppose many activities that generate a long-term
loss are being promoted at the expense of activities that could
generate a long-term profit. How long would such a business last?
Now imagine that you live in a county where the
state-mandated format for county and school budgets makes it almost
impossible to track the economic impacts of specific land uses and
where land use decisions currently are being made that could create
significant future deficits. At least three Florida counties are in
this position according to studies conducted by Florida Stewardship
Foundation last year. One of those counties is Collier County.
Florida Stewardship Foundation began its study in
Collier County to look at the contributions, benefits, and
shortcomings of the agricultural industry in Collier County.
Agriculture and its associated services are vital parts of the Collier
County economy. The industry generates 637 million dollars in annual
revenues, employs 18,000, and accounts for over 165 million dollars in
payroll earnings. That's more than the combined revenues, jobs, and
earnings from the county's hotel and restaurant industry. That's more
than the revenues and jobs and on a par with earnings with the
county's construction industry. Only the retail and service
industries generate more revenues, and only the service industry,
which includes loc -- doctors and lawyers, has more payroll earnings.
This, however, is only the beginning. This study's
findings also have implications far beyond agriculture. The study
indicates the county's land use planning and economic development
activities need to be much more closely integrated and coordinated.
Land use planning decisions made without regard to economic outcomes
can have disastrous outcomes for future budgets, tax bills, and the
level of services that can be provided to Collier County residents.
Here's why.
Some land uses create deficits to county and school
finances, and some create surpluses. For example, the study indicates
that the residential sector in Collier County generates 77 percent of
all the revenues collected by Collier County government and schools.
That's a significant part of your budget, but it's only part of the
story. The infrastructure and services required by the residential
sector is extremely expensive. In fact, the residential sector
consumes 94 percent of all the expenditures of county and schools.
Let me put it another way, for every dollar generated by residential
revenues, Collier County government and schools spends a dollar twenty
in direct services, thereby creating a deficit. Even at that price
you're lucky. It could be worse. In Hillsborough County residential
uses cost a dollar fifty-three for every dollar generated in revenues,
and in Lake County the spread is a dollar fifty-six in expenses for
every dollar in revenues.
The conclusion reached by this study and the other
studies conducted is that residential construction may generate
significant revenues in the short term, but it is not a long to --
term revenue generator. It's a service, and it's a necessity. People
need homes in a variety of price ranges in which to live, and you're
not going to tell anybody not to move to Collier County.
But how can you offset the -- the shortfalls that these
uses create? Fortunately, other types of land use can make up for
this deficit. High-priced homes, for example, can offset the cost
created by medium-priced homes. Commercial and industrial uses also
help considerably since for every dollar generated in revenues they
only require twenty-four cents in direct services. Even so, all of
the county's commercial industrial activities currently do not
generate enough revenues to make up for the large shortfall created by
residential uses.
This is where agriculture comes in again. This study
shows that agriculture's economic, environmental, and social
contributions to the county are not fully recognized, not appreciated,
and not well understood. In fact, many people think of agriculture as
a temporary land use awaiting conversion to a higher and better use,
uh-huh. Many people think agriculture gets a large tax break at the
expense of other taxpayers because of its greenbelt exemptions. Many
think agriculture uses too much water. Many think that citrus
operations are a threat to wildlife habitat. Many think that the
pesticides used by agriculture are a threat to groundwater. Many also
think that the migrant workers attracted by agriculture are a drain on
public services and public coffers.
This study dispels each and every one of these
misconceptions. In fact, the study shows that agriculture more than
pays its way and more than takes care of its own. Without
agriculture's contribution Collier County could very well be running a
budget deficit right now. For every dollar generated by
agriculture-related activities, the county and schools spend only 37
cents in direct services. Collier County currently has a site surplus
of revenues over expenses, but if current trends continue, that may
not last.
Data gathered by the study indicates that the cost of
services for Collier County residents and the tax bills to pay for
these services could rise dramatically in years to come. This is
because Collier County has accumulated unknown but expensive
liabilities as a result of requirements to provide infrastructure and
public services for developments that are already permitted but not
built. Collier County also has several existing unfunded mandates to
provide services for existing residents such as adequate classroom
capacity in the schools that have not been paid for, are not being
paid for, and -- but will have to be paid for, perhaps at great
expense sometime in the future. That's not all. Some of the highest
and best uses of land, those that generate the most money for the
economy over the longest period of time, are agricultural land uses.
For example, the study included several opportunity cost
analyses. Now, the term "opportunity cost" is used to demonstrate
what one might lose if the opportunity to do something is passed up.
In this case Collier County is the entity that has the opportunity to
gain or lose. Everything from direct income to payroll to the
economic impact of additional spending that might be generated was
considered. The perception is that land converted to residential use
provides a higher economic benefit than agricultural uses, but this
study shows that this assumption is incorrect.
An opportunity cost analysis of residential construction
and wholesale -- and resale shows that on a per-acre basis the average
price home will make an economic contribution of $815,310 to the
Collier County economy over a 50-year period. One reason that we
assume this is much better than agriculture is because almost all of
this money comes in the early years during development and
construction when money pours in from impact fees, construction loans,
and home sales.
But construction loans have to be paid, often to
entities outside the county. No doubt a lot of money comes into the
county as a result in the early years of residential construction, but
at one point a lot of money also flows back out. Agriculture in
comparison generates money year after year and decade after decade.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Evans, are you about --
MR. EVANS: Yup, I am.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- complete? Okay.
MR. EVANS: Tomatoes, for example, have the capacity to
make a contribution of 2.9 million dollars per acre to the Collier
County economy over the same period. That's more than 3 1/2 times as
much as an acre of homes. Or consider this: Using 1992 figures
before the citrus groves had reached full production, a thousand-acre
grove could be expected to contribute 532 million dollars to the
Collier County economy over the economic life of the grove.
Now, I ask you, does it meet -- make good economic sense
to replace a long-term revenue generator like this with a land use
that either generates no revenue or that only generates revenues for
the short term? Of course not. And that's what we're doing on almost
a daily basis in every county throughout this state. Why? Because we
don't understand agriculture, and we don't appreciate it.
Also, the state-mandated format for county and school
budgets makes it almost impossible to track the economic impacts of a
specific land use or to compare it to others. It's hard to run a
business that way, and these studies show it may be extremely costly
to run a county that way. That's why I urge you to look at -- closely
at the recommendations in this study.
One recommendation urges you to take steps to ensure the
county's land use planning and economic development activities are
much more closely integrated and coordinated. You can do this by
adopting a method such as activity-based cost accounting to track
revenues and expenses for each land use. This will allow you to
routinely have better data to make informed and fiscally responsible
decisions about both the short- and long-term impacts of different
land use uses and how you can mix and match them to the county's
maximum economic advantage.
The recommendations begin on page 29 of the executive
summary and page 98 of the technical document. Now, we have one more
key recommendation, and for that I'd like to turn the podium over to
Hike Taylor for a moment. Hike.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you. I'm Hike Taylor. I will speed
up, Commissioner Hancock. I'd like to explain why this study is
important to -- to the ag community, to everyone that lives in Collier
County, and to the future of your decision-making process. I'm going
to urge you to implement a very important key recommendation from
Craig's study.
You all are aware that over 70 percent of Collier County
is considered environmentally sensitive and is in public ownership.
Of the remaining 30 percent in private ownership, 23 percent or
292,000 acres is agricultural production. As Craig noted, this
acreage is very important to the county and to the economy of Collier
County. It also spells the difference between a deficit or a surplus
in our county and school budgets. This is not all.
A majority of the priority-one habitat, which is a
critical habitat for the Florida panther, is on private agriculture
lands. Biologists who have studied the panther have concluded that
because of the land management practices that landowners employ, the
habitat on private land is often better, and the panthers are
healthier than all those on private -- or on public lands. But the
panther is just one species that we have to deal with. Natural
habitats extend to a mosaic patterns. In fact, our agricultural
operations are designed so that we coexist with our environment and --
and the habitat for wildlife.
I would encourage you to come out to the farms, and
hopefully we'll get a chance to do that, see what we do, see the
wildlife that is out there. You'll be surprised what kind of
wildlife, sandhill cranes, swallowtail kites. If you're lucky, you
might even see a black bear, or if we're really lucky, we may even see
a Florida panther.
There are reasons that wildlife comes to the farms.
They like the way we manage the habitat. They like the food that they
get there. If we don't change anything that we do right now as far as
what we're doing in agriculture, we're preserving the county's open
space. We protect the well fields of Collier County. We provide open
range to recharge the water for our aquifers. We create an important
buffer between the urban and rural. We provide critical wildlife
habitat that serves as homes for several of our threatened or
endangered species.
But there's a catch. This is only -- can happen if
agriculture continues to be economically viable. To remain in
business, we must make a profit. No one pays us to manage the
wildlife habitats. No one gives us a subsidy. Collier County
agriculture operations are completely reliant on the risk because of
marked conditions.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to have to ask you to wrap
up. This presentation, although it's informative, has far exceeded a
15-minute window.
MR. TAYLOR: Okay. I appreciate that.
Right now we're struggling, as you know. And what I
would like us to do is seeing that ag -- Collier County is doing
everything it can to promote tourism and business industries. It is
important that -- our economic forces that -- were being totally
ignored. There are no economic development efforts to retain ag
operations and attract new ones. There is no effort to help ag. Just
the opposite is true.
This is why I would like to urge you to give serious
considerations to making agriculture part of the current economic
development efforts that is being launched by Collier County Economic
Development Council. I'd like to ensure that part of $300,000 budget
for this effort is earmarked for expanding agricultural contributions
to the economy. This economic development effort should take every
step possible to recognize, support agriculture and agri-business and
payroll-generating components of the county. I would like to
encourage you to dedicate the adequate staff and financial resources
to a well-coordinated effort to define, plan for, and implement steps
that must be taken now and in the next five years to foster economic
growth of agriculture, ensure the business climate, to encourage
people to enter and retain and remain into the proper business, reduce
the cost of obligatory compliance, and recognize land ownership for
the efforts they make towards protecting the county natural
resources. That's all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. TAYLOR: Any questions?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just was going to say I had
a good opportunity to meet with the Gulf Citrus Growers a couple of
weeks ago. And one point on the video there that really struck home
is that the analogy to what we always talk about, wanting good, clean
industry and so on and -- and ag really does provide that and is a
minimal burden on the taxpayer. I think sometimes we do take it for
granted. I appreciate both your comments that -- that some of the
assumptions that the general public makes that -- that just aren't
so. And I do think we need to consider it as part of our economic
development picture and -- and I think, perhaps, the best way we can
do that, again, demonstrated by the little clip you showed there was
the mystic maze of regulation, regulatory bodies, and all that make it
difficult for ag to continue. And as we open our borders to other
countries and allow them to do things, we ought to try to make it a
little bit simpler for our own people to take care of business here.
So that may be the best role the county can play is working with the
state agencies and others to try to at least streamline that process.
MALE VOICE: Here, here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: May -- maybe I missed something,
because it seemed like I heard this message about -- that seemed to
imply that there was some push by this board to turn ag property into
residential acreage. And I think there are five people up here that
would tell you our constituents would be happy if nothing is turned
into residential. So I don't want that to -- so many times -- there
are things in this report that I individually contest. I find the --
the revenues to cost for services, there are several flaws in that
such as the export factor, the payroll export factor of migrant farm
labor, the disproportionate share of social services migrant farm
labor requires compared to that of a residential component in an urban
area. I don't think that the comparison is penny-for-penny correct.
And rather than debate that, I would just like to point out that if
all we're looking for is getting a disproportionate share of taxes, we
should leave everything vacant because it's 19 cents of services for
every dollar of tax collected.
But that's not what we do. Our job is not to find out
the best way to raise more taxes with the fewest services. It's to
find a lot of landowners to do what is in both their interest and this
community's interest, whether it's agriculture, residential,
commercial, industrial, or whatnot.
I encourage you to work with the EDC. We obviously have
had the benefit of their expertise and their involvement and have for
the first time in the history of the county taken an aggressive step
in an economic development capacity. If agriculture can play a role
in that, I think that's the proper conduit that we will see that back
in.
I appreciate the -- the presentation. And, Mr. Evans,
maybe you and I will have an opportunity sometime to sit down and talk
about what I think are some -- some -- some inaccuracies in this
report.
MR. EVANS: I would welcome that opportunity, because I
think we've covered those points and would love -- love to go over
that with you, and I would welcome the opportunity for us to work with
the Economic Development Council to make agriculture a part of the
economic picture for Collier County's future.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That I don't think anyone has an
argument with.
MR. PRIDDY: Thank you very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Priddy.
Item #10B
DISCUSSION REGARDING SCHEDULING A GROUP INTERVIEW FOR COUNTY MANAGER
CANDIDATE - APRIL 21 FOR INTERNAL INTERVIEWS; APRIL 23 AND 24 FOR
OUTSIDE INTERVIEWS AND AFTERNOON OF APRIL 24 BCC MEETING TO BE HELD FOR
ALL CANDIDATES; APRIL 23 EVENING RECEPTION TO BE HELD
The next two items are -- are really fairly quick. So
why don't we just go through those; then we'll take about a
five-minute break, Item 10(B), discussion regarding scheduling group
interview for county manager candidates. The reason I brought this
back -- and Miss Edwards will outline the proposed schedule -- is I
wanted to make sure we were very, very, clear on -- on -- on dates,
times, and activities. I'm sorry, Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: When you're done.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, Miss Edwards, if you would
just kind of cut to the chase portion which is what is scheduled for
what date so that we all are in agreement.
MS. EDWARDS: Okay. I'm going to talk to you about the
dates we need you available. The first date we need you available is
April the 21st, and that is for the interviews for the two internals.
The next day is April the 23rd. That is when you will begin your
one-on-one interviews with the candidates.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. That date was what?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The 23rd.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MS. EDWARDS: That's the 23rd. We will complete those
one on ones on the morning of the 24th, and we will have a -- an
advertised board meeting beginning at approximately 1:30 on the
afternoon of the 24th so you can hold your group interviews.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's --
MS. EDWARDS: On the evening of the 23rd we will have a
reception.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: With whiskey?
MS. EDWARDS: No. No alcohol.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. This will be on county
property; so there will be no alcohol involved. MS. EDWARDS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can move it to the Golden
Gate Community Center.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's not go -- have that
discussion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand that individual
commissioners' schedules have been accommodated as needed on those
dates.
MS. EDWARDS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We were not entirely clear on that
board meeting on the 24th on our last discussion of this, and that was
the main reason for bringing this back. Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me just make a suggestion for
the board members. We've all had an opportunity, at least an
opportunity now, to review the videotapes on the seven external
candidates. Let me suggest that sometime in the near future we each
write down independently our top two or perhaps three picks, compile
those at a future meeting, and see if we can't shorten that list of
seven down to something else. If there's somebody -- if there's one
or two or three candidates that falls off of everyone's list, I mean,
it would be pointless to fly them down here for personal interviews.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I agree.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So why don't we try that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was going to do what I call the
natural break point, those that I thought were -- even -- this has
occurred in our committee several times, but what -- when I look at
the -- at the interviews, there's going to be one or two that I --
that are probably just not going to strike me at all, and I think we
need to have a discussion on that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That happened -- I can say I
ranked them as I looked at the tapes and have, you know, some that
were very impressive. But I'll tell you, based on the tapes, I didn't
have anybody that, you know, just fell off and -- you know, I can tell
you who were my bottom three if you want, but -- but I think that
would be very arbitrary based on just that little information. I
didn't have anybody that I didn't think we should interview.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me suggest that what we need to
do -- and this is a -- this is a discussion we will have next week,
but you need to individually rank them. And I would say if there are
at least three commissioners of any candidate that wishes not to
interview them, that that would -- that would probably strike them
from the list.
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I can tell you personally
that I -- I started to rank them one through 7, but I ended up with a
couple of them ranked number 9 and 10.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So Commissioner Norris has some
definite suggestions on which ones not to interview.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the point is just
that if we can save the taxpayer the expense of bringing a couple of
bodies here that probably aren't going to make it anyways, then we
ought to do that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. The second thing I want to
ask you to do -- so we're all okay on the schedule. We're okay on our
duties for next week which is when we're going to present a final
interview list.
The second thing I'd like to ask you to do is as we get
to that public meeting on the 24th, we are going to have approximately
a half-hour block for each candidate, if that's agreeable to the
board, for the board interview. As you watched the tapes, you may
realize it took -- five questions took about a half hour each.
Although we don't expect those kind of lengthy responses in this
situation, what I would like each board member to do, if this is an
agreeable approach is -- we need to have some consistency in those
public interviews. So if each board member would produce two
questions that they would feel appropriate for any of the candidates,
we will go through a first round of questions and then a second round
of questions, time permitting. And you can alternate questions, if
you have two questions, between candidates; or if one has been
addressed in some fashion, you can ask the second one. But I think
it's important, based on input I've had from human resources
department, that it not just be a free-wheeling session, that we do
have preset questions and we be consistent candidate to candidate in
that public interview. Is that --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only thing I want to be
careful there is -- theoretically is I've applied and my Cousin Bill
comes in and sits through the first three candidates and wanders out
and has coffee with me and shares with me the questions. It gives me
an unfair advantage.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We will lock them in a hermetically
sealed closet.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fair enough.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We will put them in a room with
controlled access so that people can't go in and out of there. Give
them coffee and a bathroom, and they ought to be happy, and we'll
bring them in as they -- as they each are being interviewed so they
don't have the benefit of that -- that input. I agree.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Blindfolded.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Blindfolded and smoking cigarettes
and all that good stuff. Okay. Are there any other suggestions?
Hiss Edwards, anything about --
MS. EDWARDS: I wanted to make one comment as it relates
to developing your short list on next Tuesday. What your screening
committee utilized was they just provided a yes-no response. They
would go around each of their committee members with the candidate's
name and ask for input as to yes or no from each of the screening
committee members. And from that they were able to develop their
short list without a lot of discussion. So that's something you may
want to consider.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. EDWARDS: And we will have human resource staff here
to maintain those tallies for you next Tuesday; so you will not have
to do that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That sounds like a good idea to me.
You want to bring them in or not, yes or no, and if there's three nos,
they don't come. That makes sense to me, okay. Good.
MR. HcNEES: You have one -- one registered speaker.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, we have a speaker on this. I'm
sorry. Go ahead.
MR. HcNEES: Ty Agoston.
MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My
name is Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates, and I'm speaking
for myself. I have a question and a protest for you this morning.
And at the danger of winding up being called names, I'd like to ask
the question: Who runs this town? I'm under the impression you guys
do. A couple of weeks back I read an editorial focusing on the lack
of minorities and the lack of your people reaching out for minority
participation. I believe that the media in this country, and Collier
County in particular, has an agenda. It's a very liberal agenda and --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Agoston, as much as I appreciate
your comments --
MR. AGOSTON: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- is this going to wrap into the
county manager selection process?
MR. AGOSTON: It sure does.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. AGOSTON: That's precisely where I'm heading, but
that's precisely what I'm protesting against.
Going back to what I was saying, that the Naples Daily
News has a liberal agenda, whatever the heading, whatever socialist
utopia they are trying to promote, the fact of the matter is is that I
don't believe --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Don't mince words, Ty. Say
what you mean.
MR. AGOSTON: I don't.
I don't believe that they should set the criteria for
the selection of as an important job as the county manager. As far as
I know -- and I hope the county manager's job is, while directly
responsible to you, essentially you're serving us taxpayers. And I
include in those both the taxpayers and the tenters, because at the
bottom line of it, we all pay, some way or the other, the burden of
maintaining this county. So I'm not just talking about the taxpayer,
but essentially all of us are taxpayers.
I have a follow-up editorial that applauds the selection
criteria that you have published this past Sunday. The number-one
ranked item, which to me means that this is what you are placing the
largest weight, I'd like to read to you. In your past experience, how
have you reached out to every segment of your community to ensure that
people in different races, genders, socioeconomic backgrounds actively
participated, on and on. Why is that --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me -- let me --
MR. AGOSTON: Is that the top criteria?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ty, no, let me clear that up for
you. That was the first question the preselect -- the prescreening
agreed upon; so it became question number one in a five-question
interview. Those are not a list of priorities that this board set.
Those are questions that the prescreening committee came up with to
try and get a diverse amount of responses. So that's not a preset
board -- if you rank number one is our most important thing, I thought
it was a good question.
MR. AGOSTON: Mr. Chairman, I have no question in my
mind that it's a good question. However, the editorial applauded your
raising the issue that they raised a couple weeks back to a higher
level. Well, whether what you intended and what they interpret are
two different things, and they are informing the public.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, Ty, that wasn't our question.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sheer luck.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm shocked at what we
intended and what they interpreted were different things. I don't
know if that has ever happened before.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How could that happen? My
goodness.
MR. AGOSTON: I just wanted to express my protest,
because pretty soon we're going to be reaching out for Mongolian
transvestites. You know, I mean, this is ridiculous.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, I think we had one.
MR. AGOSTON: What did it look like?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They go to the last round. I'm
sorry.
MR. AGOSTON: But that's about all I have to say.
Thanks very much.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Believe us, Ty, they don't set the
agenda for this board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not even close.
MR. AGOSTON: I didn't suggest it was. It was just a
question.
Item #10C
DISCUSSION REGARDING NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY NOISE COMPATIBILITY
COHMITTEE - COHMISSIONER BERRY APPOINTED AS NON-VOTING MEMBER
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Okay. We're going to go on to
-- as much as we enjoyed that little bit and could go on for hours on
that subject alone, Item 10(C) -- as I look in the back, I'd like to
tell Gina, we're talking about the editors, Gina.
Item 10(C), discussion regarding Naples Airport
Authority noise compatibility study. I had a request from the Naples
Airport Authority for a board member to sit or an opportunity for a
board member to sit on that committee in a nonvoting capacity.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to do that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Barbara Berry has already stood up.
She wants to do it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Barb Berry represent us in
that capacity.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Any
discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none, Commissioner Berry, that's rather brave.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Lord's a mercy, she doesn't read
the paper, does she?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I like jet noise.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why don't we go ahead and -- it's 20
till. Let -- let's make it 10 minutes we have to take care of
business, be back at 10 minutes to 11.
(A short break was held.)
Item #6A4
PRESENTATION TO THE BCC THE GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING -
AWARD FOR 1995 PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to call to order the March
25th BCC meeting. We understand that there are -- the representatives
from the clerk's office are here. Are you still here? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Yup.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. -- Mr. Mitchell, who we
have to announce is the proud new father of a bouncing baby boy,
Charlie. Congratulations, Jim.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your wife is probably not forgiving
you for being here today, but Items 6(A)(4) and (5), we decided to go
ahead and join those. So, Mr. Mitchell, if I could ask for your
assistance on those items, please. Thank you for the -- the cigar,
that was --
MR. MITCHELL: I've got one for all of you today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I appreciate that.
MR. MITCHELL: Good morning. For the record, Jim
Mitchell, the director of the finance and accounting department under
the clerk of the circuit court. I come today -- I come before you
today with a lot of pride. As each of you are aware, the clerk of the
circuit court serving in the capacity as ex officio clerk of the
board, is responsible for the coordination of the annual independent
audit along with the production of the comprehensive annual financial
report which is commonly referred to as the CAFR.
We have two presentations for you today, both dealing
with the CAFR. The first presentation deals with the CAFR for fiscal
year 1995 and the second for fiscal year 1996. For those of you that
do not know, the Government Finance Officer's Association has created
an award known as a certificate of achievement for excellence in
financial reporting. This award program was established by the GFOA
in 1945 to encourage all government units to prepare and publish an
easily readable and understandable comprehensive annual financial
report covering all funds and financial transactions of the government
during the fiscal year.
The GFOA, along with the finance department, believed
that governments have a special responsibility to provide the public
with a fair presentation of their financial affairs. The CAFRs
prepared by and for Collier County go beyond the requirements of
generally accepted accounting principles to providing the many users
of our financial statements with a wide variety of information used
evaluating the financial condition of this county.
Collier County has received this prestigious award for
nine consecutive years, and it is with great pride that we present to
you today the tenth consecutive award for the CAFR that was prepared
for the fiscal year ending September 1995. I'd like to read that
award to you.
It says: Certificate of achievement for excellence in
financial reporting presented to Collier County, Florida, for its
comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 1995. A certificate of achievements -- achievement
for
excellence in financial reporting is presented by the Government
Finance Officer's Association of the United States and Canada to
government units and public employee retirement systems whose
comprehensive annual financial reports achieve the highest standards
in government accounting and financial accounting.
Before I present the award to the chairman, I'd like to
publicly recognize those individuals from the finance department who
were directly responsible for this award and the production of this
year's CAFR: Derrick Johnssen, CPA; Teri O'Connell, senior
accountant; Rose Bowman, CPA; Tom Kelly, CPA; Maryalice Bailey; Linda
Murphy; Sandy Emrick; Bob Byrne; and Shirley Van Vliet. I also have
two other gentlemen that I would like to recognize who are not here
today, but they are Neal Berryman and John Johnson, who are retired
part-time employees of the clerk of the circuit court. If you would,
thanks guys.
(Applause)
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the clerk of the circuit
court and all of his employees, we would like to present you with this
award.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Jim.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Mitchell, this is always a
double-edged sword. We're grateful to you and your staff for
everything you do to receive this award, and then we have to go out
and build more walls to hang them on so -- MR. MITCHELL: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But congratulations, and thank you
for your efforts and your hard work to you and your staff. I think if
ever a year comes where we aren't recognized in this fashion, we'd all
be surprised.
MR. MITCHELL: I'd agree with you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you very, very much.
Item 6(A)(4) is the presentation and 6(A)(5) -- I'm
sorry. 6(A)(5) was the presentation of the CAFR. Is there anything
in addition to those two items, Mr. Mitchell?
Item #6A5
COHPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCE REPORT FOR FY 1996 (CAFR) - PRESENTED
MR. MITCHELL: I do have one more item, a second item
I'd like to go over.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Please, if you would.
MR. MITCHELL: As I previously stated, the clerk of the
circuit court in capacity as ex officio clerk to the board is
responsible for the coordination of the annual independent audit along
with the production of the comprehensive annual financial report. In
this role the clerk is pleased to present to the board the
comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended
September 30th of 1996. This CAFR represents a significant amount of
effort by the finance and accounting department along with those
involved county employees. We'd like to express our appreciation to
this board and also to the interim county manager, Mr. Hike HcNees,
County Attorney Dave Weigel, division administrators, department
directors, and all of the constitutional officers for not only their
assistance with the CAFR, but for their assistance throughout the year
on matters pertaining to the financial affairs of this county. In
addition, we'd like to thank Arthur Andersen, our external auditors --
if you guys would like to come on up here -- for a job well done and
would like to turn the podium over to them for a couple short
statements. I would also like to present a copy of the CAFR to
Mr. Weigel and to Sue. Here you go, Sue. You guys did get yours
yesterday; right?
MR. BRADLEY: Thank you, Mr. Hitchell. Good morning. I
am Tom Bradley from Arthur Andersen, and also here with me today is
Cynthia Borders. Cynthia's the manager on the engagement, a very
important part of our engagement team. I'd just like to make a few
brief comments, if I could, for you. I always like to get together
with the governing bodies of the governments that we do audits for and
just let them know what the high spots are of our audit.
Mr. Hitchell talked to you about the comprehensive
annual financial report, this document (indicating), which is the
responsibility of the county. And as the auditors for the county, our
responsibility is, in fact, to do an audit. We give opinions in three
different areas. We give an opinion on the financial statements, an
opinion on the internal controls of the county, and then also an
opinion on compliance with laws and regulations. And I'm very happy
to tell you that we do have a clean opinion on the financial
statements. That's the best opinion that you can get. It says the
financial statements fairly present the financial position and results
of operations for the county.
Also in the area of internal controls, we have issued a
"no material weaknesses letter"; so there are no material weaknesses
in internal controls. There are some recommendations that we have
made that are included in a management letter which is in this
document. By the way, the county's responses to that management
letter are also in this document, and we're pleased to say that they
have addressed all of the comments that we have made.
We also issue a report on compliance with laws and
regulations, and although we're concluding our work in that area,
there no significant areas where there are noncompliance matters that
we should bring to your attention.
One other thing that we do during the course of our
audit is we have to adhere with some rules that are put forth by the
auditor general for the State of Florida. And one of those that's
specifically looked at and that I think is very important to each of
you is for us to make a determination as to whether the county is at
the end of the year or was during the year in a state of financial
emergency. So we do make an evaluation of this, and we believe that
the county is in a strong financial position, follows very prudent
financial policies, and so from that standpoint you're certainly not
in a state of financial emergency and are -- in -- and are in a sound
financial position. So that's the end of our comments.
Mr. Hitchell.
MR. HITCHELL: Tom, thank you, sir. Commissioners, in
prior years we've always given you an opportunity to do a workshop,
and I'd like to do the same thing this year. After you've had an
opportunity to review the document, if that is something you are
interested in, please let me know or Mr. McNees know, and we'd be more
than happy to arrange it, or if you would just prefer to have us come
by on an individual basis and go through the CAFR, whatever the
pleasure of the board is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't know about the rest of the
board. I found it actually more beneficial, although more time
consuming for you, to have a one on one with you and a member of your
staff so I -- I could kind of ferret out the individual questions and
-- and actually have kind of a seek and find and be able to be leaded
-- led through the CAFR to the area where I was looking for
information at times, because it is a lengthy document. MR. MITCHELL: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I would like to encourage the board
members to set up one on ones instead of a workshop situation. Is
there any other direction or opinion on that?
Okay. It seems we have consensus; so, Mr. Mitchell, if
it's okay, we'll contact you --
MR. MITCHELL: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and set it up individually. And,
again, to you and your department, thank you for another award-winning
year, and we'll look forward to the individual meetings. MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we'll also look forward to
watching the bags under your eyes grow, Jim.
PUBLIC COMMENT
AL PERKINS REGARDING VARIOUS ISSUES
Okay. We have one -- I believe, one registered public
speaker.
MR. HcNEES: Yes, A1 Perkins.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As we have been required to remind
recently, these are, in fact, topics that are relevant to actions at
hand that can or should be taken by the Board of County
Commissioners.
MR. PERKINS: Good morning, Commissioners, A1 Perkins,
resident, taxpayer, voter, and I'm not being paid to be here. And I'm
speaking on behalf of the Belle Heade Groups and the Sea Horse Riding
Club. On the agenda here it says public comment on general topics.
Now, I've been addressing this commission for over 18 years; so I
should know the rules by now.
What I want to bring up is some -- is basically
information for everybody and clarification.
Now, the Naples Daily propaganda spinner is --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't see any reason to restrict
you in this area, A1. Go ahead.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Take as long as you need.
MR. PERKINS: Well, it's very important for the simple
reason that the public in general is being misled, and because you
people do not have the time to take and attend every meeting there is
in this community, nor do you have the opportunity to research who is
taking -- telling you these stories. Now, I want to remind you one
thing too. You know that communism and socialism is alive and well
big time in California, and it's also right here in this town. It's
also in the White House.
Down to the brass tacks of this whole thing. Cambier
Park, for one -- now, a lot of county residents use that park, yet
apparently the city council Kevorkian crew decided that they don't
need those trees. Now, you guys know that I'm -- I'm never in love
with a tree, and I'm not a tree hugget, but in this case I'm taking up
for those people in there for the simple reason that that is their
town. They're paying for that thing. And damn it all, they should
have it the way they want to. Now, they don't have an option that
they can get those politicians out of there, and Fred Tarrant is the
only one that's been speaking out and a lot of the people. The thing
that I'm trying to tell you people in the county here, they need your
support. We use that place too. We go to the band shell. We shuffle
there. We do all of the things. They need your support. Get behind
them, please. That's just one.
If you haven't been there, make -- make it a point to go
there. Find out where you live. Not only that, those people like it
the way it is because that's why they moved here. If you don't like
that the way it is, why don't you go to Hialeah, the sewer of the --
of the -- Florida, okay?
Scenic Highway 41, who paid for this (indicating)? You
people, who paid for this? The P. T. Barnum people paid for this. To
deprive those people along 41 of the way it is and the way it has been
means that they are going to take and tear up and distort the historic
part of this thing. Leave it alone. If it's not broke, don't try to
fix it. But in this thing here -- and believe me, if you want to get
a headache, read it. Every time they open their mouth, they says
let's spend money and change it. Let's spend money and change it.
Let's spend money and regulate it. Let's put a lid on this nonsense.
At one of the meetings I was there; I couldn't get any
information. But when I got there, guess who was there? County,
state, federal employees all over the place, not one, a whole room
full. Three sheriffs were there, and I said, "How come you guys
aren't working? What are you doing here?" Yet you asked for --
talking about a jail this morning or -- money, money, money.
One of the big things you need to take and pay attention
to is the reasons why these people want this thing to happen. Every
time they turn around there's a 14.5 administrative cost. They're
playing with the money. That means vacation, bonuses, salary, wages,
all the goodies, cars, transportation, whatever at the taxpayers'
expense.
One other thing and I'll be all finished. The MPO -- I
have asked for information from Amy Taylor; so has TAG; so has people
from Everglades, not forthcoming. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sure Mr. McNees will make a note
of that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In fairness, the MPO is
operating three positions with one person right now; so I'm sure it is
not intentional. They are very shorthanded.
Item #12C1
RESOLUTION 97-186 RE PETITION AV-96-036 FOR THE VACATION OF A SEVEN AND
ONE HALF FOOT UTILITY ESEHENT ON LOT 50, BLOCK 64, NAPLES PARK UNIT NO.
5 - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We are to the afternoon
portion of the agenda under advertised public hearings. For those
people that are here on advertised public hearings, before each one
specifically we will require on most of them a swearing in of all
individuals to speak on that item. We'll do that one at a time.
First is 12(C)(1), Petition AV-96-036, vacation of a
seven and one-half foot utility easement in Naples Park.
MR. BOBANICK: Good morning. Dave Bobanick,
transportation director. Commissioners, Item 12(C)(1) is a public
hearing to consider Petition AV-96-036 for the vacation of a
7 1/2-foot utility easement on Lot 50, Block 64, Naples Park, Unit 5.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Bobanick, it seems like
there's been a motel built over this easement for the last 44 years,
and now they're going to do something different with the property. Is
that about it?
MR. BOBANICK: That's about it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the easement bisects the
property; it's not on the property line?
MR. BOBANICK: No. It is on the property line.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. But the motel went from one
side to the other; so the motel used two lots. So this is running
underneath an existing building probably not being used. Okay. Seems
fairly straightforward. Do we have any speakers on this, Mr. McNees?
MR. McNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any
discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none, Mr. Bobanick, thank you.
Item #12C2
ORDINANCE 97-15 AUTHORIZING EXEMPTION OF LOCAL TAX ON ELECTRICITY USED
IN THE IHMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE - ADOPTED
Item 12(C)(2), a recommendation that BCC approve an
ordinance authorizing an exemption to local tax off electricity.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Even though it does not
exist.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is going to take a little
explanation, I would guess. Mr. HcNees, this seems kind of confusing.
MR. HcNEES: Mr. Cautero will be happy to clear it up
for you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In that case, Mr. Cautero, this seems
kind of confusing.
MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Weigel would probably be able to
answer your question as well, although it's a housing department
issue. One of our housing managers is here in Mr. Hihalic's stead --
he couldn't be here -- June Goodwin. And I'd like to direct that to
her with your indulgence unless, of course, Lee would like to jump in
now.
MR. McNEES: As I understood it, Mr. Chairman, it's
pretty simple. The state can provide some exemptions. It's a state
law that they -- or it's a state tax, but they can only do that if we
already exempt them from the local tax. Even though we don't have a
local tax, the technicality is you have to approve the --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is isolated.
MR. HcNEES: -- before they can go --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is isolated in one situation
only through this action? Okay. I'm going to -- do we have any
speakers on this?
MR. HcNEES: No.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #12C3
RESOLUTION 97-187 RE PETITION AV 96-024, HCANLY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN,
INC., AS AGENT FOR OWNER, EASTRIDGE PARTNERS, LTD., REQUESTING VACATION
OF A PORTION OF TARA COURT AND A PORTION OF A TEN FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT
AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF PLANTATION - ADOPTED
Seeing none, Item 12(C)(3), Petition AV-96-024, HcAnly
Engineering and Design as agent for Eastridge Partners requesting
vacation of a portion of Tara Court and a 10-foot utility easement as
shown in the exhibits. Again, good morning, Mr. Bobanick.
MR. BOBANICK: Good morning, Commissioners, again, David
Bobanick. Petition 12(C)(3) is a public hearing to consider Petition
AV-96-024 for a vacation of a portion of Tara Court and a portion of a
10-foot utility easement. The site location is in the community of
Plantation, which is east of Santa Barbara and south of Radio Road.
There were no letters of objection. We had response from all your
agencies. The public benefit for this is reduced maintenance and
additional ad valorem taxes. The staff recommends -- based on the
public benefit and the letters of no objection, staff recommends
approval of this petition.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And, again, your interview -- your
review indicates the 10-foot utility easement does not have any
existing or future need?
MR. BOBANICK: There was a replacement for the utility
easement provided.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Then what we're doing is
cutting off a cul-de-sac of a previously platted roadway and vacating
it to then become a private road?
MR. BOBANICK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. This was a dead-end. Thank
you. Do we have any speakers on this?
MR. McNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Bobanick.
Item #12C4
PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO REPEAL AND SUPERSEDE COLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE
88-90 AND ESTABLISH NEW POLICY CONCERNING TELECOMHUNCATION PROVIDERS
AND SERVICES - STAFF TO COME BACK IN TWO MONTHS WITH REPORT AFTER
HAVING OPEN COMHUNICATION WITH PROVIDERS AND ANNUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY USE
FEES TO BE LOOKED INTO
12(C)(4), recommendation to adopt an ordinance to repeal
and supersede Collier County Ordinance 88-90 as amended. This is the
telecommunication providers and services.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This one may take a little while.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning, Miss Merritt.
MS. MERRITT: Good morning. For the record, Jean
Merritt, franchise administration. Before I begin my very brief
remarks, we are passing out some draft revisions which clarify the
intent of the particular item. These have been formulated with the
consent and the cooperation, coordination of the county attorney's
office.
The 1996 Telecommunication Act preserves the rights of
local governments to protect public safety and welfare, preserve
universal service, insure service quality, protect consumer rights,
manage --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Miss Merritt. There is
something odd going on with the sound system.
MS. MERRITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Miss Filson, would you contact
somebody and have them --
MS. FILSON: I did call someone.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You did call already?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How appropriate in telecommunications.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, Miss Merritt, go ahead and
continue. I'll just ask you to please bear with us while we try and
get this resolved. Please continue. I'm sorry.
MS. MERRITT: -- manage the public rights-of-way and
receive compensation for their use. All of this has to be done in a
competitively neutral fashion.
Up until now our regulatory environment has treated
different technologies differently. When telephone companies offered
only voice communication and cable companies offered only multichannel
video services, each could be regulated according to the clear-cut
authorities defined at the federal and the state levels. But now a
phone company can be a cable company, and a cable company can be a
phone company. Clearly careful planning to deal with the changing
climate created by new industry initiatives must occur on the local
level, and it must be done soon.
In a fast-growing area such as Collier County, it is
important that growth management include the public rights-of-way that
are already crowded, and with competition a certainty, they stand to
become even more crowded and perhaps unmanageable. This proposed
ordinance addresses these concerns. Its major objective is to retain
local responsibility for and control over the use of public
rights-of-way in order to protect our citizens and enhance the quality
of their lives. The ordinance provides for dealing with
telecommunication providers in a uniform and consistent way. It
provides a framework for Collier County to manage its public
rights-of-way.
It also forwards methods to assess those companies who
use the public rights-of-ways in order to conduct private businesses
to fairly compensate the public for the use of those resources.
Without this reimbursement to the county taxpayers, we face a
situation where government subsidizes private business.
At this time I would like to introduce Mr. Robert Sepe
of Action Audits located in Cary, North Carolina. Mr. Sepe is the
consultant who is advising the county in telecommunication matters.
He is totally familiar with the ordinance, and he is available, along
with staff, to respond to questions or go through the ordinance
section by section, if that's what you wish.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Miss Merritt, for my information,
would you explain to me how this consultant was arrived at. Did we go
through a CCNA process?
MS. MERRITT: Yes. Mr. Sepe was chosen through the RPF
(sic) process, the request for proposal. We looked at many
consultants and felt that Mr. Sepe more accurately reflected --
because he has worked in southwestern Florida before, more accurately
reflected some of the needs and concerns that we would have here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MS. MERRITT: Mr. Sepe.
MR. SEPE: Thank you. I'm Bob Sepe with Action Audits,
your -- your consultant in telecommunication matters. And I wish to
point out that the -- that the ordinance that's before you provides an
orderly process for the management and deployment of competitive
telecommunication resources within the marketplace. Essentially it
does three things: It provides a registration process; provides for a
telecommunication licensing process; provides for cable television
franchising, which is a special subset of telecommunication. It also
provides for uniform reporting and construction standards.
Now, the registration process requires or asks all
telecommunication providers who either own or lease facilities in the
right-of-way to register with the county. Only those providers that
actually own facilities within the right-of-way would be licensed by
the county.
Aside from that, tele -- the cable television providers
would be granted a cable television license, because they also have
facilities in the right-of-way. The telecommunication providers that
are licensed and the cable television providers that are licensed
would both return a fee to the county for the use of the
right-of-way. So essentially that is what this telecommunication
ordinance provides for.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As I understand it, by the title
"telecommunications," we're talking about now having the ability to
affect wireless communications in addition to hard wire; is that
correct?
MR. SEPE: Wireless communication providers are not
affected except to the extent that a wireless telecommunication
provider would use a hard line to return their communication like a
cellular provider to a switch. Now, if it was all done wireless,
microwave, point to point or whatever, they're not affected by this
ordinance. It's only industrial facilities.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reason I ask that is telecommunications
franchise is not defined in the ordinance. It says this definition is
reserved.
MR. SEPE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that -- that leaves it kind of
open; so those questions are -- are out there. So that's -- that's
why -- I'm not sure why that definition was not included.
MR. SEPE: Well, let me introduce my associate, Dave
Permar, an attorney. And that's a legal --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't mean to dominate the
discussion, but I just -- I think we need to qualify who we're talking
about right now, first and foremost, in this ordinance.
MR. PERMAR: I'm Dave Permar. I'm an attorney from
Raleigh, North Carolina. For approximately 25 years I've represented
various local governments and for the last 20 years have represented
triangle-J council governments. Bob and I have worked together
representing approximately 20 local governments in cable regulation,
and that's one -- how we got together in this. With regard to your
specific question, this ordinance is tied to use of the right-of-way,
and only to the extent that a telecommunications provider is using the
right-of-way would he be regulated. And he's only regulated relating
to his use of the right-of-way. It does not regulate rates or terms
of service or anything that a franchise would require them to do
except, of course, for a cable franchise, and there is a specific
section relating to cable franchise.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just a related question, if I can.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is it possible to regulate those
providers who don't use the right-of-way? I mean, if -- is that even
permissible under federal law, or might we be able to get them some
other way, I guess, what I'm asking?
MR. PERMAR: I don't think so.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. PERMAR: Not under the current status of the federal law.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I didn't think so. I just wanted
to be sure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess we're going to probably jump
around with the questions on this because there are a lot of different
issues, I think, that have been brought to our attention; but probably
the biggest one that struck me is on this handout I received just a
few minutes ago on pages 25, lines 38 and 39, to delete the words "and
said costs shall not be passed on to grantees' customers." One of the
things that -- that we have always prided ourselves on is we don't
charge the maximum franchise fee for everybody, because I think we all
understand that maximum franchise fees mean that they get parlayed
into the bill one way or the other, and that any franchise fees we
charge, in my opinion, should be commensurate with what duties and
responsibilities the county must do as an entity to allow that entity
to exist or provide its services. There needs to be a commensurate
charge. The idea of just charging franchise fees for the sake of
franchise fees I don't think is attractive to anyone here. So the --
I did the removing that it shall not be passed on to customers, and it
bothers me a little.
And I guess in connection with that, by adoption of this
ordinance, are we setting a franchise fee amount, and all
telecommunication providers that receive a license will be charged
that amount? Is that the -- an implementing arm of the ordinance, or
does discretion still lie with this board as to whether or not we will
charge that franchise fee?
MR. PERMAR: Of course, there are several provisions of
federal and state law that may impact on that question, but the
ordinance itself, while it sets the standards, it also in the fee
section says, "unless otherwise agreed between the county and the
provider." So there is some level of discretion in that process.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But it's -- it's a reverse
discretion, in my opinion. It's unless otherwise agreed. In other
words, we're going to charge this unless otherwise agreed.
MR. PERMAR: We're -- we're trying to set a standard, a
uniform standard that would apply to all under equal circumstances.
That's -- that's true, particularly with regard to telecommunications.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And is that standard at the maximum
as written in the ordinance?
MR. PERMAR: It is not. It is not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. PERMAR: I -- I think -- this is the area that is --
with regard to the table cut -- cable television ap -- aspects of this
ordinance, there is not a lot of new ground in here with regard to
regulating the use of the right-of-way through requiring licenses for
those people that physically occupy it. This is a new process, and
it's a process that a lot of local governments have been looking at in
the last -- last year or so, particularly as a result of the 1996
Telecommunications Act.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, let me ask. The average
consumer -- I have cable TV in my home. I have a cell phone. And
maybe we're not talking average consumer, but if you took a poll in
this room, I think you'd find cable TV, a cell phone somewhere in my
family and possibly an Internet hookup at home. What is the impact of
this ordinance to me as a consumer once adopted?
MR. PERMAR: Well, it does provide for a license fee for
a telecommunication provider. It isn't going to impose any new fees
on a cable provider. But for a telecommunications provider such as a
local telephone company or a long distance company that actually is
installing facilities in the right-of-way, it will -- it does charge a
fee per linear foot for the lines that they have in the right-of-way
and to compensate the county for its investment in its right-of-way
and its cost of maintaining that right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And they will then pass that on to me --
MR. PERMAR: Well, if we're in a competitive
environment, they may or may not be able to pass it on one for one,
but certainly that is a possibility.
MR. SEPE: The possibility. But as Dave indicates, in a
competitive environment, it's not likely to be the case because rates
will be price driven --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: However --
MR. SEPE: -- not cost driven --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand in a competitive
environment. But if I want a phone line added in my house, I have one
company I can call today. I can't call anyone else to come in and
supply a phone line in my house. There's only one right now. And I
know we're trying to look out in the future when it's going to be done
differently than it is today. But right now it's hard wired in the
ground phone service which means they are going to pass that on to
me. They're not going to eat it.
MR. SEPE: Well, there are -- there are a number of
other companies that are licensed in the State of Florida that provide
local telephone service, and they can either do that by leasing the
facilities from the provider, or they can run a separate line to the
home. Eventually I would judge that there will be multiple providers
in the right-of-way.
CHAI~ HANCOCK: I'm all for protecting our consumers
for the eventualities, but I'm more worried about the immediate impact
to the consumer on adoption of this under the current scenario. That
bothers me a little bit, because we don't have that scenario that
you're describing readily available to us as consumers today in
Collier County.
MR. HcNEES: Mr. Chairman, from a bigger-picture
standpoint, what these gentlemen are saying is we talk about the
maintenance of the right-of-way. Grass has to be cut, etc., and the
consumer is going to pay for that, be it through a gas tax, through an
ad valorem tax. In this case what they're suggesting is that cost may
more appropriately be borne by the customer of a private entity who is
actually using that right-of-way for commercial gain. So it's a
question of -- that same dollar is going to be paid by someone. In
this case we're diversifying that revenue in terms of letting the
commercial enterprise who actually is going to use the right-of-way
pay some freight for the maintenance of that right-of-way for that so
that the whole dollar doesn't go back on the gas tax. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But then --
CHAI~ HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry was next.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I agree with that, but I think
they're going to turn right around and pass it on to us as a
consumer.
MR. HcNEES: And if they don't, you're going to pay it
through your gas tax --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: In other words, we're going to pay
it anyway, whether it's an ad valorem tax or whether we turn around
and pay it through a fee that's -- that's paid through the
telecommunication.
MR. HcNEES: Because the right-of-way has to be mowed;
that's the bottom line.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But what's the offsetting reduced
tax?
CHAI~ HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: But I have a question too. This
goes back to -- this is in the executive summary. And this is just '-
I'm reading this, and it says how does this promote public safety? I
didn't understand that because there's a statement in here that says
an array of telecommunication services for its citizens that will
insure quality, protect -- protect consumer rights, and also promote
public safety. How so?
MR. SEPE: Commissioner, you have a section in there
that requires the -- the contractors who are actually doing the work
to conform to certain right-of-way and traffic control standards in
terms of coning off the road and actually working in the
right-of-way. These are traffic issues. Consequently, they're public
safety issues as well.
Also you have public safety issues with the location of
facilities aerially. Those -- that construction has to conform to the
National Electric Safety Code for the people who are actually working
on those facilities, the contractors and their employees. So that's
another public safety venue. There are a number of public safety
venues that are related to this.
CHAI~ HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Back to the discussion of -- of
how the -- the -- who actually pays these fees and how they pay them.
Whether you take it out of one pocket or the other, as Commissioner
Berry points out, we end up paying the fees through our homes anyway.
But there's a broad base of people out there that are not paying
property taxes. And this is one way of capturing some of those people
into the loop instead of concentrating all of this payment to maintain
the rights-of-ways through, for example, our ad valorem tax base.
that's a very strong argument in favor of it, as far as I'm concerned,
because there's -- there's absolutely no reason why the ad valorem tax
base, for example, should be the only ones that are paying for any
particular government service when it -- when the service does apply
to everyone equally.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't disagree with that. It's
just that we're tak -- making an assumption that it's at a certain
percentage or at a certain cost on the front end unless a negotiation
of that -- that franchise fee is -- is arrived at. I just want to
make sure that if we're charging franchise fees, that the fee charged
is commensurate with the activity or involvement the county has to
undertake and is an offsetting cost.
You don't have to have cable TV; it's an option. You
either call and subscribe and pay your monthly fee, or you don't. You
don't have to have a wireless phone, but you do have to pay property
taxes if your home is worth more than $25,000 in the State of
Florida. So I understand the elective side of that. I don't disagree
with that. But I'm just -- I'm wondering if we are going too far on
the front end and having to back into this later is really where my
concern is centered. Go ahead.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As I've said in the past, I'm
glad you make the comment that you don't need to have cable TV.
Sometimes we treat this like a utility. If we had no electricity when
we went home tonight, we'd have a hard time; or if we had no water
tonight, we'd take note of that. If I didn't have television tonight,
I'd probably still be able to sleep through the night, get up in the
morning, comfortably shower, and get to work. So I don't want us to
get too far off, but I think Commissioner Hac'Kie hit the nail on the
head, and that is, where is the offsetting reduced tax? And if we can
do that in ad valorem, and this board has made a point to try to do
that on those things, but I have a general suspicion -- and I think
this may be what you're saying. I have a general suspicion of
government -- and while we may have an increased revenue source here,
I want to make sure we do have an offsetting tax decrease somewhere.
I don't want to just have government getting more money, and -- and so
if -- if that helps the general taxpayer and we are asking those
people who elect us to have this service to pay instead, great. I
don't have any opposition to that. But if this is an additional way
of getting revenue or if this is more money for government, then I
have a problem with it. So I think as long as we can find the
balance, that's fine. But I want to be very, very sure that we do.
MR. HcNEES: Well, I can make that one easy for you.
You all have sat through the budget hearings the last few summers,
most of you anyway; and you understand the way it works is, the things
that you have determined are priorities that comes first, and then we
plug in all the available revenues. And the balancing number is your
ad valorem tax essentially. And if we have another revenue source
that we can plug in, essentially dollar for dollar that ad valorem
number will go down. You all know, as well as anyone, that you don't
start with how much money can we spend and then -- you know, well,
gee, we've got extra. Let's go find ways to spend it. It doesn't --
it doesn't work that way. So it's a question of what are the minimum
priorities, the things that you have to do, and we try to find ways to
make them happen.
So in terms of we're going to have a new revenue source,
let's open the store and see what we can buy with it, the only people
you have to trust is yourselves. And you know that you don't work
that way, and you never have.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, if only we can convince
everyone else of that.
Let's -- if it's at the desire of the board, I know we
have some public speakers on this, Mr. McNees. How many do we have?
MR. McNEES: You have about nine, I believe.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Nine. Why don't we go to public
speakers.
MR. McNEES: Seven.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll ask you, unless it's specific to
the individual speaking if necessary, to hold your comments or
questions to the end, and let's go ahead and get through the public
comment on this, and then we'll see where the board wants to go.
MR. McNEES: Your first speaker is Stan Olds followed by
William Gaston.
MR. OLDS: Good after -- good morning, ladies and
gentlemen of the county commission. I guess what I want to find out
is what they talk about -- or what they are talking about is Ordinance
No. 97. Is that what we're talking about, or is this some other
ordinance?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We'll actually be repealing Ordinance
88-90.
MR. OLDS: Yeah, 88-90, but are you replacing it with
Ordinance No. 97?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. That number has not been
determined. It's the ordinance that's before you in your package,
sir. But the number sometimes is not placed on the ordinance because
-- because it was delayed for a week and another ordinance picks up
that number; so it's just a numbering system. It's really not
relevant at this point.
MR. OLDS: Well, the only reason I'm bringing it up is
because in this new ordinance -- or theoretically new one, there's a
lot of information in here that isn't covered by these people. And I
just wanted to know if they are going to cover some of the -- what
they say about PEG, the public education and government channels.
Now, as far as education and government goes, they are here. But as
far as public goes, I don't know. Now, that's -- I know it may be out
of line to talk about that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that's more appropriate in
negotiation of the contract with local cable TV providers as opposed
to actually requiring inclusion in what would be a telecommunication
standards ordinance. So I think your timing is just off by a few
months on when we --
MR. OLDS: Yeah. That's what I was wondering, and I
wanted to be sure about that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. HcNEES: Mr. Gaston followed by Dr. Fay Biles.
MR. GASTON: For the record, William R. Gaston,
president of Marco Island Cable. Commissioners, from a cable
perspective, I'm here today to give my support for adoption of the
proposed telecommunications ordinance, but only if it can be adopted
today. As I'm sure you're aware, all cable franchises in Collier
County are due to expire on June 6th of this year.
In November of 1994, almost 30 months ago, in a public
meeting this governing body opened the application process. To date
Marco Island Cable is the only company that has filed for a new
franchise. After a year of review, that application is now ready to
come before you for approval following an advertising period.
Continental Cablevision, formerly known as Palmet and
Colony and some -- soon to be known as U.S. West Media -- or, rather,
U.S. West or Media One has not followed -- has not filed, nor has Time
Warner. This 30-month process has now been reduced to just two
months. Many issues still need to be resolved including a predatory
pricing investigation of Continental, an issue mandated by the county
manager's office almost two years ago.
I request that you adopt this new ordinance today or
table it until after the franchise application process is over and
include a clause in all new franchises that they will be subject to
any new ordinance approved by this regulatory body. Further, I would
like to give my support to the franchise administration and the work
that they are now doing. While not necessarily making their
self-imposed deadlines on this new ordinance, they have worked
diligently to refine it and bring it to you. It's a revolutionary
piece of legislation that could become a model for other communities.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Gaston, I have a question for
you.
MR. GASTON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you have any hard-line operations,
or are you entirely wireless?
MR. GASTON: I have hard-line operations.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. GASTON: Yes.
MR. HcNEES: Dr. Biles to be followed by John Fogarty.
MS. BILES: For the record I'm Fay Biles, and I'm
speaking for myself, because I've not had time to bring this before
the HITA board. After reading the article in the paper, I then called
Mrs. Herritt and got the ordinance. And I must say, it's a formidable
piece to read through and understand it all.
First of all, I think there is a difference between
franchise fees which the cable companies pay. This is really a
privilege fee, and I was interested in a comment in the paper that
said -- she said an appeal court upheld Baker County's right to charge
Florida Power and Light a privilege fee in August creating a precedent
for other noncharted counties. So I think there is a precedent for
this.
Because there will be more competition by many more
companies and firms coming into our county, I think we really need to
get a handle on controlling how these privilege fees are given and
controlling what's happening in our right-of-ways. It's like rent.
We all pay rent on a property, and I think these are -- these
right-of-ways belong to all of us, and they should give private
companies -- if they use them, they are using them for a profit, and
they certainly should be compensating the county for that privilege.
We don't really know what's already in the public
right-of-ways, I found out, and I think we better start getting a
control on that. Each time a cut is made, it decreases the life of
the roadway. It creates maintenance costs for the county. There's
just so much room for the use of public right-of-ways, and with more
competitive firms entering our community, I think the fee is the only
way to go toward trying to get a handle and control of how we use our
right-of-ways. I think -- of course, we're all concerned about
passing the costs on to customers and taxpayers, but in this case I
think that should go to the county and take the place of that. Thank
you.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Fogarty followed by Ken Fuchs.
MR. FOGARTY: Good morning. My name is John Fogarty.
I'm an attorney for Time Warner Cable which has a franchise with
Collier County. Time -- Time Warner applied for a renewal of its
cable franchise some time ago through the filing of a -- a letter
which is required under the terms of federal statute. And the renewal
process after that is -- is -- is governed by the terms of -- of
federal law.
Our concern with the ordinance as it presently stands
before you is that within that ordinance are essentially terms which
would control the renewal of our franchise with the county. And I
think as the letter that you've received from Continental Cablevision
argues, and we are in agreement with this portion of their letter,
federal law really does not provide for the county to unilaterally set
the terms of the renewal. The federal act contemplates a process, and
the preferred method, both under the act and as we found in our
experience -- the best way to resolve these renewals is for the
parties to sit down and negotiate the terms of the renewals and see if
they can reach an amicable agreement. If that's impossible, the
federal law provides a procedure by which these -- these issues can be
settled.
Continental in its submission quotes for cases -- case
law and everything on this, but we don't think we really need to get
into that at this point because we would -- we would prefer to avoid
arguing about those sorts of issues and get down to the substance of
the -- the issues before us. There are a number of terms in the
proposed ordinance which we have a concern will significantly raise
the cost of doing business here, questions about con -- construction
and undergrounding of plant, questions about I-net and access
channels.
I mean, these are the issues that traditionally do come
up, and we've found that the best way to resolve them is to try and
work together. And we would suggest, therefore, that you defer action
on this and allow us an opportunity to speak to your representatives
and your staff people and see if we can come up with an agreement
that's mutually acceptable. If that doesn't work out, you have all
the rights under -- under federal law to -- to proceed in another way,
but I think a negotiated solution is the most economical both in terms
of time, effort, money, and usually leads to a result that's
acceptable to everybody. So we would appreciate the opportunity to
seek to reach that kind of an agreement and request that you defer
action on this ordinance at this time. Thank you very much. MR. McNEES: Mr. Fuchs followed by A1 Perkins.
MR. FUCHS: Good morning. Ken Fuchs, Continental
Cablevision, 301 Tower Road. What -- the documents which you have in
front of you are loaded with two things: good intentions and
unintended consequences. And that is the theme of my presentation
this morning. The document is also a product which has been
wallpapered around the country by NOTOA (phonetic) and the league of
cities and paragraphs of which have -- have stuck to ordinances in
certain municipalities in about 30 states. I hand delivered our
comments on the proposed Collier County ordinance several weeks ago
for you to review in the format of a legal memorandum which was
prepared by our Washington FCC telecommunications counsel.
I would just like to take a moment and hit on just three
or four items that I think are -- are really some grass-roots type
concerns which should be brought to your attention. First -- and
globally, that the federal act preempts much of that which is being
discussed in this ordinance document, number one. Number two is, I'm
-- I'm really surprised that this document does not speak to Mrs.
Smith at One Elm Street. What about the customer?
The chairman mentioned the customer service standards.
Let's talk about customer service standards. Let's talk about
providing good, quality service to our residents. Continental
Cablevision and at least one other licensed operator in this room go
out of their way to provide good, quality customer service. Let's
talk about that. Let's address that. I consider that to be
important, and I -- I think, quite frankly, that in this county --
knock on wood -- is that we have been -- become accustomed to it as a
regular course of action, and that is really not the case as with
other cable television providers.
The underground construction costs which are
contemplated in the ordinance, quite frankly, when one understands the
detail, are ridiculous and that -- that which -- as an example, in
today's practice when one is digging in a utility easement or
right-of-way, one is -- the person who is excavating is responsible
for any damage which may be incurred to facilities that are already in
the ground. This ordinance excludes the county from being held
responsible for anything other than malicious damage and not just
accidental damage. There's a problem there. There's something
fundamentally wrong with that concept.
As far as the government channels and education
channels, this ordinance contemplates up to six channels. That being
the case, with my current hybrid fiber coax system that we have
designed today, I would be dropping services like ESPN, CNN, The
Discovery Channel to make room for six government channels like this
commission meeting --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Home Shopping Network.
MR. FUCHS: Home Shopping Network is being dropped on
April 6th, however -- hold your applause -- it's being replaced with
Value Vision, but that's a whole 'nother -- a like -- a like service,
one which I'm sure you'll find very interesting.
We recommend that you continue the discussion of this
ordinance until the issues that have been raised here today and that
which I have brought to your attention in our correspondence can be
fully addressed and reviewed. If you're going to adopt, however, this
ordinance today, there are two sections which I truly believe need to
be considered. If I may, here are copies for each of the
commissioners. The first -- the first issue is a request to have the
definition of telecommunications modified in the ordinance to
segregate, if you will, cable television providers from other
providers, in other words, create a -- a separation, if you will.
Second is I think it's important that we formally -- and
memorialize the fact that the cable act exists and Florida State
statutes, for a level playing field, exist. It's very important.
As far as price is concerned, should this ordinance be
adopted and its terms and conditions be enacted, residents of Collier
County will be paying more for their video services, telecommunication
services globally. Is that really the intent?
In closing, let's take a look at what is broken here.
What are we trying to fix? Again, in closing, good intentions,
unintended consequences. We have gone well beyond that which can be
considered reasonable for what is actually necessary for the
betterment of our community. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Perkins, and your last speaker is John
Passidomo.
MR. PERKINS: It's almost afternoon, Commissioners. A1
Perkins, Bell Meade Groups, Sea Horse Riding Groups, a bunch of nice
kids. I would like to have you, if you would, turn to page 21 of the
-- of the ordinance, and there's some things in here that I'm
concerned. You've heard it before. You've heard it for almost two
years about the TV system in the ceiling, monitors around this room so
that we could video -- so the people at home could have seen this and
the audience could have seen the presentation by the farmers here
today. But that's really not what I'm talking about here.
If you go to 5.16.7, it goes to at least 6 PEG access
channels known as residential distributing system, signal --
transportation equipment including modulators, okay. The -- the point
I want to make here is at the present time right now Everglades is not
getting the signal of this meeting. Half of Immokalee is not getting
this signal. Sunniland does not get this signal, and this is not
being sent out over satellite or any other way; so the people out
there -- and I don't want to use the word that I normally do. The
people are not being informed -- informed and brought up to speed
exactly what's going on in this community.
This is a vehicle that if it's correctly used, correctly
controlled, and correctly maintained, which it spells it out in here,
can be an asset to every portion of this community, every portion.
I'm big on kids and horses, which everybody knows that, especially
handicapped kids, because it's always easy to push them off to one
side, and say, well, go away. I don't want to see what the problem
is. I want to just see the good stuff. I like to bring this all out
to everybody in this community. Okay?
As you all know, I've taped everybody's meeting here
with the exception of Pam's and maybe John's, okay. Nobody knows what
took place. Nobody took -- knows what took place in that committee.
I've taped the landfill meetings. How do I play them? How do I get
across to this community on a whole the resentment of the fact that
you guys were going to take and put a landfill up there? The people
were out in droves and masses, and they voiced their opinion. Boy,
did they voice them. This is not my idea. It wasn't me voicing it.
All I was doing was recording them. This needed to be shown.
Cambier Park, I did the same thing with Mrs. Sloan.
Marco Island, the hurricane preparedness, I provided that to the
school board. It was never shown. I have provided the Sea Horse
Riding, 32 events, at the fairgrounds this year. Commissioner
Constantine was there to take and witness the whole thing. I provided
that to the county. It has never been shown.
Now, with a separate channel that we would have access
to, public access, we could take and put this out. Public access
comes back to the first amendment of the constitution, and the
constitution says anybody has the right to make this statement,
anybody. Now, if government's not going to do it because they have
their own agenda and the school board has its own agenda, then how
come the public doesn't have their own agenda or the opportunity to
voice their opinion or show? Now, I know there's down -- downturns on
this thing. That is why it spells it out in here where an advisory
board would be established.
It also goes on to show -- tell who pays for it, the
equipment is provided for them, the vehicles that's used. A lot of
people need to know what's going on. This can be a vehicle that they
can get the information out about anything and everything. It needs
to be looked at real good. We're in support of this ordinance and
especially the PEG prob -- part of it, the -- the public.
Education's going to do their own thing, and we're going
to pay for it. Government's going to do their own thing, and we're
going to pay for it. But the public is left out of the loop. Thank
you.
MR. McNEES: Your final speaker is John Passidomo.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of
the board. My name is John Passidomo. I'm a member of the firm
Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson, and Johnson. We represent Sprint, a
telephone company, and on their behalf have submitted memoranda,
extensive memoranda, as to why and how in this emergent era of
telecommunications deregulation, state and federal preemption has
reserved to local government only the management of the public
right-of-way for the benefit of the telecommunications providers on a
competitive, neutral, and nondiscriminatory basis.
Part of the memorandum we have submitted to you, Mr.
Chairman and members of the board, cites numerous examples as to how
local licensure, local assessment of financial responsibility, local
analysis of technical qualifications, experience, and expertise, local
approval of transfer of control, local evaluation of service, local
registration, and on and on and on is all preempted by the Florida
Public Service Commission. We respectfully incorporate that memoranda
into these remarks and into the record.
There is no question that Florida case law is clear.
The county is prohibited from requiring telecommunications providers
and telephone companies from obtaining telecommunications franchises
and paying franchise fees. We think, however, it would be helpful to
reflect on the historical record. In the regulatory framework that
has unleashed what was anticipated by Congress and the administration
to be unfettered competition in the realm of the telecommunications
industry. We agree with the espoused intentions in the ordinance, and
we think they're consistent with the historic Telecommunications Act
of 1996, which was intended to do three principal things. And as we
review them, we respectfully challenge you as you read that
40-plus-odd ordinance to see whether or not the objectives are being
achieved.
The act was intended to promote competition in
telecommunications industry. It was intended to minimize unnecessary
regulation, and it was intended to encourage the provision of advanced
and competitive telecommunications services on the widest possible
basis for the benefit of the businesses, the institutions, and the
residents of a local community.
Sprint subscribes to these purposes. We raise, however,
the strongest objections on their behalf to the ordinance because it
imposes exorbitant and likely illegal fees. It imposes numerous
levels of licensing, regulation, and a bureaucratic morass, otherwise
preempted by state and federal government, and it provides a dense
regulation in the day-to-day business activities of the
telecommunications service providers and, therefore, does not achieve
its stated purposes.
It imposes onerous effects on Sprint and its
ratepayers. It bears little, if any, relationship to the public
health, safety, and welfare. And it chases away telecommunications
companies and the benefits they provide for local consumers rather
than encourage and advance the competitive services through clear and
reasonable local guidelines regarding the use of public right-of-way
without imposing burdensome and overreaching regulation and fees.
We respectfully urge you to deny the proposed ordinance
because it does not reasonably and fairly achieve its intended
purpose. We respectfully request that you direct your staff for the
first time to engage the telecommunication industry in a dialogue to
develop a local ordinance based on FCC guidelines which manages the
public right-of-way in a responsible and procompetitive basis for the
benefit of businesses, industries, and consumers who are intended to
benefit from the deregulation of the telecommunications industry.
Give us an opportunity to work with you to develop an
ordinance which helps achieve the overriding purpose of the fel --
Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, and that is to provide for a
procompetitive, deregulatory policy framework to rapidly accelerate
private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and
information technologies and services to all people in Collier County
by opening telecommunications markets to competition.
We respectfully suggest that nowhere in the
Telecommunications Act and nowhere in the espoused purposes of this
ordinance is it intentioned to -- to regulate in an area that's
already been regulated or to grab fees that are illegally being -- or
proposed to be illegally imposed. It's simply intended to provide a
procompetitive regulatory market, and we think that it goes way beyond
that by doing much more than simply regulating the public
right-of-way. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Is that the last of our
speakers?
MR. HcNEES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We've had the discussion, and it's
really more appropriate during the cable franchise agreement on public
access channels and so forth. But the idea that all of a sudden it's
government's responsibility to tell a cable provider they have to give
anyone and everyone free access would be equivalent to when the first
amendment was written and telling local printers they had to provide
paper and time to anyone who wanted to write something and distribute
it. It's inordinate, and I don't think it's appropriate in this
context and needs to be watched very carefully as we go to our
franchise agreement.
Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ask our staff, how many times
did we meet with Mr. Fuchs or with representatives from Continental
Cablevision as we put this together?
MS. HERRITT: I met with -- staff met with both Time
Warner and Continental once after the ordinance was constructed.
We've had many conversations before.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Once is the answer? And
that's the same for Mr. Benvudo (phonetic) and Time Warner?
MS. HERRITT: Yes. We spent 5 1/2 hours with Time
Warner.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much time did we spend
with Mr. Gaston?
MS. MERRITT: Mr. Gaston I talk to weekly, sometimes
more than that. Mr. Gaston received a copy of the ordinance, as did
the other cable companies, and we did not sit down and discuss it. He
told me he didn't have any major problems with it. Obviously
Mr. Gaston is very, very anxious to get his cable franchise going.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. The others received
copies. Was -- was that 5-hour meeting you had with the other two
major companies for input into the process, or was that after it was
structured? How -- when -- when timing-wise was that?
MS. MERRITT: The 5 1/2 hours that we spent with Time
Warner was last week. It was after the ordinance was constructed.
However, there were many -- we -- we practically went through it line
by line. We made notations. There -- we agreed that there were some
things that needed to be looked at. One of the things that's
important to know is that this is an enabling ordinance. That does
not mean -- for example, let's go back to the six PEG stations. We
all realize that that's totally unrealistic. That is enabling. Who
knows what may occur in the future time when we are on fiber-optics
and there are hundreds of channels available. That simply -- most of
the cable ordinance is an enab -- well, it's all enabling, but
separate franchise agreements will be written. There -- there is
language in this ordinance that says unless otherwise agreed to in --
in agreement. And we intend to do that and to use that whole
mechanism. This is enabling legislation to attempt to provide some
continuity and a level playing field.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The answer to my question is,
after it was written, you met with Time Warner? MS. MERRITT: Yes, sir.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said certain notations
were made and things to be looked at. Have there been changes made
since that meeting, or those will be looked at after we approve the
ordinance?
MS. MERRITT: You have some changes today, and we
generally looked at those things to be looked at in the franchise
agreement, the changes.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You mentioned the six
government channels. Channel 54 is what we operate right now; is that
correct?
MS. MERRITT: Yes, sir.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many hours a day does
Collier County air on that?
MS. MERRITT: Eight hours, five days a week.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: During that eight hours, how
many is -- how much is actual programming, and how much is community
board or calendar update? I had it on last night briefly. It was an
update, and about every two minutes it repeated itself.
MS. MERRITT: About six to seven hours of programming.
We hope to be able before too long to be able to put the agenda of the
board meetings on the television as well as all the job postings and
things of that sort.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That 6 to 7 hours is out of
the 40?
MS. HERRITT: No. It's -- we -- 8 times 5 -- yes, 40
hours, that's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So it's six --
MS. MERRITT: No. It's daily, six to seven hours daily.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does that include the
community calendar board that I saw?
MS. HERRITT: Yes -- no, that does not include that.
The six to seven hours -- I would say there's about an hour of the
community board all told at different times.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's -- excuse the
interruption, but that's not my experience. I keep going to Channel
54 looking for something useful and haven't found much.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nor is it mine, and that's --
and I do appreciate those calendar boards, but they do repeat after
about two or three minutes; so if you've watched for three minutes,
you've seen your fill.
MS. HERRITT: That's very true. If you will allow me to
let the person who's in charge of our production to answer that, I
think he can give you a more definitive answer.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, I think they're making a
point that it's not so much in the details of the community board, but
in total amount of time of programming.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point is very simple, and
that is obviously if we can communicate with the public on the various
things the county does, that's what we want to do. And if we have six
or seven hours a night, we're headed in the right direction. I know
this is a new animal for us, but I also know how difficult it is to
fill programming time. And if we're in the infancy of filling six or
seven hours -- I don't see filling 24 hours on six channels happening
right away.
MS. HERRITT: Of course not.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I see -- and as I look at the
58 channels or however much it is we get on cable TV, I'll tell you
most of them don't fill most of their time very appropriately. I just
hate to put requirements in that aren't realistic. And even when
there are hundreds of channels that we keep hearing down the road, you
can sit for hours with your clicker and never -- never actually settle
in on anything. But when there are hundreds of channels, I don't care
how many channels there are, I still can't envision Collier County
filling up 24 hours a day on 6 channels. MS. HERRITT: Nor can I.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if we can't, then I'm not
sure why we include it as a requirement here. That's one example of
-- of my problem with this document. There are others. There are
things in here that I think -- and I oddly enough find myself in
agreement with Mr. Fuchs on this -- that are very well intentioned,
but they do go beyond -- and that's a perfect example. If we can get
more information out to the public, that's good; that's what we want
to do. But you agree, I agree, the board agrees, realistically we're
not going to fill up 125 hours a week worth of programming time or 150
hours a time -- of programming time now or at any foreseeable time in
the future. Yet that's what this is asking for, is the availability
to have six channels. So I think it goes beyond what we will
realistically ever need.
And I think there are a number of other areas -- that's
kind of a fluffy one, but there are a number of other areas where this
goes beyond what the public realistically needs, and ultimately there
is a cost to all those requirements, and ultimately the public ends up
paying for those costs. So I hate to put things that are well beyond
what we'll ever use in there and have the expense incurred by the
provider because ultimately you -- you and me and everyone else pays
for it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm going to keep my remarks
short. Just -- I hear two things that -- that bothered me today. One
is the limited amount of discussion with the actual providers, and --
and by discussion, I mean opportunity to provide input, not here's our
ordinance. What do you have for comments? That one troubles me.
The other comment I have ties to a couple things. One
is -- is Mr. Fuch's remark about the unintended consequences. When I
see that in conjunction with the presentation we had from the ag
industry about the volumes of regulation and how that discourages, as
we already know, you know, involvement in their particular business,
one of the things that's most important to me is -- is to encourage
competition. And I'm concerned that we -- one of the unintended
consequences here may be discouraging competition if we're adding a
very complex layer of regulation.
I'm confident that our -- our ordinance needs to be
rewritten. I'm curious if there might be no harm in pausing at this
point to work more directly with the providers with -- with my -- my
instruction, anyway, being regulate where necessary, but only where
necessary because we want to be very careful not to discourage
competition. I'm concerned that we may be discouraging competition
with this ordinance, and I just want to say that for the record.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'll have to say that I
don't share that concern. And I also have to say that I don't think
it's in our best interests or the public's best interests to have the
telecommunication providers draft and construct their own ordinance.
I think that should be left to our consultant and staff to at least
get the framework started.
Commissioner Constantine made a very good point about
the -- perhaps there's -- it -- it's too specific in saying we need
six channels, but I think we could easily amend that language today to
an unspecified amount of channels for -- for public use because
obviously we don't need six. So we could leave that language a little
flexible.
But, once again, I think the real reason that -- that I
want to support this ordinance today is that although we may end up
modifying it in the future, I think we can start here and give our
ad valorem taxpayer an opportunity to provide a subsidy to some of
those people who are not paying their share of some of the services
that they consume. I think that's a very important argument, and it
overrides some of the others for me. And that's why I'll support this
ordinance today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm landing on the side in an
area of not being too sure of myself here of not really supporting the
ordinance, and I'll give a couple of reasons. Commissioner Norris's
point is -- is exactly where I started, which is the cost associated
with doing business in the public rights-of-way should be paid for by
whomever is doing them, not by the taxpayer, no question about that,
and I think an ordinance can accomplish that. When I look at 50 cents
a linear foot for facilities up to 3 inches in diameter, if it cost us
50 cents to mow a linear foot 3 inches wide in this county, I've got a
problem. I don't think it does.
I'm looking for the cost comparison. What costs are we
recouping in these linear-foot charges? And the reason that's
important to me and the reason that should be as specific as possible
was brought to my attention by Mr. Gaston. He would be crazy not to
support this ordinance, because it provides a superior benefit to the
wireless cable provider over the coaxial or hard-wire provider. A
wireless provider can accept a signal, run lines on private property
to other buildings, provide services to those buildings, and pay zippo
in right-of-way fees and what we are now calling -- what we call
annual right-of-way use fees.
If the idea is to increase competition, we're increasing
wireless competition while placing a financial burden on the coaxial
cable systems. Maybe that's appropriate in -- where the impacts occur
in the right-of-way that -- that the taxpayer is paying through
ad valorem at this point. I -- I can see some -- some logic in that
argument. But I don't know that 50 cents a linear foot for a 3-inch
wide swath is commensurate with the impact or the costs.
I did ask if Collier County's out there and we have to
do a road project and that means that a cable line has to be
relocated, who pays for that relocation? The answer currently is the
cable company, not the taxpayer, not the Collier County capital
improvement fund, not our roadway projects. We aren't paying for
that. The cable provider is.
I don't know who else is out there in those
right-of-ways. I love the idea of licensure. I love the idea of, in
other words, getting a record of who's out there, where are they; but
I need to know that their impacts are commensurate with the
per-linear-foot charge that we are going to charge them for using the
right-of-way.
And I don't think 50 -- 50 cents for basically a quarter
of a square foot is commensurate, and -- and that's where it starts to
fall apart for me because I think it begins providing far greater
advantage to the wireless. So what we're going to have is, we're
going to almost stop the expansion of coaxial systems, which can carry
more than wireless when it comes -- when we look down the road,
they're going to be able to carry cable and phone and everything.
We're going to stop the expansion of those and exactly what Mr.
Perkins wants and a lot of the public wants, which is everyone having
access to public meetings, is reduced when we start getting a lot of
wireless providers covering small geographic areas because someone has
to pick up that signal, send it, and feed it to the wireless. And
it's not going to happen, and this ordinance is not going to make it
happen.
So all of those things combined, I don't disagree with
-- with the argument, Commissioner Norris. I just don't know that
this does it in a fair manner. It may be a little overkill. And just
when we did architectural standards, we realized we needed to do
something. We stepped forward and did it in a quick fashion. But if
you remember, everyone who stood at that microphone when we adopted it
said, look, this may not be perfect, but I think it's a good start.
And that includes people that were making money from the process and
getting hit by the process. What I hear today is a lot of contention
in the industry about this, and we may not be able to iron all of that
out, but I'd like to have a little more common ground on this
ordinance from all the providers than what I'm hearing today. And if
there's direction to give staff, my direction would be, let's put a --
a time certain on this to come back, and in that time let's meet with
all the providers and see if we can reduce some of that -- that area
of debate and see if we can make this ordinance more specific to the
cost and provide justification for those costs. That's a direction
I'd like to see this board take on this -- this matter today.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just -- Commissioner Norris
had said before that we don't want the telecommunications industry to
write their own ordinance, and we certainly don't. But if we're going
to have something that governs them, they should have input on it.
And I would hope that as part of this -- this is one item that seems
to catch the public's fancy when we talk about it too. I wouldn't
mind seeing a public workshop of some sort so that, yes, the
telecommunications can have their input on it and so the public have
their input on it. Ultimately it's staff and our consultant who needs
to craft something to bring this board, and ultimately the decision is
-- is made here. But I think we'd be silly not to look both to the
public and to the industry for input as we craft it. And I fear -- I
know we have to some extent, but I want to maybe formalize that
process; so I like your suggestion.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's three. I like that
suggestion, and I especially like the workshop idea. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, this is certainly a totally
new ground for me; so I'm probably learning a lot more than I am able
to contribute on this. I do have some concerns, as the others have
expressed. There's no need in repeating those. I would have liked to
have seen a little more discussion with the providers, perhaps, early
on. I -- I think we need -- I think we need to have this come back.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. It seems that the direction,
consensus, or majority is -- is to bring this back after having open
communication with the providers. And I heard a public workshop, and
someone raised the question: Did John and Mary Smith know what this
was going to mean on their cable bill, whether they're under CVI or
Continental or Mr. Gaston's system on Marco -- Marco Island Cable, I'm
sorry. They need to know what this impact is to them so we can hear
from them on an informed basis. I don't know how to structure that,
but is someone willing to make a motion to try and craft all that as
staff direction?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Close -- you'll need to close the
public hearing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No more speakers? I will close the
public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You are an atypical chair.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me go ahead and -- and try to put
together staff direction on this, ask that the -- this matter be, I
guess, tabled would be the appropriate method. What's the maximum
time period we can table?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, this has been continued; so you'd
have to readvertise to bring this back. And if I may, a further
comment might assist you with your suggestion, is that if staff and
the expert consultants are going to work with both the public and the
cable people and other telecommunications providers, it may be that --
that you may wish to have the staff come back to you with a report
that provides something to the effect of the changes that have been
engendered and agreed upon between the various interests from today's
draft that's before you and also maybe ticking off, itemizing those
areas where there would appear to still be disagreement, because it
would be difficult for our board -- or for our staff to craft and
advertise an ordinance to come back to you, because there still may be
some areas that you would want to give further direction to. And we
could have difficulty in meeting the advertising, legal advertising
requirements, based on changes you might direct. So you might want to
consider having this come back after this input process as a -- an
agenda discussion item for you to give the staff direction, and then
they will bring back an ordinance and advertise anew.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I will then go ahead and make
a motion that we direct staff to work with the various
telecommunication providers this ordinance would affect that are
currently operating in Collier County to attempt to iron out the
differences and -- and present a more equitable and level playing
field for all providers, that they bring that back in the form of a
staff report in a period -- I believe -- would two months be
sufficient?
MS. HERRITT: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm -- you're not finished. I'm
sorry.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- in a period not to exceed two
months; that the annual right-of-way use fees be looked at so that we
can look at cost estimates versus charges, in other words, what does
it cost to provide the maintenance and whatever other ancillary duties
the county must provide as a result of those rights-of-ways being used
and that the charges be commensurate with that. Those are the two
items that I had specifically. Were there any -- I'll let that rest
as a motion and accept friendly amendments to the motion --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, if you could add
into that that we would like to see as well some analysis or estimate
of the financial impact to a homeowner with a cable TV.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With various -- various --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What does it mean to --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I will -- I will amend the
motion to include that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did we include a public
workshop of some sort as well?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that decision will be made
after a staff report is received by the board.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then I wanted to add that -- that
the board is interested in encouraging competition and -- and not
discouraging competition through overregulation. I don't know if that
needs to be a part of the motion, but I think that that needs to be a
theme --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, I don't think it's appropriate
in the motion, but I think it's a stated goal that we have in --
actually, in our policies and objectives throughout the county; so I
-- I don't know that that needs to be in the motion. Mr. Weigel, you
had a point?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it doesn't need -- necessarily be a
part of the motion, but I expect that the deliverables on behalf of
our expert consultants are probably nearly fulfilled under their
current contract obligation and that the board may wish to give
direction to staff to amend the agreement so that they -- these
experts may continue to be utilized by the county judiciously in this
process as we go forward.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm going to add to the
motion, that if there are additional funds required by the consultant
to complete this process, that it be brought back to the board prior
to authorization for the board to authorize, but I'm also going to
issue a caution in that, in that I feel that some of this should have
occurred before it got to us today. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we hire a consultant for the
purpose of not placing technical matters that this board is not
necessarily equipped to make decisions on in our lap in an unfinished
manner. So I think, yes, we will obviously review any requests for
additional services, but I had hoped that many of these things would
have been -- occurred prior to this arriving here at our -- at our
feet today. I -- does anyone else want to add anything to my motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just a clarification.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is the motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Does your motion anticipate a
workshop? Because I'm not supportive of a workshop. I think a public
hearing is certainly sufficient.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The motion has asked staff to bring
back within a period of eight weeks a staff report which will be
advertised, and at that time we can discuss whether or not we have the
need to go to a public workshop or whether we want to go ahead and
advertise for public hearing adoption of the ordinance. That's the --
that's what I'm anticipating. Okay. All right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any
discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries 4-1, Commissioner
Norris in the opposition.
Miss Herritt, thank you.
MS. HERRITT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not an easy subject to tackle.
Item #13A1
PETITION CU-97-1, ARTHUR C. QUINNELL REPRESENTING PETER H. ANDERSON,
REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "4" OF THE C-4 ZONING DISTRICT FOR NEW AND
USED BOAT AND AUTO SALES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1995 TAMIAMI TRAIL
EAST - DENIED
We are on to Item 13(A), advertised public hearings on
the Board of Zoning Appeals. These items, as I understand it, Mr.
Weigel, will require all -- all individuals to be sworn in if they are
going to give testimony; is that correct? I'm sorry, Mr. Weigel. Did
you hear my question?
MR. WEIGEL: I'm sorry. No, I didn't.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Under advertised public
hearings, under each item we'll have to ask that everyone be sworn in
on those items; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me. Nearly so. Let's be safe
rather than sorry, please.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's start with 13(A)(1),
conditional use 97-1, Arthur Quinnell representing Peter Andersen
requesting conditional use 4 of a C-4 zoning district. MR. NINO: Are we swearing?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I believe conditional use we're
required to.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, please.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Madam Court Reporter -- anyone
who is here to testify in this matter, would you please stand and
raise your right hand.
(The speakers were sworn.)
MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record. The petition that's
before you seeks conditional use of a C -- of the C -- conditional use
4 of the C-4 district. In this case conditional use is for used cars
and a boat dealership. This property was previously used in the past
as a car sales agency. Obviously a new car sales agency would
obviously sell used cars as well. The last use of the property was a
fast-food restaurant. The building is most notable by the blue cupola
that sits on the top of it; so I think you all know where that
building is.
As you know, conditional uses require a finding of
fact. It's the position of staff that the finding of fact supports
the granting of -- of the conditional use.
One of the opportunities that -- the fact that this is
coming before you as a request for a use other than a permitted use of
the C-4 district is that it gives us an opportunity to roll in some
improvements that we would not otherwise be able to achieve. And I --
we have you appreciate that this op -- this -- this request gives us
the opportunity to insist on landscaping that is consistent with
today's requirements. The driveways that have been -- are noted on
your master plan are driveways that are driven by the F -- FDOT and
the -- the improvement of this land takes into account the widening
that will be required for -- for the Trail.
We recommend your approval. The Planning Commission,
when they heard this petition -- petition, unanimously recommended
approval. There have been no indication of any opposition to this
petition.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nino --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry.
Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie, you've
been doing some work on this area trying to improve the overall look
and all. Does this meet the basic criteria of what you're trying to
accomplish?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I had a lot of questions of
staff along that line, and I will use this opportunity to plug a
meeting tonight at 7:30 with anybody who is interested in the
improvement in the area be in this room, and I would certainly hope
that you would be there, because this is such an important piece of
property.
MR. QUINNELL: What meeting is that?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's at 7:30 tonight. We're
going to talk -- begin discussions in this room about how we can
improve -- how we can improve the overall area in that triangle
starting with the commercial corridors. MR. QUINNELL: Here?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir. My -- my question was,
what can -- I'm glad to see that from a landscaping perspective we can
expect some improvements. What about architecturally?
MR. NINO: I don't believe there's --
MR. QUINNELL: My name for the record is Arthur
Quinnell. There's no improvements for the site other than the
landscaping.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. Could you pull that microphone
a little bit closer to you, sir, and let -- and if I can interrupt you
for a second, I was just asked by the workman. Does anyone here need
to take a lunch break? I'd just as soon we move through the agenda.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's do it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'm sorry. Please continue
with the item.
MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere, current
planning manager. Under the provisions of the LDC as they stand
today, we could not require this property owner under what's being
proposed here to adhere to the architectural standards. The -- the
way it's written is, if you're increasing floor area of a structure by
20 percent or more or if you're exceeding 50 percent of the value. In
this case that's not happening. We can, however, through a site
improvement or site development plan require that the landscaping be
improved as well as signage and that if there's going to be outdoor
storage -- and this board is certainly -- has the right to require an
opaque fence or some other type of --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, of course, if we find
some flaws here, we don't have to grant the conditional use either.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'll just say it's way too
early to say what might come out of this whole Davis triangle
discussion because the very first meeting is tonight. But my idea is
that we may end up with an overlay district of some kind that has some
special regulations that hopefully permit people to improve their
property without losing, you know, their grandfathered status and
otherwise. And if this architecturally doesn't include any changes, I
can't tell you that it -- I'd say that it's probably not going a long
way towards meeting the goals that I hope to establish, you know, in
the Davis triangle redevelopment area.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That was my question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is there -- did -- is there a
landscape plan that has been submitted as a part of the package?
MR. NINO: Landscape, no, there wasn't. A landscape
plan, a more detailed landscape plan, would be required as part of a
site improvement plan application, which is concurrently in our
office, incidentally.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The reason I ask is this
property has -- half of its frontage is driveway, and it's been the
case on many car dealerships or boat dealerships, they obviously use
the area for display. So they do landscaping and put in a 2-foot
hedge. They keep it cropped down close to the ground, elevate the
boats or cars behind it, you know, which is -- runs adverse to the
idea of landscaping as a -- as a softening technique or a way to -- to
beautify the roadways. And without some type of landscape plan, I'm
having a tough time picturing the impact of this conditional use on
that roadway and the adjacent property owners. So, you know, I wish
that were here. I know -- I guess we don't require it. Most
applications actually come in with something.
MR. NINO: Well, there is the -- there is -- there are
elements of a landscape plan on the -- on this plan here currently.
You'll notice the interior landscaping -- it's difficult to read.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I see things like ten spaces
uninterrupted without a median in this plan. That's not up to code.
MR. NINO: Well, those are boat slips, and that doesn't
apply for boat slips. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's so hard to read this.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So you can just -- just the paving
here --
MR. HULHERE: What we generally do is in the case of
vehicle storage or boat storage, we still calculate that impervious
area, and we do require that landscaping be located within the other
landscape areas, whether it's the public parking areas, but not -- not
to break up a storage area. We don't necessarily require that. The
code doesn't.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I guess I'm looking for that
landscaping or that other --
MR. HULHERE: It's not submitted as part of this
conditional use.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't feel like I have really a
complete picture of part of this conditional use as to what we would
be approving, because if we're approving what is in my package, I'm
not supportive, because it doesn't look like it's bringing the
property into any greater level of compliance than what's there right
now. And in order to make that decision, I need that kind of
information. Is there something you have that you can supply us with
today?
MR. QUINNELL: Weren't they furnished copies of the
SIP?
MR. NINO: No. The SIP's not a part of the
application.
MR. QUINNELL: Okay. Well, in the SIP plan -- if I can
just lay out for you what's on there. In the front there's a 15-foot
wide area. Now, he has to have a 20-foot driveway, because the FDOT
requires it to have a one-way-in-and-out approach. See, he has three
approaches there right now. He's only going to wind up with two
one-way approaches, which shows on your little plat. The 15-foot area
in back is -- would -- is -- gives you an area to be landscaped. It's
not 3 or 4 feet. It's 15 feet, and it runs back from the -- from the
edge of the property that -- incidentally, the FDOT took 20 feet off
the front of his property; so it's awfully hard for him to do this.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I'm sure he was compensated for
that.
MR. QUINNELL: Yes. But he -- what I'm saying is that
everything that's left to him is going to be landscaped in the front
plus the side. One side does have a landscape buffer on it now. The
other side will be placed.
MR. NINO: One way of addressing the landscaping
requirements would -- would be to condition the approval on compliance
with the current requirements of the Land Development Code relative to
landscaping. That would require a greater buffer than is iljustrated
on this plan. This plan iljustrates a buffer that is 15 feet on the
end, but in the middle it is not 15 feet. We recognized that the
existing conditions would seriously affect the ability of this
property to get onto the property and get out without going around the
building. So we acknowledged on this master plan a reduction of the
15 feet to 7 feet.
However, if your intention is to ensure total conformity
with current requirements, then if you were to put that stipulation in
this resolution of approval, then the required buffer would have to be
15 feet right across the front exclusive of the driveways, which are
determined by FDOT at this point in time, I believe, are tied to the
takings issue. That would mean that, for all intents and purposes,
they would not be able to have any vehicular movements across the
front of the building. In effect, you would be requiring them to
landscape right to the front of the building.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Go ahead.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, that -- and -- that -- even
if that were possible, that would address one aspect of what's so
important in this area, and that is trying to improve, bring
properties up to current codes. And even if we could address the
landscaping issue -- I guess maybe this is a question for the county
attorney. Are conditional use approvals discretionary? In other
words, I don't want to get into a -- a takings -- you know, even
temporarily --
MR. WEIGEL: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- debate here, but I would like
to not approve this unless the property owner would voluntarily bring
the property into compliance with code, at least to the extent
possible. Now, maybe there's a portion of landscaping that couldn't
be done. With the architectural issues, there are so many issues here
that this property isn't improving, and I'd like to -- I'd like to
turn this down if it's discretionary, but I need your advice on
temporary takings.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, you phrased the question
well. It is discretionary for this board to make the conditional use
determinations or extensions. One thing that you mentioned is -- that
your consideration of conditional use in this application has to do
with bringing the property in compliance with the Land Development
Code rather applicable codes. And with that factual statement as part
of the reasoning, I see no problem whatsoever in the tack that you're
taking there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think there's a clearer problem
here. We're in an area that's been recognized as in need of
redevelopment. And the last thing you want to do is start waiving
requirements that are specific quality improvement aspects such as
landscaping. And, in essence, we would be reducing a 15-foot
landscape buffer to a 7-foot buffer to allow for this use.
MR. QUINNELL: No, sir. I don't think you can say
that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, yes, sir, I can, because right
here on my plan it has 7 feet. We require a 15-foot buffer, do we
not, Mr. Nino?
MR. NINO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And our staff has informed us that in
order to accommodate this type of use, that would have to be reduced
to 7 feet. Did I state that correctly? MR. NINO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'm not -- I'm not willing to
go down the road of any conditional use in this area that reduces the
landscaping requirement, because that's exactly what we're trying to
accomplish, is to bring that area up to what other areas of the county
are having to do. So unless you can tell me you can do that and
provide that information to me, I'd -- I'm not supportive
individually.
MR. QUINNELL: Can I make a couple of statements here?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
MR. QUINNELL: The state requires us to have a 20-foot
driveway there because the existing approaches are two-way, you know,
you can in and out on the same approach. These are not. They're
single use, one way. Well, because the opening, the median opening
across the street on the front of them, is being blocked off by new
construction, that will not be there anyway -- anymore; so you can
only have cars go in and out one way. There's no more of this thing
anymore. There's no more two-way approach; it's a one-way. And to do
this we have to have that 20-foot driveway, which is a requirement.
The 20-foot driveway has to be at least 20 foot wide. When you take
that from the front of the existing building, and that's -- you know,
that's cutting it to the minimum -- the 20 feet leaves 7 feet. We are
then taking the ends of the things outside of the driveway and -- and
landscaping the entire area 15 feet wide, which is all we can do. And
that's what I'm trying to say. There is no give for us.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I disagree. You can --
MR. QUINNELL: What can we do then?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You can reduce the size of the
building.
MR. QUINNELL: Tear the building down?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You can remove the face of the
building and replace it. Again, we're making exceptions in an
aesthetic area for the purpose of this use, and I, you know -- what
you said has buttressed my position, not actually weakened it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to ask Mr. Nino
-- I'm going to assume there are some uses in C-4 that would not
require all that has been described here by the petitioner as far as
access --
MR. NINO: You're -- you're right. I think we have to
appreciate property a zoned C-4 can be put to an awful lot of uses.
And our practice has been -- where a property is vacant for six months
or more, our practice has been to try to the extent possible to cause
some improvements to be made. And -- and that track record has
usually been not to demand the full buffer strip requirement,
particularly where the property is all hard surfaced and there is
substantial expense in pulling up concrete.
MR. HULHERE: I think that statement is true. Again,
Bob Hulhere for the record. I would like to clarify it, though, a
little bit. The Land Development Code says if a -- if a use ceases to
operate and the building's vacant for six months or more, with respect
to landscaping and other improvements, the site needs to be brought up
to code to the greatest extent possible. That's the terminology
that's used. It gives the staff some -- some ability to negotiate.
What we have not generally done, which Mr. Nino referred
to, is we have generally not said, well, you need to have a 15-foot
landscape buffer and that causes you to remove 8 or 10 parking
spaces. What we have generally done is said you will enhance the
landscape buffer to the greatest extent possible, but not reduce
something like on-site parking. And so I'm not sure how that affects
this particular site plan, but we would -- we have -- it has been our
practice to upgrade land development regulations to the greatest
extent possible, and any other use that is permissible in the C-4
district could come through here through a site development through
administrative process.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's the point of my
question, was there may be certain requirements to make this workable
for a used car and boat lot, but some of those requirements probably
aren't there for other uses that are currently available under C-4.
And so you're asking for a conditional use and then over and above
that asking to have less of a requirement to accommodate that
conditional use. And I'm not sure I'm comfortable doing that.
MR. QUINNELL: Well, the -- what we did was get the
approval from FDOT for the driveway. I mean, it's approved. We
already have the permit in hand. Then we've landscaped the entire
front of everything that is not that driveway. That's what I'm trying
to say.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sir, the FDOT driveway requirement
stops at your property line. Everything internal to that is subject
to county regulations.
MR. QUINNELL: Well -- yeah. But the driveway -- all we
did was continue the driveway through, that's all.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That is a site design consideration
for the property owner. FDOT does not require you to have a 20-foot
interior aisleway inside your property. Their authority stops at your
property line, and that's where the site development plan process,
which is a county-covered or county-run process, takes over. So we
are talking about our improvements internal to the site's property
line.
MR. QUINNELL: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, I'm kind of --
MR. QUINNELL: Then if you could -- if you would approve
it with that stipulation, then we'll go back to the drawing board and
make it right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do you have anything else to
add at this point, sir?
MR. QUINNELL: The fact that we -- we can try to get the
15 feet in any way possible, we will do it. We just thought that this
was the only way we could do it with the one-way driveway. Now, if
there are other ways that we can get the 15 feet in there, we will.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commission -- do we have any
public speakers, Mr. McNees?
MR. McNEES: No, sir.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to move -- make a motion
to deny.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I thought you were going
to ask a question. We'll close the public hearing.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought you said that. Motion
to deny and to invite you, please, to come to this meeting tonight
because the problems that you're describing are exactly what we hope
to come up with solutions for. And I understand you're going to be
frustrated leaving here today and not want to be looking at me anymore
tonight, but I would ask you, if you could, to be there because
exactly the issues that you have, trying to -- trying to make a
business function on these properties within the restrictions that you
have from the state and local standards are what we want to talk about
tonight and if there's a way to do it.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please be there.
MR. QUINNELL: Well, can I add one more thing?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Unfortunately, sir, the public
hearing has been closed.
We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion
on the motion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none, the motion carries 5-0.
Item #13A2
RESOLUTION 97-188 RE PETITION CU-96-26, ROGER DALE REPRESENTING OUR
SAVIOR LUTHERAN CHURCH, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USES "3" AND "4" OF THE
RSF-2 ZONING DISTRICT FOR DAY CARE CENTERS AND SCHOOLS FOR PROPERTY
LCOATED AT 10000 AIRPORT ROAD NORTH - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS
Next is Item 13(A)(2), Petition CU 96-26, Roger Dale
representing Our Saviour Lutheran Church, requesting Conditional Use 3
and 4 of the RSF-2 zoning district for day-care centers and schools.
This is located on Airport Road North. Would all individuals that are
here to testify on this item please stand and raise your right hand.
Madam Court Reporter.
(The speakers were sworn.)
MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We'll cut to the chase on this one.
This is a day-care center along an arterial roadway. It backs up to a
residential neighborhood; is that correct?
MR. NINO: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any letters of complaint
or '-
MR. NINO: We have no letters of objection to this
petition. The Planning Commission has unanimously recommended it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If the board will bear with me, can I
ask the petitioner what steps you have taken to make sure that the
noise associated with a day-care center will not carry into the
residential area next to you?
MR. MINOR: We propose to provide a wall or a fence or
other soundproofing along the residential area as part of the
landscape buffer --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. MINOR: -- and that's part of the plan.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would you be willing to commit to a
hard wall such as masonry? Masonry or concrete fence?
MR. MINOR: Yes, we would.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do we have any speakers on
this, Mr. HcNees?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item
with that one stipulation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any
discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none, thank you very much.
Item #13A3
PETITION A-97-1, JAMES H. SIESKY REPRESENTING FALLING WATERS
DEVELOPMENT COPORATION REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COHMISSION'S
DENIAL OF A TEMPORARY USE EXTENSION FOR A MODEL SALES CENTER DENIED ON
JANUARY 16, 1997 - DENIED
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hr. Chairman, on this next
one I just want to clarify -- maybe Mr. Weigel can help us, but I'm
sure Mr. Siesky realized this. But the question is, what was in
error, not the rehearing itself; isn't that correct?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, as I understand these
appeals, the appeal has to be specific on content of what was
presented at the Planning Commission and not necessarily a total and
complete rehearing of the issue; is that correct? MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So what we will ask -- again,
do we need to swear in the witnesses on this one also?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. They would be sworn in.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Also Mr. Siesky asked me that point of
procedure in regard to this in the sense that he may have -- after
staff presentation may have some points that he wishes to make which
may be a rebuttal, and I informed him that he will not have the
opportunity, unless the chair were to change what has been his
procedure, to interject or file objections while someone else is
speaking. He may have the opportunity to address his concerns of what
has been brought before you in a rebuttal or a secondary opportunity
to speak to the board in that regard.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We'll go ahead and set the
stage that, yes, after staff has made its presentation, if you have
specific points for rebuttal, those are fine to be stated. However,
they are not an open door to air your case in areas that are outside
of the appeal that is before us today. Does any board member have a
problem with that as an operating rule? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. With that I'll also ask you,
Mr. Siesky, at the appropriate time to state the purpose of the appeal
and the specific areas of appeal and then give the supporting
information for that. Is that acceptable to you? MR. SIESKY: That's acceptable to me.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. With that, I'll ask all
members -- all individuals here to speak on this matter to stand and
raise your right hand please.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Mr. Badamtchian, good afternoon.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Chahram
Badamtchian from planning services. Mr. James Siesky representing
Falling Waters development is appealing a decision made by the
Planning Commission to deny a request to extend a temporary use permit
for a model home that they have on Trail -- on Trail Boulevard across
the street from Pelican Bay. This permit will expire -- the temporary
use permit will expire on June 1, 1997. They applied for a three-year
extension. It was denied by the Planning Commission on January 16th.
The staff had recommended that the Planning Commission deny this
request because it did not comply with today's Land Development Code.
Since this temporary use -- this model home was
approved, we had amended our Land Development Code to say that we can
only have model homes in areas that allow such a building. This is a
multifamily building, one-unit multifamily; however, building located
in a single-family district. And it promotes and markets developments
on Davis Boulevard and not on North Trail. Basically, staff
recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals uphold a Collier County
Planning Commission's denial.
At the meeting Mr. Siesky amended his request. He was
originally requesting for three-year extension -- amended his request
to re -- to request a seven month -- six -- seven-month extension
until the end of 1997 or when they have another model built, whichever
comes first.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I'm done with my presentation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any further questions of
Mr. Badamtchian?
(No response)
Seeing none, Mr. Siesky, do you have any -- any comments
regarding Mr. Badamtchian -- Badamtchian's presentation?
MR. SIESKY: My comments are directed to the basis for
the denial --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SIESKY: -- and also to the staff report that was
submitted.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please proceed on those -- again,
specific information regarding to what you think is incorrect or -- or
inaccurate information, and then we'll open it up to board questions.
MR. SIESKY: Thank you. The -- the staff report lists
five criteria to be considered when -- when deciding whether or not to
extend a temporary use. The first criterion stated is the number of
existing model homes or model sales centers within the immediate area
of the extension request. Staff said there are no model homes. There
is a model home. Divco has a model home that's -- let's see, I'll
give you the address, 664 -- 6664 Trail Boulevard North, which is, I
would say, probably within a mile of this property.
The second criterion stated is the classification of the
right-of-way upon which the model home or model sales center fronts.
In that regard the staff report is only partially true, I suggest. It
says it fronts on Trail Boulevard. That's true, but it also fronts on
U.S. 41. There's no intervening houses or any other barrier between
U.S. 41 and this property, and I have some photographs if you'd like
them.
The third criterion is the character and makeup of the
area surrounding the model home or sales center. I have no objection
to that criterion as stated in the report. The third one is the
potential effect on adjacent and surrounding properties. I suggest to
this board that the staff's answer to that provision is not responsive
to the question. The basic answer is and the basis for the denial by
the Planning Commission was that it does not comport with today's land
development criterion.
It is not -- that is not an effect of the model home on
adjacent or surrounding properties. And I would suggest to you that
there have been model homes on Trail Boulevard for 20 years that I've
lived here. I went by Sunday and counted all the homes that had been
there, and there are at least 17 that have been model homes during
that period.
Also, I would suggest to you that after reviewing Mr.
Badamtchian's file -- I apologize if I mispronounced your name --
there were 11 letters sent out to surrounding homeowners. I'm one of
them. There was one objection received, and I would suggest to you
that that objection would not have been received had that person not
received a letter, and under the ordinance they should not have
received a letter. According to my surveyor, this property is 365
feet away from the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As opposed to?
MR. SIESKY: Three hundred.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I can't answer that one.
MR. SIESKY: There has never been, to my knowledge, any
complaint regarding the actual use of the property. There's never
been a loud party there. There's never been any noxious substances on
the -- on the site. The property's always been properly cared for.
There's never been any nuisance condition. The principal complaint
that I've seen in the letters is that we don't want it here. It's not
consistent with the new LDC.
Number 5 is the existence of complaints relating to the
use of the model home or model sales center, which is the subject of
the extension request. Staff says they received a multitude of
complaints. I went through the complaints yesterday with Chahram, and
there were three in the file. The last one was an anonymous complaint
that was made in January of 1996. The -- all of the complaints dealt
with signs and not with any of the criteria stated within the county's
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just for the record, the signs
are currently in violation of the code. I mean, a variance was
applied for, denied, and the signs were constructed anyway without
building permits, and I think that's of interest for this discussion
today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That falls under the nuisance
condition.
MR. SIESKY: I would object to it as not being one of
the criteria to be considered by this board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it falls under the
potential effect of the model home on adjacent properties.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's let Mr. Siesky finish his
presentation; then we'll open it up to questions and comments to the
board.
MR. SIESKY: I would request that the board, when it
makes its determination, consider the application submitted by my
client, a staff report subject to the objections, three case inquiry
sheets that are in Mr. -- in Chahram's file, and that -- the notices
that went to surrounding owners in the absence of objections received
from them. And I'm ready to answer questions for the board.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Siesky, do you contend that this
is a single-family residence?
MR. SIESKY: I contend it is a model home. It is
constructed as a single-family residence. There is only one possible
residence there. There are no -- not two homes. There's only one
home.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. How long has it existed on
that site?
MR. SIESKY: I can't tell you exactly. Chahram probably
could, but I know that the provisional or temporary use expires, I
believe, June 1st.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: June 1st, it's going to be three years
in June 1st.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In those three years how many of
those homes' been built on a single-family lot in Collier County? MR. SIESKY: I have no idea.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would you say none is a fair
estimate?
MR. SIESKY: That would be my guess.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, to your knowledge, all of
these model homes that have been built have been done in multifamily
zoning as part of condominium projects. Is that a fair statement,
Mr. Siesky?
MR. SIESKY: That's probably true.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So the fact that it's a
single-family model home that's never been duplicated or built
elsewhere in any single-family zoning that you're aware of you don't
think has any role in this board's decision today?
MR. SIESKY: When I looked at the board's ordinance, I
did not see that as a criterion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Under nuisance condition,
other than Commissioner Hac'Kie stating what she believes is a
violation of the wall along Trail Boulevard which has been verified as
a violation, when you stated there had been no complaints, did you
check with our code enforcement department?
MR. SIESKY: I checked with Chahram who checked the code
enforcement file.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Have there been any complaints
filed with code enforcement on this property?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We had the -- complaints, but we have
only three that are just complaints, people, they call, complain. But
they -- once you tell them let's get the information, they don't want
to do that. They say thank you very much and hang up.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Okay. Mr. Siesky, would you
say that the current situation of that model home is consistent with
existing Land Development Code standards? MR. SIESKY: I really don't know.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Weigel, if we have a
change in our Land Development Code after a use is approved and that
use comes in for an extension, is it within this board's authority to
ask that particular use to conform to the new code changes? MR. WEIGEL: It is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's all I had.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask Mr. Weigel, while we're
asking you questions, on the previous -- second previous hearing we
asked if conditional use was totally discretionary. And I'll ask you
the same question about the extension of this temporary use.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it is discretionary in the sense that
-- that you have the opportunity to make a determination. Your
determination should be based on some findings. I would expect you'll
be able to make some findings to go with your determination.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any further questions of
staff or Mr. Siesky? Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize the code you
mentioned that requires anyone within 300 feet get a notification
letter. If someone who didn't receive a letter were to offer their
concern or their complaint, are you suggesting that this board should
discount that concern or that only -- does the code read that only the
people within 300 feet have a right to offer a concern?
MR. SIESKY: No, sir. That's not what I'm suggesting at
all.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because the point is -- I
understand that 10 out of 10 of those letters didn't and that the
llth, whether it was or was not within 300 feet, they're aware of it,
and they have a concern. That's a valid concern. And -- and we
should take that into consideration.
I understand your point. Maybe they shouldn't have got
a letter, and if they didn't, you'd have one less concern. Perhaps
they wouldn't be aware of they wouldn't be aware of it, but I don't
think we can discount --
MR. SIESKY: Commissioner, if I may, my thought is this:
It wasn't such a crucial item of concern for those people that had
they not received a letter that they would have made a complaint.
It's as though you're talking to a friend and he suggests something to
you, and you hadn't really thought about it. But once it's suggested,
he may act on it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand your technical point,
Mr. Siesky, but the letter in no way suggests that they disapprove of
or approve of simply notification. So it's -- it's not really a
suggestion. I understand your technical point. MR. SIESKY: No, no, I'm really make --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And my point is, however they
arrived at their concern, they have a concern.
The second question is a follow-up to Commissioner
Hancock's question, and that is, to the best of your knowledge, did
the marketing materials offered in this model home offer the model as
a single-family home?
MR. SIESKY: No, they do not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any other questions of Mr.
Siesky?
Let's go to public speakers, Mr. McNees.
MR. McNEES: You have two, Sally Barker followed by
Allen DeHart.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And I will have to express to the
speakers the same thing I've expressed to Mr. Siesky where we're
strictly dealing with the elements of the appeal that have been raised
here today.
MS. BARKER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record my name is Sally Barker. I won't take your time by repeating
everything I said in my letter to you. I certainly hope you read the
letter. I just wanted to let you know I'm here in case you have any
questions about why I object to this extension.
In conclusion I'd like to say that I feel this model
center was built under false pretenses. I'd hate to see it extended,
and I'd feel that way even if they weren't flying the British Union
Jack upside down for the last six months. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which is not a violation of code but
MS. BARKER: No, but it's irritating.
MR. McNEES: Mr. DeHart.
MR. DE HART: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Arnold
DeHart, a member of the Pine Ridge Civic Association. A couple of
comments. One of them is, is as far as -- all of the model homes that
were referenced along Trail Boulevard are and still are single-family
residents. The -- one additional point was that the -- when you
commissioners did change the Land Development Code, it was with the
full support of the Collier Building Industry Association. We worked
with them on that and with Mr. Mulhere to get that changed. Since the
board has ruled that such an off-site sales office does not meet the
current development code, it seems inappropriate to extend their
temporary use permit beyond the currently authorized period.
In view of the -- what we've seen relative to the double
signage, I wait with considerable interest to see if that building is
still there another year if this board does deem to not extend the
license. In closing, I strongly urge you to reject the petition.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Is that the end of our
public speakers?
MR. WEIGEL: It appears to be. If I can make a comment,
the board may wish to go on the record to indicate any private
correspondence they may have reserved -- received in this regard.
That correspondence, of course, may be utilized in the -- in the
decision-making process as long as you bring it to the attention of
the process today and make it part of the record.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I received some written
correspondence in this regard.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I -- I did as well, but I'm going
to base my decision solely on what I've heard today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Same thing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My decision will be based
solely on the information provided in this hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Despite the fact that we are
permitted to consider outside information as long as we disclose it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I did receive a letter and, I think,
two phone calls on this matter. Obviously, the pertinent facts will
be considered, but I'll base my decision on what has been presented
here today.
Mr. Siesky, there's typically not a rebuttal section to
this.
MR. SIESKY: This is not rebuttal. But I would like to
just ask a question of the board, and that is what matter will be
considered the record for this proceeding.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, I understand the verbatim
transcript of this in addition to any copies of correspondence that
have been cited need to be provided for the record.
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there anything else in addition to
Mr. Siesky's question?
MR. WEIGEL: No, nothing else. To respond to Mr. Siesky
further, of course, the agenda preparation, that is also part of this
record for any other purpose. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SIESKY: I would request that the -- that Chahram's
file be included in the record since it includes the specific
complaints that are in writing and filed with the -- with the staff.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, we'll take whatever is
typical, normal, and legal in this manner. But if -- you know, those
are public records -- MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and a request for those.
MR. WEIGEL: That's my suggestion, also response is that
the records are public records. Mr. Badamtchian has made his
submittal and discussion to the board and referring to records of that
nature; so by -- to the extent that any of those records are
referenced, they may be utilized for the appeal purposes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does that answer your question, Mr.
Siesky?
MR. SIESKY: Yes. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to close the public
hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to
make a motion we deny the request for appeal. I don't think any of
the -- based on the fact, I don't think any of the five points raised
by Mr. Siesky were sufficiently compelling to warrant a rehearing,
particularly note that he's acknowledged it doesn't meet the -- to the
best of my recollection -- and, matter of fact, let me rescind that.
I'll say that it does not meet current LDC.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Any
discussion on the motion?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just -- well, to add for the
record, if the motion maker would agree that -- that specifically No.
4 of the criteria is not met because there is a potential negative
effect of the model home sales center on adjacent surrounding
properties and also that the existence of complaints, which is
Criterion No. 4 -- No. 5 includes not only the three written
complaints in Mr. Bad -- Dr. Bad -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Badamtchian.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Darn it, just when I'm trying to
show off.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Badamtchian.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. -- in his file, but
also the verbal complaints that have been received by the staff.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion amends. Does second amend?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Second amends. Any further
discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Seeing none, motion carries 5-0. The appeal is denied.
Item #13A4
RESOLUTION 97-189 AMENDING RESOLUTION 96-305 TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S
ERROR IN THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO LAND AREAS REQUIRING AN 8.95 FOOT
VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK IN THE HH ZONING DISTRICT FOR
MARIA SILVA'S PROPERTY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF KATHY LANE - ADOPTED
13(A)(4), resolution amending 96-305 to correct a
scrivener's error. Anything unusual, Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: Nothing unusual.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any speakers, Mr. HcNees?
aye.
MR. McNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #13B1
RESOLUTION 97-190 RE PETITION CU-96-1 FOR A FIRST EXTENSION OF A
CONDITIONAL USE FOR A CHURCH IN THE RSF-3 ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY
DESCRIBED IN RESOLUTION 96-192 ADOPTED ON APRIL 9, 1996, PURSUANT TO
SECTION 2.7.4 OF THE LDC - ADOPTED
Seeing none, we are on to Item 13(B)(1), Petition
CU-96-1.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, this is simply
the extension of an existing conditional use? MR. NINO: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Anything unusual or notable about
this?
MR. NINO: Nothing is changed to the best of my
knowledge.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any speakers, Mr. HcNees?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #14A
PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE UPDATE - EACH COMMISSIONER TO DETERMINE 5 ISSUES
TO BE DISCUSSED
Seeing none, on to Item 14, BCC communications.
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have just one matter. I
thought that we were going to hear today a report on the scrubbers at
the south water treatment plant. Maybe I was wrong about that, but I
just would like to get an update.
MR. McNEES: A report is very nearly prepared. You
won't be seeing it today. You may see it next week. If not, it would
be the week after. I know it's nearly complete.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Let's have that on next
week's agenda.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry, you have a
productivity committee issue.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Very quickly, productivity
committee had their agenda and their proposed study areas here, which
have been prepared. When Mr. Hancock was the vice-chairman and served
on that group -- and I need to know at this point in time if there are
any changes or anything that you would like to see moved up or taken
out or something that you want added. They're just looking for input
here and --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: -- anything that changed, you know
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can I ask, because some of those
times -- some of those are kind of hot-button topics that we asked the
board to formally recognize issues. Maybe each list five issues
they'd like the committee to look at and submit those to the
committee. I -- again, I'm just looking for something more than --
you know, that list is a little dated.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's their thought, and that's
why they wanted me to bring it back to see if there are any changes
you want made. They realize there's some things on here that have not
been addressed, but maybe there are other priorities now that you
would rather see addressed, moved up, taken out, whatever.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What we did last time is asked each
commissioner to put a list of four or five things together they
thought was important. We then put them all on a total list, ranked
them, and the top two or three became work subject for the
productivity committee. Maybe that same course of action is a good
idea here. Is there any objection to that?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Is that all right?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That way you get to do all the work.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. Commissioner Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I have nothing. Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: No, nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any parting comments, Mr. McNees?
MR. McNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Miss Filson, can we go?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are adjourned.
***** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Berry and
carried unanimously, that the following items under the consent
agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 97-183 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "SHERWOOD PARK
Item #16A2
APPROVAL TO RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & COUNTRY
CLUB PHASE TWO-A" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
STIPULATIONS
Item #16A3
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR PELICAN HARSH, UNIT
ELEVEN, PHASE 2 - WITH STIPULATIONS
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A4
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR WILLOW BEND AT STONEBRIDGE, TRACT A
- WITH CASH BOND AS SURETY AND STIPULATIONS
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A5
ACCEPTANCE OF UTILITY EASEMENT FOR EXISTING UTILITIES FOR VILLAS OF
CAPRI
Item #16A6
FORMAL BID PROCESS WAIVED; PRINTING CONTRACT AWARDED TO PRESTIGE
PRINTING, IN THE A_MOUNT OF $32,065.00 FOR PRINTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
MARKETING MATERIALS
Item #16A7
APPROVAL TO RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF HERITAGE GREENS F/K/A DOVE POINTE
- WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A8
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR WHITTENBERG SALES TRAILER - WITH
STIPULATIONS
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A9
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR NORTHSHORE LAKE VILLAS -
WITH STIPULATIONS
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16B1
APPROVAL OF A ROAD IMPACT FEE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT FOR S.R. 951
FOUR-LANING WITH 951 LAND HOLDINGS JOINT VENTURE
Item #1682 - Moved to Item #882
Item #1683
AWARD A CONTRACT FOR BID NO. 97-2626, MARCO ISLAND T-GROIN
CONSTRUCTION, TO DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$313,100.00, SUBJECT TO RECEIPT OF STATE AND FEDERAL PERMITS ON OR
BEFORE MARCH 28, 1997
Item #1684 - This item has been deleted
Item #1685
AMENDMENT NO. FOUR, FOR ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH METCALF & EDDY FOR THE NCRWTP
8-HGD EXPANSION PROJECT - IN THE AMOUNT OF $503,142.00
Item #1686
ANNUAL RENEWAL OF THE MAINTENANCE AND ARTERIAL ROADWAY MEDIANS AND
ADJACENT RIGHT-OF-WAY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Item #16D1
AWARD BID #97-2637 FOR CONTRACT PRINTING TO VARIOUS FIRMS LISTED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ON AN ITEM BY ITEM BASIS
Item #16D2
APPROVE THE DONATION OF SURPLUS RADIO EQUIPMENT TO K-9 SEARCH AND
RESCUE OF SOUTH FLORIDA
Item #16D3
APPROVE THE ACQUISITION OF FIVE (5) MEDIUM DUTY ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT
AMBULANCES FROM AERO PRODUCTS CORPORATION, THROUGH A COOPERATIVE
PURCHASE UTILIZING THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY BID NO. 96-60, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$486,065.00
Item #16D4
APPROVE SOLE SOURCE PURCHASES FROM KELLY TRACTOR, INC., IN EXCESS OF
$15,000.00
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENT 97-210 AND 97-216
Item #16G1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #16H1
APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENTS FINALIZING FY 96 DEBT SERVICE
APPROPRIATIONS
Item #16H2
CLAIRVOYANT PERMIT NO. 97-1 ISSUED TO ANNA MARiE NICHOLAS
Item #16H3
RATIFY THE AWARD OF RFP NO. CCSO97-001 TO RCC CONSULTANTS, INC., FOR
COHMUNICATIONS CONSULTING SERVICES RELATED TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE'S
ACQUISITION OF A COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH (CAD), IN THE A_MOUNT OF
$80,092.00
Item #1611
APPROVAL OF AN AGREEHENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE NAPLES AREA
ACCOHMODATIONS ASSOCIATION, INC., FOR THE AWARD OF TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
TAX FUNDS IN THE A_MOUNT OF $489,058.00 FOR ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION
(CATEGORY B1)
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:05 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Barbara A. Donovan