BCC Minutes 09/01/1998 R REGULAR MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, September 1, 1998
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRPERSON:
Barbara B. Berry
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Timothy L. Hancock
ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA, CONSENT AGENDAAND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED
WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to welcome you to the
September 1st meeting of the Collier County Board of Commissioners.
This morning we're pleased to have with us Reverend James Honig of
Grace Lutheran Church for invocation. If you please rise and remain
standing then for the Pledge of Allegiance.
REVEREND HONIG: Almighty God, most gracious Heavenly Father, on
this election day we are most grateful for the privilege of
participatory government. Today elected leaders and concerned
citizens from our community gather in this place to conduct the
affairs of this place. Grant your blessing to these proceedings. Give
an overflowing measure of wisdom and discernment. Make us mindful of
the needs of others above our own needs, especially those whose needs
are great. Give us a heart for justice and preserve us from the
disintegrating effects of greed and deception. In your great name we
pray, Amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Pastor Honig.
Pastor Honig brought out a good point this morning. I hope if
you have not yet cast your vote and you are eligible to vote in
Collier County, that you will by all means do so. You have from now
until 7:00 tonight to go to your favorite polling place and cast your
vote.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll refrain from making any suggestions.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And we won't ask.
Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes to our agenda, please?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We do, Madam Chairman. First is to add item
16(A) 27. This is a request to approve for recording the final plat of
Villa Vistana and approval of the performance security. This is the
developer's request.
Also to move item 16(B)10 to 8(B)(2). This is to approve an
assignment and assumption agreement between Collier County and the
South Florida Water Management District pursuant to the terms and
conditions contained in the previous cooperative agreement.
Commissioner Constantine's request.
Also, I need to note for the record that the reference to the
Heli property for item 16(B)4 was inaccurate. That should not have
been referenced as the Heli property. The Heli property item is 16 --
let me get that correct. It's 16(B)4. We had -- we had mentioned
16(B)10 was the Heli property. It is in fact 16(B)4.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 16(B)10 is not the Heli property.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I have two things as far as
your correction just went. One, 16(B)10 then we could leave be.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 16(B)4, and my goal in trying to move
that item was the Heli property.
I've got a call from South Florida Water Management District on
this, and there might be a couple of changes. I'm going to ask if the
board would just continue that for a couple of weeks, and I'm going to
talk with them later in the week when I meet with the district later
in the week on that item.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm anxious to hear from the district on
that, too, so --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So item -- the item being moved to 8(B)(2)
is now going to be continued?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, the item that's listed as
being moved was mismarked as the Heli property. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So that can stay --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that stays.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- as the consent agenda item. 16(B)4,
I'm going to ask if we can continue that. I realize that's out of
order, but it's --
MR. FERNANDEZ: I apologize for the confusion, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. So nothing, we don't have an item then
at 8 (B) (2) ?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just scratch that item? Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Got it.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And the request is to continue item 16(B)4.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
Any other changes, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other changes, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No changes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No other changes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And nor do I.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll move the approval
of the consent agenda, summary agenda and regular agenda --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- as amended.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in
favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #4A&B
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETINGS OF JULY 28 AND AUGUST 4, 1998 - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I'd like to move approval of
the minutes of the July 28 regular meeting and the August 4th regular
meeting, both of 1998.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE HONTH OF SEPTEHBER, 1998, AS CHILDHOOD
CANCER AND BLOOK DISORDER AWARENESS MONTH - ADOPTED
Moving on then to the nice part of our agenda. We have a
proclamation this morning. Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're all nice parts. I believe we
have Mike and Nancy Constantine here. If we could ask them to come
up. Editorial note, I say "tine," they say "teen."
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The annual editorial.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want to confuse anyone.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Obviously no relation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ten minutes into the meeting, you're
breaking into Gershwin.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Distant cousin.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I got that, Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Few did.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'll read the following
proclamation:
WHEREAS, Florida's greatest resource and most cherished treasures
are indeed our youth, who truly have so much to offer. Included in
this population are those children with special needs, who suffer from
childhood cancer and blood-related disease; and
WHEREAS, while the research and treatment of today has extended
the lives and made a positive impact upon the life experiences of many
of these children, and while the number of long-term survivors is
steadily increasing, it is essential that we work together as a people
and as a state to ensure that this trend continues on the upscale; and
WHEREAS, dedicated organizations like the Candlelighters of
Southwest Florida remain deeply committed to expanding the resources
and education available to families whose children have cancer or
blood-related disease; and
WHEREAS, Florida, proud home to some of the finest medical
institutions in the world, whose professional staff are presently at
the forefront in cancer research and other advances, is pleased to
join in recognizing and applauding the valuable role which families of
childhood cancer and blood disorder patients play in helping our
medical community to reach great heights in the name of caring.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that the month of September,
1998 be designated as childhood cancer and blood disorder awareness
month. Done and ordered this 1st day of September, 1998, BCC, Barbara
B. Berry, Chairman.
Madam Chairman, I'd like to move approval of this proclamation.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
(Applause.)
MIKE CONSTANTINE: Again this year, I'd just like to thank the
board and the residents of Collier County for presenting that to
Candlelighters. There's many charities that work with kids with
cancer, and they couldn't continue the mission without the support of
the residents.
And as far as Candlelighters goes, September is a big month.
They have an educational forum which will be this Wednesday, and also
the charity golf tournament. And just would welcome anybody that's
interested to attend that, and leave some brochures out on the --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Charity golf tournament is when and
where?
MIKE CONSTANTINE: September 12th at Bonita Bay, 9:00 p.m. --
9:00 a.m.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Night golf.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd probably score better at 9:00 p.m.,
though.
HIKE CONSTANTINE: Start -- it will be a net scramble with
handicaps. And then the forum is -- it's an educational thing.
Nurses, doctors will be there speaking, as well as family members and
a long-term survivor. And it's really worthwhile, if anyone's
interested. It provides a lot of great information.
And again, thanks for everything, because without you, these
organizations wouldn't be able to make it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 23, 1998 AS COLLIER COUNTY WALK OUR
CHILDREN TO SCHOOL DAY - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Our next proclamation, Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, it's my pleasure this morning to read
a proclamation declaring September 23rd as Collier County Walk Our
Children to School Day, and we have Mr. Jeremy Battis, our bicycle and
pedestrian coordinator here of the HPO to accept this proclamation.
Proclamation reads as follows:
WHEREAS, Florida has been shown to be the state that could most
benefit from improvements to the walking environment, with children
identified as the biggest benefactors of improved safety conditions;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners is committed to the
safe travel of children to and from school; and
WHEREAS, Collier County has been active in efforts to increase
opportunities for walking as an activity and mode of travel through
its alliance with the HPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Program; and
WHEREAS, walking to school promotes child development, teaches
independence, and improves local traffic and air quality; and
WHEREAS, escorting a child to school hand-in-hand is a pursuit in
keeping with quality time and family values.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, the day of September 23rd,
1998 be designated as Collier County Walk Our Children to School Day.
Done and ordered this 1st day of September, 1998, Barbara Berry,
Chairman.
I'd like to move acceptance of this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris, I believe you have some
-- did you like to say something?
MR. BATTIS: Just one thing.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good.
MR. BATTIS: I just wanted to thank you all for your support on
this issue. It's an important one and we're very proud to be bringing
this to Collier County, the MPO and the Bicycle Pedestrian Program.
It's an issue to highlight traffic safety awareness and a
consideration toward building some neighborhood schools and just
family values like we talked about in the proclamation.
I wanted to let everybody know that as of last week, we were the
only community, to our knowledge and to the organizers of the event's
knowledge, to have this event in Florida, so we're very proud of that
fact.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Good.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Also, if I may, on September 23rd, there
will be -- and Commissioner Mac'Kie, I don't know if you'll be
participating because you have school age kids, but we'll be doing
kind of a walking school bus in different communities, where parents
and kids all get together and walk to school at the same time. And
it's really kind of an interactive thing. We did it a year ago in
Victoria Park.
So it will be another way of kind of celebrating this day and
getting, you know, children and parents to spend some time together in
the morning getting their kids safely to school.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm really lucky, my kids' school is in
the backyard, so we walk every day.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Throw them over the fence and say see you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Jeremy.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Hadam Chair. We have some
service awards today. Our first one goes to Stephen Lenberger from
planning for five years.
(Applause.)
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Next one is David Sirenord from road and
bridge.
(Applause.)
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Next is David Zafra from landscape
operations.
(Applause.)
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And Denise Metcalf from building review for
five years. Is Denise here this morning?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Reviewing buildings.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Reviewing buildings.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, she's reviewing some buildings
somewhere, so we'll save this for her 'til later. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
Item #5C1
JOAN MAYER, SOLID WASTE DEPARTHENT, PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION, RECOGNIZED
AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR AUGUST, 1998
If we could have Joan Mayer, I believe? Joan? Is that
correct? Mayer? Okay, I knew, it's going to be one way or the other
and I'll do it wrong.
If you'd turn around, please, and face the camera, we're going to
talk about Joan this morning. She is our employee of the month for
the month of August. And so we're going to read a few things of your
accomplishments and things that you've done for Collier County.
Joan became employed with the county in 1994, at which time she
was the assistant recycling coordinator for the solid waste
department. By May of 1997, Joan became the recycling coordinator.
Through her efforts -- energetic efforts, the county government
in-house recycling program began, and all the office paper, aluminum
cans and cardboard generated in the government office -- and I can
attest to the fact that there's a lot -- that was previously put in
the trash is now recycled. Removal of these items from the trash is
resulting in lower disposal costs for the county.
One of the most outstanding programs that Joan conducts is her
work with the school system. Each year Joan provides approximately
500 hours of time to the public schools to promote solid waste
management and recycling programs. From October to April, Joan
conducts weekly landfill tours and field studies for approximately
1,500 fifth grade students. That in itself is unbelievable if you
know fifth grade students. Teachers are provided with curriculum to
use to prepare the students for the tour, and the students receive
special program guides.
Joan also participates in career development days, science fairs
and Know Your County Government Teen Citizenship Program for high
school students.
On February 5th, 1998, Joan received the Florida School to Work
Zone award from the Collier County School Board.
Aside from her numerous recycling presentations for civic groups,
Joan has participated in the Florida Coastal Cleanup Program, Earth
Day events, and Senior Expose. Joan also participated in the
Everglades National Park 50th Anniversary Celebration in December, at
which time she received a certificate of appreciation from Richard G.
Ring, superintendent of the National Park Service.
From facilitating a cleanup project for the southern Golden Gate
Estates area to enlisting the aid of many student volunteers to do
cleanups on barrier island campsites, Joan's enthusiasm, energy, and
extra efforts make her a great candidate for employee of the month.
And Joan, we want to congratulate you, present you with a plaque,
which you may display, and least -- last but not least, and probably
most importantly, here is a check as well.
(Applause.)
Item #5C2
PRESENTATION OF PHOENIX AWARDS TO RECOGNIZE EMS PARAMEDICS WHO, THROUGH
THEIR SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE, HAVE SUCCESSFULLY REVIVED AN INDIVIDUAL
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Now moving on to Commissioner Mac'Kie with
the Phoenix awards.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, we must be saving more and
more lives, because it seems like we're doing this more and more
often.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wow.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I like that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is absolutely my very favorite thing
of the year is when we have these Phoenix awards.
Immediate activation of the 9-1-1 system bystander CPR, and
assuring a world-class EMS system significantly increases a community
member's chances of survival from sudden death.
On April 15th, 1998, Mrs. Faye Merritt suffered sudden death.
Mrs. Merritt's heart suddenly stopped beating while on a boat ride
aboard the upper deck of the Nautilus. Fortunately, boat captain Jay
Stemen responded to her husband's cries for help and immediately began
CPR.
Approximately 15 minutes later the boat reached the dock, and EMS
department paramedics Lieutenant Michael Sullivan and paramedic Diana
Schwinn initiated life support procedures.
After several minutes of aggressive advanced medical
intervention, Mrs. Merritt's heart returned to a normal cardiac
rhythm. She was further stabilized with additional cardiac
medications and transported to Naples Community Hospital.
Mrs. Merritt was released from the hospital seven days later and
is here today to present awards to the bystander and to the EMS
department paramedics who saved her life.
Mrs. Merritt, would you please come forward.
(Applause.)
MS. MERRITT: If there's anyone in this room who does not know
CPR, I beg you to please take that time to learn. If it hadn't been
for CPR, as they told you, I would not be here today. I have four
guardian angels, and believe me, I -- there's not a day go by I don't
thank the Lord for them and for all the prayers and the people pulling
for me.
I -- as I said -- as they told you, we were out on the boat. I'd
been begging my husband for three months to take me out on that boat,
and I finally got the chance and then I have the cardiac arrest.
But anyway, at this time, I would like to present Jay Stemen, who
is the captain of the boat, to please come forward and richly reward
(sic.) this plaque.
(Applause.)
MS. MERRITT: And paramedic Diane Schwinn.
(Applause.)
MS. MERRITT: And Lieutenant Mike Sullivan.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In addition to that particular award,
there are others, and I'd like them to come forward. Thanks, John.
First, flight medic Ricky Garcia receives a Phoenix award today.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Lieutenant Erin Percival. Not here?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is going really --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, it's going really quickly.
Lieutenant Henrietta Eimers.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have the right month?
MS. FLAGG: Commissioner Mac'Kie, some of them are emergency
calls, so they weren't able to attend.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a good thing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Saving lives.
This is EMT Kelly Kocienda.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right. And I might point out, she's
receiving two Phoenix awards this morning.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Paramedic John Plummet. Also saving
lives.
Lieutenant Sam Poole.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Lieutenant Larry Oakum.
(Applause.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Paramedic Troy Mesick.
(Applause.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Lieutenant Kevin Bolinger.
(Applause.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Paramedic Rich Meyer.
(Applause.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: EMT Pep Saldana.
(Applause.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Lieutenant Michael Sullivan.
(Applause.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Lieutenant Ramon Chao.
(Applause.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This one is noteworthy. This is flight
medic Frank Millot's eleventh Phoenix award.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's quite a way to make a living, sir.
Thank you.
Paramedic Dennis Goodlad.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Captain Denise Clarke.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Captain Sue LaMay.
(Applause.)
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Paramedic Patricia Schilling.
Paramedic Dean Colson.
(Applause.)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Lieutenant Harty Ginter.
(Applause )
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And these next ones are particularly
noteworthy, because these are certificates awarded to firefighters
from the City of Naples, the City of Marco and the Isles of Capri.
They received these awards as part of their participation in the
single emergency vehicle response program.
Firefighter Adam Nadelman.
Chief Emilio Rodriguez.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you so much.
Firefighter Doug Ilardo.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And firefighter Tim Warner.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Kind of puts in perspective what the rest
of us do for a living, guys. Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I won't embarrass them, but there's one
person that received an award this morning that left a job as a
stockbroker to become a paramedic. And a very worthwhile transition.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Considering what the market did yesterday,
that perhaps might be --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, until yesterday, that --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- an appropriate choice.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We need a little CPR in the market.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair, it's 9:30.
Item #10E
PRESENTATION BY COL. JOE R. MILLER AND ROBERT DUANE, AICP, BOTH MEMBERS
OF THE GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION FOR A SUSTAINABLE SOUTH FLORIDA, ON THE
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT - STAFF DIRECTED TO BRING A
RESOLUTION BACK IN TWO WEEKS
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah. At this time, we have a time
certain item that was placed on the agenda, and so we will go to that
item. If I could have Robert Duane come up, please.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is the item?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The item is located on page --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: 10(E).
MR. FERNANDEZ: Item 10(E).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- on our agenda it's 10(E). This has to do
with the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida on the
central and southern Florida project. Mr. Duane?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Affectionately called C&SF.
MR. DUANE: Good morning, members of the commission. For the
record, Robert Duane. Most of you know me as soft spoken. I'm -- try
to avoid making speeches, and I'm going to try not to make one this
morning, but I did want to introduce the colonel this morning and his
team to address what I think is a very important issue for our region.
By way of background, I've been privileged to serve for two terms
on the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, having been
appointed by Governor Lawton Chiles, and last year he decided to add
some representation from the Regional Planning Council onto the
Governor's Commission for Sustainable Florida.
When I took this job on, I wasn't sure what I was getting into,
and I spent two or three months over the last two years attending
meetings, and hopefully the community I live in and work in has got
some benefit from the time that I've spent.
My background is in land development and regional planning. I
have strong opinions about private property rights. I believe they
need to be fully respected. I'm not an environmentalist, per se. I
believe and understand the importance of environmentalists for our
region. I just give you that by way of background.
I went into this process without a preconceived notion or an
agenda. I've learned a lot and I've come to understand that these
issues are very complex. I've gleaned maybe a thimbleful of knowledge
out of a bucket. And these are big issues that no one person, I've
come to understand, can fully understand the complexity of them. They
take literally a team of people with expertise across a number of
areas, and that's one of the most important things I've learned.
The restudy that the Corps is going to discuss with you this
morning is perhaps one of the most important water resource issues
that's going to affect our region in the foreseeable future, there's
no question about that. The only problem I see with the restudy
process is that it's principally directed towards southeast and
central Florida; the exception being that there is some focus on the
restudy for the Caloosahatchee basin, which is very important to our
region because the timing and the releases from the lake affect our
water supply, the quality of water that ultimately ends into our
estuaries, and I don't -- these issues are inexplicably linked to the
quality of life, as well as to our economic well-being in this
community.
Because the focus of the restudy doesn't really address, I think,
some of the water -- long-term water source resource issues, whether
it be water quality or water quantity, you are going to hear this
morning of a proposal to have the water management district and the
Army Corps of Engineers conduct a feasibility study, provided this
study is funded in 1999 by congress in their WRDA legislation, which
will fund ostensibly the restudy over the next 20-year period.
And I'm here to ask you this morning to support in concept -- if
not this morning, at such time as you're comfortable -- the notion of
a feasibility study for our region to try to pick up some of the gaps
that I think have not been fully addressed, and the great amount of
attention that's been focused on central and southeast Florida.
That recommendation I might -- that I'm asking you to consider
today was unanimously supported by our Regional Planning Council and
also by the Southwest Florida issues group, which is an offshoot of
the commission that entails the -- that contains elected as well as
some appointed officials throughout our region. And I hope that you
will consider that this morning.
I think that the time is right. The need is there. I think
there's some legitimate opportunities that we need to address over the
next few years, and I would strongly encourage this commission, when
the draft of the restudy comes out in October, that you make that one
of the issues that your new environmental board, however it's
constituted, will focus on. I think we need to gather as much public
input from various sectors of our community, not just the
environmental community. We need to have the economic community, the
business community. It needs to be a balanced approach.
I'd like to think that the commission, the way that it's
constituted today, is tried through a consensus and through a broad
milieu of people that have worked towards those goals, and I hope that
we listen very carefully to what the colonel says this morning. And I
wish you good luck in addressing this issue. And if I can be of any
service to you on the remaining few months that the commission is
going to be alive, I'm there to try to represent Collier County and
Southwest Florida, and I'd be happy to do so.
And thank you for allowing me to take a few minutes this morning
to introduce the colonel and his team this morning.
Colonel Miller, thank you for being here today. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll just, while he's coming up, add that
you guys know that I serve on this commission by appointment of the
governor. It's not -- this is not the one where I serve as the county
commission's -- as your representative. You know, you didn't appoint
me, the governor appointed me to this commission.
But as Bob said, it's shocking to me to find out how much
information there is out there that affects southwest Florida. And
it's -- and it's no mistake that this study -- if you don't mind me
saying, Colonel Miller, it's no mistake that the study's called the
central and south Florida, because what I learned, very simply stated
is -- forgive me for being so blunt, but you know that I am that way,
Colonel Miller -- that when the Corps came down to south Florida years
ago and did their study that resulted in a lot of the problems that we
have, that was the central and south Florida study. Now the Corps is
here to try to remedy some of the problems that resulted from that,
and they're doing the restudy of central and south Florida.
As we from southwest Florida who are involved in this process
observed it, it became clear that to ask congress to fund a restudy of
southwest Florida was really a faulty premise, because from the
Caloosahatchee south, there has been no federal study.
And so we're asking -- it's critical, frankly, for our part of
south Florida to be included in the study that now is termed a
restudy, but for our part of the state would -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The first time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- actually be the first time.
And this is all about how the Everglades is going to continue to
function. So Colonel Miller.
COLONEL MILLER: Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity,
commissioners, to address you again. It seems like only a brief few
days since we last met. I believe it was in the early part of this
year. And much has been done since that time.
I would like to update you on the central and south Florida
comprehensive plan known as the restudy, talk to you about our
feasibility study, and then give you an update of where we are on the
south Florida EIS, if we have time permitting.
Before I get started, though, I'd like to introduce my staff. To
my right is Stu Appelbaum, my project manager for the restudy itself.
Mr. Lloyd Pike, to my rear, who's my counsel. Dr. John Hall, who is
my chief of regulatory branch or division there in the district. And
Ms. Nanciann Regalado.
I'd also like to acknowledge my partners in this, and that would
be Mr. Chip Merriam and Mr. Clarence Tears from the south Florida
water management district, who are significant partners in this effort
for the restudy itself.
Shown here is a -- is a map of south Florida and the original
C&SF project. It's a little bit hard for some of you to read or to
see. But that's a feature that covers about 18,000 square miles, has
150 water control structures, 16 major pump stations, and encompasses
about 16 counties in south Florida. It goes from Orlando all the way
to Florida Bay, in The Keys. From the Caloosahatchee to the St. Lucie
estuaries, and routes about 1.7 million gallons of water per day to
tide.
This is a project that's about 50 years old, and is in dire need
of upgrade. Next slide.
The original purpose of the central and south Florida project, as
many of you are aware, was flood control, water conservation and
control, water supply, prevention of salt water intrusion,
preservation of fish and wildlife resources, and providing a water
supply to what was then the -- a brand new Everglades National Park.
Next slide.
Now, the implementation of this project led to several impacts.
Some intended, such as flood control, and some unintended, which was
the impact it had on the long-term on the ecosystem.
The agriculture meeting urban development here was one of the
those significant impacts. The project did allow for extensive urban
and agriculture development in south Florida, but it did lead to, and
the negative impact was, the loss of 50 percent of the spatial extent
of the Everglades. Next slide.
Shown here is the S-9 structure. We were highly effective in
flood control project. We can send to tide lots of water. And as
many of you are well aware from this past winter, when we had the E1
Nino waters, up in the headwaters of the Kissimmee we got lots and
lots of rain. But we didn't have the capacity to store that water
once it did rain, and we had to basically flush that water to tide.
That had a significant impact on not only the folks on the St. Lucie
side, but also over here on the Caloosahatchee basin.
Now, I can assure you that I was not comfortable having to send
that water to tide. I knew the impact that was going to have on the
industries, the fishing industries and the tourism industry, but I had
no choice. Only 12 percent of the water would have been allowed to go
further south into the Everglades, the remaining 88 percent of the
water had to be flushed to tide because we had no reservoirs or no
storage capability within the system as it's currently designed. Next
slide.
We've also had some other impacts. Depends on the time of year.
Four months later we have a drought, or we were facing a drought
before it did finally just start to rain. We obviously are too
effective in our flood control, because we lost that water to tide.
Next slide.
One of the other problems is with regard to agricultural and
urban runoff. They've had an impact on the quality of water in south
Florida, and have had an adverse impact on the fish, Lake Okeechobee
and the Everglades itself. Agricultural is by no means, however, the
only culprit in this degradation of the quality of water. Next slide.
It's had a significant impact on the natural patterns of life in
the Everglades itself. Many of you are aware -- may be aware the
alligators in their natural habitat would be using holes that they
would create in the Everglades itself. Well, they're prehistoric
creatures and somewhat lazy by nature, and they've gone to the canals,
which has had an impact on the feeding patterns of the fish and on the
bird life. Next slide.
Shown here is the initial geographic extent of the Everglades
itself. I don't know if you can pick this up here, but this was the
spatial extent. We've lost 50 percent of that. You see along the
eastern seaboard, the coastal ridge there? There's been a huge extent
of the Everglades that's been lost. Miami International, as a point
of reference, used to be a part of the natural Everglades. There's a
whole lot of development further to the west.
I as a young man lived in Miami and went to elementary school and
junior high. I had not been back to Florida for 30 years until this
past summer, and back to Miami in particular. I looked -- or I
recalled the Palmetto Expressway being the furthest extent of the
development in '67 when I departed. I couldn't find the Palmetto
Expressway when I came back. It took me a little bit of effort and I
had to get out the maps, because they had -- the spatial extent that
the development had moved out to the west was quite illuminating for
me. Next slide, please.
I think the Palm Beach Post best explains the kind of impact that
we have here with the restudy in their quote here. It says when the
rain came this winter, the Everglades flooded and we had significant
impacts to both the ecosystem and to the development communities, both
agricultural and the urban development communities. Now when we need
the rain, the extra water is gone. This kind of lays out the crux of
our problem. Next slide.
Now, in the restudy we're trying to fix this 50-year-old plumbing
system that's in need of major overhaul. Next slide.
The study purposes of the restudy are as shown here: To
determine the feasibility of structural operational changes to restore
the Everglades in the Florida bay ecosystems, and to provide for other
water-related needs, including water supply and maintaining the flood
control that we have in the current system.
The restudy goals include reducing the loss of water to tide,
which is about two million acre feet per year; restoring -- or
correction, improving the availability of water for all users;
restoring more natural water deliveries to the natural system, and
that includes all the natural systems, not just the Everglades
national park; maintaining flood protection.
Now, we have a fairly ambitious set of milestones here that were
provided to us by the congress. I can assure you we didn't volunteer
for this accelerated schedule, and it was related to me last night by
Mr. Appelbaum to my right here, there was some intense negotiations
going on to try to keep this thing out into the 2004 and beyond time
frame, but congress saw fit to give us a schedule that was due in this
coming July 1st, 1999, and when given a mission in the Army, we
accomplish that mission. And we're going -- we're on the glide path
to a successful completion of the restudy to meet that time line.
We have some public meetings that I'll talk about a little bit
later, but they're scheduled for November of '98. We'll release the
report, final report and EIS, in April. And we will submit on July
1st, 1999 the report to congress.
Now, this has not been a solely Corps operation, by any stretch
of the imagination. There are numerous federal, state, tribal and
local government representatives, as well as a variety of interest
groups that have played, participated in this process. My primary
partner, as I mentioned before, however, is the south Florida water
management district.
Now, shown here is the comprehensive plan formulation process.
To put it in very succinct terms, this is adaptive management, using a
multi-agency restudy team. As new information becomes available, over
900 hydrologic performance indicators, measures and targets were
evaluated, reevaluated, evaluated, et cetera. We ended with, after
six alternatives, with a preferred option, we call it D13R, within
those of us that are technically involved in this. But it's known to
the rest of you as the initial draft plan. Next slide.
Now, one of the innovations as part of this restudy was the
extensive use of the Internet, shown here as one of the pages. We'd
invite you, for those of you in the audience, as well as the
commissioners, to take a look at our restudy home page to become
familiar with it. It's got a wealth of information about the process
and what we've done here with regard to the restudy. Next slide.
Now, the involvement has not been -- public involvement, however,
has not been limited to the Internet. We've had, as I said before,
the Web site. We've been involved with the task force and the working
group, the governor's commission, the south Florida water management
district governing board, their advisory committees on technical
workshops, a whole host of public meetings and focus groups to include
meetings with various County Commissioners and government officials at
the local level. Next slide.
The key, however, in this whole process is enlarging the water
pipe for all users without pitting one side against the other. This
is not a zero sum game. The idea here is to basically plug the drain
and allow us to have the flexibility, both in terms of the wet season
and the dry season, to provide water to the users, be it agriculture,
urban or the environment.
Now, the keys to restoration -- next slide, please -- are
enlarging the amounts of water available to the users, primarily in
the study used through the use of ASR's and water storage reservoirs,
to ensure adequate water quality through the use of tense treatment
facilities for wastewater, stormwater treatment areas, and to restore
connectivity. And this will be removing or modifying selected canals
and levees and replacing or removing selected road beds, raising them,
per se, as an example, the Tamiami Trail. Next slide.
Sources of water for users include Lake Okeechobee, the
Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie basins and the lower east coast areas,
where we will be adapting changes to the regulation schedule. As with
regard to Lake Okeechobee, we'll be looking to identify basins --
within the basins places where we can store runoff or do seepage
control on tense facilities on the lower east coast. Next slide,
please.
Now, the plan consists of about 50 components, and I'm not going
to read all those, but the primary ones are the storage facilities,
where we're looking to store about 1.5 million acre feet of water with
regard to aquifer storage and recovery, about one -- or about 1,655
million gallons per day in aquifer storage, and stormwater treatment
areas of about 50,000 acre feet. That's where we are today.
Now, none of this, however, has been set in concrete. It will be
site modified, it will be value engineered, et cetera, as we proceed
through the process. Next slide.
Now, I'd like to talk about some of these specific highlights in
terms of storage components. With regard to the Caloosahatchee basin
and C43, we're looking at storage components of about 160,000 acre
feet, out of a total of about 1.5 million acre feet. Next slide.
With regard to environmental components, we're looking in the
Caloosahatchee basin of about two thou -- correction, 20,000 acre feet
out of about 61,000 acre feet. Next slide.
And in the aquifer storage, in the Caloosahatchee basin, we're
looking at 44 sites that will be able to handle about five million
gallons per day, out of a total of about 1,665 million gallons per day
in aquifer storage. Next slide.
Now, some say aquifer storage is an untested and untried
technology. We've heard a lot of that around as we've gone around.
However, in our research we -- as shown here, found numerous ASR's in
place and operational nationwide. Ours is unique here in south
Florida, however, because we're using it on a regional scale and there
are, to be quite honest with you, some regulatory concerns from EPA
that we are working diligently with them to have resolved.
Next I'd like to talk to you about the performance of our
modeling efforts with regard to their impacts on the Caloosahatchee
area. The percent of Lake Okeechobee service areas demands not met
are shown in this. In the Caloosahatchee in particular, in 1995, 12
percent of the demands are not met. In 2050, that percentage will
rise to 22 percent. That's almost a fifth, or over a fifth of the
time the service demands in the -- will not be met in the
Caloosahatchee basin. As a result of the draft -- or initial draft
plan, only three percent a year demands would not be met. That's a
significant improvement over current service. Next --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Colonel Miller?
COLONEL MILLER: -- slide, please.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could I -- could you talk just a little,
though, does everybody know what he's talking about here about that
right now we're 12 percent short, if we do nothing we're -- in the
Caloosahatchee basin, we're going to be 22 percent short on water
supply, and if we implement plan D13R, the current one, then we hope
it will result in only a three percent shortage in 2050? I just
wanted to -- that brings it home to me, you know, for our particular
area. Forgive me.
COLONEL MILLER: Thank you.
The number of damaging releases, which will impact your tourism
and your fishing industries along the Caloosahatchee, the number of
damaging releases over a 31-year period, as shown in the '95 base case
there would be 23. In 2050 it would be lowered to 17 because there's
not -- there's so many users expected to be drawing upon Lake
Okeechobee that that number would degrade.
With the initial draft plan, however, the number of damaging
releases would be reduced over a 31-year period to one as a result of
the initial draft plan. Next slide, please.
Now, the number of undesirable Lake Okeechobee events -- that
means the two highs and the two lows -- which have damaging effects on
the lake itself would be reduced as a result from a target in which we
expect in 2050 to be 12 of those events only to four. Now, we didn't
meet our target there, but we came very, very close. Next slide.
To give you a little frame of reference of some major
infrastructure projects that are going on around the country shown
here, and not to pick on my friends in the Navy, but just as an
example -- I live on a Naval air station, by the way, so I'm very
careful here not to offend them. I like my home where it is.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I take it you won't be getting carrier
duty any time soon.
COLONEL MILLER: It's 1.45 billion.
I say go Navy all year except one week.
The Hiami International Capital Improvement Program is 4.7
billion. And we're looking at the restudy in the range of six to
eight billion dollars.
As I said before, we haven't done the final site evaluations, any
value engineering, any technical designing at this point in time.
It's not feasible. Next slide.
Now, where we are or where we are going in terms of the project
development process: We're over here in the comprehensive planning
process. In July we'll be sending the report and we'll be looking for
congressional authorization. The detailed planning and design and the
signing of project cooperation agreements with the primary sponsor, be
it a county, a city, the state, as in the case of the entity of the
south Florida water management district, all those are out in the
future and would be done over the course of the next 20 years. After
the PCA's are signed, plans and specs. will develop and construction
and monitoring will go on. I fully expect this to be a 20-year plus
effort to get the water right in south Florida.
Now, as shown here are some meeting locations. Of note was the
December 1st meeting in Fort Myers and the November 30th one in
Naples. Next slide.
That kind of summarizes where we are currently with regard to the
process. We will be releasing the report on the 15th of October for
public comment that will include a draft EIS.
This job is extremely challenging, and when I was -- I was not
being facetious when I said it seems like yesterday that we met the
last time, because the sands of time are passing very quickly. Thank
you.
I would like now to talk to you about the southwest Florida
study, the feasibility study. It will be a place holder within the
restudy effort itself and will provide comprehensive plan
recommendations. It will help give us the authority for reconant
(phonetic) study to be initiated in FY '99, with a feasibility study
in the year 2000, which will be cost shared 50/50 with the south
Florida water management district.
And Chip, do you have any comments on that?
MR. HERRIAM: It's in the budget.
COLONEL MILLER: It's in the budget --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the good news.
COLONEL MILLER: -- for the south Florida water management
district. So that's already been allocated. Next slide.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The matching money's there, so we can go
forward to ask for the congressional allocation.
COLONEL MILLER: We also have some -- besides the feasibility
study, we have the critical projects, primarily southern Golden Gates
(sic.) and southern CREW are moving along quite well, as is Lake
Trafford. Those three are the three ones that are moving along and
have met the cut line, as we currently are funded at. Next slide.
Next I'd like to talk about where we are, and I'm not going to go
through all of these slides with regard to the EIS, because you've
seen most of them. You know where our perspective was. There was
rapid growth here in Lee and Collier County, and that hasn't changed
over the course of the last 12 months. As a matter of fact, it's '-
I'm amazed every time I come back over here. This is a -- this place
is bustling. It reminds me of south Florida when I lived over in
Hiami. It's a place that's full of energy and full of life.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think we want to hear that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We didn't want to hear that, Colonel.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You meant it reminds you of what south
Florida could have been.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Keep in mind, he said he left in '67.
COLONEL MILLER: I left in '67. There's a 30-year gap there.
You remember, we did not sign the draft HOU, but we had a win-win
situation for all involved. You all did provide the support and we
very much appreciate that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You have that framed --
COLONEL MILLER: I do not --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You have that framed in your office, don't
you, Joe?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, but John does, though.
COLONEL MILLER: No, I don't have that in my office, to be quite
honest with you. I didn't -- that wasn't a very good likeness, I
didn't think.
Anyway, we went through the public scoping process, and the key
issues remained. The water flows and quality and sustainable economic
development, mitigation of wetlands and endangered species.
Now, where we are today: We're on the verge of finishing up the
EIS, or -- the EIS and providing a report. I think we've made great
success. And the reports I get, and I'll let Dr. John Hall come up
and talk about this in a minute about where we are actually with
regard to the current status. But I think it's been a significant win
for all those involved. I personally have been very impressed with
the folks involved in the ADG and their professionalism and their
willingness to work with one another to come up with a -- some great
ideas or alternatives for the EIS.
Dr. Hall, would you come forward, please?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He's on his way.
COLONEL MILLER: As you're all aware, Dr. Hall is my chief of
regulatory division.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can you help get the hand mike? We
probably ought to fix that stack over there so that it's accessible.
DR. HALL: Well, I've just broken something here. I apologize.
I apologize for that.
As you know, we formed an alternatives development group. That
group grew to 33 membership total. Last week we finished our tenth
meeting. We have -- we have developed 12 sets of evaluation factors,
approximately 27 alternatives, within the 12 -- within the
approximately 1,500 square mile study area. That information is being
compiled now. We will be putting a draft report together the month of
September, be releasing it in draft form to the alternatives
development group by the end of September.
We have an eleventh meeting planned of the alternatives
development group at their request, which will be in the middle of
October to look at that draft report and refine it. It will be
finalized. And then the portion of the report that deals with the
alternatives and the analysis of the alternatives will become the
alternatives section of our draft environmental impact statement,
which we hope to release sometime either the end of October -- yeah,
the end of October or sometime by mid November. So we are on the
schedule that we promised.
COLONEL MILLER: That concludes my remarks. Are there any
questions?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just would like for you to consider what
Mr. Duane asked us at the beginning and that was some form of an
endorsement. I know that those of you who serve on the Regional
Planning Council have probably already entertained that concept, since
it was a unanimous vote of support from the RPC, and am hopeful that
whether today is the right day or if you need more time to get more
information, will join in supporting the request.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: On that point, Commissioner Mac'Kie, as is
our practice, I think there will be a vote of support, but I think we
need to have it in the form of either a resolution or an official
action so that we and the public have an opportunity to see what it is
we're being asked to support and what it does or doesn't involve. I
just am more comfortable when we go through that process than saying
today, you know, we give it our blessing. I'd like to just see it in
written form.
Couple of questions on your presentation, Colonel, if I may. You
mentioned STA's in your presentation. One of the biggest problems
that was created, and I hope you'll take no offense to this, I think
we all recognize the Corps was trying to do a drainage project in '48,
and they accomplished it.
COLONEL MILLER: Did a pretty good job.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A real good job.
And so now we realize that probably wasn't the best science and
we're trying to correct that.
COLONEL MILLER: We've learned a lot.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are we looking at -- on the STA's, are we
looking at coming up with some type of a spreader swale system to
diffuse the way water enters the Everglades? Because one of the big
problems we have with canals and piping is we get inundation of point
source areas, so the -- it's a very uneven application.
And one thing that's worked in Collier County, and we had a
project actually initiated, was a spreader swale system that allowed a
more natural flow, sheet flow effect, into the Everglades. Is that --
when we talk about STA's, are we talking about a spreader swale
system, or are we talking about really leaving the canal system in
place?
COLONEL MILLER: It's -- the hydro patterns would be spread, as
you mentioned before, as they enter the STA's.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. One concern I had when we look at
these things, and feel learning from the past, is that we try to
over-engineer or engineer nature out of the equation. And as someone
born and raised in Florida, we've always had inundations, we've always
had droughts and we will continue to have them.
And maybe this is a question for Mr. Hall, I'm not sure. But as
we look at how this system, when it is completed, is to perform, what
parameters, I mean, what application or parameters are we giving to
the fact that droughts should occur, that inundation should occur?
Because that was one of the things in '48 that we -- you know, we were
trying to avoid one end of the spectrum and never considered the
other. But we need to have droughts in the Everglades and we need to
have inundation periodically. It's nature's balance.
COLONEL MILLER: That will be -- is part of the equation, as they
did the modeling effort itself.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. My concern is that sometimes when
you go through these projects, in the end, the moment it starts to get
dry and one bug or one bunny starts to get upset, that people scream
throw water at it, or people scream stop the water, because they don't
want a particular --
COLONEL MILLER: No, they're -- as part of the restudy we're
trying to reintroduce the natural system fluctuations that occur.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COLONEL MILLER: There will be less highs and less lows in Lake
Okeechobee, but there will be periods where there will be reduced
water flows into the Everglades or in the other areas. And so --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As evidence of that, Commissioner, I'd
point out that on the slides that told us the number of events, you
know, none of those were zeros.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You'd see, you know, those are correlated.
The target number of events is correlated to historical patterns.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, what raised the question was it
seemed like the goal was to get to zero, when in fact -- COLONEL MILLER: No, the goal --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, not in any of them.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COLONEL MILLER: No, the goals were adapted, depending on the
area that we were talking about. And there are obviously 50
components, and there's a wide variety. The only area right now that
we have not been able to exceed or get close to our goal, and which we
are identifying as red, is in one of the water conservation areas,
2-A, I believe -- 2-B, excuse me, out of a whole series of targets.
The remainder of them are either amber, on a few cases, and the vast
majority of them are green in terms of their trying to meet the goals
that we've -- the various people involved in this process has
established.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The last question I have is something that
maybe Mr. Pike is more appropriate for the answer, but I'll just pose
it to you.
It's been brought to my attention that we've all thought, or I
was under the impression that publication of the Federal Register was
a notification issue, when you publish something in the Federal
Register to notice people that an action was going to occur.
It has been posed to me that if the -- let's take southwest
Florida, the EIS that we're looking at here in Collier and Lee County
-- that if the Corps were to produce the final document, and for it to
be published in the Federal Register a total of three times, it would
then become something that is enforceable by the Corps of Engineers
with the same effect as law. Is that the case?
MR. PIKE: When you say enforceable as a matter of law --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would you identify yourself for the
record?
MR. PIKE: Oh, yes. I'm Lloyd Pike, I'm district counsel for the
Corps of Engineers.
When you say enforceable as a matter of law, that's not what this
EIS is about. There is a common misunderstanding that this EIS is
going to dictate something to the county.
This EIS, as we promised you all a long time ago, is really an
examination of the county's comprehensive development plan as the
preferred alternative. And it's what if. What if people continue to
ask for Corps permits in accordance with the county development plan?
And what other alternatives might there be out there?
And so the idea was to get a wide range of folks to look at an
array of alternatives that they could agree on, about what possible
development scenarios were like for the study area. So there's no
force of law to this EIS.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand that now, but most studies
result in some type of recommendation or action. If it's just solely
for informational purposes and will have absolutely no effect on how
the Corps does its business, then I would assume it's a waste of time.
I think the study is going to be a tool by which the Corps will
conduct its business in the future. And my question is, as this EIS
moves forward and as some recommendations come out of it, if those
recommendations are in fact published in the Federal Register three
times, the third time it's published, does it have the same effect as
law? In other words, can the Corps enforce those elements published
in the Federal Register once it's appeared three times?
MR. PIKE: Do you plan to notice anything in the Federal Register
or to enforce anything from that, John?
DR. HALL: We certainly will publish a notice of the availability
of the draft EIS in the Federal Register, and will also release a
local public notice to the effect that it's available. There is
nothing about this EIS that I'm aware of that we are ever or have ever
intended to be, quote, law, unquote.
I think what we've promised all along with this particular EIS is
basically two things: One, a gathering of information which would
help us make better decisions; and secondly, if we can do it, identify
a way to make our process easier, more predictable, and from a
fundamental perspective, a better way of doing government. And that's
exactly what we're doing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: John, you have done everything that you
said you would do. I am not questioning that in any way, shape or
form. My question goes beyond the end of the study period, that from
that study -- you know, again, I have to express this concern because
it's been raised to me by my constituents, that the study produces
something that is going to change the way the Corps does its job in
issuing permits in southwest Florida, and by mere publication in the
Federal Register. Would that create effective law? DR. HALL: No.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
COLONEL MILLER: Short answer, I guess, is no.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's easier.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to say, from a practical
standpoint, short of getting any funding from congress anyway, it
would be hard to do. Even if -- in a legal sense if publication in
the Federal Register made something effective, if you didn't get any
funding to go where the Colonel would like to go, then I suppose it
would be --
MR. PIKE: But in --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- pretty tough to do.
MR. PIKE: But in addition to the information that we're getting,
which you're talking about, we told you that we would try to come up
with some sort of general permit document or something that made it
easier as a result. Those are the products that we expect. We don't
expect to publish anything that is binding as a matter of law. But I
think your constituent, the person who has that concern, it would
probably help for me to have some direct interface with them so that I
can explain the process. I think there's a legal misunderstanding.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It may very well be, but it was raised to
me in the last couple of weeks, and I had the opportunity to address
it today, so --
MR. PIKE: I appreciate it. And if there's any further
clarification that I can give to that constituent, I'll be glad to try
to do that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Lloyd, I know I can always get ahold of
you. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I have one.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Good morning, Colonel.
COLONEL MILLER: Good morning, sir.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Let me touch briefly on the funding. I
notice in the material that we are -- we've been delivered that
referenced six to eight billion dollars over a 20 or more year time
span, and to be funded by federal government halfway and by the south
Florida water management district halfway.
COLONEL MILLER: Well, it would be a variety of entities that
would be involved as sponsors. Either the local governments, county
commissions or counties, cities, depending on where the project is
located. It could be the south Florida water management district, or
it may require us to go to the state legislature.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And is there -- I guess at this
stage of the study, or the restudy, there is absolutely no way to
determine how those percentages of participation are going to break
out. I mean, that's something to be determined in the future?
COLONEL MILLER: Yes, sir. The vast majority of them I think,
however, will be the south Florida water management district is the
primary sponsor. Others will be -- there will be a handful, I would
expect, that would be the other sponsors.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
COLONEL MILLER: Any other questions?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment. On the front end of
this whole process, that was one of the concerns that was expressed,
would there be mandates at the end of this process dollar-wise. And I
think when we say half would be funded by the federal government, that
leaves three to four billion dollars that local people, everybody
sitting in this room, either through the water management district or
through the county or City of Naples or the State of Florida, for that
matter, may be asked to pick up.
And I think, Commissioner Mac'Kie, while I appreciate where
you're headed with us endorsing a general concept, that has to be a
part of our scenario. We have to have some idea of what we're being
asked to pick up and by what governmental entity and what the impacts
on John Q. Public will be when we're talking about three to four
billion dollars.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think at this point the endorsement that
I'm seeking would be for -- to endorse the central and south Florida
restudy, specifically the place holder for the southwest --
COLONEL MILLER: The feasibility study.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- Florida.
COLONEL MILLER: For the feasibility study for southwest --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: For the feasibility study. And that
doesn't -- can't even arguably, I don't think, can -- nobody can think
we're going to spend money as a result of endorsing that. That is
already in south Florida's water management district budget, and if
congress funds the other half of it, that study will be solely funded
by those two agencies, and nobody's going to ask our county to help
fund that study; am I correct?
COLONEL MILLER: That is correct.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: As much as I argued during the EIS whether
we agree or disagree or whether we want to talk about the details to
the nth degree, we need a place at the table to make sure the
interests of our citizens are represented, our constituents are
represented and protected, from both an environmental standpoint and a
private property rights standpoint.
So I don't think there's any way I would say let's not be a
participant, let's not, you know, get on board and be a part of it. So
that's not even a consideration for me.
COLONEL MILLER: The feasibility study is to address, as was
mentioned earlier, the lack of a study in the southwest portion. The
Big Cypress is covered to a certain extent in the restudy itself, but
there's a whole portion out here that basically we have the
opportunity to not recreate some of the issues that we have over on
the southeast side of the state.
As I understand what you're asking for in terms of endorsement,
it would be for the feasibility study itself, not for the restudy in
its overarching context.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's exactly -- my request, and I
apologize if it isn't clear, is -- and if we don't have enough
information, I certainly respect -- you know, I've been working at
this for about a year and a half and so I'm pretty familiar with it.
But my request for an endorsement is that we encourage congress to
support the place holder which would allow for the feasibility study.
The part that I talked about, that from Caloosahatchee south,
there is no data, there is no federal data. It has not been studied.
And this is our shot to get federal and state money to collect that
data so that we cannot become the east coast, so that we can avoid the
mistakes of the past by having the information necessary to prevent
them.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think at this point in time, unless
we don't have a resolution before us -- we do have speakers on this --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chair --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- you have one speaker.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, any other questions for Colonel Miller?
COLONEL MILLER: Again --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much.
COLONEL MILLER: -- thank you very much. It's an honor to be
back in front of you. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
Speaker?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. David Guggenheim.
MR. GUGGENHEIM: Good morning. For the record, David Guggenheim,
president and CEO of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
As you know and you have heard, the central and southern Florida
project is an historic effort to provide the rapidly growing
population of south Florida with an adequate supply of fresh water,
adequate flood control, and in the meantime, while restoring one of
the most beloved ecosystems on earth, the Everglades.
Here in southwest Florida, we are an important part of this
system, a resource upon which our very way of life depends and our
economy depends.
The restudy, as you've heard, includes alternative plans to
improve water releases and storage in the Caloosahatchee basin.
Wasteful releases of fresh water into the Caloosahatchee have had
devastating impacts on our near shore waters in the Gulf of Mexico,
affecting fishing and tourism. This was especially evident in this E1
Nino year.
The C&SF project will help us reduce these wasteful releases and
improve our water supply for agricultural, urban and environmental
purposes.
But the restudy offers southwest Florida much more than just
improvements in the Caloosahatchee basin. Among its recommendations
to congress in July of next year, the restudy will recommend the
feasibility study to assess southwest Florida's water resources,
identify problems, and to develop solutions.
It's very gratifying to see that southwest Florida is starting to
get the attention that it really deserves.
The feasibility study is an exceptional opportunity for our
community to receive federal assistance to help us achieve the very
challenging goals of balancing growth with limited natural resources.
On Friday we completed the last of 10 exhausting meetings of the
alternatives development group for the Army Corps' EIS. It is an
understatement to say it has been a difficult and challenging process.
But I believe the many hours of hard work have paid off, resulting in
a better understanding of how growth will impact Collier and Lee
Counties. It has also given us developers, elected officials and
environmentalists who better understand each other and each other's
needs. And it's also given us a series of jointly developed visions
of how we can guide the future growth of this region.
It is encouraging to know that the proposed feasibility study
will build upon the work of this EIS. This is not going to be
duplicative, this is going to be an extension, and will carry forward
our best understanding from the EIS and other sources.
If we look to the east coast, as we heard Mr. Miller talk about
his experience coming back, we see that the cost of providing flood
control, providing an adequate water supply, these costs are
astronomical because of uncontrolled growth and the great expense of
restoring and retrofitting an urbanized landscape. Here in Collier
County, we are especially fortunate that we still have an opportunity
to avoid these costly mistakes.
What is needed now more than anything is your support, your
endorsement of this direction. As you saw recently, there are those
that will try to undermine the process, the restudy process. Your
unanimous vote to send a letter to Governor Chiles and urging him to
veto HB-4141 sends your strong signal of your support of the restudy
and your unwillingness to see the process undermined by politics. For
that, this community will be forever grateful.
Unfortunately, even with the veto of that harmful bill, some
damage was done in Washington. During my recent trip there, I learned
that members of congress who were confused by the bad legislation are
now looking to be reassured by strong local support from Florida
before they will appropriate the necessary funds to support this
process, even in the forthcoming year.
The restudy and the feasibility study will help us create a
future for our citizens that they want and will sustain a natural
environment that we all treasure.
On behalf of the Conservancy's 5,500 members and 675 volunteers,
I most respectfully urge you to continue your support for this
important process for the restudy and the southwest Florida
feasibility study. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, question?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: First of all, congratulations on your new
500 members. Until now it's been the 5,000 members of the
Conservancy. So congratulations on that.
MR. GUGGENHEIM: It's always been 5,500.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Has it? Well, we'll have to discuss that
with Mr. Simonik.
I guess the one question I have is that you have had the benefit,
as has Commissioner Mac'Kie, of being involved in the draft EIS to a
greater degree than we have. Would the timing issue with the federal
government be hindered in any way if the board was allowed to receive
a draft of the EIS prior to considering a resolution to support the
restudy? That should be two weeks away, Colonel Miller?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The end of the month -- end of September
is when we expect to get the first draft. But you're mixing apples
and oranges.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well -- but I heard you say that in
essence what we would be supporting is not duplication but an
extension of. In other words, I think what's been going on in the EIS
-- you're saying apples and oranges, you're saying the two are -- one
doesn't even contribute to the other --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in any way, shape or form?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that what Mr. Guggenheim meant is
that the data gathered in the EIS, the raw data, will not be
regathered in the reconnaissance for the feasibility study. COLONEL MILLER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But are we in fact looking at the same
geographic area?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, only partially. Only partially the
same geographic area. But you know what? It sounds to me like that
we need a little more information for the board and that maybe the
right thing to do today would be to ask staff to draft a resolution to
bring back for the next meeting or in a week or two so that we could
endorse it with everybody being as fully informed as they need to be.
And I have been just sending you guys tons of paper from
governor's commission and from southwest issues group and those that
-- that maybe I could do a better job of distilling some of it and
providing you with sort of a cheat sheet so that we are prepared in
the next week or two to endorse the feasibility study. That's the
piece that is the most critical, as I understand it, Mr. Guggenheim,
tell me if I'm wrong, that we need to be sure that our congress
understands that local support exists for that feasibility study.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe because the two are --
COLONEL MILLER: I'm perfectly willing to come back --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Colonel Miller, come on up --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To the microphone, please.
COLONEL MILLER: Okay, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For the record.
COLONEL MILLER: For the record, I'm Colonel Joe Miller.
I am willing to bring myself and my staff back over here at any
time that the commissioners would like a private one-on-one briefing
so we could bring you up to speed on any of the issues, be it the
feasibility study, the restudy, or the EIS.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For me it's just a basic question. I want
to be very sure what it is I'm supporting -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- or endorsing. And maybe because you
took the opportunity to present the two today, I'm drawing lines from
one to the other that aren't there. That may be maybe my fault.
But I just -- I want to be a little clear on it. So Commissioner
Hac'Kie, if that's your request, that we ask staff to draft a
resolution clarifying what it is we're being asked to endorse or
support and bring it back to us, in the meantime, I can meet with --
no need to drag your whole team back here. I can probably meet with
Mr. Guggenheim and with our staff to at least answer a lot of the
questions I may have.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And Mr. Duane's also been really active in
the process.
MR. GUGGENHEIH: We'd be happy to spend time reviewing some of
the outcomes of the EIS process with you, as Colonel Hiller's staff
I'm sure would be happy to do the same.
The Corps has been very good about making that information widely
available. Many of the results from the EIS are already available on
the Internet. So if those are -- if that's information you need and
want immediately, we can make that happen.
COLONEL MILLER: And for the record, I like coming to Lee and
Collier Counties.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Smart man.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thanks, Dave.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So is there -- do we need a motion to have
the board draft ares -- I mean have staff draft a resolution, or
could we just --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two weeks, is that --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Staff direction.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Two weeks to bring it back, is that all
right, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That should be sufficient.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that enough time for everybody to get
happy? Sounds great.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Herriam, did you want to say something,
please?
MR. HERRIAM: I just wanted to add to --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Identify yourself.
MR. HERRIAM: Chip Herriam, south Florida water management
district.
I just wanted to add, too, the -- we're here local, your
resource. If you have questions, we're a phone call away and we'll be
here as quick as we can to add what information you need on this from
our perspective and in the bigger picture also, how it all fits
together.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Great. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thanks, Chip.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other speakers, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No other speakers.
I think we have direction to staff in regard to what they're to
do, and so in a couple of weeks we'll expect to have that back.
Thank all of you again, Colonel Miller and your staff. Thank you
very much for being here today. And Mr. Guggenheim, for your
comments, and Mr. Duane, for being here as well. Thank you all.
At this time, we have a court reporter that needs a few minute
break so her fingers don't fall off her hands, so let's give her a
break and we'll take a break. Thank you.
(Brief recess.)
Item #6A
COST INFORMATION REGARDING ANTICIPATED EXPENSES FOR THE LEGISLATIVE
MAiNDATED CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEM - CLERK'S RECOHMENDATION APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Our next item on the agenda is item 6-A,
the cost information regarding anticipated expenses for the
legislative mandated child support system. Mr. Brock, how are you today?
MR. BROCK: Good morning, Madam Chairman, commissioners. My name
is Dwight Brock, I'm the clerk of the circuit court here in Collier
County.
When I spoke to you last at the budget hearings, I mentioned to
you that the Florida legislature had imposed upon the clerks in the
State of Florida requirement to use a state-wide child support system.
And I promised you at that time that I would come back and bring you
additional information as to exactly what that meant to the county,
and I thought I would do that today.
To give you a little background, the clerk of the circuit court
acts as the central depository for child support payments. By that I
mean that when the court orders child support payments to be made by
the non-custodial parent to the custodial parent, they are paid to the
clerk of court, who acts as an intermediary and then sends those
monies to either the State of Florida for distribution, or to -- if
they are what are called non-title 4D cases, directly to the
individuals.
Title 4D is a federal act which has built into it requirements on
the states to comport to certain federal requirements of collecting
child support. And accompanying that is a funding mechanism for the
states to pay the states for that enforcement. The process that the
legislature has gone through for the last two years has been centered
around a change in that legislation whereby the federal government is
attempting to tighten the enforcement restrictions placed on the state
in order for them to receive those grant funds from the federal
government.
What has transpired in the State of Florida now is that the
Florida legislature has imposed upon the clerk of the circuit court
here in Collier County, as well as in other counties within this
state, a requirement to go to a child support system that has been
created by the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers.
That system is based upon a UNIX (phonetic) operating platform. By
that I mean the computer system is what is called a UNIX platform.
In theory, years ago everybody called the UNIX platform a very
open platform. That meant that everybody could use that particular
system, and it was easy to share and transmit data from one system to
another by use of that system.
Today I'm not sure that everyone hasn't come to the realization
that the UNIX platform is really not as open as it was purported to be
originally.
The clerk of the circuit court in its systems here in Collier
County uses what is called an open VMS system in its child support
process, and a Windows NT environment for its interfaces with board
side and its contributed processing.
In trying to evaluate what is taking place here and what is being
imposed upon me by this law, we have gone around the state, looked at
the sites in which this particular process is in place, compared it to
the system that we have in place today, and discovered in order for us
to go to this new system, just in the hardware and software costs
alone, this year, not taking into consideration the annual costs
associated with this, it will be in excess of 300 -- about $320,000.
Now, what is it that we are receiving for doing that? Well, you
know, it would be one thing if you were receiving something of
substance, but what we are in effect doing is regressing back to a
time long before the system that we have today was put in place. To
give you an example, the system that we have in place today is fully
integrated with our cashiering system. And to give you an example of
how well our cashiering system operates, when the state was looking at
trying to go to a state-wide TCATS or traffic system, Collier County
was one of the sites that they investigated. The people that came
down and looked at our traffic system here in Collier County with our
cashiering interface made the comment to my staff that the State of
Florida needs to come down and buy your system, that you have better
controls in your cashiering system here in Collier County than most
banks do. So we have a very good cashiering system.
We have a very good computer system in general. It's fully
integrated with all of our general ledgers, it operates essentially by
us inputting the data at one time, and it impropagates (sic.) all the
fields in our cashiering or cash tracking system right through to our
financial statements or our general ledgers. We lose that in its
entirety. This system is a fully stand-alone system. It will
essentially entail us doing most of what is done electronically today
through a manual process.
In addition to that, the services that we provide to the general
public here in Collier County through our system allows an individual
to call up the computer system directly through a phone interface and
find out information from that computer system about that case file,
including but not limited to the payments that have been made and when
they were sent out, things of that nature. The system that they are
requiring us to go to does not have that. That would either have to be
built or it would have to be purchased.
Another deficiency in the system is that based upon my staff's
observation of the system that is being used in other counties, it
takes approximately 10 times the time of an employee to input
information into the system that they're trying to force us to go to,
as compared to the system that we have today.
To give you an example, in Pasco County, Pasco County handles
approximately the same number of transactions per day. Where we use
somewhere in the neighborhood of three full-time equivalent employees,
Pasco County uses nine full-time equivalent employees.
The question that we have is are we going to expend the money to
regress, or are we going to try to take some alternative approach? As
I am sure most of you are aware, there is a constitutional prohibition
against state imposing unfunded mandates upon the state, with certain
exceptions.
I have been in touch with people who were involved at the federal
level who have told me that when this process was established at the
federal level, that those requirements placed upon the states at the
federal level were theoretically fully funded. I have, through my
staff and through other clerks in this state, been in touch with the
people in Tallahassee to find out whether or not there is any state
funding in place to bear the expense of having to implement this
process. I have been told for all practical purposes that there is
none.
What I am asking the commission to do today is to give me some
direction as to your desire, as to the approach that we should take
for the citizens of this community in trying to deal with this issue.
One of the things that I think the board needs to be aware of was
this legislation was before Tallahassee last year, at which point in
time, through some diligent work of our legislators here, we were able
to get an exemption if it was approved by the Department of Revenue.
The Department of Revenue came down and looked at our system and made
the determination that we could transmit all of the data that we
needed to to Tallahassee so that they were able to carry out their
functions. And we in fact received a written exemption from this
process last year. This year, at the llth hour and 59th minute, the
last day of the legislative session, they passed this bill and
excluded that exemption.
I have heard through communications with other clerks that the
Department of Revenue is still intending to try to grant those
exemptions that were in place. We do not know for a fact at this
point in time that they're going to do that.
But what I would like to do is I would like to work with the
people in Tallahassee to try to get them to recognize that what
they're asking us to do is bureaucracy at its worst and does not serve
the benefits of the citizens of this state, and particularly here in
Collier County. And if all else fails, to be ready to take the
position to enforce the constitution legally, if necessary, that if
we're going to be required to do this, the State of Florida needs to
be required to foot the bill.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is that your recommendation?
MR. BROCK: That is my recommendation, that we be ready to do
that, if all other avenues fail, in terms of us trying to get them to
recognize the problems that they are creating here in this community,
as well as in others.
And I will tell you that I have been in communication with Dade
County, who has a similar position to the position that I hold, Monroe
County, who has the same position that I hold, and as well as Seminole
County, who has the same position. Two of those counties have a
system that is very similar to mine. Dade County, you know, has the
capabilities that we have today. And what they're being told to do is
to reduce the functionality of the system for its citizens in Dade
County and pay for it.
One of the things that this board needs to be aware of is that we
collect a fee from child support -- people who pay child support of
which this county has paid to the State of Florida approximately
$85,000 for this system that we're now being told that we're going to
have to pay $300,000 to implement up front, plus in addition to that,
recurring costs every year associated with it.
But in addition to that cost, one needs to keep in mind that I
have two platforms in existence today, a staff that has no knowledge
of the UNIX platform they're requiring us to go to. If in fact we
have to go to that platform, we're then going to have to hire staff to
try to deal with that third platform.
In addition, we're going to have to hire staff to deal with the
lack of functionality that exists in the system and the manual
processes that take place, which is going to require and impose upon
me additional staffing needs in the child support area. So, you know,
the 300 plus thousand dollars is simply the beginning of the cost that
citizens of Collier County are going to be burdened with.
Now, there is a funding provision for the operation of the child
support enforcement system that they are requiring us to be in place.
But the requirement is -- or the provision is only that we can be
funded up to two-thirds of our expenditure. When I read the
constitutional provision, I do not see a mandate that we only be
required to fund the local level at two-thirds. I don't want to go
down that road. I do not want to end up into a -- in a posture where
we're having to seek a declaratory action as to what our rights and
responsibilities are for implementation of this particular
legislation.
If in fact there is an alternative mechanism in which everyone
agrees is an appropriate remedy and still give the citizens of Collier
County the level of service that they have been accustomed, we, as our
elected representatives of Collier County, owe a duty to the citizens
here in Collier County to provide them the best level of service at
the most reasonable cost. What legislation from Tallahassee is
mandating that we do is that we diminish that service and be
inefficient in doing it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Brock, I completely 100 percent
support your recommendation. Obviously, it doesn't make any sense to
provide inferior service at more cost. It just doesn't make any sense
at all.
Have our -- I assume you've worked with our state
representatives, state senators, to -- not only on the exemption, but
to try to work with the state agencies on this as well?
MR. BROCK: Yes, we have. Because of not knowing exactly who our
elected officials will be after today, it makes it somewhat difficult
to do. But in dealing with Mr. Saunders, Mr. Saunders understands the
problem that has been created by this, and has agreed to work with us
to deal with the requirement that we use that system.
You know, one of the things that I have heard bandied about
throughout the state is that the federal government, in its
legislation, mandated that it go to one system. Well, not only I, but
Dade County has done extensive research in trying to determine whether
or not that was in fact true. And we are both of the opinion that
that is not a mandate from the federal government at all.
And frankly speaking, when I was at the last clerks' association
meeting, I addressed that issue in front of the executive committee
with our lobbyist and legal counsel, who indicated to me that that was
a requirement that was imposed by the Florida Association of Court
Clerks and Comptrollers, not as a -- a burden imposed upon us by the
federal government.
My feeling is that because the Florida Association of Court
Clerks and Comptrollers is involved in it, is receiving funds from it,
that there is in fact a conflict of interest taking place here. And, I
mean, that has offended me as an individual clerk, as well as it has
offended some of the other clerks throughout the state in this
perspective. We are trying to deal with that, but that is a reality.
One of the things that we are hoping for is at the end of -- or
in the next legislative session, we will be able to get removed from
the legislation the requirement that everyone has to go to this one
system. I have told everyone in Tallahassee from day one, if there is
a piece of information that you need from Collier County that I cannot
give you through my system with an interface, then I understand the
requirement that I have to go to that system. But there has not been
a soul who has been able to communicate that to me. And in fact, I
have an exemption from the Department of Revenue from last year,
because we have been able to provide every piece of information that
they had requested.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Brock, are you looking for a
particular recommendation from us, or some sort of statement from the
board supporting your recommendation?
MR. BROCK: That is exactly what I'm looking for.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So moved.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Wait a minute. Whoa. We've got one more
commissioner that would like to speak.
Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Brock, you may have just answered my
question. Do I understand you to say that we're able to provide the
state with every ounce of information they've ever requested in the
child support system in the current format that we have? There's
never been a problem with that communication; is that correct? MR. BROCK: Not that I'm aware of.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And it's not a trick question. I mean,
that was my understanding coming into this. Okay.
MR. BROCK: I mean, one of the statements that I made when I was
seeking the exemption from Larry Fuchs in the Department of Revenue
last year -- and they came down and evaluated our system -- was that
if in fact there's anything that we can't provide you going either
way, either to Tallahassee or back to us, then we understand the need.
But if that does not exist, we do not understand why we should be
placed in this posture.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Let me offer two things: First of
all, obviously I'm going to support the motion. I think you've made a
very clear case of why we need to do that today.
The second thing is that as involved in the Florida Association
of Counties as I am, if your own organization, the Florida Association
of Clerks and Comptrollers, I understand they're not supporting your
position on this?
MR. BROCK: I doubt that very seriously.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The finance and accounting
committee of Florida Association of Counties may take this up as a
home rule issue. This is a clear situation where the state should be
telling us what information they need and in what format they need it
from us, and as long as we can provide it, we should have the
authority to determine how we operate our local clerk's office. You
should have that authority.
So I will try and take that up to the finance and accounting
committee, the Florida Association of Counties, and help you work
throughout this next session to get that changed back to the way it
should be.
MR. BROCK: Appreciate that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, now we have a motion. Commissioner
Constantine, what's your motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That the board fully support the
clerk's recommendation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's what I seconded.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, is there any question about that?
Do we have any public speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, then I'll call for the question. All in
favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
MR. BROCK: Thank you very much, commissioners.
Item #7A
MS. SUSAN SHERROD REQUESTING PUBLIC PETITION REGARDING THE STATUS OF
THE ROBERTS RANCH PROPERTY - STAFF TO EXPLORE OPTIONS OF PURCHASING THE
PROPERTY AND COME BACK TO THE BCC IN TWO WEEKS
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The next item on the agenda is a public
petition. And for those of you who this may be your first time
visiting us here at the commission, a public petition is presented by
a person. Normally they have 10 minutes to make this presentation.
It's -- there is no action that is taken on the petition at this time.
It is -- we will probably give direction to staff or take the petition
under advisement. Normally under public petitions there's no public
speakers. It's the petitioner who makes the statement and presents
the petition, and then we go from there.
So Mrs. Shetrod -- I would like to ask -- I know there's a number
of you here. I would like to ask all of those who are supporting this
particular petition, if you would just stand, please, so we know that
-- I know there's a number of you. Thank you very much.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now, wait, don't forget to ask for all
those people that are opposed to it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Anybody opposed?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, but I know there was a number -- by their
badges, I know that they're part of probably the Friends of Roberts
Ranch, so I appreciate them also taking the time to be over here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Should we stand up here or wait for the
presentation?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We can stand up here as well.
Mrs. Shetrod, you were the one that requested this to be placed
under the public petition, to you have 10 minutes to present your
case.
MS. SHERROD: Thank you, Commissioner, and good morning,
commissioners. Thank you Commissioner Berry. For the record, I'm
Susan Shetrod, president of the Friends of Roberts Ranch, and I have a
lot of supporters here, and I thank them as well.
Roberts Ranch is Collier County's pioneer story. The homestead
is at a crossroad. Red flags are waving and decisions need to be
made; immediate decisions need to be made.
I've prepared for you a brief outline that gives some facts about
the history of this project up to date. And it starts with the
acceptance of the PUD, the planned unit development, that was accepted
by the board in 1992. And at that time, the PUD designated a historic
site of 4.1 acres, and the county accepted the deed to that historic
site in 1996. So from 1992 to present has been six years in this
process.
No additional funds have been budgeted to begin the restoration
or the development of this property.
You'll notice also that on the time line in 1997, we organized a
Friends of Roberts Ranch. And we got really busy, and our first job
was to hire a historic architect who designed a master plan for us.
And this master plan included a process which was a community
workshop. And Commissioner Berry came to that meeting and
participated in expressing ideas about what this project should really
look like.
After several months of work and meeting with the architect, the
plan was completed in May of this year. You have a copy of that, in
your packet, of the master plan.
Now, you'll notice that this plan includes what is -- what we
refer to as tract D, because it's on this property, this tract D
property, that the oldest citrus grove in Collier County stands. Many
of the historic buildings, where they were built when the ranch was in
full operation, stand on that tract D. It's on this tract that the
foundation logs for the log house where the family lived when they
first came to this property in 1914 are still there. The old kitchen
is there that was there when the family came. These were pioneers,
full of grit and determination, hardworking folks.
Now, that log house is no longer there, but the horse barn that
was built in 1943 and the well and the hide house, the syrup kettle,
they're all there in their original locations. Moving these buildings
would be very costly. And the integrity of the pioneer story that
should be told would be severely compromised.
So we're here today to ask you to buy this tract of land to add
it to the historic site, which you already own, so that these
buildings would not have to be moved. Save the cost of moving those
buildings and use those dollars for restoration and development of
this project.
Now, there's a reason for our sense of urgency and our being here
today. A developer has presented a contract to the estate -- trustees
of the Roberts estate to buy this tract D. And of course this would
have a tremendous impact on this project if that was commercially
developed.
What we'd really like for you to do is buy the whole 30 acres,
and that would really keep the project intact and tell the story the
best way.
Now, the Roberts family and the County Commissioners have started
a good thing. A very good thing was started in 1996 when this deed
was accepted. But it's time to move forward. We want you to help us
by taking us to the grant process, making a budget commitment to this
project. Right now there is no budget, really, just minimal security
provided. The historic structures are deteriorating. We got our
master plan in May and we started our plans for fundraising, but when
the contract was presented, it sort of diverted our attention to
address this immediate need.
We can't realistically raise the money quickly enough to buy this
property, and that's where you can help us.
What do you think the site should look like five years from now?
I can tell you what I think it should look like. I can see school
children there learning about the pioneer stories, especially the
fourth graders in their curriculum when they learn about Florida
history, getting a taste of homemade butter, holding the handle of a
plow that was well used and worn from a pioneer family that lived
there, washing clothes on a scrub board, what it like -- what it used
to be -- what it used to be like.
Now, this project is just one piece of the pie, and to develop
the ecotourism in this area. It's not a standalone project. There's
strong efforts being made to develop the Pepper Preserve and Lake
Trafford, also in this area. And this threesome has great potential
for keeping heads in beds just one more day in Collier County, having
a day trip to the country.
So I'm very optimistic about your upcoming decisions about
Roberts Ranch, and we're asking that you save this tract D from
commercial development by adding it to the present historical site.
We're asking that you would direct your staff to explore all options
in order to do this. They've been doing some homework and they're
prepared to do this and to answer questions that you might have, and
to report back to you right away. Time is slipping away. A decision
has to be made very soon.
This historic site is perhaps the only site in the State of
Florida that's still in a similar condition that it was 90 years ago.
Collier County has this unique opportunity to preserve the cultural
heritage of the early ranch lifestyle and treasures of the past for
all future generations.
Mr. Sam Colding was here earlier to speak the last few minutes
that we have of our time, and he was called away on an emergency, and
he was prepared to speak, and I've asked Dallas Townsend if he would
just come and speak for a couple of minutes in our remaining time
here.
And we're here to answer questions that you might have.
MR. TOWNSEND: Thank you, Susan, and good morning to you,
commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would you identify yourself, please?
MR. TOWNSEND: I'm Dallas Townsend, former resident of Collier
County, now I live in Hendry County. And I know this property well.
I think it's probably the last opportunity you will ever have to
preserve a site like this in Florida; not just south Florida, but
Florida.
I'm not going to retread some of the area that she's already
discussed, but I would like to say that the family survived the
hurricanes in 1926 and 1928. I happen to know that Mr. Roberts was in
a palmetto patch during the whole hurricane of 1926. They survived
the depression of the Thirties, the cattle tick fever of the Thirties,
World War II frozen beef prices. You don't know what that does until
you get your prices frozen.
At any rate, screw worms came in in the Thirties as well, so you
had to send cowhands out every day to rope calves to keep these screw
worms from killing your calves.
I personally -- I don't look this old, I know, but I worked in
the summer of '53, '54, '55 and '56 on this ranch. And at the time I
thought I was being worked to death, but I look back, and it was
probably some of the best experience I ever had in my life.
That ranch at one time encompassed 110,000 acres of Collier and
Hendry County. And you must remember, they came in 1914, before Lee
County was split into Collier and Hendry County and Lee County. And
Mr. Robert Roberts, I believe, if I'm correct, was on the first Board
of Commissioners.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, that's true.
MR. TOWNSEND: I'd like to mention that it's critical that we do
preserve these sites like this, and I'd like to strongly urge you to
take whatever action is necessary to support the Friends of the
Roberts Ranch in its endeavor. I think it's critical for us. It's
certainly going to enhance the environment of Immokalee there, give
them additional opportunities to spring forth in another -- expand
their economic base there.
I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any questions for Mr. Townsend?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just what was it like in '53 on the ranch?
MR. TOWNSEND: Well, you went to work before the owls quit
hollering, and they were already back on roost when you got back. It
was a fun time of my life.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I bet.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's kind of like boot camp. When
you're there, you hate it, but you look back on it and say that wasn't
so bad.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I certainly want to give staff
direction to explore whatever possibilities there are for us to
participate in preserving this property, hopefully through some
grant-writing opportunities, and hopefully without spending Collier
County property tax dollars. But in any event, to explore all the
possibilities and bring them back to us, I'd like to give that
direction today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't mind exploring grant-writing
opportunities, but I think the key part was not to expend tax dollars
doing it. A big request for money outside of the budget cycle makes
it very difficult for us to put it into perspective, as far as
prioritizing. We have, as you know, it seems like a gazillion dollars
every year that we have to put into different things, our Department
of Health, our Parks and Recreation, our museum, and any number of
things. And when these come up outside of the cycle, it makes it very
difficult to prioritize and make sure that things are spent in their
proper place.
One of the things that -- I said this to the newspaper the other
day, is I don't know that commercial development in Immokalee is
necessarily a bad thing. One of the things we have worked so hard to
do is have economic development in that area and now we're trying to
discourage it. And so we have complained about the lack of jobs and
the lack of things going on there, and so I don't know that it's
necessarily a bad thing.
As far as fundraising, there may have been good intentions, but
thus far the fundraising effort has been very weak. And last year we
made some commitments long-term, and we designated this historically
significant, and there were some promises made to raise money to do
some improvements to that property. And a year has passed.
And so while I think the intentions are very good and I think the
ideas are very good, I think it is time that we have some private
funds step up to the plate and match this. While it may be a
wonderful idea, good intentions don't pay the bills. And we need to
have -- when we say we're sure there's money out there, we know
there's money out there, well, we need to see some of that money to
help pay for this.
You know, it was only a month or two ago that the City of Naples
was approached at the llth hour by the historical society on a very
important building but said we'll be able to raise some money down the
road, please buy this for us now, with a historically significant
house in the city. And now we have this request. What will be it be
next month and the month after and the month after? I just think it's
a poor way of planning and expending.
So I'm all for exploring grant opportunities and committing some
staff time to that, but I don't think it's a wise expenditure of
taxpayer dollars when it's outside the budget cycle. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- you know, until the last three or
four years, with the exception of the creation of the Collier County
Museum, there wasn't a lot of effort on the part of past county
commissions to preserve any of the history of Collier County. And I
guess I have a little different take as someone who worked as a tour
guide in Hillsboro County and in Tampa, who learned the history of
that area and was able to relay it to others, in that when we talk
about people not having a connection to Naples because they came from
somewhere else in the last seven years, sometimes you have to have the
local history there for people to kind of arrive at that connection.
And when they do, it makes a real big difference to how they become
involved in the community, the depth they become involved and whatnot.
I, like you, have been uncomfortable with, you know, looking at
large dollar items, llth hour, the pressure's on, someone's going to
buy it. But quite frankly, if county government doesn't recognize the
importance of funding the preservation of some of the history of
Collier County, I think to look solely at private sources to initiate
that or to complete that is not something I want to do. I don't think
we want to take the burden on 100 percent by any means, but I think if
we can actually become the catalyst to create a situation that allows
the preservation of this, then that's a role I would like to play.
So I think what we'd like to look at is if we're going to give
direction to our staff to come back with proposals, let's look at
everything on that list and see which of those allows us to be that
catalyst but not to be the end-all. Because if I understand correctly
what I'm hearing, that's what's being asked of us.
And the beauty of this is, is if we proceed down that road and
acting as the catalyst we fail, but we already know the property's
commercially viable and someone will want to buy it.
So I don't think there's a question of whether or not we could
recoup funds, I think there's a question of where those funds should
come from appropriately and to what level. And that's something I
would like to look at. If there are state and federal grants
available, then by all means, let's tap those.
But I want to say that the folks of the Historical Society, you
kind of missed one point. If you called this green space, you'd get
another 35 percent of the community with you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, you know, we can also throw that spin
on it too, we're preserving green space in the urban area of
Immokalee.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of Immokalee.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just to clarify, Commissioner
Hancock, you mentioned you don't think it should be 100 percent
private money. Neither do I. But to date, there's been nearly none.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what I'm asking is, there has to
be some private money step up to the plate to prove that there is a
demand out there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't disagree with you. I think your
fiscal caution is well noted. And I think without it we would be
derelict if we didn't consider those points. But I guess I just have
-- I just feel a connection to -- and maybe, I don't know, being born
and raised in Florida, maybe I just -- I feel it a little differently.
And I just -- I think we need a connection here for people to
understand what Collier County was all about in the past in order for
them to understand where we are today and where we need to go in the
future.
And I'm very proud of what we've done with the museum and what
we've done with the laundry facility in Everglades City. When I look
back on what we've done, I mean, those are some of the things that
stand out to me.
And I think this has an opportunity. We may come to the end of
this and say there isn't a way, but let's at least go down that road
and see what our options are. Which I know you've said you don't
object to that. And so let's at least find out what options are
available. And I think then we can really have a total fiscal picture
in front of us.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think one of the important things here that
when we think of preserving something, quote, in the Naples -- we
think of in the Naples area. The Naples area in itself is probably
relatively new. But you're looking at a place over there that dates
back a long, long time and has quite a history associated with it.
There's a lot of possibilities that I could see that could be
done with that ranch. I've had conversation with Mrs. Shetrod about
those. Come from a state where they had a living farm and this is
maintained particularly in the summertime by people who are volunteers
for this kind of thing, and for kids who were born in the city that
don't have an opportunity. And everybody laughs, but farms are
disappearing as well. Ranches are another matter as well.
But a farm -- the typical farm that used to be that I grew up on,
not the several sections of land, but the 100-acre, 200-acre farms in
the Midwest, these are quickly vanishing, because it's become big
business, and they've had -- they've been absorbed by big
corporations, and you don't have that kind of thing anymore.
But they do have these places where you can go and people can
observe. And our children that are born today that haven't had the
experience that some of us have had, it is an opportunity for them to
see living history. And it's a lot more fun to observe it that way,
frankly, than it is to read about it in a book and to see how things
actually transpired.
There's a couple of things here that I would like to see us do.
I am aware, and Mr. Jamro can probably elaborate a little more, and
even Mrs. Shetrod. I know she's about to burst over there saying that
there hasn't been any private monies coming forth.
But there is a state organization, as I recall, Ron, when we were
out at that meeting in Immokalee. If you'd come up here just a
minute. If you could tell us just a little bit about how that works,
and then -- it is one way that we can look at it.
I'm just getting this for information for the commissioners.
We're not going to decide that yes, that's it today, but it's
something that maybe we could pursue. If you could -- MR. JAMRO: Good morning, commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- mention about that group that --
MR. JAMRO: Certainly. Ron Jamro, your museum director.
And I don't know all the ins and outs of that, but it's the trust
for public land use. They'll warehouse the property for you, get you
some time, basically, and then sell it back to you for a small profit.
In any direction that we go, we need to know one thing from this
board, and that's your level of commitment. I can't sell a grant to
anyone unless Collier County, the owner of the property, shows a
serious commitment. And we can do that so easily. That's the tragedy
of all this. Your tourist development revenues provide the source for
a grant application. The minimum for a grant application is $50,000,
you must have locally.
The group, Friends of the -- of Roberts Ranch has on their own
steam raised in excess of $25,000, so they have been busy. And I
think there's more to come there, certainly. But what everyone is
waiting for is the direction. I can paint all kinds of scenarios for
you, but I'd rather do this project for you within three years with a
substantial grant from the tourist tax revenues, which we'll then
leverage against the state preservation grant and get this thing on
the way.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What I would like to see is the commission to
support a direction philosophically that do you feel that this is
important, and if so, then ask our staff to work with Mr. Jamro and
others that he may be aware of and bring back some options for us as
to how we might proceed in this direction. That is my question to the
board, and that's what I'm asking for in that regard. Tim?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry, I agree with you 100
percent. I think we need to be -- maybe not today, but proceed in a
more formal direction than that.
This is much like beach parking in a sense that we all talk about
it, we all want to fund it, but we have not developed a policy to
approach. Whether it be beach parking or the preservation of
historical sites or whatnot, we don't have a board policy to approach
in this.
So not only do you have my support to move ahead today on this
and to try and find a way to make this happen, but I want to go one
step further and let's use this as a way to develop a historical
preservation policy that this board will have to follow so that we can
make decisions in an overall scope in the future, instead of piece by
piece by piece.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That I'm --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And with that --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- much more comfortable with.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And with that, perhaps giving us some
alternatives in regard to funding sources -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excellent.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- at the same time. It's got to go
together. You can have the policy and we can sit here and say gee, we
really support this and we want it. But at the same time, we've got
to have the funding policy to go along.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's my concern. I appreciate
that, because that's my concern. It isn't that this isn't important
or trying to preserve our history isn't important. It's that we don't
have -- we're not doing it with any rhyme or reason, we're just doing
it piecemeal. And I think in order to make sure that those things
that we do preserve are the most historically significant, or that the
expenditures we make are a high priority, we need to have some sort of
policy in place. That's my concern.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we could use our own historical and
archeological group that is our advisory board on this to help us
develop that policy.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. Well, one week ago I was out driving
out west and I drove through Oklahoma, which has several of these
ranch facilities that are open to the public. I stopped in at the
Pawnee Bill Museum. That was an old wild west show, and the old ranch
house is still there.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very old.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Inspired you to grow that mustache?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I got a souvenir from my wild west trip
here.
And I toured a couple of them, actually. And I -- one of the
things that I was thinking about was that I was so very glad that
somebody had the foresight to preserve these places. And I enjoyed
the trip and the visits to these places very much.
But once again, I have to agree with what I'm hearing on the
board is funding now. Sitting here in this commissioner's chair,
funding is going to be the most important thing. I need to know who's
going to be responsible for the maintenance, who's going to be
responsible for the restoration, who's going to be responsible for the
operation, how is all this going to be funded, what are the long-term
plans, do we have a business plan in place for it, how is it going to
be operated, who's going to operate it? All these types of questions
when we come -- when the information is developed to come back.
That's the sort of thing I'm going to be looking for.
MR. JAMRO: If I may, Commissioner, you've already solved a lot
of problems for us when you converted the museum operation and also
Everglades City to again tourist type revenues and actually provided a
mechanism for those funds to come to the museum with the result that
the entire museum operation does not cost the taxpayer of Collier
County ten cents. It costs nothing. So --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I understand that, Mr. Jamro, but now
we're trying -- or we're saying we're going to add a big piece to that
pie, and what's going to be the impact of that? I need to know all of
those things.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Apparently we just take tourist tax
money away from everything else.
Mr. Weigel, the taxpayer -- the tourist tax money, can that be
expended on capital purchases --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just happen to have the statute.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- as it's currently written?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, off the top of my head, I don't know if Ms.
Ashton wishes to jump in there. I'd defer to say no at this point. I
MS. ASHTON: Well, concerning museums, this statute does
specifically authorize the acquisition, construction, operation, et
cetera, for county-owned museums or museums which are owned by
not-for-profit entities but open to the public. Now, our ordinance,
though, limits it to county-owned museums --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is --
MS. ASHTON: -- to answer your question.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- something that we'll be talking about
again in a minute.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we can buy anything on the planet,
as long as we label it a museum? We can go and purchase a building,
we can purchase property, we can --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just read it? It's a sentence.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. And then I'd like to hear from
our county attorney.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To acquire, construct .... To acquire,
construct, extend, enlarge, remodel, repair, improve, maintain,
operate or promote museums that are publicly owned and operated or
owned and operated by not-for-profit organizations and open to the
public."
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's like no limit.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- theoretically, couldn't we label a
number of our buildings museums?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This is starting to look like a museum to
me.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- I mean, that sounds
far-fetched, but seriously, if you pick up some sort of parks property
that happens to be located in the middle of a park, couldn't you
stretch that to a number of expenditures if we use that
interpretation? And might we want to explore that down the road?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Realistically, I think the intent when we
adopted that ordinance was solely for true museums. And, you know, I
think yes, it could be expanded, but we're kind of having the funding
discussion now, in a sense, and I think what we need to --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We shouldn't be doing that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- look at is what the options available
are. Because rather than having this discussion focus on tourist
taxes, let's step back and look at all of the options. And there may
be a combination of them that through the growth of our tourist tax
revenues -- and that's something we're forgetting here. Tourist tax
revenues are not fixed. If we use that money wisely, they will grow.
And as they grow, more money becomes available for the existing
categories we've been using it for.
So I guess I just -- I think we're getting to the funding
discussion a little bit early, because I have a lot of questions
myself, but I would rather put that charge upon those people that are
supporting this to go out and find those options and present them to
us so that we can then have that specific funding discussion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie, you seemed to
have a direction you were suggesting before?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I was just suggesting that we direct staff
to explore all the possibilities for funding options, and that we go
ahead and state up front that we would like for property taxes to be
at the very bottom of that list --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Off the list.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- or off the list.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Off the list.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Even better, off the list. I'm willing to
say at the bottom of the list, personally. But that we ask them to
explore all the funding options.
And in addition, Commissioner Hancock's idea about the policy for
historic preservation in this county, that both of those be given to
staff as directions to bring back to us in a couple of weeks.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll support that direction if we can
take property taxes off the list.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to second the motion as it
stands, because we may be able to, you know, use available or budgeted
funds in the future for historic preservation with either a potential
repayment, or use them to leverage grant funds. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I don't want to take that entirely as
an option. So I think by leaving it at the bottom of the list, our
priorities are clear, but I don't want to exclude it entirely as an
option.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think something --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- has made our public services director
nervous over there. He wants to jump in and say something. MR. OLLIFF: For the record, Tom Olliff.
Somehow I think I'm going to get involved in developing part of
this report, anyway, so I thought I would like to clarify it, at
least.
When you're talking about property taxes, I know one of the
options that's been talked about was the creation of a taxing
district. And if the community was interested in supporting this as
one of the cogs in part of its economic development package, which I
think there is certainly a committee of support out there for that as
far as the Lake Trafford, Roberts Ranch and some other issues, that
that's at least an option we would like to be able to include for your
consideration when we come back.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That sounds good.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Excellent.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I think that might be agreeable to the
area.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a prudent --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So I think we need to throw that into the mix
when we start considering all the options.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The Mayor of Immokalee is nodding in the
affirmative over there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you, Ann. That's Fred.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fred won't take it, Ann, so you've got it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I think you have heard our discussion
up here, you know the direction that we're moving at this point in
time and the direction we have given our staff, and we'll proceed from
there. And we will stay in communication, okay? Thank you very much.
Thanks, Ron.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I apologize. There was a motion and
second I guess that was inappropriate there --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It was just staff direction.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's staff direction at this point in time,
because normally you don't take action -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- on a public petition. So there's no need
to vote. I think it was a consensus up here by enough nodding heads.
So I think you all got the picture.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For your more reflective act of an old
Chevrolet. (Phonetic.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right. Thank you very much.
Item #SA1
FUNDING COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY $89,985; NAPLES AREA CHAMBER
OF COHMERCE, $47,000; TOURISH ALLIANCE OF COLLIER COUNTY; $1,195,429;
AND UNITED ARTS COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY $13,165 IN TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT ADVERTISING/PROMOTIONS FUND (bl); GULF COAST BOWLING
COUNCILPRO-AM, $13,718; AND GULF COAST BOWLING COUNCIL BOWLING
TOURNAMENT $25,000 IN TOURIST DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL EVENTS FUNDS (B2) -
STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED AND STAFF TO PREPARE POLICY REGARDING
CERTIFIED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Next item on the agenda. Hr. Hihalic?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move staff recommendation.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just trying to help. Just trying to
expedite matters.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And there's great news. I mean, you're
just probably already informed about, you know, that there's peace in
the Middle East actually here in the tourism industry. Everybody's
made happy, everybody has agreed on how the money -- what the
recommendations are. And I'd like to support them too. I do have a
question --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have one question.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I just want to make sure that we're -- as
part of Commissioner Constantine's motion, that 40 percent of the
grant does go to Marco Island, right?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That is in the grant.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Marco Island and the Everglades? That's the
way it's written.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, Commissioner. The Tourism Alliance, which
is a consortium of the groups that make up the advertising and
promotion, have decided to break it out 60 percent to 40 percent.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And I'll second it then.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I had a question.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So do I. Go ahead.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My question was more general. On the
direction that -- the discussion that we had previously where
Commissioner Constantine had the proposal, but now we're going to fund
for study about how --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not this item.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not this item, but on a related item. I'm
sort of segueing into a question that I needed to get before the
board.
And that was as we discussed that item, we also discussed the
possibility of amending the ordinance to allow for tourist tax money
to be spent on privately owned museums that are owned by
not-for-profit agencies and available to the public, which is why I
happened to have this little statute here with me today.
My wish -- or my understanding, and it is certainly my wish, was
when we discussed this last time, that there was certainly direction
that the marketing phase of the tax had to be studied. But I was
hopeful that this smaller issue about the museum could go ahead and be
drafted as an ordinance amendment.
When I looked back over the minutes of the meeting, I couldn't
find something to underline and show to Ms. Ashton and Mr. Weigel and
say you should be drafting this amendment.
Was that just my understanding, or is there consensus on the
board that we would go ahead and be doing the museum --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I make a suggestion that we do the
agenda item at hand and then have that discussion under BCC? Because I
think we do want to make sure we do whatever the board --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just seemed like while we were on the
issue of the tourist -- I don't care where we discuss it, but having
just -- you don't want to hear me make this spiel again, do you, when
we get to BCC communications?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I don't feel like you have to
repeat it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm clear on that. But is there any
objection to the county attorney going ahead and drafting that small
amendment to the ordinance?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't have any problem.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's going to be drafted and come back for
consideration --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- so no --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I don't have any problem.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Draft it so we can read it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They had just asked for clarification.
Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, I --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- do have a --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Go ahead.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, go ahead, Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Mihalic, maybe you could help me
understand this a little bit better. MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The Gulf Coast Bowling Council requested
and was approved by the TDC two separate amounts, one for a bowling
tournament at $25,000, and one for a Pro Am at $13,718. So the total
net to the tournament is 38,000 and change? MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why do we have two applications? Was it
because there's a limit of $25,000 per application?
MR. MIHALIC: Because if it was over $25,000, they could only use
the funds for advertising expenditures. They had other costs that
they wanted to have covered, and that would be in your appendix A. If
you'd like me to go over those costs, I can.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I did. And quite frankly, it's an end
run. And I just -- I'm not comfortable with it. The $25,000 I don't
have a single problem with, but the application -- the dual
applications in my opinion is an end run around the reason why we set
a limit at $25,000 for those types of events, and I'm not comfortable
with that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I've talked with them a little bit
on this, and I'm going to tell you, I am comfortable for a couple of
reasons, and I'd ask you to keep your mind open on this, in that they
are two distinctive events. The Pro Am brings in a number of people
who don't necessarily stay or participate through the other events.
So they have two distinct events.
But more importantly, this is one of those events where we've
taken a lot of criticism for category C for the failures. This is one
event that has been a smashing success year after year after year.
And I know you had raised a question once before about weaning people
off and making sure it's seed money up front, but I think this is our
first year of the funding -- in this event, the funding being lower,
and we are actually in that weaning process. But it has been dollar
for dollar, I would say, the single most successful event we've had,
when you look at how much money we've spent on other ones for such
little turnaround in beds, and a relatively small amount of money here
for 1,500 beds or more each time.
So I'd ask you to stay with that. And I think probably as part
of the preparation, we could make sure that if you're uncomfortable
with that, that it doesn't go through again, but I think to make sure
this event carries through with the same success it has in the past,
and recognizing there are two distinct events there, I'd ask you to go
ahead and support it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate that. And I'm not making any
derogatory statements about the event, because I agree with you, it
has been a good event. I just -- somebody wants $50,000 for an event,
we're going to see two applications each for $25,000. And I know the
two are different, but I look at the amount being requested and
expended on the Pro Am, when the real -- the real benefit to us has
been the actual event itself. The Pro Am I think has not really
shared in as much success as the event. And so the Pro Am application
is what I'm uncomfortable with. I'm not going to make any more of a
point of it than that, you know. I'll consider your comments when --
as it comes, but I'm just -- I just -- that just struck me as
something I wasn't comfortable with.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, one further question that I have. In
looking at -- if you'll go, commissioners, to page eight in the grant
applications. Actually, it's on page nine. And I have a question for
Visit Naples. So Tammy, you might want to come up here and answer a
question for me. Since you're the chief in charge, you get to answer
the tough questions.
When I looked at this and looked at the information on page nine,
it says applications must be accompanied by the following, and the
verification of nonprofit status, which you've complied with that,
you've complied with the incorporation papers.
One thing I am concerned about, because of the amount of money --
I mean, we're not looking at 25,000, or $50,000, we're looking at a
million point one something or other here -- is do you have any
audited financial statements of the Visit Naples group itself? Now,
I'm not talking about how you've spent your money, I mean, whether
you've spent your money correctly or not, but do you have some audited
financial statements of Visit Naples?
MS. MATTHEWS: Tammy Matthews, for the record, from Visit Naples,
Inc.
No, I do not have audited statements. We use an accountant. And
as per the county attorney last year, the standard agreement with the
county has been changed to where a verifiable or a certified audit is
not required. You are required to have your books open to the county
for three years.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you have some statements that you could
provide and have on file?
MS. MATTHEWS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. What -- are you on a calendar year and
HS. MATTHEWS: We're on a fiscal year.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're on a fiscal year?
MS. MATTHEWS: We changed our -- we were incorporated in January
of '97. We changed our calendar accounting system to a fiscal year in
'97.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I would like to see the commission
adopt some kind of a policy in regard -- when you're handing out these
kinds of dollars, anything over $100,000, I think it would be in our
best interest if we did have an audited financial statement of the
group that's requesting the money. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that we're holding ourselves out and
liable in a situation where I don't think we need to be. And I think
it would be in our best interest if we would create this policy to get
that done.
I would personally like to see you have a certified statement of
your financial stability, but at this point in time, since this is
kind of a new thing, at least get the financial statement that you
have, make sure that it's on file with Mr. Hihalic.
MS. MATTHEWS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay?
MS. MATTHEWS: And I believe when we -- when we changed that
standard contract that had to do with the county, I think it was in
Hay of '97.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Seven.
MS. MATTHEWS: I think I've got the ordinance change, in fact.
And it was because it could not determine what was required for a
certifiable or a verifiable audit, and that was why the standard
agreement was changed for all the events and the B-1 money at that
time.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. Well --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was the one that preceded the change
to the category C events also, from the meetings I had with the clerk
and with his finance director, you know, how -- you know, what kind of
audit, how do you specify it, how do you define it. I mean, it was a
nebulous type of thing.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What I'm looking for is the group itself. So
that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not the event.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- there is -- not the event. I'm not
looking for the event, accounting and auditing. And I don't want that
to be confused. I'm looking for the group itself that is asking for
the money and that's going to be overseeing the spending of this
money. I want to know of your financial stability as a group, okay?
And the --
MS. MATTHEWS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- same thing would be true because this is a
60/40 split, I believe.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
MS. MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The same thing would be true with the CVB.
And I believe you do have -- you have audited statements, is my
understanding?
MS. MATTHEWS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, they have those statements available,
and those should be filed as well, so we know exactly the stability of
the group.
I'm sorry, guys, we've got to protect ourselves and this money,
and I --
MS. MATTHEWS: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- think that this is one way that we can do
it.
MS. MATTHEWS: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I don't disagree at all, but
if we want to make a condition of this approval, that's fine, but we
need to have that policy statement in place soon.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, well, what I'm saying is from here on.
And I would like to see a policy statement come forward. We're not
going to penalize them because they both -- they have the certified
statements. The other group can get us some financial statements that
are going to say that hopefully that the --
MS. MATTHEWS: Correct. And, in fact, this year, the end of
September will be the first fiscal -- total fiscal year for Visit
Naples' existence, so --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MS. MATTHEWS: -- in the past we had a nine-month accounting that
was filed for our federal income taxes, and this year will be our
first full year --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MS. MATTHEWS: -- as of September.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I would strongly suggest in the future
that you might want to consider, as a matter of doing business, that
you get a certified statement.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it sounds like we're going to adopt
it as a policy for the board, that if --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think it's necessary.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- we're gonna get more than $100,000 --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. I think that that's just doing
good business.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good point, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, that's all I needed. Thanks, Tammy.
Okay. Motion, Mr. Constantine?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second, Mr. Norris.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and a second. Do we have any speakers on
this item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman. The first speaker is
Richard Helick.
MR. HELICK: Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the
commission. My name is Richard Helick, H-E-L-I-C-K. I'm band manager
of Naples concert band. And I will have two thoughts to share with
you today.
The first is to support the approval of these grants. And the
reason that we take that position -- and we are not a grant
application, so we're not here beating our own drum. We have been in
the past and we thank you for your support.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'd rather you be beating your own drum,
actually. It's more enjoyable.
MR. HELICK: As a non-musician, you wouldn't like it. I think
the reason I'm a band manager is I'm not a musician, so they don't
have to worry about me sneaking into somebody's empty seat at
rehearsal.
But we appreciate your help with Marco last year. Mr. Norris
supported your granting us a waiver on the signage. So you have
supported us in the past, but we're not asking support for ourselves
at this time.
But the first point is that the tourist season is on us, and
these folks who have requested grants need these funds to start. Our
first concert is at Cambier on October 25th. And as a matter of
interest, it's tied into the 75th anniversary of the City of Naples.
It's going to be expanded to all of the musicians, of which will be --
well, it's hard to tell this time of the year. We have a membership
of 90 musicians, seats 75 to 85 in season, and we only have 65 in
October. But they'll all be in costume. We're encouraging adults and
children to come in costume, and there'll be skits and a lot of fun
things for the children.
But that planning started last June. And it's way underway now.
I'll spend a couple days a week on it. And these other organizations
I'm sure are in the exact same place.
And if I understand it correctly, the tourist funds have been
collected, they've been segregated, they've been subject to a review
of the grant applications, and the only thing that is left is for you
to pass judgment on these recommendations. And we would encourage you
to do it so that these organizations can go forward, which they need
to be doing with great expediency.
The other comment I wanted to share with you is simply to say
that the Naples concert band is alive and well. We expect to see you
again at some time. We seat in seven free Sunday concerts in Cambier
Park in season 5,000 people. We're going to have a little more space
this year for a physical reason, and I hope that we may even exceed
5,000. We had been 300 at Marco two years ago, and did a lot
different presentation to the island last year and increased the
attendance from 300 to 1,500. And I'm sure that we'll do better than
that in Marco.
But the band is expanding its services to the community beyond
these concerts. We will have an indoor concert on April 3 in the City
of Naples. But the president has taken it upon himself to sponsor an
inside of the band program to go in the elementary and middle schools,
particularly the fifth graders, and take a group of musicians and just
have a fun time with them, show them what the instruments can make as
a sound and then what they can do as a note and play together and get
participation with the students.
So that's a whole new program which is -- the ground's laid for
it and it will be very active this year.
In addition to that, we now have --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Melick, I hate to interrupt you, but this
actually has to do -- we would love to have you come back to talk to
us at the end of one of our meetings where we have some -- or actually
in a little bit where we have public comments. You're welcome at that
point in time to perhaps tell us something in that regard. But right
now we've got to deal with these particular issues.
MR. MELICK: I accept your ruling. I'm off the base. I just
wanted to let you know that we'll be back some day, because we're
expanding programs.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good.
MR. MELICK: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much.
Okay, commissioners?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Craig Woodward, and then Joy
Lelonek.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you going to talk us out of this?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Feel free to waive your opportunity to
speak.
MR. WOODWARD: Very, very, briefly. Craig Woodward, I'm an
attorney on Marco, past president of the chamber on Marco, and also
sit on the Marco and the Everglades CVB.
And we would like you to support our application here. We were
asked by one of the commissioners how much local support we have, and
we -- I think some of you got a booklet which had letters from people
on Marco and in Everglades City. There was quite a variety from
restaurants, hairdressers, title companies, condo managers, dentists,
and I was myself quite surprised at how many people are familiar with
our work that we do as volunteers for the community and how much
tourism impact we've had.
We think it's -- it's been going on for five years. We have a
lot of ongoing programs, and we just are here today to thank you for
your support.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Joy Lelonek, and then Steve Wheeler.
MS. LELONEK: For the record, my name is Joy Lelonek. I'm the
executive director of the United Arts Council, and I am here pounding
my drum. I'm asking you to please accept the recommendation of the
Tourist Development Council for both the B-1 and the B-2 funding. But
more importantly, I'm urging the commissioners to look very carefully
at future tourist development tax dollars and to make sure that there
is strength and diversity in Collier County.
And as a representative of 36 arts groups -- and if you're
uncomfortable with that, I'll bring the other 35 in. But I would like
to ask you to please think about the cultural enrichment that Collier
County offers, not only for the residents, but for the tourists and
the tourist dollars that they bring in. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Steve Wheeler, and then Carlton
Pase.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Steve --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Steve's --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let the record reflect that Mr. Wheeler
waived his speaking. And Carlton Pace did as well. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two big fat gold stars.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's your final speaker, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And that concludes our public speakers on
this.
Commissioners, we have a motion and a second. If there's no --
Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I just want to clarify, I'm
not going to support the motion because I -- 13,000 for the Gulf Coast
Bowling Council Pro Am are funds that I would like to pull out. I
seem to be alone on that. But that was the only reason that I am
objecting to the motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-one.
MR. MIHALIC: Thank you, commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner, I have to -- at 12:00 I have to
be in the elections office for a canvassing board meeting --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, that's right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and we're at 10 minutes to 12:00 right
now. So I don't see another way, then we'll have to take that break
and then come back --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we go through some of the
appointments then? Because they should all take 30 seconds each.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually, the city partnership issue would
take even less.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not so sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And at least that way --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a lot to say about that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You do?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think there's going to be some
discussion perhaps about that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There will be a lot of discussion on that
one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fine, okay. My mistake.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we'd better stay with the agenda.
We're just going to take the break now and go to lunch and then we
will come back.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A chance for everybody to go vote who's
been here all morning.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, if you haven't voted, this is a perfect
opportunity for you to go vote.
(Luncheon recess.)
Item #SB1
REPORT TO THE BCC ON THE RESULTS AND RECOHMENDATIONS OF THE ANNUAL
COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT STUDY PROGRAM - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll reconvene the Board of County
Commissioners' meeting, and starting off with item 8(B), Mr. Kant.
MR. KANT: Good afternoon, commissioners, Edward Kant,
transportation services director.
Two things: First off, welcome back from vacation. Second, there
is a minor misstatement in the bottom of the first page of the
executive summary. Refers to 11 intersections, should refer to nine.
And ordinarily this particular item, which is the results of the
-- and recommendations on the annual county-wide traffic signal
warrant study program are a consent agenda item. However, this year
we chose to take it off the consent agenda, because the policy for
installation of signals was originally approved by this board in June
of 1992, and over the last six years and having had an opportunity to
work with that policy and to implement it, we found at the staff level
that there are times when it gets a little awkward. So we made a few
minor revisions that we're asking as part of the approval today to
approve this revised policy.
Just let me point out the three major -- the three major minor
revisions -- thank you -- on the first -- that's attachment number two
in the package. Item number two originally required three of the five
major warrants to be met. And in this case, we are merely referring
to what those five major warrants are in conjunction with a
professional engineering study.
On the next page, item four indicates that prior to the
installation of a signal, we would prefer to go with some median
modifications, if appropriate, rather than immediately going to
signalization.
And the last item indicates that -- it's very similar to what was
in the previous policy, but instead of permitting the signal to be
installed at the construction stage, we are indicating we would like
to have it installed or designed as part of the design phase, which we
believe is going to lead to a little bit more efficient installation
of signals.
As far as the signals themselves, in the executive summary we've
listed the nine locations that we're recommending as part of our
capital program. Very quickly, there is -- of the nine, one of them
is solely related to volume, three of them are related to school
locations, two of them are related to crash history, two of them are
on the basis of operational improvements, and one is on the basis of
side street delay.
Typically side street delay would not be one of the major
warrants that we would consider, but because of the location of this
particular signal, we believe that it is appropriate in this case, and
that's another reason why we're asking for the revised policy.
Funds have been budgeted in the next fiscal year in the amount of
$500,000 in gas tax fund 313. Typically we run about half a million
dollars a year. There are years when we do fewer signals. But one of
the things that we're finding is that as we install signals and we
have more opportunities for interconnects, the costs of the individual
signals do go up.
If you have any questions, I'll be glad to try to answer them at
this time.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Kant, and I'm sorry, I wasn't paying
attention as I drove through yesterday. U.S. 41 and Pelican Bay
Boulevard North, has that signal been installed?
MR. KANT: Pelican Bay Boulevard North. No, it hasn't been
installed. It's been approved by FDOT, and I believe the holdup on
that is the master arms, or the -- or it may be -- not master arm, the
steel strain poles.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. KANT: Yeah. But no, that has been approved, and we've just
-- that's been a tough signal to get in place because of some of the
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Future widening and everything under the
sun really coming into play there?
MR. KANT: One of the things we had to do, of course, was design
it for the six-laning.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right, okay. And that is in the current
year funding?
MR. KANT: That's correct, yes, sir. I don't think it's going to
get done this current year, but we're --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But then money will carry over --
MR. KANT: -- if it doesn't, we'll have to roll it over --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to the next year.
MR. KANT: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hove staff recommendation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second for the
recommendation from staff regarding signalization. I'm very delighted
to see a couple of these on here, Ed. I thank you so very much.
And any of you people out in TV land, Immokalee Road at Wilson
Boulevard, that's going to be a nice --
MR. KANT: If I may take just a couple of seconds, commissioners.
I had an opportunity this morning -- Mr. Tears from the Big Cypress
Basin was here, and I was discussing this particular location with
him, because you may not be aware of the fact that just on the east
side of that intersection, there's a large box culvert which crosses
under County Road 846, Immokalee Road, which to my recollection I
think I once saw water in it 15 or 20 years ago, but it doesn't get a
lot of water.
And he and I discussed it, and he indicated that they would work
with us to try to expedite any permitting that might be required,
because that culvert will have to be lengthened in order to get enough
pavement in there to accommodate the signal.
But I just wanted to point out that we've begun to develop -- or
I should say have developed I think a very good working relationship
with the Basin and with the district with respect to some of these
signal installations, because sometimes we have to tread on their
property, and they've been very good about working with us.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, thank you.
And I will -- just as a note here to fellow commissioners, I will
be coming back to you in a few meetings from now requesting that we
take another look at some of our priorities in regard to some of our
roads.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, good.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So at any rate, we have a motion, we have a
second for approval of this item. All in favor -- do we have any
public speakers? I'm sorry.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No public speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, all in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
MR. KANT: Thank you, commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much.
Item #SD1
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANPLES AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR
THE ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT ENGINE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM - APPROVED
Moving on then to item 8(D)(1), approve an interlocal
agreement between the City of Naples and Collier County for the
advanced life support engine partnership program.
MS. FLAGG: Good afternoon, commissioners, Madam Chair. Diane
Flagg, chief of emergency services, for the record.
The item before you this afternoon is to request board approval
to approve the interlocal agreement between the City of Naples and
Collier County for an advanced life support partnership program.
The partnership will enhance the current single emergency vehicle
response program by providing rapid advanced life support responses to
second due 9-1-1 emergencies, and will continue to maintain the high
quality of county EHS paramedic services.
The program was presented at a county commission workshop on Hay
21st. The chairman of the fire service steering committee for the
independent fire districts, Dr. Woodruff, and subsequently the City
Council, have executed the interlocal agreement.
With board's approval, we'll move forward with this.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One of the concerns that has been
expressed by at least one independent fire district, and I've heard it
publicly stated, is that, you know, at times when a fire engine will
get there first they express concern about, you know, being very
limited in what they can do. So we struggle with the fact that we
have such an extremely high level of training required of our county
paramedics and our EHS personnel in general, and how that kind of
training to obtain that for the entire fire service is just something
that can't happen.
I see this as a way of providing an extremely high level of
consistent patient care, regardless of which vehicle shows up on the
scene first, and to take that element of the argument, at least within
the city, and say that's no longer an issue. Because now those
individuals that have had paramedic training would have not been
Tober-ized, as we call it, will have someone on scene that does have
that qualification and can actually work as a unit.
I know there are some issues here about having county personnel
performing fireman duties. But I think that's answered if you look at
Golden Gate. Sometimes when you have a single person responding with
an engine on scene, it's not unusual for our EHS people to pull hose
to help them get their job done. They worked together on scene in the
past, they will in the future.
But I think this is going to go a long way towards -- at least in
the city, to let us take a -- make an effort and see if this works in
getting us completely consistent patient care, regardless of what
vehicle shows up first.
And I want to thank the city for their participation, and Mr.
Rambosk, I can see you here in the audience, thank you for working
with Ms. Flagg on this.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I had the same objections that I did
before when we discussed this before. Really essentially two major
objections. One is that we are giving up a fully trained paramedic to
the City of Naples in return for a trainee on our EMS wagon.
Now, we -- we're not responsible for what the City of Naples is
responsible to provide. We're responsible for EMS service. So what
we are doing here is lessening the training, or lessening the
personnel on our EMS wagons. And that's what we're responsible for.
MS. FLAGG: Mr. Commissioner, there -- actually there will be
cases where we'll be, through the city personnel, providing a higher
level of care, because presently we do utilize part-time EMT's, which
are at a lower level of training than a paramedic. And with this
partnership with the city, we'll actually be receiving a state
certified paramedic.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. We're still, though -- we -- is it a
Tober certified paramedic?
MS. FLAGG: It's a state certified paramedic --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not what I asked.
MS. FLAGG: -- who is not --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not --
MS. FLAGG: -- Tober certified, but who is -- can provide a
higher level of care than an EHT, which is what we currently have on
the vehicles.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. But we are sending a Tober certified
paramedic out of service into the City of Naples in return for one
that is not certified.
MS. FLAGG: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That's one of my objections. And the
other is that while this is a good idea and I agree that it's a good
idea and that it will work well, the problem is that the voters set up
the separation between county EHS and fire services years and years
ago, and this does not follow the spirit of that agreement, or that
mandated by the voters.
Now, over and over and over and over again, we get chastised for
not following the rules, for finding some way to bend around the
rules, and that's exactly what this is. This -- what we have now is
we're going to have county EHS people providing fire services. And
that is not what the voters have said that they want to do. I know
it's a good idea, but it's not what the voters have said they want to
do.
MS. FLAGG: Mr. Commissioner, if I could offer -- the voters
years ago, actually, there was not an established fire district. What
the voters did via referendum was actually vote to establish fire
districts. There was really no discussion of the EHS --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But that's where the separation came from.
MS. FLAGG: There was no discussion of the EHS services in those
votes. There was no fire district when those fire districts were
initially set up, so what the --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand that, but that's where the
separation came from was those votes to set up independent fire
districts.
MS. FLAGG: So the voters voted to create a fire department of
which previous to their vote there was none.
In addition, the purpose of this program is to provide, as
Commissioner Hancock said, a consistent level of county EMS services
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I'm not -- I'm not -- I've said it very
clearly that I think it's a good idea and it's a good program. It
does not, however, meet the spirit of what the voters were trying to
accomplish with the separation of EMS and fire.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris, I hear what you're
saying, and if -- and I know I'm going to probably step on some fire
toes when I say this, but if the fire districts were spending all
their time on fire calls, I would agree with you. But the majority of
the response that we see within the fire districts -- and we're really
only talking about the City of Naples right now. But when you see an
engine roll, the majority of times it's rolling, it's generally
something where yes, the equipment on that fire truck can be utilized,
but the actual physical personnel servicers are dealing with things
that are medical related in some way --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- shape or form.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And if --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess that's the only place I find
comfort, and -- because I agree with what you're saying in concept.
And I don't -- you know, I wouldn't argue that point with you. But I
just think when you look at the number and type of calls they run, we
are actually responding to a medical need as opposed to a fire need,
but occasionally that person will be drawn into performing fire
services.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, and I understand that. But if the
proposal here in front of us today were that the City of Naples'
firefighters could be trained under our EMS service and become
certified locally and return to the City of Naples as trained EMS
paramedics, City of Naples paramedics, I have no objection to that.
My objection is for the EMS department, the Collier County EMS
department, to provide fire services.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And furthermore, you will recall that this
board has directed the county administrator to find some way to get
out of providing the fire services in the two -- the two dependent
districts that we have.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, no, no, no. We've asked them to
look into what the options are, but I don't think we've given
direction to get out --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
us out of the fire service.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
I said to look into it.
You said to look into finding ways to get
That's exactly what we did.
I don't think so. We can look back at the
minutes, but I don't think that's what we did.
And actually, I've raised my hand. I think I'm due.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're next.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is -- respectfully, having been in the
minority so many times, I respect your wanting to, you know, take one
last shot at this. But this is already budgeted money, it's already
stuff we've already decided to do. I think it would be more prudent
to get on with it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's very important that not
only for us, I think the board members probably understand it at this
point, but for the public to -- Ms. Flagg, repeat what you were --
when you explained what the trade-off is and what the training levels
are and what the county is deriving from this. I think that's very,
very important that we're clear on that.
MS. FLAGG: What we are doing is we are exchanging personnel.
The city is giving us one paramedic firefighter to go on a medic unit
somewhere else in the county, and what we are providing the city is
one paramedic firefighter to go on a fire engine apparatus in the City
of Naples. The one on the City of Naples fire apparatus is county
certified, but the EMS department historically utilizes part-time
EMT's to provide the mandatory staffing on an ambulance. We will be
receiving from the city a state certified paramedic.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I'm just -- I've got to
disagree with you, John. This in my opinion is applying common sense.
It's going to make more efficient use of public service, it's going to
make more efficient use of the tax dollars that go toward this, and
most importantly, this is -- you often hear me say we should only be
dealing with health, safety and welfare issues. And this is certainly
at least two of those three. This is a primary service that
government should be providing, and this can deliver that health and
safety service better and more efficiently. So I don't know how we can
do anything but move forward with this.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, as I've heard -- as I've
listened to this, Commissioner Norris, your point is entirely valid at
the outset of this program.
But correct me if I'm wrong, Chief Flagg, but the goal here is to
get to a point that those two individual skill levels are
interchangeable. So that what happens is the person who works for the
City of Naples Fire Department becomes Tober-ized and the only way to
do that is to ride on the units to do the work day to day so that
we'll have people that have interchangeable skills. Isn't that kind
of the goal?
MS. FLAGG: Well, actually the goal is is to provide 100 percent
ALS intervention in four minutes or less. And by doing this program,
we will be able to achieve that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But over time --
MS. FLAGG: Yes, they will --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- we're actually going to see these
people have the same --
MS. FLAGG: -- be interchanged.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- qualifications and similar experience
MS. FLAGG: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- levels in the job. Do I understand
that correctly?
MS. FLAGG: Yes. The thrust of this program was that there are
rare occasions where the primary EMS unit is already committed to a
9-1-1 call. So the present situation is a engine response with basic
trained personnel on it. What this partnership will do is provide 100
percent ALS within four minutes or less, which is the benefit to the
community.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve staff recommendation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion. Do we have any speakers --
oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Weigel?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers.
MR. WEIGEL: One thing I wanted to bring to your attention, your
consideration, is that in fact I reviewed this agreement for form and
legal sufficiency late in the process. It was already executed by the
City of Naples at that point and it is legally sufficient. But I
wanted to bring your attention to the agreement term provisions. It's
paragraph seven on page seven of the agenda item. And that is that
the agreement purports under 7.0 to remain in full force and effect
and terminates upon completion of the services and responsibilities
usually performed by the city and the county. Again, I'm a layperson,
so I don't know if the services responsibilities ever terminate in a
natural sense. This contract has a type of perpetuity to it.
Paragraph 7.01 does provide for a termination of this agreement
with just and reasonable cause. And there's a possibility that the
board may have a reason and a desire to terminate the agreement, which
has nothing to do with the perhaps very well orchestrated and
performed services between the city and the county in the
instrumentalities here.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we need a mutual consent provision, and
you're not sure that 7.0 accomplishes that?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I don't think that that -- that this
accomplishes it, but I would suggest that if you were to approve the
agreement, that you would want to place this on record so that if
there should be any issue of contention in the future or discussion
with the city in regard to the unilateral ability of the county to
terminate the agreement, that you would have stated those provisos
here, or at some formal meeting of this board.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie, could we amend that
to include -- I mean, there are such things as unforeseen fiscal or
liability situations that were not contemplated that may arise later,
either for the city or the county that would -- could be cause for
termination of the contract, and it doesn't look --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, why couldn't we use the 30-day termi
-- I'm just not understanding. If we have a 30-day notice of
termination, you're saying that we need something more than that? We
need --
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think that just and reasonable cause may
well be cause outside of the performance of the agreement itself.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So you'd just like for us to have the
right to terminate without cause.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you may have reasons outside of the
performance agreement which are very appropriate to terminate the
agreement, but it has nothing to do with the adequacy or inadequacy of
the city and the county and the persons and instrumentalities working
together.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You would have, for example --
MR. WEIGEL: There may be -- there may be external reasons that
you wish to terminate. And as with most of our contracts, we try to
give a reasonable advanced written notice and things of that nature --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What if any verbiage would you
suggest?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, there were two things: One is I think that if
you approve the agreement as written, you could approve the agreement
with the understanding that just and reasonable cause may involve
elements outside of the mere operation of this agreement. And you've
placed something on the record. If the city has a problem with that,
they could come back. If we actually amend this agreement, it would
have to go back to the city, because they've already approved it in
the --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would agree to amend my motion to add
that interpretation of just and reasonable cause to include
circumstances outside the four corners of the document and the
performance of the two parties' obligations.
MR. WEIGEL: I think you've said it very well.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second amends.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. We have
no public speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: None.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, I'll call for the question.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-one.
MS. FLAGG: Thank you, commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 98-363 APPOINTING RICHARD E. LYDON, LEE R. WEEKS AND
CATHERINE KENNEDY-CAMPBELL TO THE CITY/COUNTY BEACH RENOURISHHENT
MAINTENANCE COHMITTEE - ADOPTED. SECTION 7 OF THE ORDINANCE WAIVED
Moving on then to item 10(A), appointment of members to the
city --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Three vacancies, three names, move
recommendation.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a little bit of a problem. Nothing --
it's just a little procedural thing here.
Mr. Lydon has served two consecutive terms on the beach
renourishment committee. The City of Naples, I believe, has something
in their ordinance regarding that, and we will have to waive -- is it
our ordinance?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Uh-huh.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Or the -- our ordinance as well.
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. We would need to waive section
seven of our ordinance, our advisory committee ordinance 86-41, as
amended, which itself has a limitation of two terms, except upon
unanimous approval of the board. But beyond that, their resolution
creating and providing for this committee itself has a two-term
limitation. Curiously, though, it's this beach maintenance committee
itself which has recommended Mr. Lydon for reappointment. So they may
have their own internal issue with their own city resolution.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What we've consistently done in the
last six years is if there is another individual, then we haven't
extended it. However, if we don't have enough people to fill the
vacancies and that person would like to continue on, then we've gone
ahead and waived it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question just on these city
residents who are listed here as not eligible. They're not eligible
for appointment from a county slot, but certainly are eligible to be
appointed by their respective municipalities? MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay, just wanted to be sure.
MR. WEIGEL: As far as we know.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With the comment by Commissioner
Constantine, I'll amend my initial motion to include waiving section
seven of our ordinance on the basis that there are only three
qualified applicants for three vacancies, so Mr. Lydon is -- will be
the recipient of that waiver.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Before you call the question, let me ask
something here.
If the ordinance says that some members have to be nominated by
the City of Naples and some by the county, what happens to the Marco
Island applicants then? Who can nominate them?
MR. WEIGEL: I don't know, off the top of my head. Because our
provision is in regard to the unincorporated area. That may be
something for the city, who created this committee in the first place,
it's their resolution, under which we ultimately all operate, may have
to address.
MR. FERNANDEZ: City of Naples.
MS. FILSON: If I may --
MR. WEIGEL: The City of Naples, yes, to be clear.
MS. FILSON: If I may, they're -- I think they're working on
amending the ordinance to include the City of Marco.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The City of Naples is working on '-
MS. FILSON: Yes --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That answers the question.
MS. FILSON: -- and the county in conjunction.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, because there -- I remember us
talking about there being a dedicated slot or slots for the City of
Marco, but I thought that was in process.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I just need to be sure, because Hubert
Howard in particular I know has been here -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- for the duration, don't want to lose
him.
Does anybody know what the process is at the city? Are there
openings now at the city that Mr. Howard just applied at the county
and should have applied at the city? Is that what's happening here?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps we could send a courtesy
letter from this office to those people, let them know when we find
out what the answer to that question is.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, that's a great idea. Unless you
know the answer right now. You don't?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I definitely would not want to send a, you
know, message to Hubie or to Gil Scholes who's been -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Heavens no.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- very involved, or any of the others
that they were not qualified, but just that we would ask that they
proceed through the process within either the City of Marco or City of
Naples.
MS. FILSON: And there are current vacancies in the City of
Naples. And what I can do is forward all of those applicants from the
city to the City of Naples for consideration.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Perfect.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would be great.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And also send a letter to these
individuals.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, I always do.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, thank you. I might suggest in the
communication to the City of Naples that we indicate that if Mr. Lydon
is appointed with the appropriate waiver of our ordinance, that the
City of Naples still has an express limitation on their resolution in
regard to all committee members, whether they are county or city
appointed, for two consecutive terms. They may have to deal with
that, but based upon the factual background that you've already
created here, we have no other applicants we're looking to fill a
vacancy. That may increase the skids for them to take the appropriate
action if they deign to take any action at all. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
Was there a second to the motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I seconded the motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So we have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 98-364 APPOINTING WILFRED JAEGER AND WOLFGANG B.P. SCHULZ TO
THE RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED
The next one, item 10(B), appointment of members to the Radio
Road beautification advisory committee.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a
motion we approve Wilfred Jaeger and Wolfgang Schulz. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second to the
appointment of Wilfred Jaeger and Wolfgang Schulz.
Any comments or questions? If not, all in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 98-365 APPOINTING GLENN E. WILT TO THE LANDFILL OPERATIONS
COHMUNITY COUNCIL - ADOPTED
Next appointment is appointment of a member to the landfill
operations community council, known as LOCC.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a
motion to approve Glenn Wilt. He's been -- I know attended some of
these meetings anyway, even without being a member. But he's been a
liaison on the issue from day one for the Golden Gate Civic
Association.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had just hoped to get to have this
opportunity to support Ty Agoston for a committee, since I opposed him
on a previous nomination, but I'll defer to your judgment.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion for the appointment of
Glenn Wilt. Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second it. I like Ty also, but Glenn
has been involved in this issue for several years now and I think
probably just brings a little more information to it, but -- so I
think Glenn's a good choice there. But I do appreciate Ty being
there. Maybe next time we'll have a chance to consider Ty.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If he had shown up here to personally
request, maybe it would have been different.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's supposed to give him points in his
favor.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If
there's no further discussion, all in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 98-366 APPOINTING ALEX DUSEK TO THE
HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD - ADOPTED
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, the next one has one
vacancy and one applicant. I'd move Alex Dusek.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Any
questions?
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is it just me, or are we starting to see
committee recommendations again when we asked not to see those? Is
that --
MS. FILSON: Actually, we don't accept recommendations from
staff, but we do accept them from the committees.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: From the committee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Choked you up.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Easy for you to say, Ms. Filson.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, I think it's a little difficult.
Item #10F
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FROM FAC TO ADOPTED A RESOLUTION CONCERNING
REVISION 7 - NO ACTION
Anyway, item 10(F) happens to be one that I placed on the
agenda considering the resolution for the FAC.
Mr. Fernandez, do we have any other information on that
particular resolution?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, this is a resolution that was
recommended by the Florida Association of Counties, which you have in
your packet here as the form recommended by them at the time that we
took the action to adopt the ordinance and appropriate the money. We
did in fact adopt a resolution at that time. It didn't follow the
specific format, but it did cover this issue. So the question is
whether you wish the original for -- the original resolution to stand
or to adopt a resolution in this form.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: To me the difference in what we originally
adopted was we said that there would be a resulting reduction in
property tax rate as opposed to well, we may reduce property taxes or
we may do one of several other things. You know, I don't think we can
quantify that amount today. But I think obviously out of six or seven
million dollars, we can make a reduction in property tax rate, and I
want to keep that as a focus.
I think what this waters down to is that several options like --
such as other public uses as may be appropriate. I'd rather be a
little more specific and say some or all of that money is going to
result in a property --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sounds like government --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- tax rate reduction.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- windfall. Hey, we've got more
money. So --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, that's exactly why I brought it back,
Commissioner, because this is something that came to my attention that
we needed to do this, and there was a variation, and I didn't know if
you wanted to stay with the one that was passed at the time, or change
it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand the concern about, you know,
we may have out here expenditures that we don't foresee now and
whatnot, but whether it's part or all, I think if we tell the people
by voting for amendment seven you are reducing your property tax rate,
we as a board can hold -- will hold ourselves to that without
attaching a dollar figure to it. But let's at least let the people
know that you will get that money, some or all, back.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is our current funding source for these
expenditures property tax? There's nothing else involved?
MR. FERNANDEZ: General revenue.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: General revenue funds?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Which is primarily property tax.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, that's fine.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, while we're on the subject, just
to give you a point of information, I had a meeting last week with the
clerk who's alerted me to the fact that there may be expenditures in
this category that we're generally grouping together and quoting the
six million dollar figure that in his estimation go beyond the
mandates of Article V and are in fact the results of decisions that
have been made over the years and traditions that have been followed
to continue those funding commitments, that in fact the amount we
receive from the state, if in fact this passes, may not be that total
amount. So we're going to be working with him to refine that figure
for purposes of future discussion.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, that's precisely why I
didn't want to put a dollar figure on it when we initially did it,
because there are going to be -- we don't really know what the actual
impact is going to be. I think we just want to make a commitment to
the people of this community voting for amendment seven puts some of
that money that we anticipate back in your pocket at a minimum.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Good point.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And at the same time, maybe when we do review
some of these areas, we might want to take another look at whether we
want to continue some of that or not.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, there may be some discretionary areas
we '-
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- previously were not aware of.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Exactly.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And we need to have that pointed out to us
and we can deal with it at that time. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, then we'll leave this item -- I guess
at this point, we'll just -- I don't even think we need to take a vote
on it. I believe we can just go ahead and stay with the current
resolution, because we already have one.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have we transmitted that to FAC yet?
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely. In fact, Mr. Robert Zachary in our
office received a commendation from the FAC on this, and we believe --
and they in fact indicated that they were using ours as part of the
model for what you've got before you now.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's --
MR. WEIGEL: They've revised it --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was the intent of my getting it on so
early, is another issue that Collier County is leading the way in the
state.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're number one.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There must have been somewhat of a lapse up
there, because that's not what they sent back.
Item #10G
COHHISSIONERS BERRY, HAC'KIE AND NORRIS TO SERVE ON THE VALUE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD 9/28; COHMISSIONERS HANCOCK, HAC'KIE AND NORRIS TO
SERVE 9/29 AND COHMISSIONERS BERRY, HANCOCK AND HAC'KIE TO SERVE 9/30
Anyway, okay, moving on to item 10(G), appointment of
commissioners to serve on the value adjustment board.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: The value adjustment board. I'll volunteer
for Thursday, October the 1st.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As will I. Actually, I'm going to be
in Illinois the end of the month, so I will be here -- I'll be back
for Thursday?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What are you laughing at?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, you all have just about choked getting
out there, didn't you?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's because we never last --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We never get there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- 'til the last day.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: For the last --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, I know.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: For the last three years -- as much as I
love Abe Skinner, you know, I've done this for the first and second
day for the last three years.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, I'm due this year.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This will be my sixth year, so --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that's fine, you can be first off
the ship. I'm second.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I know I'm due, so I volunteer for the
first two days this year, because I didn't serve at all last year.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, you just have to serve on this. It's so
much fun.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, I've done it a couple times.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's so much fun to say the word sine die. I
mean, that's just --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Waive here and sine die.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sine die.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sine die is just kind of one of these things,
you know, it gives you a little bit of a charge. I wasn't sure last
year I needed to even say it. So --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I like the value adjustment board. I'll
take a day.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, yeah, we can see that, Mr. Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I do.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: October lst?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: October 1st.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'll take that one and one other.
MS. FILSON: I need three commissioners and two alternates.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, I know.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, have you
scheduled your vacation to be out of town once again during the value
adjustment board?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, coincidentally, my sister is
moving from Springfield, Illinois to Rockford, Illinois that week and
I will be there helping her move, so --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They have companies to do that, you know.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I will take the first day, Monday, the 28th
of September.
MS. FILSON: And the fourth day.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll be there. I'll commit.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry, I'll take the 29th, if
you want to split that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll take both, because I didn't do it --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And the other --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- last year at all.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, you didn't do it at all?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess Commissioner Mac'Kie can be the
chairman this time, since she --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yee-ha.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that's a great idea.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I get to say sine die?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You get to say sine die.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you for giving me one reprieve, and
the only reason Commissioner Norris has done it six years in a row is
because he lives for it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Now, do we have enough? We don't for the
second day, do we?
MS. FILSON: I need three commissioners for each day with two
alternates --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll do second day.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are you going to do the second day?
MS. FILSON: -- and I don't know how many applications we have.
I won't know until the llth.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Realistically we never go more than two
days.
MS. FILSON: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You can schedule me for second and third
for now, just to --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second and third day?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, just to make sure there's --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Well, I've got the first day with
Commissioner Norris --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I've got the first day.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and Commissioner Hac'Kie. That's --
MS. FILSON: I have two commissioners for the first day, two for
the second day.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, you have --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You've got three for the first day.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- three for the first day.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: These three right here.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hac'Kie, Norris and Berry --
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- for the first day.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second day is Hac'Kie, Hancock and?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Norris.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hearing no objection, moving on to the
third day.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Norris is the second day also?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, he is so thrilled about this, he can't
-- he can't even speak.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I love the value adjustment board.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And how about third day? I'll do third
day, if you need it, Commissioner Berry.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll do the third day, if we do it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, will you be done
moving coffee tables by then?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll be back Thursday.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I swear to God, this is intentional.
MS. FILSON: So he's going to have the fourth day.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He does it every year.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, I know. He was --
MS. FILSON: Can I just review this --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's an amazing coincidence.
MS. FILSON: -- to make sure I have it correct?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: She got a new job.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What?
MS. FILSON: Can I just review this to make sure I have it
correct?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You certainly may.
MS. FILSON: I have Commissioner Hac'Kie for the first and second
day, Commissioner Norris, first and second day, Commissioner Berry,
first and third day, Commissioner Hancock, second and third day, and
Commissioner Constantine the fourth day.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, all by himself.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just trying to do my --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He won't need other commissioners on that
day.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm bringing my airline tickets back
for verification.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So on the third day we still only have
two, but we generally don't go the third day.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The third day, I'll show up if there's a
third day.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Boy, you are paying those dues in
one lump sum.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hey, I didn't have to campaign.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I was going to say, I think --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's exactly --
MS. FILSON: And that will be 9:00 to 5:00 each day.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're well rested.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have that all taken care of.
Item #10H
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE FALSE ALARM ORDINANCE NO. 97-08 - DISCUSSED
Moving on then to item 10(H), discussion regarding the false
alarm ordinance, number 97-08. Compliments of me.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I was going to ask, why are we
discussing this?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Because I put it on there. Because I have
gotten a number of calls regarding a false alarm ordinance, and one I
have shared with Captain Sanders. Did I get your title right?
CAPTAIN SANDERS: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Wonderful, okay.
CAPTAIN SANDERS: Jim would have been great.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, no, we're formal around here.
CAPTAIN SANDERS: I noticed.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Careful, you might bite your tongue, you
stick it in your cheek that hard.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Jim, do you want to come up here and talk to
us a little bit about the false alarm ordinance and some of the things
that are going on? And I don't know if they -- have any of the rest
of you -- let's start off, have any of the rest of you received any
phone calls regarding this ordinance?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry, I can tell you, if you
think for a second the first time Pelican Bay had it we didn't get
phone calls? We did. Now, there's is a little different, because
they are paying for additional -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- officers patrolling. It was handled a
little differently. But you weren't on the board when we brought this
ordinance up, but we had Don Hunter stand there and talk to us about
the number of false alarms. It's just crazy.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. And I -- and I have said that. In
fact, Jim and I had this conversation, and I concur, and people that I
have spoken with, it's the same thing. There's just some things that
need to be --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- tweaked a little bit, not so much with the
ordinance itself, but perhaps with even the citation and some things
like that that --
CAPTAIN SANDERS: Maybe -- Jim Sanders --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- we've talked about.
CAPTAIN SANDERS: -- for the record, Sheriff's Office. Maybe I
can enlighten you, hopefully. I just got the information that you
were going to discuss this today, so I just grabbed what I had.
If you recall, we proposed this and it came on line probably May
18th of '97. We didn't start enforcing this ordinance until May of
this year, to give the citizens of Collier County an opportunity and
the alarm companies to come on line with what the ordinance was
directing. That particular -- let's see, '92? In 1995, we had over
22,000 false alarms. We are experiencing to date 21,949, with -- we
have 10,722 backups -- that means that takes a backup officer to
respond to that, so that's two people you're committing to -- with 867
of those either canceled or confirmed actual alarms.
So you asked are we making a difference? Well, if you take from
May to now, we are only in the process of five months and we are still
in a learning curve. It's obvious that we're in this learning curve
because of the citations that have gone out.
One of the things that happens, and I'm sure you're familiar with
Murphy's Law, that somewhere along the line the best laid plans. And
we in the Sheriff's Office were trying to look into the future how
this was going to best be resolved. If we could gain the proper
information as to the homeowner, the tenter, how we were going to
cross-reference with the geo database, and you got Y2K that comes
along and throws a wrench into a lot of things within our
organization, I'm sure even with the clerk's office, as I heard this
morning, with computer stuff.
So we haven't really been able to evaluate whether or not we have
made a difference. We have received some complaints. I have dealt
with them personally. I will not name the company that called me that
was irate because they thought the ordinance was out of line, crazy
and the other names that some of us were called. But in that
particular case, it was a matter they had a drop box at nighttime and
the drop information, or the payment was going across their electronic
I-beam that set their alarm off, and they wanted to blame the county
ordinance for it.
So we have had a lot of complaints to that similar nature. We
also have complaints in regards to when we get there, there's no sign
of forced entry, and either the business owner or the residential
owner says, "Well, how do you know that it wasn't?" Well, if you look
in the county ordinance, it very well explains what we have to look
at.
But in the meantime, in the five months' period that we have
written the citations -- and if you recall, the very first one you're
not fined on, you just have to fill the information out, get it back
to us, so we could cross-reference.
But when we started filling those out, we were about 2,000 in
arrears in trying to bring them up to date. Because we are now
fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh offenders at the same locations. Itws
the problem we ran into before.
So recognizing that and recognizing our CAT system at being able
to tell the deputy how many times that we have received a false alarm
at that particular address, we in the Sheriffws Office backed up and
looked at what we had established here in trying to keep track of what
was going on.
And I talked with Commissioner Berry about this what, about a
week or so, two weeks ago when --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Couple weeks.
CAPTAIN SANDERS: -- your letter came out. And what wewre trying
to do within the office is establish nothing but an alarm unit that
will handle that. So when a deputy happened to come to your
particular home or your business, all he would do was leave you a
notice that your alarm has been faulty, that wewve checked the
premises and found it secure.
Then itws going to come back to our office, and itws going to be
assigned to an alarm unit. To go in, pull up the geographical
information, address on it, those kind of things, see how many false
alarms have actually been at that particular address and go from
there.
And what -- basically wewre trying to form that partnership.
Wewve already formed it with you. And if you think about community
policing and government, county government working together, we have
done nothing here but form a partnership that which we could get the
alarm companies and/or the citizens to come on line and share
responsibility that they have to make sure that they do preventive
maintenance.
And when we did our research information back in 1995, when I
first had the opportunity to look at this, we found that 98 percent of
the alarms that were being faulty were because you give your key to
your neighbor and he goes in and checks your house, forgets to turn
the alarm off. Repair people and air conditioner people -- and I know
this is going on at Pelican Bay, because I just heard one the other
day. And thatws where most of our alarms come from.
And therews a national standard thatws set by burglar alarm
manufacturers that when we deal in this particular area, especially
during the season that we have all our storms, that your alarm system
must -- should be able to hold up to three hours of a charge without
it going off once your power goes off, and that 75 percent of that
should be up there so you shouldnwt have a false alarm. Well, therews
no standard being set for that.
And if you would review Florida Statute, it gives the Board of
County Commissioners the power to request permitting before alarms are
installed, and some other things that hold alarm companiesw feet to
the fire just a little harder to make sure they do premaintenance
checks in bringing equipment up to date.
And Iill refer again back to Mr. Brock, who was in here talking
about being forced to go to one type of computer when his was already
meeting the needs of what they needed in Tallahassee. Well, alarm
companies donlt seem to stay on a standard premaintenance. And if the
sensitivity level is set too strong and the cat walks across the
inside of your patio and it sets off, then youlye got a false alarm,
youlye actually had no sign of entry, youlye responded two deputy
sheriffs. And thatls time out for patrol time or any other community
policing elements that a deputy sheriff within Collier County could be
out doing, patrolling the neighborhoods, fighting some of the speeders
and the complaints that we get complained on every now and then. But
we haven't had an opportunity to evaluate it during the five months.
Commissioner, don't you laugh at him.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He'll get you, too.
CAPTAIN SANDERS: But -- so we -- we're in -- we have had to back
up just a little bit because of the amount of the alarms and being
able to successfully tell you whether we've had an improvement or not.
And recognizing that the input data going into the geo database is
really causing us a problem, so that we can get the correct
information out to show that we're going to have an alarm reduction,
you can expect complaints to come in and people to be dissatisfied.
But when you look at the benefit in the long run, if we reduce our
alarms, it's beneficial to actually the seizure fund within the
county.
Currently at 21 to 22,000 alarms, if we reduce that down to 6,000
a year, which is a large reduction, at $75, if everyone paid that
particular fee, with four dollars going to the Clerk of Courts and $71
going into the seizure plan, it's got to help some budget somewhere.
So -- and I've compared it to the West Palm Beach ordinance,
which is very lengthy, at what they have been able to accomplish there
by making their ordinance a lot more tougher for permitting and
inspection and those kind of things.
We kind of took an offshoot from that and made ours very light to
start off with, understanding that we were going to have some problems
when it was first developed. We have certainly, in the learning
stages, within the county ordinance, and five months certainly isn't
long enough for us to evaluate whether or not we've had a reduction.
And I can tell you that we're currently -- well, 1995 we were 22,000.
We're only 21,948 for this year, so we've had a little bit of
reduction.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Already.
CAPTAIN SANDERS: Not much, but we are expecting some. Once --
once we get the information out, the educational side of it I think
has been the downfall as to business owners and people who own homes
to have alarms that are not educating theirselves (sic.) on how they
should operate. And that's a big problem. And they're offended when
we leave them a citation saying that you violated the county ordinance
and it's going to cost you $75.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's really an issue of
responsibility. And when you say that you're having people that are
four and five and six and seven time repeat offenders, then they're
obviously not --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what the ordinance is intended to
do.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, they're not taking
responsibility. And this is a way of forcing that on them. So I --
obviously, if somebody makes a mistake, then the ordinance is set up
so that that -- they're not penalized for that there. They get a
warning, but for that repeat person, then I think it's doing, from
what you've described, exactly what we want. We need to catch up a
little bit on it, but --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Give us some idea of the number of dollars
involved if you send a car with two people in to respond to a false
alarm. What does that cost?
CAPTAIN SANDERS: I didn't calculate dollars and cents back in
1995 when I first proposed this to the sheriff. I actually calculated
in man-hours, and I only -- I did it because hours and response time
-- and you're probably more familiar with figures and those kind of
things than I am. They've got studies. But I used the
Henderson-Young study, which takes an average -- when a complaint is
received, an alarm, the time we receive it, they dispatch the deputy,
the deputy would get there and takes care of the complaint, and maybe
even the paperwork needs to be generated there, you're talking
approximately 39.9 minutes.
So I took the average time that -- out of our CAT system that I
could pull up, which is 35 point some minutes, and we had over 10,000
man-hours expended just for one deputy. I did not count the backup.
So you take an average salary from 12 to $16, and it could be up
the line. If I responded to it, it's going to be a little higher. So
you're talking about some high dollars that are -- were going out at
22,000 on an average, and if you just average it at $10 a person.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, it goes higher than that. If you
look at 10,000 man-hours, you're talking about five full-time police
officers. Now, I know for -- because you do about 2,000, you know,
hours a year. Five officers is about $350,000 total cost for the
year. So --
CAPTAIN SANDERS: I tried to stay away from the dollars and cents
figure because of -- it does really send a message there, but the
man-hours, if you accumulate those particular -- and maybe I shouldn't
use the word man-hours, but staffing hours, with what we respond to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CAPTAIN SANDERS: -- that we respond to throughout the county,
there's quite a few.
And our goal, as well as your goal, was to reduce those calls for
services and hold the people accountable that should be held
accountable. This is not to take away from what public safety and
responsibility is, to serve the public.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The problem we have with this is that the
alarm companies, and after someone who's fresh from going door to door
to over 1,000 doors in the last four weeks, the number of alarms out
there is unbelievable. And not that I tried to get in, I was just
knocking.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I was just going to ask you, was this from
personal experience of trying to enter homes?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wanted to make sure they see my flier so
I walked in.
But what is happening is all these new companies are coming on
line and using the Sheriff's Office as a personal security detail. In
other words, they install the alarm and then they're -- it's hands
off. I mean, they have nothing to do with it anymore.
And maybe just as in the past when we've looked at zoning matters
and people that were going to be purchasing property in the area,
possibly noxious use, and we had them sign something when they
purchased the property that said they understand X, Y and Z, maybe in
part of our local ordinances that we require local companies that do
business in Collier County selling alarms to have their clients or
customers sign an acknowledgement of the county ordinance that it will
impose a fine the second time. Maybe by doing that, we can't claim
that -- no one can claim that they didn't know, and the company has to
then keep that on file for a certain period of time. So if someone
says well, the company never had me sign it, Sheriff's Office can say
well, we can look at that and we can weed out the good companies from
the bad ones.
CAPTAIN SANDERS: Well, I just so happen to have --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just happen to have --
CAPTAIN SANDERS: -- if someone would like to sit down with me a
little later, a redraft of the current ordinance that really does hold
the alarm people's feet to the fire a little more in reference to
permit -- getting a permit to do an install. That way it's a matter
of record and we don't have to go out and look up the second key
holder information or key holder information within Collier County
Sheriff's Office. That's going to be an automatic has to be done that
will be sent to us that we will have in the mainframe so that we
automatically get that information to start off with.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Makes a lot of sense.
CAPTAIN SANDERS: And there's several other elements that we
could probably enhance our current ordinance with, but we need to
clear what we've got right now and bring us back on track to see
exactly what we can do to show a reduction in our current calls for
services on alarms.
But there are some other avenues out there. And you mentioned --
Florida State Statute is very specific as to what an alarm company
must do. And it says they must call the residents prior to notifying
us, which I know for a fact it doesn't happen.
So, you know, in this proposal that I sent up to the sheriff with
working in a partnership with county government in zoning and code
enforcement and working in Florida State Statute, it gives us a little
tighter grip there when we decide to make that step in that particular
direction. And I'm sure it would be supported if you saw what we're
trying to accomplish here. And we're trying to make a safer
environment for the citizens so we're not spending 22,000 times and
responding to false alarms so we can do the other things within the
community.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: What I might suggest is that Captain Graham
share that information with us and also with the county attorney and
let us look at --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: -- it all.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Captain who? Sanders.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Sanders, I'm sorry. Yeah, that's right,
that's Graham.
CAPTAIN SANDERS: I'm taller, John.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. Sorry, slip of the tongue.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that would be a good idea to review
that and --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I'd like to see it.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, I'd like to.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- see whatever else we can do here.
And as I said, you and I had had this discussion, and we have --
CAPTAIN SANDERS: Well, I'm sure you've been --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- a constituent, both of us the same
constituent that has spoken to us in regard to this, and I want number
one to find out if any of the rest of you have received any calls, but
if there was something else that we might do, because I fully
understand the idea of taking two deputies off the road. All you have
to do is ride with a deputy one time and you understand about the
false alarm ordinance and the time it takes.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe you could get that one constituent
to ride along one time and --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That'd probably be a good -- well, I don't
know.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not sure you want to subject the
deputy to that.
CAPTAIN SANDERS: Only if you come and ride with us.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not with my brother, okay?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm supportive of moving ahead with this,
and also want to say I'm very impressed that Captain Sanders knows the
personal driving record of at least two commissioners on this board.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, not bad.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We will hear confessions after -- after the
meeting today, so if there's something you'd like to talk about, why,
we can talk about it.
CAPTAIN SANDERS: Actually it's probably a driving award. Not
only do we recognize bad drivers, but we -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, he's good.
CAPTAIN SANDERS: -- recognize good drivers as well.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: He's digging out.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Should we say a good driving record at an
accelerated rate of speed?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Anyway --
CAPTAIN SANDERS: Ability to control the vehicle.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Moving right along.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, this does not require -- I think this
is more direction, and I don't think it requires any action. But if
you can share that information with our county attorney, then we'll go
from there.
CAPTAIN SANDERS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much, Jim, for coming over.
CAPTAIN SANDERS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I guess we're due for public speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Public comment. Would all the public
members please line up here to speak. How many do we have, Mr.
Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: None.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have none?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Everybody here's on the dole today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, then moving right along, the one
item that we had under advertised public hearings has been continued
indefinitely.
And now we're down to staff communications.
Item #14A
FDISCUSSION REGARDING JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND -
ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR MCNEES TO REPORT BACK ON 9/8/98
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, we have one item under staff
communications I'd like to bring up. I've asked Mike HcNees to
prepare a very brief presentation on the fact that we have received a
request from the City of Marco Island to hold a joint meeting, in
spite of the fact that we had held a date open for some considerable
time, and during that period they were not interested in getting
together with us. Now they are interested. So Mike has a brief
report on it.
MR. HcNEES: Mike HcNees from the county administrator's office.
What he said.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ready for your report, Hike.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hike, would you please present the item.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is this an official request from the City
Council?
MR. HcNEES: Yes. We have received your request actually from
the city manager of Marco Island, asking that you set aside a date for
a joint meeting. We haven't received yet any specific information as
to agenda topics.
There are -- the only item that we are aware of that is probably
budget related is one you've already dealt with, which would be the
cable franchise information.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the sheriff's budget.
MR. HcNEES: And the other being the sheriff's budget. Your time
is obviously limited before your actual -- your first budget hearing
is --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: September --
MR. HcNEES: -- a week from tomorrow.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 9th. A week from tomorrow.
MR. HcNEES: So your time is limited before that. Your second
budget hearing would be two weeks after that. So you need to give us
some direction whether you want to set aside a date or seek further
information.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: My question, though, Mike, was, is this an
official request by the council itself? Because I spoke with the
chairman within the last few days and he indicated that he didn't want
to have a meeting. So is this just a request from the city manager or
an official request by --
MR. HcNEES: It is a request from the city manager, representing
that the Marco Island City Council would like to meet with the Board
of County Commissioners, quote, unquote.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hay I suggest that we try and schedule it
between the first and second budget hearings, if possible? Because I
think that trying to do it in the next week is unreasonable. This --
you know, coming back after three weeks off, I don't know about the
rest of you, but my schedule's pretty full. But do it between those
two hearings at some --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You took three weeks off?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- at some time, and -- just not during
value adjustment board, apparently -- and to also ask that sometime in
the next week we receive a list of agenda items.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How about if we ask to see the agenda
before we set a meeting?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I -- that's -- because that's
what we've done --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- consistently with the City of
Naples or with Lee County or any of the others. We don't want to meet
just to feel good. Let's have a particular agenda.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, let's have an agenda so that we can
see if we're going to meet. I am -- but the other thing is, Hike, I'd
like for you to ask Mr. Moss to clarify whether that was an official
vote by the council, because there may be some question of whether
there was or there wasn't.
MR. HcNEES: I'll certainly do that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It seems to me if they took action on the
city council saying we'd like to have a joint meeting, we all would
have received phone calls from the media about it, and I didn't get
any of that.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: It's just having cleared that, because
that's not the word I got from the chairman here the other day.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Consensus is that if they want -- if
the council wants to meet, we'll be happy to, as soon as we know what
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What the agenda is.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- it is we're meeting about.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Yeah, we need an agenda obviously
for our staff to prepare as well.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, because we -- like you said, that's
consistent with the City of Naples. MR. McNEES: Sure.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've always had set policy tell us
whether or not --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with that. I think that's good
direction.
MR. McNEES: I'll be back next Tuesday then with a further
report.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Nothing further.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nothing further?
Mr. Weigel, do you have anything to share with us today?
MR. WEIGEL: Not at this time.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Not at this time.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No aches, no pains, feeling okay?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Four and a half hours left to vote.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Four and a half hours left to vote.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Again.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I'd just like to remind members
of the public to get out and vote before seven p.m. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I have absolutely nothing to add to this
meeting.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think I might have but I probably forgot it
by now, so it's probably not worth talking about today.
Anyway, the meeting is adjourned. Go vote.
***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner
Hancock and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTIONS 98-298 THROUGH 98-302, RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NOS.
80112-022, LUIS ALFREDO & PATRICIAANN CARVAJZL, 80212-034, SUNBRELLA
HOMES INC., 80218-010 THOMAS & LORRAINE SANZALONE, 80313-072 STEVEN J.
MILLER, 80319-022 HIMON BARON
Item #16A2
RESOLUTIONS 98-303 through 98-307, RE CODE ENFORCEHENT CASE NOS.
70513-082, THALES DELORENZI & PATRICIA CA_MPELO, 70516-045 RALPH &
GRACIELA TERRY, 70522-017 LEONARD J. BURBI & NICHOLAS KARALIS,
70530-008 THOMAS WALSH, 70611-010 FREDERIC P. HOCKEHEYER
Item #16A3
RESOLUTIONS 98-308 THROUGH 98-312, RE CODE ENFORCEHENT CASE NOS.
70617-011 JEFFERY L. & LISA H. CRAWFORD, 70623-031 JAMES L. WALKER,
70626-027 ALFREDO L. RAMIREZ, 70701-026 FRANK & SHARON J. FERA,
70718-168 ANTHONY A. & ALEXIS G. SASSAivUkN
Item #16A4
RESOLUTIONS 98-313 THROUGH 98-317, RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NOS.
70729-073 IVOR KACENBERG, 70731-029 CONNIE SIMON & MARLO PIKUL,
70801-027 KELLY ANN MOHN & JAMES O. MOHN II, 70801-028 KELLY ANN MOHN &
JAMES O. MOHN II, 70801-031 MICHAEL & CLAUDIA SCHRAMM
Item #16A5
RESOLUTIONS 98-318 THROUGH 98-320, RE CODE ENFORCEHENT CASE NOS.
80302-050 ALFREDO L. & ANNE C. RAMIREZ, 80401-076 KENNETH D. MCDONALD
TR & GREG WALCZAK & LYLE ABELL, 80508-015 MABEL H. & VICTOR CHARLES
ALBRECHT
Item #16A6
RESOLUTIONS 98-321 THROUGH 98-325, RE CODE ENFORCEHENT CASE NOS.
70807-070 FRANK & THERESA KIRBY, 70820-040 DANIEL R. MEYER TR,
80115-020 QUALITY PROPERTIES SW FL INC., 80120-142 WILLIE HAE POSTELL
G. JEAN CANTY, 80302-021 JOSE LUIS & LUCILA CATETE
Item #16A7
RESOLUTIONS 98-326 THROUGH 98-330, RE CODE ENFORCEHENT CASE NOS.
70627-015 VARNVILLE CORP e Y. BRAUNSCHWEIG, 70714-074 EDWARD J. &
LAVERDA L. PELC, 70723-004 MARY JOHNSON, 70728-135 ELHNON & SANDRA S.
COMBS, 80126-034 NOEL H. WILLIA_MS
Item #16A8
RESOLUTIONS 98-331 THROUGH 98-335, CODE ENFORCEHENT CASE NOS. 80211-051
HAURICE TREHBLAY, 80211-064 HAURICE TREHBLAY, 80223-019 RICHARD I.
TEMPLETON, AS TRUSTEE C/O WILLIE K. KUSHHAN, 80226-141 LOUIS & LORETTA
CANBRUZZI, 80226-142 ERNESTO RODRIGUEZ CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Item #16A9
GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FOR FUNDING SEA
TURTLE PUBLIC AWARENESS ACTIVITIES
Item #16A10
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR "STONEBRIDGE UNIT FIVE"
Item #16All
FINAL PLAT OF "STONEBRIDGE UNIT FIVE" - WITH PERFORMANCE BOND,
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A12
RESOLUTIONS 98-336 THROUGH 98-338 AND AGREEHENTS, WAIVING IHPACT FEES
FOR THREE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES TO BE BUILT BY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. IN NAPLES MANOR ON LOT 7, BLOCK 6, NAPLES MANOR
EXTENSION; AND LOTS 12 AND 13, BLOCK 11, NAPLES MANOR LAKES
Item #16A13
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR WALGREENS
Item #16A14
RESOLUTION 98-339 AND AGREEMENT, AUTHORIZING 50e WAIVER/50e DEFERRAL OF
IMPACT FEES FOR ONE HOUSE TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY GISELE PLANCHER AT 5369
HARTIN STREET, NAPLES MANOR ADDITION, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #16A15
FINAL PLAT OF "CARLTON LAKES TRACT G"
Item #16A16
FINAL PLAT OF AVILA UNIT THREE - WITH CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND
ESCROW AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A17
FINAL PLAT OF AVILA UNIT FOUR - WITH CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND
ESCROW AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A18
FINAL PLAT OF AVILA UNIT FIVE - WITH CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND
ESCROW AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A19 - Deleted
Item #16A20
RESOLUTIONS 98-340 THROUGH 98-352 AND AGREEMENTS RE WAIVER OF IMPACT
FEES FOR THIRTEEN SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES TO BE BUILT BY HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. ON LOTS, 20 THROUGH 32, BULLARD
SUBDIVISION IN IHMOKALEE
Item #16A21
APPLICATION FOR THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DERELICT VESSEL REMOVAL GRANT ON BEHALF OF COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16A22
BID 98-2828 FOR RECORDS MANAGEMENT SERVICES - AWARDED TO LASON SYSTEMS,
INC. FOR SERVICES RELATED TO MICROFILMING AND IRON MOUNTAIN FOR STORAGE
SERVICES
Item #16A23
FINAL PLAT OF "QUAIL WEST PHASE III" UNIT ONE - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A24
RESOLUTIONS 98-353 THROUGH 98-357 RE CODE ENFORCEHENT CASE NOS.
70502-090 KLONDIE ARAGON & JOSE A. PENA; 70724-031 ANTONIO & FLOR
HARULANDA; 80212-031, SUNBRELLA HOMES, INC.; 80224-015 KLONDIE ARAGON &
JOSE A. PENA; 80224-016 KLONDIE ARAGON 7 JOSE A. PENA
Item #16A25
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE RESOLUTION 94-662
Item #16A26
BUDGET A_MENDHENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROH 113 RESERVES FOR THE COST OF
UPGRADING TWENTY-FIVE COMPUTERS, ADDING ONE REDUNDANCY SERVER FOR THE
CD-PLUS APPLICATION DATABASE AND FOUR UNINTERRUPTED POWER SUPPLIES - IN
THE A_MOUNT OF $65,304.31
ADDED
Item #16A27
REQUEST TO APPROVE FOR RECORDING, THE FINAL PLAT OF "VILLA VISTANA" AND
APPROVAL OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY (DEVELOPER'S REQUEST)
Item #16B1
BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR SOLID WASTE CONTRACTUAL SERVICES - IN THE AMOUNT
OF $873,000.00
Item #1682
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT NECESSARY FOR MAINTENANCE OF
ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND MEDIANS - IN THE AMOUNT OF $158,500.00
Item #1683
COMPENSATION AMOUNT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 AS CONTAINED IN THE AGREEMENT
WITH GARY L. HOYER, P.A. TO PROVIDE FOR CURRENT CONTRACT MANAGER
SERVICES FOR THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION - IN THE AMOUNT OF
$53,000.00
Item #1684 - Continued to 9/15/98
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY FROM COLLIER COUNTY TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO
SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF PERMIT #11-00368-S (HELl PROPERTY)
Item #1685
BID 98-2821, "CONTRACTUAL SERVICES FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND STREET
LIGHTS" - AWARDED TO HID-CONTINENT ELECTRIC, INC. IN THE ESTIMATED
AOUNT OF $456,000.00 AND E.B. SIHMONDS ELECTRICAL, INC. FOR AN
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $70,000.00
Item #1686
BID 98-2820, "TRAFFIC SIGNAL COMPONENTS" - AWARDED TO TRAFFIC PARTS,
INC. FOR AN ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $40,168.00 AND TRANSPORTATION CONTROL
SYSTEMS, INC. FOR AN ESTIMATED AOUNT OF $163,553.00
Item #1687
BID NO. 98-2822, "TRAFFIC SIGN MATERIALS" - AWARDED TO ROCAL, INC.,
MUNICIPAL SUPPLY AND SIGN CO., AND AMSIGN CORP. - FOR ESTIMATED
EXPENDITURES TOTALING $75,000.00
Item #1688
BILL OF SALE FOR ACCEPTANCE OF REPLACEMENT BRIDGES AT ROSE LANE,
NURSERY LANE AND BAY WEST NURSERY FROM THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Item #16B9
VALID PUBLIC EMERGENCY DECLARED; COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS WAIVED;
PROCUREHENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES TO IMPLEMENT THE PERMIT CONDITIONS
CONTAINED IN THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SECTION 404 PERMIT NO.
199602789 (IP-CC) AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION CONSOLIDATED JOINT COASTAL PERMIT, SOVEREIGN SUBMERGED LAND
AUTHORIZATION AND VARIANCE NO. 0128463-001-JC, A COMPREHENSIVE
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE RESTORATION AND ONGOING MANAGEMENT OF THE CLAM
BAY SYSTEM
Item #16B10
ASSIGNHENT AND ASSUHPTION AGREEHENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE PREVIOUS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
Item #16Bll
WORK ORDER #SC-98-1 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE WATER DEPARTHENT'S
MAINTENANCE FACILITY - TO SURETY CONSTRUCTION CO. IN THE A_MOUNT OF
$199,750.00
Item #16B12
BUDGET A_MENDHENT TO RELOCATE A 12-INCH WATER MAIN FOR THE VALEWOOD
DRIVE BRIDGE, PROJECT NO. 70060
Item #16B13
SUPPLEHENTAL AGREEHENT WITH COLLIER NAPLESCAPE 90'S AND GEORGE BOTNER,
ASLA, FOR POST-DESIGN SERVICES FOR DAVIS BOULEVARD PHASE II MEDIAN
LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS (AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD TO COUNTY BARN ROAD)
Item #16B14
CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AT RISK SERVICES FOR THE SOUTH
NAPLES COHMUNITY PARK - TO W. G. MILLS, INC. IN THE A_MOUNT OF
$288,121.00
Item #16B15
BID 98-2807 RE CONTRACT TO CONSTRUCTION C.R. 951 SOUTH (PART A) MEDIAN
LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION - AWARDED TO ARAZOZA BROTHERS CORPORATION IN
THE A_MOUNT OF $196,327.55
Item #16B16
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO CREATE A PROJECT BUDGET FOR AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD
MEDIAN IRRIGATION AND LANDSCAPE REFURBISHHENT SERVICES - IN THE A_MOUNT
OF $143,770.00
Item #16B17
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH TRG NAPLES, LTD. (TRG) FOR THE
CONTRIBUTION OF LAND AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE SEGMENT OF
LIVINGSTON ROAD LYING BETWEEN PINE RIDGE ROAD AND GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
Item #16C1
BUDGET A_MENDHENT RECOGNIZING FUNDS RECEIVED FROHAM INSURANCE CLAIH -
IN THE A_MOUNT OF $1,850.00
Item #16C2
FUNDING FOR ADDITIONAL LIFEGUARD COVERAGE AT SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK - IN
THE A_MOUNT OF $3,179.00
Item #16C3
CONTRACT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND DR. HARTA U. COBURN, H.D., FLORIDA
DISTRICT TWENTY MEDICAL EXAMINER FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA DOING
BUSINESS AS DISTRICT TWENTY MEDICAL EXAMINER - IN THE AMOUNT OF
$589,300.00
Item #16C4
AGREEMENT FOR THE 1998-99 FUNDING CONTRIBUTION TO THE DAVID LAWRENCE
MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC. - IN THE AMOUNT OF $810,400.00
Item #16C5
ADDITION TO AGREEMENTS BETWEEN DATA RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. AND THE
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
Item #16D1
BID 98-2819, "GASOLINE AND DIESEL FUEL" - TO VENDORS AS LISTED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D2
BID 98-2686 FOR THE PURCHASE OF PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT - TO
VENDORS AS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D3
LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL
AND RESCUE DISTRICT
Item #16D4
HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE NORTH NAPLES
FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT
Item #16D5
CONTRACT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND FLORIST 1ST, INC. FOR GROUP HEALTH
CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION SERVICES
Item #16D6
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND 517, GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE
Item #16D7
RESOLUTION 98-358, APPROVING THE SATISFACITON OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D8
RESOLUTION 98-359, APPROVING THE SATISFACITON OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D9
RESOLUTION 98-360, APPROVING THE SATISFACITON OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D10
RESOLUTION 98-361, APPROVING THE SATISFACITON OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16Dll
RESOLUTION 98-362/CWS-98-2/HWS-98-1/GWD-98-1, APPROVING THE SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT HARDSHIP DEFERRALS FOR CERTAIN WATER AND/OR SEWER SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 1998 TAX YEAR
Item #16El
BUDGET A_MENDHENTS 98-296; 98-322; 98-360; 98-375/376; 98-382 THROUGH
98-389; AND 98-391
Item #16E2
CONTRACT WITH KOZHIK KOPIES, INC. TERMINATED; BID NO. 98-2848 - AWARDED
TO CECIL'S COPY FOR THE PRINTING OF THE BOARD'S WEEKLY MEETING AGENDA -
IN THE ESTIMATED COST A_MOUNT OF $2,500.00 FOR THE BALANCE OF FISCAL
YEAR 1998
Item #16E3
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST TO RESTORE RESERVES IN THE COUNTY-WIDE
FACILITIES CAPITAL FUND (301) - IN THE AMOUNT OF $421,000.00
Item #16G1
SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
Item #1662
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILD 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
REVISED AUTHORITY LETTER FOR THE SECOND YEAR STATE CRIHINALL ALIEN
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (SCAAP) GRANT FUNDS
Item #16H2
ENDORSEMENT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COPS MORE '96 GRANT 28
C.F.R. PART 23 CERTIFICATION FORM
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:30 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
BARBARA B. BERRY, CHAIRPERSON
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING
SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC