BCC Minutes 12/15/1998 RDecember 15, 1998
Page
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMHISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, December 15, 1998
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, 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 9:00 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
James D. Carter
ALSO PRESENT:
Item #3
Robert Fernandez, County Administrator
David Weigel, County Attorney
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH
CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the
December 15th meeting of the Collier County Board of Commissioners.
This morning we're pleased to have with us the Reverend Grant Thigpen
of New Hope Ministries. If you'd rise, please, for the invocation,
remain standing for the pledge of allegiance.
REVEREND THIGPEN: Let us pray. Dear Heavenly Father, as we
humbly approach your throne of grace this morning, we thank you for
your many blessings. Lord, we thank you for the gift of life itself.
And we thank you for the privilege of living in Collier County. And
Father, today as our duly elected officials assemble themselves to
conduct the very important business of the day, we ask that you would
lead, guide and direct their hearts and minds, that you might be
pleased with these proceedings. And we give you thanks, in Jesus'
name, Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Reverend Thigpen.
Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes to the agenda, please?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman. Good morning,
commissioners.
The first request is to withdraw item 8(B)(1). It's
consideration of an approval of irrigation water agreement between
Collier County and Collier Development Corporation. It's at the
petitioner's request.
Also, a companion item to that is to continue indefinitely item
12(C)(3). That's petition PUD 98-13. Collier Development Corporation
requesting a fezone from a rural agricultural, to be known as Collier
Tract 21. Petitioner's request.
Also I'd like to add item 16(A)(7). This is the approval for
recording the final plat of Silver Lakes, request of Commissioner
Norris.
Add item 16(A)(8), the proof for recording the final plat of
White Lake Corporate Park and approval for the performance security.
Staff request.
I'd like to also add item 16(E)(1) --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hay I suggest we make that 8(E)(3)
instead, because I'd like to actually talk about that one.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The last one, White Lake?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hicrovax.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Y2K.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The one I'm about to announce? Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You want it where, Commissioner?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 8(E)(3).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 8(E)(3), not AD3?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
MR. FERNANDEZ: In addition, Madam Chairman, we have some notes
for the agenda. Item 8(E)(2) should read, "continued from the
December 8th meeting." There's a typo on your agenda.
Also, item 16(B)(8), a minor change has been made to the
conservation easement. If I may, I'd like to just read that into the
record.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: "For clarification, assigned names parcel A and
parcel B and parcel C to the legal description. Change the name of
the circuit court from the 20th Judicial Circuit of Collier County to
the 2nd Judicial Circuit in Leon County."
Those are two changes in the item. Also, item 16(D)(2). The
incorrect resolution was attached to the lease agreement for this
item, and the board will approve on the consent agenda this item with
the appropriate resolution.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Is that all?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's all, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No changes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No changes today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Additions?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm sorry, there is one item. Request from the
clerk this morning to place a time certain on the item regarding the
clerk's litigation. That's item 10(C). If the board wishes to make
that a time certain, I represented to him that I would ask this
morning that be placed on the agenda.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The reason for it?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Pardon?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The reason for it?
MR. FERNANDEZ: He didn't state. Just his request. I believe it
was to arrange to have appropriate representation present.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do they have out of town consultants here for
this?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't believe so.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've got no problem with a time certain,
myself.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We haven't been doing that as a matter of
policy in recent years.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I respect whatever the Chair of the
board would like to do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let the Chair make the decision.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, although we have the item listed
twice on the agenda in two different forms, our plan is to consolidate
them under item 10(C), discuss both issues at the same time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's say right after the 10:30 break.
We ought to be there by then, anyway.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hopefully. That's fine. Tell him about
10:45.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion that we
approve the agenda, the consent agenda and the summary agenda, with
changes as noted.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #4
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 24, 1998 - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
Do I have a motion for the approval of the minutes?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I so move.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Second for the approval of the November 24th,
1998 regular meeting minutes.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Herky jerky here.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Slow start.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING EVERGLADES CITY, FLORIDA AS OUTSTANDING RURAL
COMMUNITY OF THE YEAR - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This morning, if I could have Ms. Pauline
Reeves come forward and Ms. Ridewood, I believe it is, from our
Everglades Museum, or Museum of the Everglades, I guess is the
appropriate title.
If you'd like to turn around and face the cameras, please. This
morning it's my pleasure to read a proclamation.
Whereas, Everglades City is a small thriving community of diverse
interests and colorful history within Collier County; and
Whereas, each year applications are submitted and reviewed to
determine the outstanding rural communities in the State of Florida;
and
Whereas, the Rural Economic Development Council of Florida has
selected Everglades City as the Florida outstanding rural community of
the year; and
Whereas, Enterprise Florida has joined in recognizing Everglades
City as the Florida outstanding rural community of the year; and
Whereas, the friends of the Museum of the Everglades are
responsible for preparing and submitting the application that won the
above designations for the City of Everglades; and
Whereas, the award includes a grant of $1,500, which will be used
by the Friends of the Everglades Museum for the betterment of the
community.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Everglades City has
been designated as Florida outstanding rural community of the year,
and is hereby recognized for this achievement and extends its
appreciation to the Friends of the Museum of the Everglades for their
efforts on behalf of the City of Everglades, the Museum of the
Everglades, and for Collier County.
Done and ordered this 15th day of December. Board of County
Commissioners, Barbara B. Berry, Chairman.
It's my pleasure to move this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'd like to present this proclamation now.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If you'd like to say something, you're more
than -- we'd be happy to have you.
MS. REEVES: We'd like to thank you for this recognition, and
make you aware that we really believe that one of the deciding factors
in getting this award was the degree of community involvement, and
we'd like to thank you for working in cooperation with the Friends of
the Museum, and that it has been a great experience. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Thank you for all that you've
done down there, Ms. Reeves. I know you have kind of been the guiding
light to encourage a lot of people to be supportive of the project.
So thank you very much, and Ms. Ridewood, for all of your work on
behalf of the museum. Thank you.
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
At this time, we have some service awards. Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Madam Chairman. It's my
pleasure to provide awards to two employees today, both who have been
with the county for ten years.
First, our Public Works Administrator, Gary Young.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the other employee celebrating ten
long hard years with the county, currently listed as Assistant to the
County Administrator, my good friend and a great employee, Sam Saadeh.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we might ought to acknowledge all
the way from Lebanon, his mom, Hilda, and sister, Kristian.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're pleased to have you with us this
morning. Thank you for being here.
Item #5C
PRESENTATION BY TERRY WOLFSON, PRESIDENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY FAIR -
PRESENTED
At this time we have a presentation by Terry Wolfson, President
of the Collier County Fair. Mr. Wolfson.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good day for that jacket.
MR. WOLFSON: Yes, it is, it's a fair day. Thank you, Madam
Commissioner. Good morning, commissioners, Mr. Fernandez.
Let the record show, my name is Terry Wolfson, I'm here as
President of the Collier County Fair.
Twenty-seven years ago, the Board of County Commissioners
approved and authorized the start of the Collier County Fair. This
partnership between the youth of the county, the educational community
and the Board of County Commissioners has been very successful.
On January 8th of 1999, the 27th Annual Collier County Fair will
begin. And I'd point out that our fair is the first fair in the
United States for the new year. Some of the projects you will see at
that fair were started by the 4-H kids over nine months ago. There
will be 4-H clubs, school clubs, and the Family Living Association
will proudly display the fruits of their labor. We are very proud of
our agricultural roots, and we're very thankful for the support this
board has given our fair the past 27 years.
Your staff, Mr. Olliff, the county administrator, Mr. Fernandez,
have been very helpful and supportive of the fair. We would not and
could not be successful without the continued support of their
services, along with the support of our business community, and
certainly as well as the many volunteers and citizens throughout the
county.
Last year we presented the board with hats and jackets for the
fair. This year we'd like to give and welcome your newest
commissioner, Commissioner Carter, a hat and a jacket. In addition,
we would like to give each of you a County Fair T-shirt to say thanks
for your continuing support and guidance. I might point out for the
record once again, the declared value is under $25.
Thank you again, and we'll see you at the fair on January the
8th. We have three members of our Fair Board with us to present --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If you'd introduce them, have them come up
here and let's let the world see who they are.
MR. WOLFSON: We have Pat Cookson, who is an officer, is our fair
secretary. John Yonkosky is an officer as our treasurer, and Mr.
Ronnie Edwards, who is our director at large.
MR. YONKOSKY: He just blew in from Denver.
MR. WOLFSON: Yes, he did.
(Laughter.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much.
MR. WOLFSON: Once again, we thank you very much for your
continued support. We'll see you at the fair January 8th.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, you will. I have to go for my annual
fix of corn dogs and elephant ears. I'll tell you what, that's the
best place to get them. They're great.
I have a wonderful time out there. Plus, I get the opportunity
to go back and spend a little time in the cow barn again. I
appreciate that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Like that smell.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Helps me to remember where I came from.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You might ought to enter this year.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Chocolate fondues, is there a category for
that?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I make excellent chocolate fondues, yes, I
do.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Not at the fair.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No.
Item #7A
JOE GENNARO, MANAGER, SOUTHWEST PROPERTY MANAGEMENT RE AN AGREEMENT
WITH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL IN THE VILLAGES OF
MONTEREY - STAFF TO PURSUE AND TO BE BROUGHT BACK AS REGULAR AGENDA
ITEM
Okay, this morning, moving on our agenda, we have Mr. Joe
Gennaro, who is the manager of Southwest Property Management,
regarding an agreement with the Sheriff's Office for traffic control
for the Villages of Monterey.
Mr. Gennaro, good morning.
MR. GENNARO: Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You understand, sir, you have ten minutes to
plead your case.
MR. GENNARO: I'm sure I won't take that much time.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, you're entitled to ten.
MR. GENNARO: For the record, I am Joe Gennaro from Southwest
Property Management.
I come to you this morning representing the Villages of Monterey
as their property manager. On behalf of the board of directors from
Monterey, ask that they would consider or allow us to continue to work
to finalize an agreement between the county and the Sheriff's
Department for traffic control within the Villages of Monterey.
Monterey is a gated community in North Naples. Approximately 400
homes and 1,400 residents. The agreement we're looking for is similar
in nature to one that you already have in existence with the Imperial
Golf Estates that you did back in November of 1996. That's kind of
the model. And I believe that you have in your packet that agreement,
and then some related correspondence I've had with the County
Attorney's Office, as well as the county administrator.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any questions for Mr. Gennaro?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What is your request, exactly?
MR. GENNARO: We would like to have the Sheriff be allowed to
come in and patrol and enforce all county and state traffic
regulations within the community.
COMHISSIONER CARTER: I spoke to the Sheriff yesterday, and he
said he has no problem with that arrangement. Same as he has with
Imperial. So I have no problem with that.
Does that take a motion from us, Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We don't normally take action on a public
petition.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. Mr. Kant?
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director. I have
been working with Mr. Gennaro and with the homeowner's association. I
do need to make a public disclosure. I am a resident of that
subdivision. However, that should not affect this particular
agreement one way or another, because what they're asking for is very
simply for the county, as a party to this agreement, to review their
traffic control plan so that the Sheriff will be able to go in and
enforce the speed limit laws and the stop sign laws, that type of
thing, because those are private roads. And we've agreed that if the
board so directs, we will be happy to work with them.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have done something similar in the past?
MR. KANT: Yes, ma'am, in the Imperial Golf Estates.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Anywhere else?
MR. KANT: Not to my memory. That doesn't mean it's not
possible, but not that I'm aware of, no.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This will need to come back for a hearing,
I assume.
MR. KANT: Yes, when we work out the details with the County
Attorney's Office, it will come back as a regular agenda item, because
it will be required to have the Chairman to sign it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At this point, you're looking for direction
to--
MR. KANT: Just direction to be able to work with the community
association.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What I'll be interested in seeing at that
time, Mr. Kant, is any fiscal ramifications it may have.
MR. KANT: To my knowledge, there should be none, sir, except the
staff time to help them get the agreement put together.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That being the case, just please reflect
that on the agenda item when it comes.
MR. KANT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have any problem with the
direction to staff. Try to bring this back in a timely fashion, but
I, too -- I've got to wonder -- I don't know what the agreement is
with Imperial, I don't recall the specifics and whether they
contribute anything, but if --
MR. KANT: They pay for the cost of those patrols 100 percent.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right, and if that's the case, I can't
see why we would object to this in any way. So we can bring that back
in a timely fashion. That's my only question. MR. KANT: Thank you, commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Mr. Gennaro, I think you have
heard kind of where we're going to go on this. There will be
direction to staff to pursue it and they'll be bringing it back at a
point in time for review. And when that happens, then at that point
would be appropriate, obviously, to come back. And I'm sure you'll be
involved in this process anyway, so --
MR. GENNARO: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right? Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have a specific contact person
for him?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Gennaro, are you going to be the contact
person?
MR. GENNARO: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right, so we know who to direct
any questions to.
Item #7B
J. DAVID MALLORY, SR. PASTOR, FIRST ASSEHBLY HINISTRIES, REQUESTING
TEMPORARY PLACEMENT OF A BUILDING - STAFF DIRECTED TO APPROVE THE
REQUEST
Okay, the next item is the Reverend David Hallory, Pastor of
First Assembly Ministries, requesting temporary placement of a
building.
Reverend Mallory?
REVEREND MALLORY: Good morning, commissioners. My name is David
Mallory, Pastor of First Assembly of God.
We are building a shelter, a ministry center on 951. As
construction is taking place over the next 18 months or so, we're
getting ready to develop the infrastructure. With that
infrastructure, there are TTRBC sites which we will be using for
interim housing for individuals that go through the program.
We've been given a Juicy Lucy's drive-through restaurant by
Arnold and Arnold. This is a prefabricated building. And eventually
on the property we're going to have a children's camp and a sports
center, and we'd like to use this as a canteen.
We need to have it moved immediately. It's a substantial gift to
the church. It's about three years old. It has all new kitchen
facilities. And this will be used as an outdoor canteen to serve
those individuals involved in sports, also those in temporary housing
in the trailer park. The main building, which is maybe 18 months
away, has a full cafeteria, but we do need this as an amenity.
And if you have any questions, Mr. Schriver from Arnold and
Arnold is here. And also, Bill Hoover from Hoover Planning. He can
address the PUD that has already been granted on this property.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask, David, where specifically are
you planning to locate this at this point -- David, if you'd get that
handheld microphone there.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Behind you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right behind you in that corner.
REVEREND MALLORY: Okay, the canteen is right here. There's a
softball field planned for this area, and tennis and basketball here.
This is the main residence facility. These are the TTRBC's. So it's
kind of a central area. This is the children's camp here. So it's
kind of central to the outdoor activities.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So that's almost then a mile from 9517
REVEREND MALLORY: Yes, it would be.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So the main thing you're asking today is just
to get approval to move that building onto the site.
REVEREND MALLORY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At this point you're not going to be hooking
anything up because you're not ready.
REVEREND MALLORY: No, right now, they're digging these lakes
here. This one's already been blasted, so we'll just move the
facility temporarily, and then they need to build the pad. They've
already started fill in here and compacting.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Any problem --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hear from Mr. Hulhere, please.
MR. HULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Hulhere, planning
services director. The only reason that we're here today, we would be
able to administratively approve this as a temporary use permit,
except that the Land Development Code does not allow us to grant those
prior to -- at least a preliminary site development plan approval.
Mr. Hoover's indicated that they're ready to submit those plans,
and I see no reason that they wouldn't be approved on a preliminary
basis within probably 30 to 45 days.
But there's a time critical factor here in getting the building
moved. That's really why we're here, and if the board is inclined to
support this, then we would grant the temporary use permit, because
there is a section in the LDC that allows through public petition at
an individual's request, a special temporary use approval such as
this.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The issue is that they've been given this
building and they need to take possession of it right now. MR. HULHERE: Quickly, correct.
COHMISSIONER CARTER: That's what I understand. That's why they
would like us to be able to approve this, so they could just move that
building on site.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm certainly inclined to do that.
COHMISSIONER CARTER: I have no problem with that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it's a great idea.
MR. HULHERE: They have agreed to complete the process at a
maximum time frame of six months. There's really no neighbors around
there, so we have no problem with it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Do we need to give you formal
direction then to do that?
MR. HULHERE: I think if you -- yes, I think it would be
appropriate that we get direction to --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Why don't we entertain a motion -- well, we
really can't officially take action on a public petition.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Poll us.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I give that direction to approve the
request.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree with that direction.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I agree because of the immediacy of having to
move the building to get it off the property.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm okay if there's a contingency that
if, for some reason -- and I don't anticipate this happening -- but
if, for some reason, 12 months from now development has stopped on
this project, we ought to have a way to remove the structure. And
that's just a safety valve. I don't anticipate that happening. But
we don't want to be stuck with an old Juicy Lucy's out in the woods if
something happens to the project.
MR. MULHERE: Commissioner Constantine, we'd give them temporary
use for a maximum of six months.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Carter?
COHMISSIONER CARTER: I agree we just move forward.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I think you have that direction.
MR. HULHERE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is this the one that's over on Pine Ridge
Road now?
REVEREND MALLORY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great. Get it, take it, please.
COHMISSIONER CARTER: I'll help move it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll help you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Don't you eat there?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's been closed and it says it's ready to be
moved. I believe that's what that sign says, so thank you.
REVEREND MALLORY: Thank you so much.
Item #SA1
CARNIVAL PERMIT 98-8, RE COLLIER COUNTY AGRICULTURAL FAIR & EXPOSITION,
INC., REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL FROM JANUARY 8 THROUGH
16, 1999, ON THE EAST SIDE OF C.R. 846, IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, moving on then to item 8(A)(1).
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This is for the approval of a permit to
conduct a carnival January 8th through January 16th, otherwise known
as the Collier County Agricultural Fair and Exposition.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can't help but say this, but I think we
should all be careful that our votes are not influenced by the
T-shirts that we received this morning from that group.
Nevertheless, I'm happy to support the fair and second the
motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Don't forget, you received a jacket and a cap
last year, so it's the total.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll support this motion and even give
those back.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I kind of like the T-shirt myself.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You like the cow.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I like the cow on there. Actually, I don't
think it's a cow. That's a steer, not a cow.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You can tell by looking at the nose?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: She's a farm girl, don't argue with
her.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Berry grew up on a corn farm;
I'm the one that grew up on a cattle ranch. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We raised cattle.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who do you think they fed that corn to?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right, there was no money in it so you
had to feed it to something.
Item #8A2
LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND COLLIER ENTERPRISES REALTY
GROUP, INC. - APPROVED
At any rate, approval of a lease agreement between Collier
County and Collier Enterprises Realty Group, Inc.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, for the record. Questions,
commissioners?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just looked like a consent agenda item to
me. I just wondered why it didn't end up there.
MR. CAUTERO: Only because we wanted to answer any questions you
might have in consistency with the space plan. I do want to hand out
a document for the record, though.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have a question before we vote on this.
MR. CAUTERO: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Was the four percent annual?
MR. CAUTERO: I believe it is.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's not based on CPI, is it?
MR. CAUTERO: I don't believe it is. Michael Dowling, the author
of the lease, is with us, and I would yield to him, from the real
property management department.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's a little high.
MR. CAUTERO: I believe it's consistent with the last agreement.
I really can't answer your question, ma'am, I'm sorry.
MR. DOWLING: Good morning. Michael Dowling, for the record,
real property management department. Four percent is standard. What
we're doing with Collier Enterprises, and that's -- CPI is normally
one percent and two percent. But this is kind of a prime property
because of the maintenance and the upkeep. It is a little high, but
it's standard in the park there.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Standard in the park? Wow.
COHMISSIONER CARTER: All of the leaseholders are now paying
this, is that what I'm hearing?
MR. DOWLING: Collier Enterprises owns several buildings in the
Oyster Drive area, and that is standard of what they're doing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's standard of what Collier is
doing. Do we know if it's standard what -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The industry?
MR. DOWLING: We have leases throughout the county. Some have
CPI increases that they're fixed by the government. Some have five
percent increases. It all depends on our negotiation with the
landlords.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I could see a four percent max. In other
words, coming up to that. But I certainly hope that we don't hold
that as a standard. Because a lot of times it is governed on CPI.
And I think this is -- I do think it's a little high, but I understand
-- I guess we're a captive audience to a certain extent, and that
probably is what presents the biggest problem for us. So I understand
that, but in the future, I would hope that we'd hold it at a four
percent cap and look for something, a little better deal than that, if
we can negotiate it.
MR. DOWLING: Certainly.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Great. Okay, I think we have a motion
and do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I just have one question. Was this
budgeted for in anticipation of this need?
MR. CAUTERO: No, it was not budgeted for, commissioner, because
we did not have those figures last year and we were unsure as to who
was going to be moving, quite frankly. However, funds are available
through community development, development review fee fund, that we're
going to do a transfer for at one time.
In the executive summary I stated that my intent next year is to
divert rents that the Department of Revenue is paying to the community
development fund and divert those funds over for our rental agreement.
It would match next year.
We're receiving approximately 28,000 in rent from the Department
of Revenue, and that's what Mr. Mihalic's rent will be for the first
year. And then, in successive years, what we would do then is use a
percentage breakdown based on different funds that Mr. Mihalic has
from housing, community development, block rent funds, community
development fee funds, et cetera.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. If there's no further questions, do we
have any public speakers on this item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
Item #8El
Okay. I'll call the question.
Motion carries five-zero.
DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION RE COUNTY SERVICES AND CONTRACTS WITH THE CITY
OF MARCO ISLAND - STAFF TO ARRANGE JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY OF MARCO
AND THE SHERIFF AFTER THE BOARD'S FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY, 1999
The next item, 8(B)(1), has been withdrawn.
Moving then to item 8(E)(1). Mr. Fernandez, this is a
discussion and direction regarding county services and contract with
the City of Marco Island.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, in response to the board's
direction last week, I've asked Mr. HcNees to put together a
presentation which addresses the issues that we feel you should
consider, which are consistent with your direction.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I guess we should also call the
attention, because we have received at this point in time, Mr.
Fernandez, a fax that came in from Mr. Moss down on Marco Island
regarding an action that was taken Friday night at a meeting down
there.
I think first, we should go ahead and hear from Mr. HcNees and
then kind of figure out where this all fits together. Mr. HcNees.
MR. HcNEES: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mike HcNees from the
county administrator's office.
I have prepared for you and you should have an executive summary
pursuant to last week's direction regarding the services that we
continue to provide, either on or on behalf of the citizens of Marco
Island. As your executive summary states, there are a number of
services that we provide county wide and that are funded on a county
wide basis. An example of those would be domestic animal services,
library operations, social and veterans services, the medical
examiner's office, those types of things.
It would be our recommendation to you that those stay as they
are, that they are funded county wide, the people of Marco Island have
paid an ad valorem tax or other tax to fund those services county
wide, and we would continue to do those for that reason. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which items are those?
MR. HcNEES: Pollution control, natural resources, domestic
animal services, library operations, social and veterans services,
medical examiner's services, and there may be one or two others that
are county wide that are in the general fund, and that we would not
propose to you that we change. In some cases they probably could be
changed. It would require some ordinance amendments; it would require
some way to find out how to give back ad valorem contributions that
have already been paid for this year, and we wouldn't recommend that
you go down that road. We can certainly investigate it further, if
you wish, but our recommendation to you would be to leave those county
wide services alone.
We have detailed for you the remaining services that we provide
in the executive summary. If any of you don't have a copy of that, we
can try to get it up to you. Do you all have that? Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. HcNEES: I'll just go through them quickly one by one. We
talked a little bit last week about solid waste collection services.
Your existing franchise for solid waste collection does contain a
provision actually in cases of annexation or incorporation that give
you the unilateral authority to remove those areas from the franchise
area. And I believe it's a 60-day notice provision. You have that
authority. We would be required at that point to refund the pro rata
share of the contribution or the payment that those residents have
already made. We estimate that's about 5,000 people that would make
that payment. I think it's $300,000 -- yeah, about $300,000 that we
would refund, assuming a March 1st effective date. So you do have
that authority.
On a related issue, you operate the transfer station on Marco
Island, you by direction could close the transfer station and no
longer operate that. It does lose money, and so there is a savings
associated to you at -- for the closing of the transfer station and
the savings to the solid waste funds.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I ask a question on that point? And
just practical, if we were to just close the transfer station but not
eliminate solid waste services and have to go through the refunding of
the prepaid fees and that stuff, how would that work? Where would
those garbage trucks go?
MR. HcNEES: To the landfill.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So the advantage to Marco Island is what,
the way we currently operate?
MR. HcNEES: The transfer station is not related to the
collection of curbside pickup. The transfer station is more for
people to take things.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see.
MR. McNEES: And it's a convenience that we offer that you're not
bound to continue to do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's costing us money to offer it to them
for their convenience? MR. McNEES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Thanks. I understand that better.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just to be clear, the refund is
actually a wash then, because it's service that -- we could spend that
money anyway.
MR. HcNEES: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When we say we're giving money back,
we're not giving anything back, because they wouldn't have spent --
MR. HcNEES: Refund for prepaid service, we wouldn't provide the
service, then.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it's a wash.
MR. McNEES: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we could save money by closing the
transfer station.
MR. McNEES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. McNEES: In fact, there was some considerable discussion of
that during your budget this year, your budget process, whether or not
to recommend closing of the transfer station. I think in the final
analysis, the decision was that the service was valuable to the folks
on Marco and you would continue to take the hit financially to provide
the service.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What is the cost of operating that transfer
station, do we know?
MR. McNEES: I can get you a number fairly quickly. I don't have
that off the top of my head, but we can have that for you this
morning.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Could I ask the board perhaps to consider
Mr. McNees seems to be giving us a presentation of our direction of
some time back. And -- a week ago, and the circumstances have
certainly changed since then as of Friday night. Marco has agreed, as
you've seen, to go ahead and fund the Sheriff's Department. Do we --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'd still like to hear
the executive summary, because as I read the letter that we received
this morning, I'm not 100 percent comfortable with it. So I'd like to
know what all our options are. Tell you the truth, if it reads the
way I read it, I'm not going to agree to it. It's certainly a step in
the right direction, and I hope we're getting close. But as offered,
I'm not ready, and I'd like to know what all our options are. I'm not
saying we're going to do it today, but I'd like to at least know what
our options are.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree. I have to know what the options
are, because I'm worried about the fine print on the Marco Island
offer.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I think another point, too, is that it
lets the public know --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, good point.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- you know, just exactly what services are
currently being provided and as much as possible a price tag
associated with those services. So I don't think it's a faulty tack
to be listening to these kinds of things. And then I think we weigh
this information with the other information we have, and we can go
forward from there.
So if we can just basically give the time here to hear the
presentation, I think it's to the benefit of everyone, both the board
and the public.
MR. McNEES: I'll continue then. There are only a few more
items. As you know, you operate a small sewer collection district on
Marco Island that is entirely self-contained. It's an enterprise fund
unto itself. Provides sewer collection for a few segments of the
island.
There has been some interest discussed apparently from Florida
Water Service, Inc., who provides the treatment service and then the
collection service to the rest of the island to acquire the assets of
that district.
We had told the folks on the City of Marco that since they had
some interest in those assets themselves, that we would hold off on
that discussion with Florida Water for a year to give the city an
opportunity to decide what they wanted to do.
Now, you -- we would give the assets to the city. We would not
give them to Florida Water Services. We would sell them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What kind of an offer -- I understand
negotiations would continue, but just to give us a ground floor, do we
have a dollar offer from Florida Water?
MR. McNEES: I don't understand there to be a number on the
table. We haven't seriously considered the discussion. But with your
direction, we certainly could, and it's relatively small, and we could
probably make that happen fairly quickly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it thousands of dollars or hundreds of
thousands or tens of thousands? I don't even know that.
MR. McNEES: I would say in the hundreds, at the highest.
Depending on -- because the value is only of the customers. But
actually, since Florida Water does the treatment already and already
receives payment for the treatment, there may not be much value to, of
the customers, so I may be stretching. It may have negligible value.
It may be something we can get rid of to them without making a lot of
money, but it's something we can get out of. We can get out of the
collection business on Marco Island, which frankly is isolated to the
rest of our system and certainly wouldn't hurt us to do.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: If I understand this, we were working in
cooperation with the City of Marco on this issue to give them time to
work through this process. This is the objective here, to help them.
We were partners in helping them in this process.
MR. McNEES: Yes, because they ultimately, I think, wish to
acquire that utility, and our assistance in helping them provide this
piece of the system that we operate would help them toward that end.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So we were cooperating.
MR. McNEES: Yes. We spoke last week about code enforcement and
at the end of the last fiscal year, whatever open code enforcement
cases there were on Marco Island, we had handed over to the city. We
had been providing what I was told was some fairly minimal assistance
in helping the city staff close out those cases. After your direction
last week, that effort ended. And frankly, it was not that great of
an effort anyway, but we are no longer providing assistance to them
for the close-out of the code enforcement cases that we handed over to
them on October 1st.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So essentially this is complete.
MR. McNEES: Yes. The contractor licensing agreement is a little
more difficult to deal with. As you know, you approved an interlocal
agreement to allow your community development staff to provide
contractor licensing services to the city on a contract basis. We had
sent that to the city for their approval and they did not act on it
the first time it was on their agenda.
They did, I understand, Friday night, approve the contractor
license agreement that we tendered to them. Now, Mr. Weigel and I have
had some conversation about what that means, and I won't speak for
him. In my language, I think what it means is we have a contract with
them now, and we have a limited ability unilaterally to pull out of
that contract.
I don't know if David wants to add anything. I guess my legal
opinion is good enough on that one. So we have a contract. I
understand they approved it for a year. And we probably can't do
anything about that. We are probably bound by contract to provide
that service for a year on a fee basis.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Normally, don't we have finality in
contracts like that and why wouldn't we in this one, or why didn't we,
why don't we?
MR. WEIGEL: Some contracts we do have an out or a termination,
either at will. Our development services, planning services agreement
did have one of 48 hours unilateral notice from either the City
Council Chairman or the board chairman. This agreement did not
provide for that, so it has the standard provisions of service with a
termination, standard provision for termination at the end of a
specific time.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Our summary indicates this was to be
heard at the December 11 meeting last Friday. That was an emergency
meeting. Does a contract like that require any sort of public notice?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, if I understand your question, if it is heard
on the agenda and adopted by the respective local government, the
question of it appearing on there as an add-on or not is probably not
too important. But maybe I don't get your question quite clearly.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we, at a whim, called a meeting
three days from now and just decided to add an item on, would that
same whim -- there's no impact from that at all, there's no
opportunity? Let's just say the county had some concerns about this
and wanted a chance to speak to the issue in front of the council
while they were discussing it. Obviously, there was no advertisement
of the item, if it was an emergency meeting and an add-on item at that
emergency meeting.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the local governments do have statutory
ability to have emergency meetings giving notice reasonably under the
circumstances. And it would take a little investigation to see if
they failed to meet the statutory obligations in that regard.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps you understand where I'm
going, then.
MR. WEIGEL: I believe I do.
MR. HcNEES: I think the situation here may be a little
different. This item was on an advertised agenda for them on Monday.
At that meeting they broke halfway through, voted to continue until
the following Monday. They then --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, did Monday fall on the llth
this year?
MR. HcNEES: Yes, last night. And then they at some point -- now
here's where I see where you're going. They changed that meeting from
Monday to Friday and acted on it on Friday. So if there's a process
issue, there may be, but that was the exact mechanics.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So it's a window of opportunity, perhaps,
that we can never keep up with.
MR. HcNEES: The last issue that we bring to you is the issue of
the Sheriff's Marco Island substation. We do own that building and
you would, if you chose, have the ability to declare it surplus. We
understand that there is a cost related to relocating those people to
some other facility. It is your responsibility to provide them
housing. The appraised -- or the assessed value -- the property
appraiser's value on that building is about $320,000, so we believe we
could at least, for a couple of years, locate those people for that
money.
As you know, you have a space plan in the works. We would have
to find a way to deal with them. At least for the first couple of
years, that would not be in that cost, we don't think.
I apologize for not having better numbers for you this morning,
but at this point, that's all we have.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could I just ask you for a summary, the
easy ones are to stop the waste collection, because that is a fiscal
wash, and to sell the substation, because that's essentially a fiscal
wash for a couple of years before the space plan. It seems like those
two are the easy ones.
MR. HcNEES: Easy in terms of actions
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MR. HcNEES: Administratively, the solid waste issues, there's a
pretty large administrative effort. Not that it can't be done, but it
can be done.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think both of them would be big
headaches for you guys.
MR. HcNEES: From a financial standpoint, I'm not going to swear
to you that the solid waste is a break even. It's in the neighborhood
of a break even, so --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Seems like it should be. If it's not, I
can't understand why it wouldn't be.
MR. HcNEES: Well, because you can't necessarily say that the
exact cost of service for one geographical area is the same as what we
charge the people in that area, because we charge the same thing to
everybody in the county --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see.
MR. McNEES: -- and the cost of service is higher. Marco
probably costs us more to go per mile, not us, but the franchisee, per
mile. So we haven't actually done that analysis.
The last thing, question I'll answer is for Commissioner Carter.
The operation of the transfer station was budgeted at $127,500 this
year. The deficit that is not made up by actual fees there, is
$51,500.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's probably the easiest of all the
alternatives available, is if we have to solve this problem, there's
$50,000 toward solving it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's a piece.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a piece.
MR. McNEES: That concludes my presentation. I'm here to answer
any questions that you have.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't have any other questions, Mike.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there anybody here to help us to
translate the -- or to answer questions about the letter from the City
of Marco?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was interesting -- and maybe we
need to take the two of these together -- is Mr. Fernandez' memorandum
dated yesterday, and some of the representations made by Marco.
Again, it's too bad they chose not to have a representative here.
Because for example, at the bottom of the first page.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of their letter?
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, of Mr. Fernandez' memorandum.
Talks about park facilities, and Mr. Moss, their administrator,
represents that the board's gift of community park facilities at no
cost to the city was actually a concession made by the city. My
recollection is very different. They specifically asked for the
parks, and my recollection is the county hesitated and we had the
debate over whether we would lease it to them, whether it would be a
value to that, how much we would charge them, if anything on that
lease, how long would the lease be.
And Marco was very upset at the time that we had that discussion.
One of their City Councilors came and sat in that front row the day we
discussed it and wanted to be sure that we went ahead. And then we
made the motion to go ahead and, as a gesture, to meet their request
and give them the parks.
So I don't know how that was a concession on the part of the City
when it was answering exactly what they requested. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's a gift.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think what happened there -- I'm not
disputing what you said, because what you said is what happened. But
I don't think that the City of Marco had budgeted to take over the
parks. I don't think that that was included in their budget.
I think the actions that happened up there that day may have been
the work of an individual, but I'm not sure that it was totally
blessed by the City, because I'm not sure they were financially ready
to do it. But sometimes be careful what you wish for, and they got
it.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair, I think that is very similar to a
number of issues that surprised Marco Island when it came to the
implications of becoming a city. The fact that there were operating
costs associated with taking over the parks seemed to come to them as
something of a surprise, and they expected the county to bear more and
more of that operating cost.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I won't go through these item by
item. But Mr. Hoss's response is not uncommon, that particular one.
The questions I had, Madam Chairman, were specifically from the letter
that was provided by the vice-chairman of the City of Marco.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And unfortunately, we all just received this.
This was supposed to have been in our office yesterday and we had to
call this morning to get this, because it did not arrive here until
just prior to the meeting. So go ahead, I'm glad you did that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It reads, and I'm reading the second
paragraph: "Marco Island City Council, by a vote of six to one agreed
to offer the Board of County Commissioners a payment .... and I
underlined the word "a ...... of $200,000 per quarter as an additional
payment for law enforcement services." Additional payment, I got a
kick out of.
"The quarterly payment shall be reduced by the amount actually
expended by the City during the quarter for municipal law enforcement
as determined by the city manager." I have a problem with that
immediately. They budgeted 1.2 million, I think, for law enforcement.
We can disagree whether it's 800,000 or a million. That's fine; I'm
not going to dispute that for this argument.
But to suggest that the money, any money they expend on their new
officer, the gentleman who is putting together their plan, should come
out of this $800,000 rather than the balance; $400,000, really doesn't
make a whole lot of sense. And frankly, any monies quote, "as
determined by the city manager," doesn't give me a great deal of
confidence, particularly after a couple of weeks ago.
City Council clarified -- this is the next paragraph -- that this
is again "a", underlined, "a voluntary payment and in no way
signifies future payments."
I read this then as saying they'll pay a quarter one $200,000
payment, and there's no guarantee that they'll pay anything beyond
that. And that they may take anything they spend in that quarter on
their new guy, they may take out of that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: To be determined by them at whatever price
they assume it might be, which could end up being more.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So that my point is, I appreciate the
fact Councilman Pedersen made a motion and that they're trying to find
a way to share some expenses. I don't want to belittle that in any
way. However, I don't think as it's crafted in this letter, it's
what I'm comfortable doing. I don't think this goes to the point of
paying the fair share that we've talked about. I think they've taken
a giant step in that direction and I think maybe they're willing to
work with us.
My suggestion, and I throw this out for what it's worth, but
right after the turn of the year, first week of the year, second week
of the year, we could have a joint meeting and sit down and see if we
can use this as a starting point. We let them know in writing, let
the chairman write and say boy, we appreciate it, we think you're in
the ballpark with that 800,000, but the way it's crafted right now, we
have some concerns; here they are; let's get together in January and
talk about it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's exactly what I was going to
propose, because what we've been doing in this process so far is,
we've been sitting here discussing, and then a month later they
discuss, and two weeks later we discuss and they discuss. And we're
really not getting anywhere in a timely fashion.
If we have a joint meeting, we can sit down and hash out all the
little details of all the items out. I think obviously they have
recognized that they have a responsibility for these fees, and they're
willing to step forward in some manner and start paying their share of
the Sheriff's road patrols.
So really, that seems to me the way we can get this all hashed
out in one day and be done with it. And we can give our staff exact,
clear direction on that day of how we want the agreements formulated.
They can tell us what they want and so forth, so on, and that's the
way to get it done. So yes, that's what we should do. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would concur, commissioners, that the
number is all right, it's the stipulations around it. And to me,
we've been negotiating in a vacuum. It's very difficult for us to do
anything without the other side there.
And I think if we can prepare for that -- we had a list of areas
where we were pretty much in agreement that the administrations from
both municipalities, from the county and from the municipality, had
agreed to. I'd kind of like to separate those we're close to. I
would like to take a look at the issues of contention so that we have
some building blocks going into this negotiation, because I feel that
always it has come back to we were close to doing something, and they
would go oh, by the way, we want this.
And I don't want any more oh, by the ways in this joint meeting.
I think we need to have it all on the table, look at what we're close
to, where we're far apart and some parameters to getting to resolving
this issue with the Sheriff. And if we can call that meeting, then I
think perhaps we can get this resolved.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chairman, a question. Does anybody
know the timing of when will the Sheriff's appeal be heard by the
Governor's Cabinet?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not a week long process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I'm clear on that, but I mean, is it a
month?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I thought it was three.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Three months?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's what I -- my understanding was, that
it's kind of a three-month --
MR. FERNANDEZ: There are intermediate meetings, at which we will
present our cases to the Governor's office of planning and budgeting
prior to going to the Governor and the Cabinet.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Realistically we get delayed some by
the transition right now. When you have Governor HcKay's team there's
not a whole lot that's going to happen in the next three weeks,
because they want to ultimately be turning that information over to
Governor Bush.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So we can hopefully schedule our joint
meeting with Marco at a time to -- if it meets with any success, to
prevent the cost of staff preparing for these meetings up in
Tallahassee, if possible.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the things we have failed to do
on occasion, is communicate clearly with the other constitutional
officers, and when we pick a date, one of the first things we ought to
do is alert the Sheriff to when that is to make sure that they're a
part of the discussion, as well.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: See that he's there to answer any
questions we have as far as values or services.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me make a motion then to give direction
to our staff to try to arrange a joint meeting sometime within the
first two weeks of January?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Our first meeting is the 13th. And I
know I know you've got a conflict that first week. You want to make
it sometime after our first meeting in January?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. I was just trying to --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand. I think it's important
all five commissioners be here for that.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. After the first -- after our
first meeting.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As soon as practical, then. Let's put it
that way.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay, second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second to have a
joint meeting with Marco Island City Council and the Sheriff and the
Board of County Commissioners sometime after the first meeting in
January. If there's no further questions or comments about it, all in
favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, I think it's important that the
board is aware that pursuant to your direction last week, any
discussions that we were in the process with Marco Island have not
continued. In other words, any pending contracts that were not part
of Mr. HcNees's presentation today were not mentioned because they
have not been finalized. He's only brought up those that were
standing agreements.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They need to stay that way.
MR. FERNANDEZ: So the direction from the board was to not
proceed with any direction, and we have stopped those.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think at this point in time, that's
probably a fair way to go until we have this joint meeting.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just as a group I think it is
important, too, that we recognize sometimes when we read the clippings
in the newspaper, that the council gets upset with us and we get upset
with the council, and I think it's important that we recognize the
effort they made this past week to step forward. And while we have
some problems with it, it was an effort in the right direction and
hopefully, we'll get there.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll let them know, too, that this is not a
rejection. We've not rejected anything this morning. What we're
simply saying is that now that we've got something in writing, a
little more concrete, our next step is going to be a joint meeting
where we can sit down and hash out the further details.
COHMISSIONER CARTER: I would also, to our county administrator,
these areas where we have stopped the negotiation, I would also like
us to be prepared to answer the questions that we're evolving around
those negotiations, so that when we get there, we could quickly put
that in place as we're in that process. I wouldn't want to stop
clarifying.
And one of those issues is franchise fees. I think we --
whatever we can do, by the time we get there, so that we could have
questions answered on that, so they could be a smooth, quick
transaction as a part of these negotiations could be done, so that we
have all our ducks in a row when we go to that meeting. So that when
we offer something, we don't have to take a lot of time to go back and
say it will take months or weeks to resolve.
MR. HcNEES: Commissioner, those items are very well-defined and
in fact, very minor. You referenced earlier, where are we far apart
and where are we close together. There is only one issue where we are
far apart and that is the payment for the Sheriff's services.
COHMISSIONER CARTER: Okay.
MR. HcNEES: On all the others, we are very nearly there.
COHMISSIONER CARTER: If you've got everything else, let's do it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good. Okay. Are there any other questions
for Mr. HcNees?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No questions? Thank you very much. I
appreciate that, Mr. Fernandez, thank you.
Item #8E3
BUDGET AMENDHENT TO PURCHASE HICROVAX TO ALLOW STAFF TO HEET THE Y2K
WORK PLAN SCHEDULE - TABLED UNTIL THE END OF THE MEETING
Moving on then to the next item. You wanted to take this at
the same time that we're going to -- so ten -- that's the time
certain, 10:45; right?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's go straight to Commissioner
Constantine's Microvax.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, let's talk about Y2K.
MR. YONKOSKY: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, good morning. For
the record my name is John Yonkosky, and I'm your Department of
Revenue Director.
Agenda item 8(A)(3) is mine, and the -- this is a request for the
board to approve a budget amendment to move money from various
operating lines and my operating budget category to capital, so that
we can acquire a Microvax. The utility billing system, which
currently processes almost 40,000 bills a month and generates about
$40 million a year in revenues, is currently operated on a piece of
equipment, a very old Vax, a piece of equipment that is a 7610. And
it is -- it currently runs up on the fifth floor in this building.
You have previously approved a contract with an outside vendor to
write the software to make that billing software Y2K compliant. One
of the problems that we've run into is that the 7610 is not Y2K
compliant itself, the operating system isn't. We would have to spend a
rather substantial sum of money on making that box Y2K compliant, and
then it still isn't large enough to run the -- both the production
environment that we're in and the testing of the new equipment.
So what has been recommended to us is that we obtain a Microvax,
which is a brand new piece of equipment, or a brand new Microvax that
is Y2K compliant --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. YONKOSKY: $16,800.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have a choice?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How will this be used other than --
will this replace the old piece and have a use other than simply
running the test?
MR. YONKOSKY: Well, what we're trying to do is use it as a
production model. We sized the Microvax large enough that we can use
it as a production model. And if we can do that, then we'll be able
to take that box on Horseshoe, keep it up there and not have the data
transmit back and forth, and use it up there after the testing is
done, to use it as a production device.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I liked everything you said except "if
we can." Shouldn't we know that before we purchase --
MR. YONKOSKY: We believe that we can. We have not found any
obstacles. That's our current plan, to do it that way.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can your vendor tell us for sure
before we make the purchase? Surely there's a way to say something
more solid than we believe we can, or if we can. This is one of those
great things that if, for some reason it doesn't work, becomes a
government boondoggle --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We don't want a $16,000 lemon. We want --
I think the question that the commissioner is asking, do we know this
will work, can they test it prior to this before we make the
commitment to purchase?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm completely supportive of where you're
trying to go, John. I just want to make sure we're actually going to
get there. And I haven't heard --
MR. YONKOSKY: I believe that it will work in production.
That's why we've sized it the way that we have. I can't guarantee it.
But I'll tell you that we took the exact same thoughts into
consideration, and we believe it will work. But until we actually
move it into the production environment --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Surely the vendor can tell us.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do we get our money back if it doesn't? I
mean, will the vendor say we recommend this? Did the vendor recommend
this and say this will work for you?
MR. YONKOSKY: The vendor has recommended it and the vendor has
sized it for us, commissioner.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The vendor should say if our
recommendation and our sizing, whatever, is incorrect, we'll take it
back.
COHMISSIONER CARTER: Or can they make adjustments to make it
work? I mean, we're looking for an agreement with the vendor that
they're not going -- we're not going to end up being stuck with a
$16,000 process that didn't work.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Where's the IT department on this?
MR. YONKOSKY: This is the IT department's recommendation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. What I got for backup, I got your
little short memo here, and attached to it was a conservation
easement. I don't know; there must be better backup than that.
But I would love to see some IT, you know, recommendations. Mr.
Fernandez, do we have anything from them saying this is the solution?
Because God bless Mr. Yonkosky, he's trying to do his best, but surely
he's not the computer guy who's telling us this will work.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Maybe Mr. Ochs can help us with that question.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Help us, Mr. Ochs.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Good morning. For the record, Leo Ochs,
support services administrator.
I've spoken with Mr. Cokely, our IT director, as well as Mr.
Yonkosky, both of whom report to me, so I can tell you that I'm very
comfortable that this solution will work long term as a production
machine for our Y2K compliant utility billing system. I've spent a
lot of time speaking with Mr. Cokely individually on this, as well as
Hr. Yonkosky, and we've had a couple of joint meetings, as well.
So I think we're moving absolutely in the right direction.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And what's our total Y2K compliance cost?
MR. OCHS: We have a task force that's working right now,
commissioner, to identify all of our Y2K exposures, both from a
hardware and a software and a business systems perspective. By that,
I mean contracts with outside vendors. We send data back and forth
with us that we can't control ourselves, but we need to review those
contracts. And we're asking them to attest to the fact that systems
they run are Y2K compliant.
I don't have an exact handle on the price tag to get this entire
agency Y2K compliant. I can tell you that we've been working on it
for several months, and for example, Mr. Ilschner's got several items
with traffic control signals and water plant systems.
So each division administrator is identifying their own
particular cost to get their operations Y2K compliant. What we can do
is try to get an estimate for you and come back to you, perhaps in
your January meeting.
COHMISSIONER CARTER: Perfect.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As much as I would rather not have to know
this, I feel obliged to know.
COHMISSIONER CARTER: We need to know it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. And I see Lee County, what did they
spend, a quarter of a million dollars on some big system to get Y2K
compliant, and the City of Naples now says they don't have a Y2K
problem.
I just don't feel like I know, anyway, the board's been told what
we are doing for Y2K compliance, except for this one little $16,000
piece.
And I'm sorry, Mr. Yonkosky, that we put all this focus on your
one piece.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, I had the same thought when I
read the article, that we're comfortable that we have a solid plan in
place to address the Y2K problem. It struck me that we may not have
communicated that fully to the board. And I think a presentation to
the board is probably a very good idea. So we can plan to do that at
the next meeting that you have.
I know that we're ready to present to you, because I've heard a
full presentation from Jeff Walker, who is the chairman of that staff
committee, so I know he's prepared to give that presentation at any
time and let the board know exactly where our effort has been and
where it's going.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that would be a good effort in our
first meeting. Well, it depends. That first meeting in January is
probably going to be pretty loaded. So at some point in January,
maybe the first effort. Unless he would want to do it on Friday when
we have that public information workshop. I don't know if he could
put it together at that point in time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are we going to -- how did this one 16,000
-- $800 expense get added on? Is this the only budget amendment
that's going to be necessary for Y2K? MR. FERNANDEZ: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How does this come to be the one that's
here today?
MR. FERNANDEZ: This one got put on my desk this morning. And
the thought is that because the board is not meeting until January the
16th, this will delay the schedule, the timetable for Y2K compliance,
if we don't act on this today. I was concerned about bringing it up
today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's only this one little piece. I mean,
if this is so critical to be brought up today, I don't understand why
the whole program is not critical to be brought up today.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I don't want to slow what Mr.
Yonkosky needs to do, but I am concerned that we at least have some
contractual agreement or clause with this vendor that says if we -- if
we encounter problems in production, that they're going to be with us
and help us get through that and that we don't look at triple the bill
to get it into production versus doing the test model.
MR. YONKOSKY: I'm sure that is in there, Leo. That's there.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I need to see that. I'm not
comfortable with this one page that was added on today, and in
explanation that at 16,000 bucks we think might work. I need
something written from the vendor that says we guarantee this will
work; we're recommending it. If it doesn't work, we'll make sure that
it does at no additional expense.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's how it works in the real world.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we have that, great, maybe you can
provide that before we adjourn today, and if you don't have that
today, then maybe we can get it in time for our next meeting.
MR. OCHS: That's fair.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the repercussions, because I do
appreciate, I don't want to -- like Mr. Carter says -- slow down Mr.
Yonkosky's successful implementation of this program. So, but at the
same time, I don't have anywhere close to enough information to know
if this is what we need to do, this little half a page.
What's the cost to the county if we should be unable to get
adequate information today to do this and it ends up being postponed
to the mid-January meeting?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A total cost of $16,000.
MR. OCHS: It moves our schedule back about 30 days. But that
doesn't mean, obviously, that we're not going to finish the project
before the Y2K deadline arrives. And again, our interest was because
there wasn't any more meetings until the 12th of January, I believe,
that we wanted to keep moving along with the vendor and in our
compliance actions here on the software for utility billing.
But if the board wants to wait until the next meeting, we can
certainly do that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'm not particularly thrilled about
waiting until the next meeting. If you can verify for us today that
we have some guarantees from the vendor, then that's fine with me.
MR. OCHS: We'll see if we can can't get on the horn with them
right now and get that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, I like that best, too.
COHMISSIONER CARTER: I would agree. Let's see what the vendor
can add to this.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So you want a motion to table this until
the end of the meeting?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll entertain that motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, we will table item 16 E)(1)
regarding the Y2K program until the end of this meeting. If you want
to come back then, we'll hear you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, for the record, that was item
8 (E) (3) .
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 8(E) (3)? It was item 16(E)(1), I believe,
that was moved to item 8 (E)(3).
I think we should vote on that.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. We're tabling that
item until the end of the meeting.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we going to take our break and see
the clerk?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I believe so, because I think if we go into
the next discussion, we're going to run way over, so we'll take a
break.
Item #10A
APPOINTHENT OF HEHBERS TO THE PRE-KINDERGARTEN INTERAGENCY COORDINATING
COUNCIL ON EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICES - DELORIS SHERIDAN, PATRICIA GULLEY
AND ROBERT RILEY APPOINTED
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How about if we run through the 10s?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We can run through item 10, that might be --
because these are the appointments to different advisory boards.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Several of them. They ought to be quick.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We should be able to do these rather quickly.
That's a good suggestion, Commissioner Norris. We'll give you one for
that today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Put a star up for him.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, the first one has to do with item
10(A), which is appointment of members to the Pre-Kindergarten
Interagency Coordinating Council on Early Childhood Services.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's three and three, I'll move
approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 98-500, APPOINTING VIVIAN LAGER AND KARIN ENGLISH TO THE
CITIZENS ADVISORY TASK FORCE - ADOPTED; AND ORDINANCE PROVISION WAIVED
REGARDING REAPPOINTHENT OF VIVIAN LAGER
Appointment of members to the Citizens Advisory Task Force.
MS. FILSON: May I make one note on this one, please?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, Ms. Filson, please.
MS. FILSON: Ms. Vivien Lager has served two terms, so if the
board wishes to reappoint her, you'll have to waive section 7(B)(2) of
Ordinance 86-41.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, the problem is that Ms. Lager has
served two consecutive terms and we need to pass a resolution, I
guess, or waive '-
MS. FILSON: Just waive section 7(B)(2).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- that particular section to allow her to be
reappointed.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I so move.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What does the Citizens Advisory Task Force
do?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Community development block grant advisory board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. Was there a motion to waive
that and appoint the two?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I so move.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second to waive
that particular section allowing her to serve a third term, actually.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Now we need someone to go ahead and make a motion to approve
these two individuals.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So moved.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- for the approval and a second for the
appointment of Vivien Lager and Karen English to the Citizens Advisory
Task Force.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just by way of note, we have waived
that only when there aren't additional people.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, there were no other --
COHMISSIONER CARTER: Candidates.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- candidates.
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 98-501, DECLARING A VACANCY ON THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD - ADOPTED
Item 10(C) we're going to be hearing at the same time, I
believe, as the other item regarding the Clerk of Courts.
***Item 10(D), recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Collier
County Enforcement Board.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
vacancy.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
Item #10E
We have a motion and a second to declare that
Hotion carries five-zero.
DISCUSSION RE INDIVIDUAL COUNTY LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS AND CONTRACT
LOBBYISTS - BCC IDENTIFIED REVISION 7 IMPLEMENTATION AS A KEY ISSUE FOR
THE COUNTY AND MAKES IT A TOP PRIORITY FOR THE 1999 LEGISLATIVE
SESSION; CHAIRMAN TO SEND LETTER REGARDING LOOP HOLE IN INCORPORATION
STATUTE AND MAKE CHANGES TO STATE ETHICS LAW
Then the last one is a discussion regarding individual county
legislative programs and contract lobbyists.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can conclude that item and take our
break. Is somebody doing a presentation?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, this has to do with -- I think the
revision seven.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Revision seven.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Making sure that this is going to be a part
-- and we have to send this statement back to the Florida Association
of Counties. And if you look on the second page of that particular
agenda item, you have three categories, my Board of County
Commissioners has identified revision seven. Implementation is a key
issue for our county and will make it a top priority; or no, we will
consider adopting it. Or no, we're unable to make that decision. Or
three, if we had a contract lobbyist, we would be giving direction to
them.
So basically we have just got to decide what we want to do and
get this information back to the Florida Association of Counties.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to put a checkmark in the first box
on the top of the page.
COHMISSIONER CARTER: Right. That's all we have, really. We do
that, we support it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I think the point should be made when we
have our legislative delegation here that we remind them of this
particular revision and our concern about it. COHMISSIONER CARTER: Right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, so Commissioner Carter, you made a
motion?
COHMISSIONER CARTER: I make a motion that we check box number
o~e.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And you second that. All right, all in
favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask a question about legislative
delegation issues? When might we -- or what is the method for us as a
board to decide if there are other issues that we want to bring to the
legislative delegation?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bring it here and talk to us. When is
their meeting?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I believe it's the 14th?
MS. FILSON: Yesterday was the deadline.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, yesterday was the deadline for any
issues.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But I believe it's January 14th?
MS. FILSON: I think it's the 13th.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's the same day as our TDC --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Workshop.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- workshop.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's in the afternoon, isn't it?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: They're at 11:00 over in Immokalee, and then
that afternoon they come here, and they'll be in the Board of County
Commissioners Hearing room. MS. FILSON: 2:00.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie, I suspect that
if we have a burning issue that were to come up the 12th, I know in
the past our delegation has been very good, if they're hearing from
another elected body.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I had hoped we would be able to talk about
the two things. One is what I would call the loophole in the
incorporation statute that allows incorporation without creation of a
law enforcement agency or provision for one, that we need to ask the
legislature to correct that, and that we might need to ask the
legislature to make some changes to the state ethics laws in addition
to whatever we might do locally. I was hoping we were going to
discuss those, but I was --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would have no objection to directing
our chairman to give a vague letter just touching on those two topics,
and perhaps then the board could discuss them between now and then,
in more detail.
But at least alert our delegation now that we may want to discuss
those at their public hearing.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If you like, I certainly don't have a problem
with either one of those. The only thing with the incorporation, I
think the problem as it existed with what happened in the most recent
incorporation, was the fact that the review of the charter up there,
and somehow, I don't know whether somebody missed it or whatever, but
it certainly wasn't included in there, because the state statute
almost acts like that's just a given, and that's what it speaks to.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's what I think needs to be fixed.
Instead of almost acting like it's a given.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Need to make sure that something is covered,
even if someone does create a charter, that it is included in there.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thou shalt.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, thou shalt. Okay. That's a good --
that's an excellent point. But I'll be -- we'll be happy to draft a
letter that we can get it over. I'm sure that they won't have any
problem with it, since our meeting was today. And we can draft a
letter and at least get it over, if that's the agreement of the rest
of the board.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just date it yesterday.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, I'll date it today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Kind of like --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Have all of you seen the agenda from the
Florida Association of Counties, the commissioners, that we went
through in Tallahassee? They have a whole agenda of issues that
they're taking to the legislature. You all have a copy of that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I believe so.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But revision seven was --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Revision seven was number one, uno number
one.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: As you well know, the rest of the items are
always things that, you know, we would like to have, however,
understanding that probably if you can dwell on the first three, and
get something along those lines, that's probably the direction we want
to go.
Okay, at this time we'll -- oh, we'll take a vote on that item.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. That letter will
be drafted.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At this time, we'll take a break until 10:45,
at which time we'll meet with the clerk.
Item #10C
RECONSIDERATION OF DISCUSSION WITH THE BCC AND CLERK OF COURTS RE BOND
REFINANCING HEARD AT THE NOVEMBER 14, 1998 BOARD MEETING - NO ACTION;
BOARD SUPPORT OF THE CLERK (CONSENSUS)
(The meeting recessed at 10:30 a.m. and resumed at 10:45 a.m.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we will reconvene the meeting and at
this time we will take up item -- the Clerk of Courts. Just come on
up here.
MR. FERNANDEZ: 10(C).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 10(C). Why don't you all just move on up
here to the front and it will save a lot of walking and --
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chair, commissioners, unless there's a
question or direction from you in regard to the procedure, Mr.
Fernandez and I are looking to have the board address both related
agenda items at the same time, as he discussed earlier. And part of
one agenda item was your directive to Mr. Fernandez and me to report
back to you -- to report back to you in regard to the lawsuit that had
been filed by the clerk in regard to yield burning.
And I'm prepared to -- and the question was a lingering question
from the initial presentation of the clerk and his assistants, was
would the board consider and/or should they become a party to the
litigation initiated by the clerk on behalf of the county. And so at
that juncture, I'm going to attempt to respond.
Again, the question was should the county -- should the county
become a party to the lawsuit, which, to make it clear for everyone,
would be as a party plaintiff or co-party plaintiff in this lawsuit,
recognizing that the lawsuit is filed subsequent to the board meeting
three weeks ago has been filed against 16 or so what are called tier
one underwriters. And part of my response is going to be in terms of
questions that I attempt to answer.
And I would advise any client, as counsel to them, that if the
client were to file a lawsuit itself against named defendants, that
the client and its attorney would want to know the veracity, the
absolute -- if at all possible, the absolute truth and accuracy of all
the allegations that are to be made against the defendants. From that
standpoint, I think in the discussions that we have had with the clerk
and his counsel and representatives and in discussions with individual
commission members, that we come to this point stating that no, the
county, the county attorney, the Board of County Commissioners do not
know and cannot know, at least at this point in time, if all of the
allegations in the complaint against all of the defendants is correct.
We've learned that the process of the clerk getting to the point
where he had the comfort and the desirability to file this lawsuit
involved many, many months of review, assistance from experts in the
industry in that area, and neither this board nor the county attorney
or county staff have had the opportunity to have that kind of review
and interpretative discussions with the clerk at this point in time.
So to answer the question should the county be a party plaintiff
in this lawsuit, my answer would be twofold: One, advice is, clearly
not at this point in time. Part of our discussions were would the
county consider at some point in the future to become a party
plaintiff.
Additionally, I would like to say that what we need to know is as
-- as a potential party plaintiff is, there may be additional
plaintiffs and defendants to be named. We do not know who they are or
may be at this point in time. That will always be an important
question in our consideration.
Additionally, a question is raised, and I think the clerk or his
counsel may attempt to shed further light on this, but the question
was raised in our discussions was, if the county should become a
co-plaintiff in this lawsuit, does that place the county in a position
to be countersued by one or several of the named defendants, several
of which, according to the information that I have and that we have
discussed, have not done business with Collier County on any of the
bond issues that are in question with the court at the present time.
It's a question and issue of caution in adding -- or purporting
to add one's self to a lawsuit of which one does not know all of the
detail or potential ramifications.
Additionally, we talked a little bit about the questions of
standing. Why are we here in the first place? Why did the clerk come
to the board in the first place? We know from previous litigation
that a standing issue can and potentially will be raised, has been in
the past in lawsuits where the clerk, exercising his fiduciary
responsibilities and role, has sued other entities concerning funds
that belong -- purportedly belong to the county.
I would suggest that probably, most probably, if the county were
a co-plaintiff to the lawsuit, it would buttress the standing argument
and the ability to defend that issue, if raised against the clerk as
the current sole plaintiff. Additionally, there may be some
ramification of that in regard to the board's prior endorsement of the
lawsuit. I just mention that kind of parenthetically.
But ultimately, I would suggest and recommend that it is not in
the interest to the board at this time, based upon the information
that we have and the understandings that we have, to become a co-party
plaintiff in the lawsuit against many named and perhaps some yet
unnamed, but to become party defendants. And if you have any
questions for me, that's fine. I know that Mr. Fernandez has some
comments too.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually, I'll wait.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, we had a series of briefings with
each county commissioner, including representatives of the Sheriff's
office, the clerk's office, as well as bond counsel, financial
advisor, county attorney's office and my office.
And through those meetings, we attempted to hear all the
different perspectives on the issues of the impact of this litigation
on Collier County. The focus of those briefings were three points.
The first is the impact on the pending refunding. We had a
refunding that was on the same agenda that -- at which this item was
presented to the board initially. Second, was the long term impact on
the county's ability to secure financing in the future. And the third
issue was the potential threat to the tax-free status of county
refunding.
Through those discussions, the first and third points were
successfully resolved, I think, and that's based upon bond counsel's
assumption that if the information provided by the clerk's office was
in fact to be relied upon and accurate, then it appeared as though the
tax-free status threat is not to be continued as an issue. And also,
we have heard from the financial advisor that the refunding issue that
had stalled is now moving forward again, and appears to be on its way
to a successful completion in January.
However, the second point still remains unresolved in the sense
that no one can predict what the future impact is going to be on
Collier County and its ability to secure future financing. Because of
that, my recommendation is that there is no compelling reason to incur
this uncertain risk from anything that we have heard from these
presentations, that would prompt the board to not only join in the
litigation but also to continue to support its filing. And the reason
for that is because, as I said --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry, so your recommendation is that
we do not support the filing of the lawsuit? Is that what I heard you
say?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. That's the second part of the agenda item.
The first was to consider whether we should join the litigation. The
second was to reconsider the board's previous act of having supported
it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right, and the question you and I
discussed, everybody discussed in our meeting was, what the board's
motion was and what the support was. And what you are stating there
is different than what my interpretation was and what I believe I
voted on. So I think that's an important part of us clarifying.
My impression was, and as I read through the minutes, and I'll
let you finish before I go through my highlights, but it's very clear
that in my opinion, we're supporting the Clerk of Courts going and
doing what he believes is his job and pursuing monies that he thinks
are owed to the county.
As I read the motion, I don't see us saying we support this
specific action against this specific individual, and we don't get
specific like that at all. We talked in a very general term of giving
our support. I will go into some of the detail, because Mr. Grady
even says -- talks about it at two different levels, and later, after
you and Mr. Weigel have had a chance at it, maybe that's the point
where we get more in depth.
But his wording is: "We can leave here today, perhaps with some
showing of support, that without necessarily joining as a party in
this action, but some clear indication that we're not at odds, we're
not on opposite sides of this issue." That's his exact words.
So they're just looking for support that we're not against what
the clerk is doing, we're just supporting the clerk doing his job.
And that was my understanding of the motion.
We look over on the final page, it says, Mr. Brock, I would ask
for a motion of support. Commissioner Carter, I make that motion.
Commissioner Mac'Kie, I second that motion. But I don't think we're
getting into the specifics of we're joining it or we think this is
the exact thing.
My vote was an indication of support for the clerk to go and do
his job as he sees fit. And so I don't think I need to rescind that,
because I still support the clerk doing his job and doing it as he
sees fit, unless we are going to do what Mr. Grady had talked about
here, and that is be at odds, or say that we're on the opposite side.
But I don't see what it is we need to rescind if our vote was
simply in support of the clerk doing his job.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I concur with that, because my
understanding was it was a vote of support for the clerk to do his job
as he sees fit, and I made that motion to that effect, and I stand by
that motion, and I'm not prepared to rescind it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have absolutely no interest in
rescinding our earlier decision. I wanted to back up here and just
tell you what I think about the three issues that we all talked about,
you know, separately but we didn't get to discuss with each other.
First, the three issues were the tax-free status, the effect on
the current refunding and then what I'm calling the crystal ball
issue, you know, what might happen in the future.
The tax-free status, as that was -- as I was initially frightened
by that issue, I understood it to be, Oh, my God, county bonds could
be declared taxable. That would be a serious crisis. As I
investigated it further, what I learned is that was never a real risk.
The only risk was that we would receive communication from the IRS
that might require us to amend a return and write a check to avoid our
bonds from ever being considered taxable. So I either misunderstood
or it was mischaracterized, the potential risk there. Because the
risk was never that our bonds would be found taxable. That would be a
crisis.
The other one was what I believed to be was either also
mischaracterized or I misunderstood, and that was the risk of the
refunding that was on the table. I left the -- my first meeting with
our financial advisor and others believing that we may have just
risked two and a half million dollars on a chance of collecting
$250,000. Well, guess what? All that really happened is that in these
two foot stack of disclosure that has to be made every time we issue a
bond, a page had to be added saying, by the way, there's another
lawsuit. That's all that happened.
That -- I was frightened by that. I don't know if that was my
misunderstanding or if someone else's mischaracterization of the
nature of the problem. But the reality is, all that happened is we had
to amend the documents to change the disclosure to add this new fact.
We got the same people doing the same deal for the same money. So to
the extent we were frightened by that, and I felt like we were, that
was unnecessary and even inappropriate and turns out to be completely
false.
Which bears on the crystal ball question, which is, in the
future, are underwriters going to want to work with us or not, because
we are the kind of county that sues people? Well, you have to have --
everybody has to have enough sense to know that brokerages are sued on
an hourly basis.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Almost as often as this county is
sued.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Almost. Nevertheless, I bet you, and I
have some personal experience in my family with this, where a family
member sued Herrill Lynch, but nevertheless, Herrill Lynch continued
to be ready and willing to take commissions from that family member as
they went forward in buying and selling stocks.
Well, surprise, I bet the same thing is going to be true about
underwriters. They do it for the money, they're going to do it for
the money. They didn't back out on the table. That also is a smoke
and mirrors issue. And I really felt the need to put all that out,
because I'm troubled by the smoke that arose after we took what was a
very simple action, and that was to endorse the clerk -- to show our
support for the clerk doing his job as he sees fit.
I'm also hopeful, however, that not only do we not rescind that
action, but that as we go forward -- I understand that there are two
stages here. One is do we support the clerk doing the clerk's job.
The second is, do we think that this is an action in which the county
commission should be added as a plaintiff, and that may become
significant because of standing. It may not. But nevertheless, should
we join in that lawsuit?
The difference between what we have previously done and that
second stage being a plaintiff, is that as a plaintiff, you swear out
a complaint. You sign as to the truth of the facts alleged in the
complaint. And as Mr. Weigel said, we are unable to do that at this
point, because the clerk spent six months or a year, I don't know how
long, acquiring the facts necessary to allow him and his lawyer to
swear out the complaint.
At some point, we need to have independent counsel to review the
facts of the complaint to determine whether or not we need to join and
whether or not we should join if the issue of standing comes up. Do
you know what I'm saying? There's two phases here. Do we want to
join, and the other is, will we join if it's necessary to keep the
lawsuit alive because of some standing complaint.
COHHISSIONER CARTER: It was my understanding the clerk wasn't
asking to go to that second stage at this point. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not yet, not yet.
COHMISSIONER CARTER: But you're raising what may be a future
consideration, and I think we need to address it when it reaches that
point.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I didn't really get the opportunity to finish my
remarks, and I just interrupt for the purpose of maybe throwing out
something that you may wish to consider as you debate this issue. And
that is my suggestion that you consider an alternative, and that is,
that you issue a statement of support for litigation that is
specifically focused at the problem that has been uncovered by the
investigation undertaken by the clerk's office.
In that regard, I think it -- it significantly limits the concern
of the impact, the unknown impact of a class action lawsuit, and it
puts us in the posture of yes, saying if wrongdoing has been
uncovered, it should be pursued. And specifically that wrongdoing is
what should be pursued.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And personally, I'm just -- I was
interrupted, I'll just finish. The point for me is I have no interest
in that. I have no interest in undoing anything that we previously
did. And I'd call the board's attention to the reality of the fact
that this is already Collier County's lawsuit. If there's anybody
being countersued, it's already the same pot of tax money that's at
risk here, or more likely, it's the same pot of tax money that is
likely to be enhanced by virtue of this suit.
So this is a whole lot of political baloney that doesn't mean a
lot.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. It is political
baloney, because we can't pick and choose when we think it's okay for
the clerk to do something and when it's not. When we get into the
whole golf scenario and he was doing his investigation there, we were
saying gee, is that appropriate, is that not appropriate.
It's public money and he's trying to track his job down there.
If we say it's okay there, we can't come back now and say well, you
know, we'll let him do his thing, we might do our own.
The clerk, by the Constitution of the State of Florida, has a
very specific job, and he's going ahead and trying to fulfill that job
for Collier County in this instance, and our motion was to support him
in trying to do that.
And so I've got to agree with Commissioner Hac'Kie, I don't
support rescinding what's just asking Dwight to do his job or
supporting him in doing his job.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you want to speak or do you want me to
speak? I'll let you speak first. I'll be nice. I'll let you speak
first.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. The magnanimous
effort is greatly appreciated.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's the Christmas season.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I guess it's all a matter of perception.
What Commissioner Hac'Kie sees as smoke and mirrors, I see as people
who we pay to advise us simply alerting us that there are potential --
or could be potential problems that we need to take into
consideration. After some -- after an available amount of time for
them to analyze that, they came to the conclusion that perhaps it was
fairly minimal impact, which is good news, but I don't see any harm in
them alerting us at the outset that there was potential for severe
problems.
And I don't consider it smoke and mirrors, I consider it them
doing the job that we pay them to do.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I prefer the Henny Penny, the sky is
falling analogy, as opposed to smoke and mirrors.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Either one, I'll go with that. The sky is
falling, I'll go there.
COHMISSIONER CARTER: Pick your favorite.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Either one. Pick either one. I don't
favor the county at any point joining in a class action lawsuit. If
we can -- if it turns out that there's a lawsuit that involves
specific issues that the county has dealt with and it appears that we
may want to try to recover some money from some specific brokerages
that we have actually dealt with, that's a different matter.
But I don't favor the county joining in the class action lawsuit,
ever. I do think that, like the rest of the board, that we should
encourage the clerk to do his job as he sees fit and not to do
anything that would put an impediment into that process.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is that all?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I don't think anybody sitting up here
is indicating or has indicated that they wanted to interfere with the
clerk doing his job. I don't think that's ever been the intention,
certainly, and he doesn't need our blessing to do his job. He's got
that responsibility and he earned that right the day he came into
office. So he doesn't need our blessing to do anything that he does.
He has that as a given.
If he's found a problem, fine, go do something about it. That's
fine, too. I don't have any problem with that. My concern when I
asked that this be reconsidered, was the fact that there was a concern
raised that Collier County could be in jeopardy in terms of either
currently what was being done or what would happen in the future.
And as a county commissioner, I felt it would be my
responsibility if I had been placed here as a commissioner, giving of
support to this particular action and then having it happen that
afternoon of the day that we discussed it -- I have to say, I thought
that was a little hasty. I didn't think it was going to happen quite
that soon -- and I thought that the action that we had taken perhaps
had indicated that we had a two-week time frame at that point in time.
I was a little concerned when the next morning I heard that the
lawsuit had been filed that afternoon. That gave me some cause to
have a heart skip a beat or two, because I thought if we had done
something that has jeopardized Collier County, we've got a problem.
I'm certainly not in this business, I don't know that much about
it. I'll be the first to admit it. But at the same time, I sit up
here in a seat of acting and trying to act responsible in terms of the
best interest of Collier County. The clerk has his job, he knows his
end much better than I do, and I applaud him for doing that. I'm not
arguing that point.
But the point was, at the time that this happened, I thought we
could have been placing the county at risk. If that is not the case,
then I don't have any problem with what the clerk has done. But at
the same time, I don't want to be at this point in time unless there
is some compelling reason that comes forth in the future, at which
time we will deal with it, I am not joining in the lawsuit. I don't
think that we have that responsibility. And if that's clearly
understood, that's fine.
But the funny thing is, that when this came out in all of the
trade magazines, it comes out as Collier County, which indicates to
many people that it's the Board of County Commissioners. And that's
where I have a concern, because it wasn't the Board of County
Commissioners, it's the Clerk of Courts.
And that's fine, I don't care what he does. He's got that
responsibility. Do whatever you want to do. But at the same time,
you know, I do not want to place this county in jeopardy of future
dealings and people wanting to come into Collier County and do
business. That's the whole point. If there's any question with that,
I think I've made it very clear.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with you, Chairman, that I
don't have any interest in joining as a party at this point. I don't
know if there's any other commissioners that do.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, as long as we all understand that. But
it seemed like when it came out that day and when it seemed like it
hit the trade magazines like a ton of bricks, and the Wall Street
Journal and the Bond Buyer, and all those other magazines, which I
obviously don't read on a daily basis, but I certainly was made aware
of it after this all happened, and it became like what have you just
done. Okay, now maybe all the rest of you didn't hear it. This
commissioner heard it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I heard it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And that's frightening --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I want to be clear about this.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- if I had taken an action that was
detrimental to this county.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that is my exact point. That's what
makes me angry today is that I was frightened, too. I had put it on
the dang agenda, Barbara. I thought I may have added something to the
agenda that's going to cost the county two and a half million dollars.
It frightened me to death, and that's what makes me mad. That's where
the smoke and mirrors complaint comes in, or the sky is falling
complaint comes in, because it wasn't true. It didn't cost the
county.
You know, we got scared to death over something that turns out
not to be necessary. I don't have any question that based on the
reaction that we got and the information that we got, it was
appropriate for us to pause and say should we be reconsidering this.
My God, is the sky falling.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And that's okay. And I don't see anything
wrong with us even sitting here today and discussing this. At least
we have cleared the air, everybody knows what's going on.
But at the same time, I don't want this to read that, you know,
we're not -- we are supporting Dwight. He can do and he has the
responsibility to do what he sees fit to do. I'm not going to
question him. I don't know his job, I don't want his job. But, you
know, go ahead and have fun and you and Hr. Grady just go have a ball
out there doing whatever it is you want to do. At the same time, just
kind of, you know, we're supporting you to go do that, okay? But at
the same time, don't put Collier County down there as a plaintiff in
that lawsuit, which you couldn't do I guess until we took action
anyway, so.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the other tiny point I want to make is
on Commissioner Norris's idea that we would never join in a class
action suit.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I said I would never.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand. You would never vote to,
and I appreciated that. I'm sorry.
The fact of the matter is that I bet Mr. Grady would today take
the case for fees. If we want to pay him fees and costs to pursue
that $250,000, I bet he'd be willing to do that, but the reality is,
it'd cost us that much. I mean, we will never collect this 250 grand
if we are in fact to do it without pursuing it as a part of a class on
a contingency kind of a deal.
So, you know, I don't speak for Mr. Grady, but I bet he'd take
it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He can do whatever he wants to do, too, so.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I would not vote to hire him to do it,
because it costs too much. Sorry, Tom.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, he's not cheap. I mean, I'm sitting
here looking at the clock, and I just hesitate. Don't breathe too
much of this air up here, because I know it's costly.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the point, though. We're getting
this at no cost through the clerk's action. No, it's never going to
cost us anything.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It is costing -- it could cost taxpayers
something.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, now how -- who pays Mr. Grady right now
while he's sitting here?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nobody.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nobody?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He is taking this on a -- and it's not
even a contingency fee. It's a fee to be set as fair by a court in
the future. Not even that he gets a cut of whatever --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand. I know that was -- how did you
ever figure that? Man, that was bad planning.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good deal for us.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I would have taken a part of what you
collected. I think you'd be money ahead.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a quick question. It sounds like
we're all in agreement that we have general support for the clerk
doing his job. It sounds like we're all in agreement that we're not
ready to sign off and join and become a party right now, so I'm
wondering what it is we're debating at this point. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Really.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The fact was I had placed it on the agenda to
bring it back, so we could basically get to this point to have this
hashed out here so we are all on the same page.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's a clarification.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's a clarification.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So we're okay, and we just move forward and
we support the Clerk of Courts.
MR. BROCK: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let the record reflect those were the
comments of the clerk. Appreciate your being here.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let us applaud that.
Item #9A
REPORT RE STATUS OF PROPOSED ETHICS ORDINANCE - PRESENTED; STAFF TO
BRING BACK RESOLUTION SUPPORTING LOBBYIST RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR
ELECTED OFFICIALS
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, next item on the agenda. Do we have
any public speakers on that item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No? Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ethics.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ethics, oh, yes. Let's talk about ethics.
Item 9A.
MR. MANALICH: Morning, Madam Chairman, members of the board.
For the record, Ramiro Manalich, chief assistant county attorney.
We've approached you today on this item for some direction. The basic
reason we need some direction is the following: As I understand your
previous vote when we were instructed to go ahead and do a draft
ordinance, you indicated that you wanted to have the state statutes
incorporated by reference into the ordinance and subjected under the
authority of a separate statute to local criminal misdemeanor
penalties.
We have included in your packet a draft ordinance doing that.
However, in the process of researching that approach -- and our
dialogue with Jerry Brock from the State Attorney's Office was most
helpful -- it has come to our attention that there is case law which
appears to prohibit the approach which you have chosen, insofar as the
case law appears to say you cannot take a standard of conduct codified
in state statutes as non-criminal and then adopt it as is, and make it
criminal locally and enforced by the state attorney in that manner.
So that is the first point of clarification.
There's also a question in regard to the advisory panel which
this draft ordinance would create, and that is we had mentioned I
think at Commissioner Constantine's suggestion, of having retired
judges on the panel, which I think is do-able. But we would suggest
that you may want to limit that to retired judges admitted to practice
law currently in the State of Florida.
You'll see from the agenda package that there is material there
indicating our conversation with the Unlicensed Practice of Law Office
of the Florida Bar. We have some concerns if they are lay persons or
persons that are judges or lawyers from other jurisdictions that are
not admitted in Florida, whether there would be an unlicensed practice
of law issue.
Finally, the third major component of today's discussion that we
bring to you is in regard to lobbyist registration reporting. Is it
your intent, the way it's currently drafted is to have lobbyists
registration, as well as reporting about their activities, their
spending. Do you want that expansive of coverage, or do you simply
want a registration.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, they're required to report
anyway, so I think what this does -- I mean, either way, it doesn't
matter. If they report locally, that's just asking them to make a
photocopy of what they're already required to do at the state level.
If they give a gift somewhere between twenty-five dollars and one cent
and $100 --
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He's talking about a different thing,
though. I think the reporting he's talking about is they report how
much money they spend on their lobbying efforts.
MR. HANALICH: Locally, yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't remember ever having a
conversation about that.
MR. HANALICH: The conversation as you understood, commissioner,
was registration and taking care of reporting through the state?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, the problem has been -- and this
was the discussion we had, is that some folks locally that seem
glaringly obvious to be lobbyists, don't consider themselves
lobbyists, and this would clear that up once and for all and having
the requirement that they register would make that clear. And then if
someone s concerned about gift disclosure, then you have a list from
which to work. You don't think gee, I wonder if this guy qualifies,
you have that list registered, and you can cross-reference that with
the required reporting. And if someone has failed to report, then
that's an easy follow-up if you have a list of registered people.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: On the lobbyists, I agree, that's exactly
what I was looking for. I don't care -- I don't care so much about
how much local lobbyists spend, you know, in promoting their issues.
You know, that's not the problem in Collier County right now.
What I'm interested in on the lobbyists question is, first of
all, that we have the registration for the exact purpose Commissioner
Constantine just described, and then two other potential issues that I
want to be sure are addressed in our lobbyists registration.
One is that the definition of a lobbyist be broad enough to
include real estate developers, to be blunt about it. Because the
definition of a lobbyist in the state law is someone who, for pay,
seeks to influence a decision of this board. Clearly, that will wrap
into it land use attorneys and engineering firms, et cetera.
What I want to be sure, however, because I think the dominant
lobbyists in this county, from my experience, anyway, has been -- is
the development community. And that -- here's the -- let me give you
my example, is the best way I can explain it.
If Joe Smith comes to this board and lobbies the board to reduce
his property taxes, he's not required to register as a lobbyist,
because he's representing himself and he's not being paid to be there.
Likewise, if Joe Developer comes to this board or comes to us
individually and asks us to approve a fezone or to help with some
issue, then I don't want him to fall under the same exception as Joe
Taxpayer.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would think it would only fall under
the same ruling if Joe Developer doesn't have a corporation, because
you start getting into who pays who and where the money flows, and if
Joe Developer probably isn't just acting on his own, unincorporated --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: On his own individual behalf.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He's there for Joe Developer PA or Joe
Developer, Inc.
MR. HANALICH: Commissioner, you're correct that your reading of
the statute is almost the same as mine, that it appeared to limit it
to those who were compensated. However, other jurisdictions, and our
draft does propose including the people that you have just referenced
at page seven of your agenda package, the term "lobbyist" is defined.
The last sentence says: "The definition specifically includes the
principal as well as any agent."
Now, that we --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if Joe Developer is a principal in
the corporation, he doesn't necessarily consider himself an employee,
that discloses that.
MR. HANALICH: Correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a good point.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Just so we're careful that that's
covered, I appreciate that.
MR. HANALICH: Right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My second issue or I guess it's my third
issue about lobbyists. I'm not positive where I stand on this, but I
want to put the question out because it's been raised to me, and that
is, apparently in some jurisdictions, not only do lobbyists register
so that we know who they are, but as they have contact with decision
makers, those meetings are logged in some manner.
And I asked Ramiro if that happens in Lee County. I think it
does, but I'm not positive. But that there's some log of who's
meeting with whom. And I don't know if that's too complicated. I
just don't know. But I want to put that on the floor for discussion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My immediate reaction to that would be
that because we are required and we do disclose before all our public
hearings which are those land use items if we have had contact, then
that may just be a duplication.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I guess what I'm thinking about, though,
is not just lobbying on a specific issue, but, I mean, this could be a
major headache for me because a lot of my friends are lobbyists. I
mean, they are, they're real estate lawyers who I've worked with all
my life or they're engineers and planners. But if I go to their house
for dinner or, you know.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that's too cumbersome. I'll
give you an example from this weekend. I went to Disney World with my
wife. We spent some time up there with a friend whom I've had here in
town for 12 years, who has appeared at some point in the last six
years before the board. And it's a friend as long as I've been in
Collier County. We didn't have anything to do with business. He's not
a frequent appearance here. But he was in Disney with his wife and
his two children, and we all got together up there.
And does the public need to know every time you go have dinner
with somebody, or I think that's --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Even if I pay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's probably excessive.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That was just something that's been raised
for me, you know, been brought up to me. And I'm kind of ambivalent
on that one, too.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why don't we just have little cameras,
and we could all have web sites and people could track our moves 24
hours a day at all times?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, not 24.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We could wear bracelets similar to what the
Sheriff's Department has.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a couple of comments on the lobbyist
registration, section five on agenda page eight. Something about --
the way I read this, it says that lobbyists have to pay a registration
fee of $25 every single time they appear before the board on a
separate issue. That's the way it's written.
I really don't think that's what we intended to do. That you
could have the same engineer or planner, Mr. Hoover, for example,
might have two items on the same day, he'd have to pay $25 each item,
and next week when we continued it, and he came back, he'd have to do
it again.
I really don't think that's what we were trying to accomplish
with this.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, you may have private property --
and Mr. Hoover is a great example. He'll have somebody who's trying to
move their line where they can build ten feet, but he's here
representing them, because John Q. Public doesn't know how to do it
himself and there's another 25 bucks that's ultimately passed on to
John Q. Public.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It could be construed as obstruction of
public access. I really don't think that's what we want to do.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think the $25 should be paid each time.
I didn't read it that way, but what I did read that I agree with you
on, John, is I don't need for a land use attorney to amend his
lobbyist registration every time he gets a new client.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: A separate registration shall be required
for each specific lobbying issue.
MR. HANALICH: I would agree with Commissioner Norris on that
reading.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't want the $25.
MR. HANALICH: There are jurisdictions that simply have one
annual fee for all issues.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that's more in line with --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I don't want them to re-register every
time they get a new client.
COHMISSIONER CARTER: That would seem much simpler to me. I
don't think the intent was behind collecting fees. The intent was
just trying to find out who was the lobbyist.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Carter, Mr. Norris has the
floor, please.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If that's what we're going to do, is to
register our lobbyists on an annual basis, what really are we
accomplishing? Everybody up here knows every lobbyist in town.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Everybody up here does. I don't know
that everybody in the public does.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, what do we accomplish by having them
register?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That if someone has a question or a
concern as to what the -- this is what I don't really have a problem
with, because if somebody has a concern that George Varnadoe, who
everybody knows is a lobbyist, John Q. Public in Golden Gate may have
no idea who George Varnadoe is. But if they're trying to track that
information down, who is it that meets with the board, who is it that
influences the board. That's fair information for them to have. Who
is it that's being paid to talk to us.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But see, the thing is, it's right on our
agenda item. It says, Bruce Anderson, representing U.S. Home
Corporation. I mean, do we really need to make him register to do
that? What are we accomplishing?
COHMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I believe it's important to register
lobbyists. I think a one time fee is fine and that way everybody
knows, there is no question, ever.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I brought the three part -- last
spring, I brought the three-part ethics ordinance to the board, and
this was one of the parts. And the reason was because the question of
gift disclosures, just what I said earlier in this meeting is, if
there is question over -- right now, lobbyists are required to --
anything they give between $25 and $100, they're required to report.
Because many of them either don't consider themselves lobbyists -- and
this will clarify that they are -- or some just either aren't aware of
the law or choose to ignore the law. I don't think that happens. I
don't think that always happens.
And I think by registering it, it clarifies for the public and it
clarifies in the individual who is the lobbyist mind, that A, they are
indeed a lobbyist, and B, that they have that responsibility. Should
they give a gift that is accepted by any commissioner, they have a
responsibility to report that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let me make the suggestion, then,
because you do have a point there. But what we should do is have a
sort of informational/instructional package or memo to hand to a
lobbyist as he registers --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- annually. So that he will know what his
responsibilities are according to the ordinance. And I'm not -- like
you, I'm not sure that they always do understand their responsibility
from their side of it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Be sure whatever the fee is, it covers
that cost and it also covers the clerk's cost.
And Ramiro, you didn't intend, I hope, that this list of
lobbyists is going to be recorded in the official records of the
county, that that means the land records. MR. HANALICH: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Be careful that it doesn't say that,
because I don't want to put that on every title policy I ever write.
MR. HANALICH: Yes, that's a good idea.
COHMISSIONER CARTER: And I also believe that non-for-profits are
considered lobbyists, they register, but with no fee, is the way I've
usually understood most processes to work, and would suggest we do the
same. The Conservancy is a lobbyist, Florida Wildlife is a lobbyist.
They are all lobbyists, but if they're not for profit, they don't have
to pay a fee.
MR. HANALICH: Commissioner, at page nine.
COHMISSIONER CARTER: But I think you've already included that.
MR. HANALICH: Yes, I think that is addressed.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And just on -- if I can make a transition
from registration of lobbyists to the issue of gifts, that the other
reason for lobbyists to be registered is so we know from whom we
should not accept gifts. Because I really do think that acknowledged,
it's overkill to say that the level of acceptable gifts is zero
dollars. I acknowledge, it's overkill.
Nevertheless, I think this county is in desperate need of some
signal from us that we're serious about changing the way things have
been done and that we have to take that step. And maybe some day it
can come back to some more reasonable level.
But as I read, or as Ramiro actually told me about this law that
says we can't do what we thought we could, and that is just to take
the state statute and criminalize it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask you a question on that?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because we all had that same
conversation, and I think if all we were doing was taking state
statute and saying that is now our local ordinance, exclusive of
anything else, then it would be a mirror. And in the case that you
cited, was simply taking a state law and making it a local ordinance
word for word.
In our case, it appears that this is only part of our ordinance.
We are referring to that and we use that, but we've got all these
other pieces of our ordinance, too. And so I've got to wonder if
there isn't then some differentiation between our state statute and
our local ordinance.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what's going to save us.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if there is a differentiation,
then it allows us to go ahead and criminalize it and do the steps we
were trying to do.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As long as we add to. And we add to it if
we, for example, prohibit gifts of any value from lobbyists.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We do. But I'm saying even with
everything we've laid out here, having the panel, having all those
things, that is one inclusive ordinance, and that state statute is
only a part of that. And we are adding to it with the lobbyist issue,
we're adding to it with the reporting and the different -- all the
parts we've '-
MR. HANALICH: Post employment restrictions are also --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right, but those are all a part of an
ordinance. We're not simply taking state statute and putting it as a
county ordinance. We are already adding to it.
MR. HANALICH: I mean, I understand your theory. The concern
would be that, if you attempted, for example, to prosecute someone
locally for violation of the gift law, which that we would have
incorporated from the state, obviously you have the argument that as
part of the greater whole, which adds more stringent standards, but
the stronger argument's probably going to be that, for that particular
thing, you've got a conflict and severability issue that your gift
prosecution cannot go forward because you're criminalizing locally the
exact same conduct which is made criminal at the state.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, the good news here from my perspective
is that in order to criminalize these issues locally and be sure that
they are enforceable, we have to be more strict than the state.
that, to me, is the opportunity here to say not only are gifts -- that
the $25 limit is not the limit, zero is the limit in Collier County,
and that gives us argument in this case, as well. MR. HANALICH: Well, what you're doing --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you my concerns with that
when we -- as we conclude because there are some very real life
concerns to that. It sounds great in theory, and I have to -- I'll
tell you more later.
MR. HANALICH: What you're dealing with in the statute is this
language, that nothing in the statute shall prohibit the governing
body of accounting from imposing upon its own officers and employees
additional more stringent standards of conduct. Now, one thing you
should also keep in mind, in fairness here, is that under our county
human resources policies and procedures, you essentially have
forbidden gifts to employees.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MR. HANALICH: Now, that's not viewed as applying to you-all, but
to the employees and the staff, that's essentially the case. And it
says in any circumstance where it would result or give the appearance
of resulting in any influence by accepting this. And you're not
supposed to accept any gifts in the course of your work.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So we are employees of whom, if we're not
employees of the county?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're elected officials, we're a little
different.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's just a legal category, but I
understand the point.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You know, but I can't imagine that we're
not going to impose the same standard on ourselves that we impose on
our staff sounds very congressional. We're not going to do that,
surely.
MR. HANALICH: You have standards which are applied to you
already, which is the standards in the statutes. I mean, you already
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To suggest that we have easier
standards or less cumbersome standards than our staff -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: On that particular issue.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- is not accurate. I mean, we can
run through them all, but that's misleading. If you suggest to the
public that we have standards that are far easier than our employees,
that is misleading.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, no. But only as to can we accept any
gifts from lobbyists, and our staff cannot.
COHMISSIONER CARTER: I might suggest, as I have shared with my
fellow commissioners, and I've shared this with Ramiro, that the City
of Naples has a model in which they clearly define what a gift is and
isn't.
And that we may look at that if we want to tighten our code to
bring us more into line where we are tougher than the State of
Florida, that this may be a model to look at. It's working for them.
It may well work for us and answer your concerns, Commissioner
Hac'Kie. It works for me because I think they're fairly definitive.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you, though, and I -- just
reading real quick, I'll give you an example. You know, who's going
to interpret gifts received where friendship or family relationships
clearly demonstrate that relationship rather than the business of the
persons involved are the motivating factors.
You may recall last year someone was taking into question gifts I
got at my wedding. And I'm not going to invite a bunch of lobbyists
that I have no relationship with to my wedding just to get gifts.
That's absurd.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, really?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But who is going to -- well, there was
a 12-year friendship here, so, he appeared before the board once in
1992. I don't know. So I just -- as we look at that, I appreciate the
step it takes toward trying to put some reality in, but I'm wondering
who will do the interpretation of that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the answer is a judge, you know.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. Do we add to the 18 months
again.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well --
COHMISSIONER CARTER: Well, it may be a framework, I'm
suggesting. It may be a framework that he can use. There may be some
things that need to be changed in it, and I can understand your
concerns. And would hope that no one would come after you because
they said well, you got these gifts because you were married. But
they use the states attorney as the one who is the investigator in the
process.
Of course, we have a three-judge panel, I guess we could run
those past them first for clarification.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I might as well go ahead and say it.
I kind of lost interest in the three-judge panel idea.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Who's going to be sitting there and wait? If
I'm a retired judge, do you think I'm going to sit around waiting for
something about some Board of County Commissioners to have run by me?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Eight hours a day.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It seems to me it's more dangerous than
not having one, because as I make decisions, if I feel like I'm close
on an ethical question, then there certainly are people whose
understanding of the laws and whose ethics I respect who I would call
up and ask them to help me make this decision. But if they help me
make a decision and it's wrong, I'm still the one who's going to be in
trouble.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No matter what.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And so I wouldn't A, be on that
commission.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Me, neither.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I don't think it's practical.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If y'all want to abandon it, that's
fine. Let me explain again, though. That was another one of the -- I
brought three items forward as part of mine in the spring.
And the rationale behind that was a big concern in Commissioner
Norris's and Commissioner Mac'Kie's issues that have dragged forever
was exactly that. The time frame and the unknown factor with the
public. And if you have someone who has done something wrong, you're
stuck with them for 18 months. If you have someone who has done
nothing wrong and that's very obvious, but there's some political
motive there, or other, you still have 18 months where they get
dragged through the mud.
And the idea was for this panel only to not provide some final
thing, but to be able to provide to the public in those extremes where
there was a genuine concern, golly, the initial evidence indicates
we've got something seriously wrong here and the public needs to know
that, or boy, this is very clearly politically motivated, and the
public needs to know that.
And that was my only attempt with that three-member panel.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, you know, my experience, Tim, with
that, it has been that the public figures that out. I mean, it has
been a very painful process, but the public figures that out. They
have in my case. People have opinions about, you know, whether I did
or didn't or whatever opinions they have.
But I've been personally satisfied in my experience with the fact
that because I have put my case out, I have told all the facts, I have
disclosed everything. Every time I get a report from the ethics
commission, it goes in the newspaper, despite the fact that it's not
the best publicity I could ever get.
But the fact is that, as I have made those facts public, I have
found that the public is able to interpret them for themselves without
a three judge panel. So I'm personally in favor of abandoning that
little piece.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But you know, even with or without the panel,
if somebody chooses to file something against you for any reason
whatsoever, it's going to happen. And you could have a three-judge
panel of the most wonderful people in the world. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The Trinity.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, absolutely. And if there's somebody
that has a problem with you, they're going to file it.
MR. MANALICH: One thing I would add, commissioners, that may be
of aid, and that is that, under the statutes, with regard to the state
process, if a complaint is found to be -- through their process to be
filed maliciously with no factual basis or with reckless disregard for
its factual basis, fees and costs can be imposed on that person filing
the complaint. But that's, like you said, at the end of a long
process.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And you know, that's fine, Ramiro. That is
absolutely wonderful. In the meantime, the person has absolutely been
crucified by the local media. And that's the shame.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And in the meantime --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's a shame. You know, they can do
everything and address the problem, that's right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- my legal fees are over $3,000 at this
point that I have to personally pay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And that's what can happen. So you're still
on the hook. And there's nobody waiting out there to step up and say
gee, Pam, we're sorry this has all happened, we'll pick up the legal
fee for you. You have to go ahead and take care of it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was thinking of a defense fund.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Bill's got one. He may be able to loan you
some money.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He's still struggling.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
MR. MANALICH: The only thing about the panel I would add is,
that in the citizen discussion, the ethics committee panel, one of the
things that came up was they thought it was a neutral body that could
review these things, as opposed to perhaps county attorney, which we
view ourselves as neutral and objective. But obviously,
institutionally, some people would say, you know, we're more closely
connected to you. That was one of the reasons they proposed that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But the question came up, when you guys
played in the golf tournament with the empty slots. That didn't come
up like a week prior to, I don't believe. I think it came up a matter
of a couple days.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The day before.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What if -- and you have to look at this,
playing the Devil's advocate -- what if this information came to you,
and so you said, all right, we've got this panel, let's go call them
up and see what they say.
Well, guess what? Mr. Smith is out of town, he won't be back
until day such and such and the other two are not available. Well,
what do you do? Are you any better off than you were before? No, not
at all.
And yet, I understand what you were trying to do, and I think
that's fine; I don't question that. But I think the practicality of
it making it work and making the fact that somebody is going to sit
around and wait, waiting for something to happen, I mean, we can't
expect that of people. I think that's just --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then there's the unauthorized practice of
law question. Is it clear consensus on the board that we drop that
piece? Then we could focus on the --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think so.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- the ones that we're still going to
continue with.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I would support dropping it from the
standpoint that I don't think that it's a practical -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me, too.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- application. I just don't think it's
something that's going to work as well as we would like it to work.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think that it would work in
practicality.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree. I think it's a great idea, but in
a practical sense, I don't know that it's going to be functional.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I'm certainly appreciating all
of you having a great idea.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's a great idea.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Better than no idea at all.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We have the issue then of making our
ordinance more stringent than the state law in order to avoid this
case law problem. And in that regard, I guess, we're looking at
lobbyist registration as one area where we are more stringent than the
state law.
MR. HANALICH: You have post employment restrictions, which is to
be more restrictive.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, let's do that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to do that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's do the lobbyist registration, then.
Let's start with that one. Let's see if there's a consensus among the
board in terms of lobbyist registration. Commissioner Carter?
COHMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Once again, we've had this discussion, but
what we're doing is saying that we're going to register them one time
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and not on each specific issue.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. I think that's right. Just so there's
a list and --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, sure.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- that would be available in the
commissioner's office, if need be, if someone wants to come in and
review that list of lobbyists, it would be available for them to do
so. Does that meet with --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The one thing that I think we do need to
talk about and that is, you're not going to include civic association
people in this, and that type of organization, are you? I mean, we're
not going to do that.
MR. HANALICH: Correct. Yes. A neighborhood association is
mentioned as not -- well, excuse me, they wouldn't be paying a fee,
but they would be required to register.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I thought that we were going to include
them without paying a fee. For example, The Conservancy is a
lobbyist.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, the difference to me is, a
homeowner's association pays no one. Conservancy has a bunch of paid
jobs, has an agenda, and I'm not saying it's good or bad --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but there is a distinct difference
there for me. If a homeowner association is just trying to protect
their own neighborhood --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You mean like the Foxfire Association or
something?
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, yes.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't think they're lobbyists, I think
they're homeowners.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, they are under this.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: In this term, they would be considered.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that's a good point,
Commissioner Norris. I would prefer not to see a homeowner's
association or local civic association included, because --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second District Association, or something
like that?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There is nobody paid in any capacity
in that. They fall under that category that that Commissioner Hac'Kie
was talking about, that they're Joe Homeowner trying to take care of
their own -- other than just their house, maybe the whole
neighborhood. But there's no money exchanging hands.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, like the Foxfire Association, Greater
Naples Civic Association is another one, to see them have to register
as lobbyists and that sort of thing, I just don't think that's what
we're trying to accomplish.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, and currently, on page nine of this
item, is where it's stated under number three, any person who only
appears as a representative of not for profit corporation or entity
such as a charitable organization. This would be somebody from the
heart association, or something like that, I would guess. A
neighborhood association. There's your homeowner's group. Or a trade
association or a trade union without special compensation or
reimbursement for their appearance, whether direct, indirect or
contingent, to express support of or opposition to any item, shall
register with the clerk as required by this section, but upon request
shall not be required to pay any registration fees.
MR. HANALICH: You're saying that they would not be registered at
all.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Some of them, some of them. Because
certainly, trade associations need to be registered.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're just saying --
COHMISSIONER CARTER: -- homeowner's association --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What we're saying here is a neighborhood
association. In other words, we are -- if this -- if you're in
agreement, we would strike that out of here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The exceptions that we're trying to
achieve are neighborhood homeowner or civic associations?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Without any paid employees, how about
that. But once there's anybody being paid, then it rises to the level
of.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But only -- and I think you need to be
careful there, because you take a place like Countryside --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Royal Wood.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Royal Wood, and they've got a guy who
runs the pro shop or something. So I think we need to be careful
there. But again, I think if you're trying to take care of your
neighborhood, that is different than if you have a political agenda.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, and the same thing is true in the
particular area where I live, one of the groups has a property
management.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And that person obviously, the property
manager part of the company is paid.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So, you know, where do you -- how do you get
into this? I'm not sure.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So I guess I'm trying to be the lawyer
here, and I need to stop that, thinking about how to draft something
that is clear.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can't we have exclusionary language
that specifically references civic, homeowner or neighborhood
associations? Because I can't think of one that would fall under
those categories that isn't what we're trying to achieve. Those are
all homeowners.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is civic too broad?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I think the answer is yes. We don't need to overly
complicate by putting in a kind of system that requires analysis every
time. But additionally, I might note that as we approach leaving the
lobbyist registration area is the intent of this board in regard to an
ordinance concerning lobbyists. We're looking at registration. We've
pretty much defined the parameters of what we're looking for here.
It's registration, it's not all that extra stuff. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
MR. WEIGEL: But it does state in the draft ordinance again, on
page nine of the packet with you, it talks in terms of no person shall
appear before a board. And I want to make clear for our direction in
drafting, as well as the board's intention in conducting their
meetings in the future, if we're going to have a situation where,
whether it's R. Bruce Anderson or anyone else, representing XYZ client
as it appears in the agenda, or as it may not appear in the agenda,
but they just come up and speak as a public speaker. But they are a
lobbyist with a point to be made, if in fact they can appear before
this board because they have not registered.
Or if they may appear before the board, but they are in a
technical violation -- I won't even say technical. They're in a
violation of the ordinance, because they're not registered by a
certain date and time as stated by the ordinance, which would make
that particular lobbyist subject to the penalties of the ordinance.
But is part of the penalty of the administration of the ordinance
to prevent that lobbyist from speaking in the first place? And I
think we should be very clear about that, and I think that comes back
a little bit to Commissioner Norris's discussion about access.
Whether it's to pay the dollars to have the access to the permits, or
access physically at the podium here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: All I ever wanted, I never cared --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- was my two front teeth.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't care if they speak to the board,
whether they're registered or not. I personally care that they
register and that they are subject to criminal penalties if they fail
to.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, that helps us.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's my opinion.
MR. WEIGEL: We have tooled our drafts looking at the other
ordinances that have already been adopted and the recommendation of
the ethics standards review committee. And particularly some of the
charter counties or cities which have adopted ordinances, their
parameters, their abilities, are a little bit different than ours.
That's not to say that I'd want to defend what they're doing, but it
does appear that they have some abilities a little different than our
county.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because what do we do, just every time
they stand up, have you paid your fee, did you pay your $25 this year?
COHMISSIONER CARTER: I would hope we could state that ordinance
clearly and distinctly with not too much legalese, so that it would be
easy to understand.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, our original charge was to bring back a very
few page ordinance in this regard, and it's very difficult, as you can
see.
MR. HANALICH: I guess the question is, should they be able to
appear before you if they have not complied with the registration
requirement. There is language here at Page 10, number seven, that
says that the board may prohibit any person from lobbying if they
failed to register.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: How would we let out of town --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How would we do that?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: How would we let out of town people know? Is
that going to be the responsibility of who?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What goal does that accomplish? I mean,
the goal that I had here about registering lobbyists was so that
everybody knows who they are. If there's a criminal penalty, if
there's a stick already that you might have to pay a big fine or go to
jail if you don't register, surely, that's enough of a stick. Am I
missing something?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, good point here raised by the
chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What are you going to do when you have a
counsel come in from out of town?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They better read our ordinances before
they come to town.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But XYZ Group brings in outside counsel to
come down and talk to us. So whose responsibility is it going to be,
and are we going to stand out there with our cash drawer open, ready
to take their money that morning that they arrive, or are we going to
let them speak, or do we register them that morning as a lobbyist, or
what do we do?
It's just practicality I'm asking, because this happens from time
to time. You're going to have people that show up here -- I just want
to know how it's going to work.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Hanalich, you'll probably need to have
some language in there so that we can waive the requirement. Because
I'm sure that the scenario like this will be the first thing that
happens once we get the ordinance in place.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of very simple suggestions,
and if we put the administration to the task of trying to make sure
that our locals fulfill that obligation. I don't know that the
Chairman has to ask everyone who gets up, are you registered, but
perhaps as they go through the process, they can do that.
We have those little slips that people sign every week. And we
could have some sort of disclaimer, and are you registered on there.
Because nobody gets up at that podium without turning a slip in to our
county administrator.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Or stating their name, for that matter. And
you know, I'm not so sure that when they state their name for the
record that that doesn't suffice. Maybe it doesn't in this sense, but
it is on record then as being a representative for that particular
group that they're speaking about.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point is that before they ever get
up, they're going to be aware of it, because when they fill the form
out, they're going to think anybody who's high enough degree of a
professional, if they brought them in from out of town to represent
them, it's going to occur to them when they look at that and it says
are you or your group registered as lobbyists in the county, are you
speaking on behalf of -- however we word it. We ought to be able to
do that.
If they say no then and hand it to Bob, then we can have
something here that allows them to do that. I think that's going to
be few and far between, so it doesn't become too cumbersome.
But that form that they have to fill out to speak ought to be
able to address that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's another easy one, as far as I'm
concerned.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, but we just need to think about it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's an easy; a good solution.
MR. HANALICH: I guess the follow up question also on
registration would be if you're going to have a one time registration
and no reporting, if that lobbyist is registered, are you going to
require that the lobbyist identify, register on behalf of which
principal, or are you simply going to say if you're a lobbyist for
anyone, one time registration, and that's it? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And if they're lobbyists -- I guess it
will be obvious what industry, for what industry they lobby. I mean,
but --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it shouldn't matter. If Bill
Hoover gets up here and lobbies for five different industries, he
shouldn't have to pay 125 bucks.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, no, no, no.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He just registers as a lobbyist and
when he shows up, if he's registered, God bless him. I think we can
get a little cumbersome there.
COHMISSIONER CARTER: There's nothing wrong with a lobbyist. A
lobbyist's job is to provide information, information that we wouldn't
otherwise have. We do not have enough staff to get all the
information that we need. So they're not bad people, we just want to
know who they are and what they represent.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's an important point, too. Because
when I used to be a lobbyist, and Mike Volpe was on this board and he
brought up registering lobbyists, I nearly died, because I didn't want
to be one.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Maybe we'll put a big red L on their forehead
every time so we'll know who they are.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But it's a good thing.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's fine. Whatever. Do we have public
speakers?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why don't we --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's hear from the public and then we'll
debate the final issue.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, we have one person registered to
speak. Harjorie Farley.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good.
MS. FARLEY: Good morning. I guess it's still morning.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, it's afternoon. Just did.
MS. FARLEY: Thank you. It's nice to see you here. I don't come
too often. But this is one of my passions, speaking about ethics and
gifts, particularly the gift end. I listened very carefully to your
discussions about all the little things that happen, and I really have
been impressed with what could happen.
However, I think commenting on a couple of things you talked
about before I get into what I wanted to say, was if you had a panel
of three, you're saying if one is away or one goes away, there's
trouble. Why not have a panel of five or seven with a couple of
citizens on it, also? You have your judges there for balance, but you
have your citizens also being represented.
And date of registration, wouldn't they have to register
annually? Because if you had someone there, you know, registered XYZ
Company, as Barbara said, two years later, they're still on the list?
I mean you've got to come to some kind of, you know, put something in
somewhere about annual registration.
Also, if you have a company, an ABC company, and you have someone
speaking from that company who was not registered, why not have the
ABC company list, when he's registering, those who may speak for that
company, which would be easy to say and easily seen, certainly.
I recall when we had one of the ethics meetings months ago, there
was one complainant who came to me and said -- and I don't know how
you people could address this at all, I haven't given it that much
thought. But he said to me, you know, I complained and then they all
got on my back, and I received threats, phone calls and everything.
So this -- he said I don't think I'll ever complain about anything
again.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At the county commission meeting he
complained?
MS. FARLEY: No, no, no, no; not you, commissioners. I really
don't remember his name and I think he came from Everglades City, but
I'm not sure. I think he drove up all the way. Maybe one of the
panel members would recall.
But he came to me afterwards and he said, I don't think I'd ever
want to complain again. So the point is, is there any protection to
be given for the complainant? That would be the point to be
considered, also.
Now let me get to what I was going to -- came about. I'm
Harjorie Farley. I'm speaking as a concerned citizen about ethics,
particularly gifts. And I'm going to read something to you, actually
something that I wrote to the Naples Daily News. Maybe all of you
read it, maybe some of you did. So with your permission, I will read
it again.
According to the Oxford dictionary in the Career Institute,
ethics is defined as honest, principled, moral, righteous and good.
Therefore, to be the best, to serve the people honorably, and I think
you all do, officials must respect these definitions. To do so
completely, they must refuse any and all offers from lobbyists,
regardless of amount.
Commissioners receive ample compensation, and it goes up as the
population goes up, I believe, and should be able to pay their own
tabs or else decline the invites.
Three points to remember are: make the punishment serious with
misdemeanors declared for violators, adjudicate the allegations
expediently with law enforcement officers, if they must be utilized,
and have the elected or appointed officials accept nothing, not one
dollar. Whatever receipts accumulated could simply be tossed into a
shoe box the way we toss Medicare receipts and what have you, and
receipts from purchases.
And that would be a simple task of organization, and you would
have it for verification later, in case there were complaints. Even a
$25 cap could cause serious problems. An official could be taken to
lunch several times by different members of a firm, each time only
receiving the $25 gratuity, and yet, meeting with that same official
or different officials from the same company many times.
Discounting could occur with an official also receiving $25 from
the giver and the recipient then paying the rest of the amount, which
results in massive bookkeeping. Generally, the rules for both
lobbyists as well as officials would be to register. And of course,
you've all discussed that. And have all offers of gifts of any nature
listed as to -- oh, that's the end.
I have to stop. Anyway, whatever legislation emerges, I hope it
will be simple, as our Commissioner Carter said, definitive and just.
Thank you very much.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. What was the third point, Commissioner
Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For me, it was whether or not the amount,
if there is any permitted gifts from lobbyists, I think it ought to be
zero. And again, I'll say, granted, it's overkill, granted, it's
complicated, but the community needs a message from us, and that's the
message we need to deliver to them, that we have -- we are not going
to accept any kind of compensation of any kind from lobbyists.
And I think we owe that to the community because we have dragged
them down through this for so long. They have been dragged -- I can't
say we've dragged them -- but they have been dragged through this for
so long, and they need a clear message from the board that we're going
to do something different.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I disagree with you. They certainly do
need a clear message, and I think we can deliver that without doing
that. Marge talked about ethics, and the definition of that including
honesty and the principles and having morals. Reality is, you can't
legislate honesty, you can't legislate morals. Either you have people
with those things, or they don't.
Very seldom do I acknowledge an editorial when talking about a
topic or where we're going to go with it. But Naples Daily News has
made this issue a very high priority, as well they should. The whole
ethics issue is very clearly one that's important to the public and
one we should take very seriously.
Unfortunately, they have painted a picture in today's editorial
that I disagree with and that is, that either we must agree with the
position that Commissioner Mac'Kie just took, or we must be siding
with lobbyists.
And one would think that a publication whose entire being is the
written word, knows that nothing is black and white. There are not
simply two sides to an issue and either you're on this side or you
must be on the other side. Doesn't work that way. And Jeff Lytle, of
all people, knows that and the editorial board knows that.
So while I disagree with the statement of Commissioner Mac'Kie
just a moment ago, that in no way should be misinterpreted or
misconstrued to mean that oh, I'm siding with lobbyists and really
want to get all kinds of gifts.
There is a very, very real problem with the zero gift suggestion.
You said yourself it's overkill. Earlier, I talked about being in
Disney this week with my wife and seeing some folks up there that we
have been friends with for a long time. And all of us have friends
that we've known since well before the board that will at some point
come before the board. And as a result of how we're defining
lobbyist, then be a lobbyist.
And clearly, whether they're friends or not, we shouldn't be
accepting big gifts from those people, no matter how long we've been
friends. But just a few weeks ago, and we had talked when we talked
about this before, I talked about Commissioner Hac'Kie and disengaged
and what about wedding gifts or Commissioner Hancock at the time had a
baby coming, and what about baby shower gifts, and those type of
things.
I'll tell you, a few weeks ago, I had this zero gift law hit home
harder than it could possibly have, and that is, several weeks ago, my
mom passed away. There are friends I have who I have had for years
long before I was on the board, who sent cards and religious
acknowledgments of her death. If you have a zero gift policy, I would
be violating that law, and because I got some religious artifact as a
result of my mom's passing, I would be subject to a $500 fine and jail
time. That is absolutely absurd.
But that's the way we're suggesting the law would be crafted.
And there are those who would say no, no one would make that
complaint. I'll tell you, there are people out there that make those
kind of complaints.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll give you some names.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They'll tell you, it's the letter of
the law and that's what it is. We'd be subject to the jail time, we'd
be subject to the money. At the very least, we'd be subject to
defending ourselves and spending that $3,000 Commissioner Hac'Kie just
spent. And so there is a reality to this. There's a real side.
Each one of us needs to make a commitment that we feel whatever
is appropriate for us. If I don't think it's appropriate that I take
any gift ever, I can make that commitment, but I shouldn't have to
worry because someone sends a mass card, that I'm violating the law.
And that's where the zero gift law takes us.
And so by having a minimal level, the way it has been suggested
in our draft, I think it keeps it at a point where realistically we're
not going to be influenced. But I think it's up to each one of us
individually to take the next step. If we think we shouldn't accept
anything, then we ought to make that statement publicly and keep that.
And the public should hold us accountable to that. But I should not
have to worry in circumstances like that whether or not I'm breaking
the law by getting some religious article.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hay I respond?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I wish that I knew more about the criminal
law and criminal procedures than just having to hatken back to law
school. But as I understand, as I'm hoping we're proposing to draft
this ordinance, a decision to prosecute would be made by the State
Attorney.
This is -- the protection that we have here by criminalizing, is
that -- forgive the phrase, but a mere citizen complaint does not
begin the process. I may call the State Attorney's Office five times
a week and say I want you to prosecute my neighbor for a violation of
the noise law because his dog barks every night, and he will decide
whether or not to bring a case, whether or not to prosecute that case.
I think that that is the adequate protection from whether or not
we would have this frivolous, you know, politically motivated kinds of
complaints.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But the reality of that is, if that
even takes the first step toward looking -- and that would be a
literal -- in a literal sense, that would be breaking the law. And so
you can say well maybe the state would prosecute, maybe they wouldn't.
But if they had to go through an investigation process, then you would
have to go and get your attorney and spend your money and do things.
And there comes a point where you should not have to worry about
what's -- you know, is it wrong to get a card, to get something like
that, in that situation, or to get a Christmas card or to get
acknowledgment of a baby's birth or -- you know, there comes a point
where reality has to set in here and where we have to count on the
integrity and the morals of the five people who sit here.
And if the public doesn't believe in that, they have the
opportunity to toss them out. But I think each one of us, again, has
the opportunity to make a commitment and to keep that commitment to
whatever level we see fit.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think the point is that you have
malicious people in the community, and we could sit here and each one
of us could name a handful of them easily enough, to where if they see
you eating a hamburger, or whatever, with someone, whether or not you
pay for that, they're going to file a complaint and the State Attorney
has no choice but to investigate that complaint.
Meanwhile, it's all over the media, and you've got to go through
the process. And just because we're going to have it localized, don't
think that the process is going to be any quicker. As we've seen in
our experience over the last year, that's not necessarily so.
The Isle of Capri fire advisory board went through months and
months and months and really, the issue was whether or not they had a
sign out front to advertise a particular meeting. That's really what
the issue boiled down to at the final analysis. And they went through
months and months and months of this.
So I don't think you got any bargain by trying to head off a long
process by doing it this way.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we can get into, as Commissioner
Carter has said, gifts received where friendship was clearly
demonstrated. But again, the only time that comes to light is when
there's a complaint filed, an investigation is started, and you're
paying some attorney to go point out that gee, that's a 15-year friend
that gave you a mass card.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And in the meantime, you're dead in the
media.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I will come back to that point,
Commissioner Constantine, about gifts, where the City of Naples says
it does not include, and they do say gifts received with friendship
and family relationship such as those between the parents, children or
spouse clearly demonstrate the relationship, rather than the business
of the persons involved are the motivating factors.
Now, this does not stop those who are vicious or malicious who
want to file something on any of us, but at least does clearly state
that there is a clause where, in situations, whether it's a wedding or
a family birth or that, it would be covered.
So I guess I'm with Commissioner Mac'Kie. Somewhere we have to
draw a line in the sand that says zero gifts. And we will never be
protected totally. That there aren't some people who will disagree
with us or who will come after us and it's unfortunate that there
isn't some recourse to that. But there isn't.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's my whole point is, when you say
we have to find some way to do that, each of us has the ability to do
that. We sit right here or we stand up, I know you did in your
campaign, is to say I will not accept anything. And that commitment
has been made and you are held accountable by the nature of your
public service to that. So there is a way to do that right now.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And I'm -- I know that this is not going to
be particularly what the media wants to hear, but I just don't think
I'm going to be able to vote to make it a criminal offense for someone
to eat a hamburger or drink a cup of coffee under those circumstances.
Not just for this board, but think of all the future boards. I
don't want to see Commissioner Carter get charged wrongfully because
he had a hamburger with somebody and have that all dragged through the
media; or anyone else on this board or anyone else on future boards.
I just don't think it's the right thing to do.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And an individual, if I make the
commitment, I won't ever have a hamburger, I won't ever have a cup of
coffee. If Commissioner Carter says that, then -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I think they should be landed
publicly for that. But we're not talking about tuxedo ball tickets
here, we're not talking about tennis tickets. We're not talking about
something fancy.
I'm talking about in my case something that's very personal and
doesn't have anything to do with business, but would be a technical
violation of the law.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I just personally think that there's
not going to be -- I mean, what -- I could ask Ramiro to draft around
those kinds of things, and what we would get is something similar to
what the City of Naples has in their ordinance. And even with that, a
mean person can do a mean thing. Nevertheless, let me just say, I
mean, I've been through this over the last year, so it's as real to me
as it could be. The fact of the matter is that when a complaint was
filed against me and I told the truth about the facts surrounding the
complaint, people have been understanding. Are there people who think
I'm a crook out there? Absolutely, I'm sure there are.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right. They thought that the day you
came into office.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The day I came into office. Because
otherwise, what could be my motive for wanting this job?
But Tim, if you have somebody that files a complaint against you
for a mass card and you tell the press and get it out that this is a
gift, the public's not going to crucify you for that. It's going to
feel bad to have your name in the paper and be talked about as if you
might be a crook, and I can tell you, it does feel bad, but once you
disclose the reality of the facts behind it, you aren't so crucified
in the press.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Pam, I disagree with you there, only from the
standpoint -- and boy, this will read well tomorrow -- it depends on
your relationship with the press, okay? All due respect, I'm not
going to pander to them, and I read an editorial -- there was a letter
to the editor this morning, it said, thank God sometimes decisions are
not based -- and I look at this county commission, and we're not
basing decisions on polls or editorials. And I'm not going to base
county policy on editorial policy of the Naples Daily News. All due
respect.
They have a job to do, we have a job to do. We have to look at
all issues and items. You want to take a look at me personally and
the kind of life I lead, that's fine. My life's an open book, come
take a look, judge for yourself. Do with it whatever you want to do
with it.
And I think that each one of the commissioners sitting up here,
they've got that same role to take a look at each one of us. The
voters take a look at us every four years. If they feel that I'm out
there doing something that is terrible in terms of lying, cheating and
stealing, if I'm taking something under the table, come take a look.
I don't have anything to hide from anybody in the public, I don't have
anything to hide from anybody in this room. Come take a look at my
life. I can't give you any better examples than that.
And I can't stop that unscrupulous person who's got some kind of
a burr with me, for whatever reason, for filing something. We can sit
up here and go on for the rest of the day trying to draft an ordinance
that's going to cover all issues and all sorts of things here. It
doesn't make any difference what we put on this piece of paper, but
it's the kind of things and the way we conduct ourselves while we're
in this job.
I'm not out to diminish, you know, how the public feels. I don't
want to say anything and give them the idea that we are not
trustworthy, that we're doing something that's unscrupulous. That
bothers me tremendously. I can't say this enough, and I told you
early on, I said I took some of these things very personally, but I
also had to think of future boards, what we're going to tie them to.
This whole issue has made it very difficult from the standpoint
of it's brought a lot of publicity I think to this board, warranted or
unwarranted. And it's just extremely difficult. I don't have any
problem -- I don't care what you put down on this piece of paper.
Whatever the rules are, we'll live by whatever they are.
But at the same time, let's don't pander to a group or an
organization in what we're drafting here today, and that's my big
concern. I think that we can all rise above that. You judge me for
the job I do up here. If you don't like the job I do, then tell me to
get out of here in a couple of years.
But I'm sorry, I just feel like, you know, we are -- we're really
getting kicked in the teeth, guys. We are being kicked frontwards and
sidewards and every other way, and I'm sorry, people have a really low
disregard for this office, and I guess the people that serve in here.
And no matter what I put on a piece of paper is not going to make
anybody happy.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I appreciate the
message you want to send, particularly with all that's gone on in the
last year. But I think we can send a very good message without
creating that absurd level of hardship that I described. The most
important way we can send that message is by the way we conduct
ourselves, not by what we necessarily put on this piece of paper.
And this is important. I think we need to create something that
the public is comfortable with. But far more important is that,
regardless of what's on here, I think the mistake that we're making is
we think that this is the bar. Whatever we said is the bar.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The lowest bar.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Exactly. This is the lowest bar. And
then how high above that each one of us chooses to set the bar for
ourselves is up to us. So while we may choose individually to do some
things that are higher than this, I think we need to leave a little
bit of leeway as to what that choice is. So that you or I may not
want that cup of coffee from anybody else, but if Joe Commissioner in
2002 wants a cup of coffee, then he needs to be accountable for that,
as well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As much as I want to do something
unanimous as a board, I can't avoid the argument that this is going to
be an imperfect document, no matter what we do. It's going to be
imperfect if we leave a $25 limit in there, because that has
possibilities for abuse by people who are dishonest. If we put in a
zero dollar limit, that has opportunities for abuse by people who are
mean and dishonest.
I guess acknowledging that it's going to be an imperfect
document, no matter what we do, I would rather err on the side of
over-regulating ourselves and taking the risk ourselves that there may
be a violation by a member of the public who does the wrong thing,
than to leave the leeway with the elected officials. I'd rather come
down hard on us and let the potential for abuse be in the general
public than leave some leeway for abuse among elected officials.
And I guess -- I guess that's my personal bottom line.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I disagree with your suggestion, but I
certainly am not suggesting that we leave any leeway for abuse by
public officials.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, no. I didn't mean to put those
words in your mouth by any stretch. Because, Commissioner, I
absolutely respect what you're doing. I don't think you're trying to
do anything cute and clever and get yourself a $20 lunch somewhere. I
don't think that for a second. I genuinely believe your motives are
correct and that, just like I am, you're struggling hard, all of us
are struggling hard with this issue and how to do the best thing that
We Can.
And I'm not positive what the best thing is, but for my vote,
it's going to have to be that I have to vote for no gifts, because I
think that we have to take that hard line on ourselves. I think we've
sort of earned ourselves into that. I think we, by our own actions, we
have earned this attention of the media. And I think by our own
actions, we have earned a very strict rule. And that's why I'm going
to go with the zero.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I agree with you, Commissioner Mac'Kie. I
take the hard line on zero gifts. And I would not for a moment
suggest that anyone who decides differently for any reason -- and I
value your input, Commissioner Constantine and what you have been
saying. I just have to do this to set that standard that says that's
what we're going to do, I mean, for me, so that we send that strong
message to the public.
And like you, Commissioner Mac'Kie, I am very concerned about the
mean spirited people who are out there, who look for an opportunity --
and I call it harassment of public officials -- who file a suit which
is expensive and time-consuming, and you find out we didn't do
anything wrong. We could have made a technical error on something,
and yet you will be crucified for this.
And I wish there was a way that they could be, I guess, punished
or penalized for causing that difficulty. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me, too.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But when you get in this job, I guess it
goes with the turf. So Iwm going to go zero gifts, the hard line, to
say that Iim going to do the best that I know how. And if they choose
to be mean spirited and hit me, then Iill have to make the decision
next time around whether I want to take that kind of stuff.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think welve all said our piece.
Just wonder if we could do something to move it along. Commissioner
Constantine, do you have a suggestion here?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I know a majority isnlt in favor
of the three member board or any other. I did like Margels
suggestion, maybe we could boost that up by a few people. I donlt
think we have three people on that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You know, it may be important to the
public, since Ms. Farley brought that up. But one of the problems
with the three-judge panel in the first place was unlicensed practice
of law. You could not have citizens on that board under any
circumstances.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which was frustrating. Iive said this
not only with legal issues, but with environmental, building issues,
that with a little common sense thrown in with those who are trained
in that area isnlt necessarily a bad thing.
So I guess we lose that one. I would like to see us go with the
lobbying issue and tighten that up.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Registration of lobbyists?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Registration of lobbyists, annual --
the first year, I assume that will be staggered, or you can sign up
any time during the year, but your renewal probably at a regular time
period, so itls easier for everyone to follow.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That would give direction to Mr. Manalich
to specifically exclude the civic associations and --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Civic, neighborhood and homeowner
associations.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would like to still go with the $25
on lobby, you know, the law welve had on the gifts. Though I would
like to give staff direction as part of that to continue to tinker and
see, surely there is a way in which we can criminalize that. Because
I think we need to send a message that not only are we not accepting
anything with that, but the punishment for that has to have some
fairly severe level.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me make a suggestion, Mr. Manalich, see
if this will help you. Accepting a gift from our list of registered
lobbyists. Under $25 therels not a reporting requirement, 25 to $50,
therels a reporting requirement by the lobbyists, and above that is
prohibited.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is tighter than the state and
allows us to criminalize it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Which is tighter than the state, and if we
can put that in --
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Isnlt that the same as the state?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, the statels 100.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Statels 100. But maybe that would satisfy
Mr. Manalichls concern about just dumping the state statute down to
the local level and not being able to do that.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: What if you had to report all gifts from
lobbyists? Theylre legal to accept under $25, but must be disclosed
by the elected official.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess the only worry there is again
going back, how many cards did I get after my mother's passing, or how
many Christmas cards do you get? Do they have a value? A Christmas
card may be worth 35 cents, but --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Not anymore.
COHMISSIONER CARTER: Where have you been shopping?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very expensive.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm out of the loop. Hay be worth $22.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If they sing, they have more value to them.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's just cumbersome, that's all. The
thing I guess I like about that suggestion is on those trivial items
like that, they're not trivial to me personally, but as far as value,
trivial items, it does not put you in a situation where you're
concerned about getting a Christmas card. But it does have some
requirements, so if there's anything that has to be reported.
Most importantly for me, we're criminalizing anything above a
certain level.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Does this involve a Christmas card?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure, it does. It involves going to a
Christmas party.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That punch has value.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It certainly does at times.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How about this by way of compromise.
Maybe we could get a majority who would say that the level of gifts
that can be accepted is still what the state law requires, but that in
Collier County, any gift of any lobbyists of any dollar value has to
be disclosed.
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, thanks. I just want to remind us all that the
disclosure requirements under the state statutes, the ethics laws for
lobbyists is it's a lobbyist's disclosure requirement. There's an
absolute prohibition on public officials to receive gifts from a
lobbyist higher than $100. So that's the ceiling right there.
So we would want to be very clear, if we're talking about a
reporting requirement to find itself into our local ordinance, are we
talking about a commissioner reporting requirement or are we talking
about a lobbyist reporting requirement?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm talking about a commissioner.
MR. WEIGEL: Because right now, it's a lobbyist's reporting
requirement.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm talking about a commissioner. That we
would be required to disclose any gifts from any lobbyists. You got a
Christmas card list, you keep up with it, so that you know you give
somebody back a Christmas card the next year. So, it's not --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're far more organized than I am.
Let me start over here and we'll go back.
My motion is to approve the lobbyist registration as we
previously described. We'll do it again. And that we have a --
rather than the state's prohibition of anything greater than 100,
we'll make that a prohibition of anything greater than $50, and that
anything between that 25 and $50 cap still falls within the lobbyist
reporting.
And I just think when you get into nominal things, you're asking
for trouble. A sip of somebody's soda, you know, that has a value,
and I just --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I'll tell you right now. You can all
do this. Walk in a commissioner's office right now and look in our
rooms and you're going to see a bunch of Christmas cards that we've
all received. They're hanging on my blinds in there. You're welcome
to go take a look at them. Hake anything out of it you want. I
looked at them; I thought they were pretty and I hung them up.
Now, if you think that that's going to influence my vote one way
or the other on anything that I do in this commission chamber, you are
a sorry, sorry person.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate where you're trying to go
with that, Commissioner Hac'Kie --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's just ridiculous.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The important parts of the motion are
that we clear up who lobbyists are, both in our minds, their minds and
in the public. We tighten up on their reporting, because I think they
failed miserably in that at this point. We considerably lower the
level of what's allowed, and with the reporting requirements.
Host importantly, we have criminalized, because we have a tighter
standard than the state. So if there is a violation, the State
Attorney's office gets involved. We've got a little faster response,
theoretically anyway, from them, and we've got a stiffer penalty from
them.
So I think we've achieved 80 percent of what you were shooting
for there, anyway, Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. MANALICH: Commissioner, to be clear, then you would lower
the state gift prohibition regarding lobbyists down to $50.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
MR. MANALICH: And between 25 and 50 would require --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right now they have to report between
25 and 100. Obviously, they'd report between 25 and 50 now. Anything
over 50 we wouldn't be able to accept at all.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Who are they reporting that to, here?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As required right now, they have a
state requirement.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So this doesn't really change it.
MR. MANALICH: Well, just a clarification on that. The statute
is saying that a lobbyist must report a gift in excess of $25 under
the statute.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And so, yeah, we're keeping that part
the same, except obviously anything over $50 they can't give anyway.
MR. MANALICH: Is prohibited. You've lowered it.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So the lobbyist reporting provision
wouldn't change. The part that would change is, it's currently
illegal for us to take gifts from lobbyists that have a value up to
$100, as long as we disclose them over $25. This would say --
MR. WEIGEL: No, that's not correct.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's not right.
MR. WEIGEL: You do not have a reporting or disclosure
requirement on gifts received from lobbyists between 25 and $100.
They have the obligation to report those on their own form to the
state.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is the whole purpose in my mind
of that lobbyist list. Because you and I both know they failed in
that regard. And this way, we can, I think, keep tight grips to make
sure that actually occurs.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But what you're saying about the $50 piece
is that it would be illegal in this county to take a gift over $50.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Over fifty dollars and one cent.
MR. HANALICH: You obviously wish to keep the post employment
restriction, which I don't think we've had a concern about. That's
the two-year for staff restriction on coming back before the board?
That was part of the direction last time.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right, but we've grandfathered in our
current staff.
MR. HANALICH: We've grandfathered in the county managerial
employees, correct. And the panel -- we would not use the panel?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. The panel has been tossed out,
over my objection.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One other question for Ramiro on the list
of things that haven't been discussed this morning is, what I would
call the corporate alter ego business about conflicts. And my example
always is that for me my personal rule is -- and I wish this were the
rule of law -- is that I couldn't, for example, represent Naples
Diagnostic Imaging if that is a subsidiary of NCH and thereafter vote
on an NCH issue.
I'm not sure that that is in fact illegal. But I would like for
it to be illegal in this county.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But Joe Developer Corporation A hires
you, Joe Developer's Corporation B comes before the board, obviously
you shouldn't vote.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I shouldn't vote on Joe Developer's
Corporation B even if it has an entirely different name. And I know
that it gets complicated, because then it becomes, he owns 50 percent
of Joe Development A and he only owns 20 percent of Joe Development B,
and all of that gets complicated. But I'd like for us to give some
direction to staff about how to draft that so that the corporate alter
ego is a conflict.
MR. HANALICH: I mean, the present rule is I think what you're
referring to is that no public officer shall vote upon any measure
which would inure to that officer's special private gain or loss, or
inure to the special gain or loss of any principal by whom that
officer is retained. Or to the parent organization or subsidiary of a
corporate principal by which that person is retained. Does that --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Here, let me just give you my own personal
real world example, and you tell me if it's a violation or not or how
it could be drafted as one.
And that is, I represent Joe Smith who forms the ABC Corporation,
and develops real estate --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Wait a minute, this is real world?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm not going to put people's names. Who
has a PUD out there and it was approved 20 years ago, and I'm doing
the closings for those real estate transactions. Now Joe Smith forms
XYZ Corporation, comes in for a fezone application.
I'm not voting on that, unless you guys tell me I have to vote on
it. But I don't think I should vote on it, and I want that to be
prohibited in this county.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make a suggestion, and that is,
I don't have any objection to exploring that, because I think your
point is absolutely correct. We don't have verbiage on that, we don't
have anything. And I'd like to close out the specifics of what we've
been working on today, and finalize that, because we've gone forever.
I don't have any objection to looking at that and trying to make
sure if that is allowed right now, that we close that, because that's
pretty crystal clear.
Theoretically, Joe could be buying boats that way, and that's
inappropriate.
COHMISSIONER CARTER: So what do we have to do on that one?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That just give direction to staff.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, just say it's a separate item.
MR. HANALICH: One other item, commissioners, from the last
meeting and that is a question about whether this could be applied to
all county officers, including elected constitutional officers. And
on that one --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it was all elected officers,
not just constitutional.
MR. HANALICH: Okay. I mean, on that one, the issue you have is
that the authority that we're given under the statute reads that,
nothing in the act shall prohibit the governing body of any political
subdivision from imposing upon its own officers and employees
additional or more stringent standards of conduct.
So the question's going to be, are those other officers that
we're talking about within that description of its own officers and
employees. Now, certainly there would be an argument they're not,
because they're not part of the political subdivision. I mean, the
Clerk or the Sheriff is not under our organizational structure. There
is an argument that they would in the sense that in some cases they're
referred to as county officers.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What does the statute say, that we can't
do what?
MR. HANALICH: That we're allowed to add more stringent or
additional standards of conduct for our own officers and employees.
COHMISSIONER CARTER: Means that we can't impose it on the
others, as I hear.
MR. HANALICH: For example, one of the practical issues that
comes up with that, so you're aware, is in discussing this ordinance
and its impact on those that would be most affected, that is, the
State Attorney, the Sheriff and the Clerk. They all offered helpful
suggestions.
One of the things that was mentioned by the clerk's
representative is that it's my understanding the clerk has presently
for his staff a no gifts rule, period. So if we apply this to the
clerk, they would not be in favor of that because they already have a
more restrictive provision. That's just a practical consideration.
Now, I don't think for the state legislators, we could include
them.
COHMISSIONER CARTER: Probably be a good idea.
MR. WEIGEL: I'd like to mention here, though, Ramiro, to
clarify, that in regard to the clerk, please assist the board here,
and that is, that may be for his staff, or that for the Clerk himself,
or is it a self imposed --
MR. HANALICH: I thought it was everyone.
MR. WEIGEL: -- say Clerk's employees, not necessarily for the
Clerk.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We have that rule for our employees, as
well.
MR. WEIGEL: We have that in a firm place right now. One thing
that I would like to mention back slightly here, I think it's my last
point is, in regard to the reporting of gifts by lobbyists, we have
already ascertained, and our ordinance would have that the
registration of the lobbyist will be done at $25 a crack. It's just
mere registration, it's done with the clerk.
In regard to the reporting of gifts, that's either additional to
the original task to be arranged with the clerk, or that reporting
could be done at some other office.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, neither. I'm saying they have a
requirement to report those right now. But because we don't have
registration of lobbyists or anything, there's no way to keep track
of that. We know most don't do it, and I don't think we need to
duplicate what they're already required to do and have them
register --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do it twice.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do it at the state level and register
here, and I don't think --
MR. WEIGEL: The registration that you're talking about is with
the state.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
MR. WEIGEL: The reporting is with the state.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
MR. WEIGEL: And we would criminalize it for their failure to
report with a standard of 25 -- well, they have to report it all
anyway, between 25 and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
On the point of other elected officials, if we cannot do that,
what I'd like to see us do is perhaps by resolution, we can bring back
the wording in a future meeting, but is invite every elected official
in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because it's clear that we can't stretch
to the school board.
MR. MANALICH: Well, that's still arguable, I mean --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just finish my point, please?
Invite every elected official in Collier County to join in and follow,
and make a public commitment, sign off and make a commitment to follow
the same rules,
Perhaps do that under letter by our Chair with a resolution
passed by this board. Because if these rules are that important, and
they are, for the Board of County Commissioners who handle 400 million
dollars a year, the school board handles 400 million dollars a year,
and I assume there would be some interest there. Constitutional
officers have a great responsibility.
And then there are other elected positions throughout the county,
too, that don't necessarily get as much attention, but they are
certainly every bit as important and have a public trust to uphold.
So what we can do is go through our little checklist of elected
officials throughout the county, perhaps send a letter with a
resolution, invite them, too, and some can choose to or not. But at
least make that available and provide them with a copy of it. And
then what they choose to do with it is their own business.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sure the Supervisor of Elections could
provide us with that list so we'd have an all encompassing list of the
elected people.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So I'll make that as the final part of
my motion and we'll bring a resolution back in some wording next time
around to get the wording approved. So that we make that, as well.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm just going to say that I'm going to
support this motion, even though I didn't get every single thing that
I wanted in it because it goes a long way; it's a good step in the
right direction. Sometimes we make a point of voting against
something to register our discontent. I'm just going to register my
continuing wish that we'll get to where I want us to go on gifts, but
support the motion, because it's going the right way.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I share the same
feelings. I see four out of five things that I like. I'm still for
zero gifts, I would like to go back to the City of Naples ordinance
and use that as a framing process to get there. But I want to see us
move forward, so I will support this motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have the public speakers on this
item. At this time, I'll call the question.
All in favor.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Thank you, Mr.
Manalich.
It is a quarter of one, commissioners. What is your desire?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Keep going.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is our court reporter going to need a break
here?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's take about a ten to 15 minute break
here.
(A recess was taken.)
Item #lib
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS - DAVID SHEALY REGARDING TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT EVENTS
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll reconvene the meeting.
And we are at -- oh, I hate to tell you guys, there's something
else we've gotta do before we get started. We have public comment.
Do we have a registered public speaker?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, you do. David Shealy.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, Mr. Shealy.
MR. SHEALY: Hello, my name's Dave Shealy and it's very good to
see you this afternoon.
I have taken the recommendations given when I came before you
before and I went to see the people and I followed the path, and it
was very interesting. I met a lot of nice people. However, most of
the help that was offered to me was by the way of loans, and I really,
at this point, I really am not interested in taking out a loan.
But what I would like to do is I would like to do something for
the county, and while I'm doing it, I would like to be able to help
myself in the process. Over the last 15 years, I've thrown a lot of
parties. I've thrown a lot of big parties and I've been to a lot of
big parties, and I like to have fun.
And I am going to be meeting with the TDC man over on Horseshoe
Drive, and my intentions are to throw a party on Naples Beach. I
still have to get some of the information together, like exactly who
the big six are. But what I would like to do is I would like to have
big entertainment, Gloria Esteban, Michael Bolton, that caliber of
entertainers on the beach for a whole weekend or possibly a holiday
weekend where we can run it for three days.
I would like to draw people who live in Florida out of the
county, not be so concerned about Europeans. But just like Disney
World does in the slow season, they get people from the state to go
there. I think I could draw a crowd of 200, maybe 300,000 people to
the beach for a few days. Weather conditions during the time of the
year when the event will take place will all be taken into
consideration.
I would like to be paid a fee of $25,000 for putting it together.
If it looks like it's going to go together and things start working
out in the next couple of months, I would like to get half of that up
front. I think this could generate millions of dollars in future
years. This would be a one time event to kind of kick it off, and
then if we did it again, we'd have to talk about it. It sounds like a
lot of money --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hay I interrupt you?
MR. SHEALY: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because we've been so patient with a whole
lot of discussions with you so many times here at the board. And I'm
willing to continue to be patient. It's just that there's a form for
this. There's an application for TDC money. MR. SHEALY: That's why I'm here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, you pick the form up from staff.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It doesn't happen here, David. When you talk
to Mr. Hihalic this afternoon, you said you were going to see him.
MR. SHEALY: I'm not going to go over there this afternoon --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Whenever you go.
MR. SHEALY: -- within the next few days.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I misunderstood. I thought you said you were
going to go see him.
MR. SHEALY: I'm right on time here. I'm right along with what
she's saying. That's what I'm here for today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Well then, you need to go over and
visit with him and then there's the appropriate time to bring that
forward. At this particular point, this isn't where you bring your
idea forward.
MR. SHEALY: Let's not jump the gun. Pam offered to put in a
good word for me, and I'm asking Pam, and I'm directing Pam where the
good word needs to be.
And I hope that some of the other commissioners, after I leave
here today, will feel that if this is a good idea, that possibly they
can put in a good word. You know I don't spell that well, you know
that I'm low on money.
I got a brother-in-law who designed a T-shirt -- he's a graduate
from West Point -- that says, "I'm with Bigfoot" on it, and I would
love to give you all one today, but I don't have any money.
If you all could put in a good word for me, I'm going over there.
I'm going to fill out the forms. I would appreciate it. That's where
the good word needs to be put.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: David, that application, you will make that
application, and then it will go before the TDC in January. And then
after the TDC hears it, then it comes to the Board of County
Commissioners.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So the good word we put in will be with
ourselves. We'll be the ones who decide yes or no.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And it'll be after the TDC hears it and
they're the ones that vote it up or down first -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- before we hear it.
MR. SHEALY: Do you all have final say after they do that?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: After they do that.
MR. SHEALY: I appreciate you allowing Mr. Weigel to help me out.
He's been very helpful. Next time I come before this Board of County
Commissioners, I will have a plan. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Do we have any other public
speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other public speakers, Madam Chairman.
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 98-115, RE PETITION PUD-98-16, R. BRUCE ANDERSON OF YOUNG,
VAN ASSENDERP & VARNADOE, P.A., REPRESENTING U.S. HOME CORPORATION,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM RSF-12(10), RHF-6, RSF-4, AND A TO PUD PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS CEDAR HAMMOCK GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB PUD
FOR 799 SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AND AN 18 HOLE
GOLF COURSE LOCATED SOUTH OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (S.R. 84) AND WEST OF S.R.
951, CONSISTING OF +/-418 ACRES - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We will then move into the afternoon portion
of our agenda, which is item 12(B)(1). This is PUD-98-16, and all
individuals wishing to speak to this, this is the U.S. Home
Corporation requesting a fezone from RHF-12(10) to RHF6, RSF4 and a --
to a PUD planned unit development known as Cedar Hammock Golf and
Country Club.
All persons wishing to speak to this item, please stand and be
sworn in by our court reporter.
(All witnesses were sworn.)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Too many suits.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's our new requirement.
Ms. Murray.
MS. HURRAY: Good afternoon. Susan Murray with the current
planning staff. The petitioner seeks rezoning of the subject site to
planned unit development for the purposes of developing a mixed use
residential golf course community, specifically 799 single family and
multifamily family dwelling units at a density of 1.9 dwelling units
per acre, designed around an 18-hole championship golf course --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know the last thing I like to do
is interrupt on a presentation like this. But I think you just hit
the important numbers, 1.9 units per acre.
Seems like an awfully good number, looks like a wonderful
project. The only question I had had was the access on future
extension of Davis, if we alter that. Have we entered some sort of
agreement as part of this with them?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a disclosure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do, too.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That I met with Mr. Anderson.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have the same disclosure.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Same thing. COHMISSIONER CARTER: Same.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead, commissioner.
MS. HURRAY: If you'll notice, I put the map up on your screen,
and as you mentioned, there's three alternatives that the state is
considering with the future alignment and realignment of State Route
84.
Alternative C on the map follows the existing alignment of Davis
Boulevard. Alternative A and B would actually transgress the subject
property. The petitioner has provided language in the PUD document
pursuant to the fact that should the state select an alternative and
acquire the right-of-way through the petitioner's property, or
whatever is required, that the PUD document would be amended to show
that right-of-way, provided they did not have to provide environmental
mitigation as a result of that.
Does that answer your question?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, kind of. I'll have further
question on that item for the petitioner. But other than that, that
was the only item I had that was outstanding on the whole petition.
If you need to go through it all, that's fine. For me, anyway, I
don't know that we need to go through it.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was my only issue.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Can we hear from the petitioner then, please?
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning -- good afternoon, Madam Chairman,
commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf
of the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Anderson, have you registered as a
lobbyist?
MR. ANDERSON: No, but I'll be happy to when you adopt the
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Is there a particular question that --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think it has to do with the road --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. I thought you
were going to make some sort of brief presentation or statement or I
would have jumped right in.
The road right-of-way issue, the only concern being the state's
not going to do this tomorrow. If it's five years from now or beyond,
I have some concern if they pick a different alignment. Hopefully
they do not. But if they pick a different alignment and it goes
through a golf course or homes, there's a considerably higher expense
involved there, probably, than if it went through as it currently
sits.
And I wondered what you're willing to do to mitigate that or to
make that a little easier in the state's process and really resulting
in our process for the transportation network.
MR. ANDERSON: What we have -- what we are doing is voluntarily
observing a 100-foot setback for any structures except a little entry
monument from the existing Davis Boulevard right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: C, on this alternative?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the intent -- you and I had this
conversation. But the intent of that 100-foot setback that you're
voluntarily putting on yourself is --
MR. ANDERSON: -- is to avoid the state having to condemn any
buildings or move any residents along that alignment. And it's my
client's understanding from informal discussions that they have had
with the FDOT personnel that that is the most likely alignment,
because of environmental concerns with the other alignments that are
under consideration.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have not had a discussion relative
specifically to this PUD with David Twiddy or with anyone from DOT.
But I have had them several months ago, and A, my recollection was, is
highly unlikely because of the environmental issues. I did not know
on B what the likelihood was. I see you nodding, so maybe you've had
that conversation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I did have that after our HPO meeting, or
during or MPO meeting, most recent. And the answer from the DOT was,
as you said, they don't think that A is going to be viable because of
environmental concerns, that there wouldn't be enough difference
between B and C to worry about considering B over C, particularly.
I questioned about the separation between Interstate 75 access
and current Davis alignment, and that didn't seem to be that much of a
concerning factor and the consensus from the people in DOT that I
talked to was that C would be the one.
Although it seems to me that from the community's perspective, A
would certainly be preferable if we could get it done.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All indications from the agencies
involved are --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not going to happen.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that's not going to happen.
The petitioner then, Mr. Anderson, is willing to commit to donate
that right-of-way on that hundred foot stretch? MR. ANDERSON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What are you willing to do?
MR. ANDERSON: We are willing to observe a 100-foot setback from
the existing right-of-way for the -- for that most likely, as we
understand it, alignment, so that if and when the state does decide to
widen the roadway, they would not have to worry about paying for
anything other than unimproved land.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're essentially keeping it at the
same value plus whatever CPI or whatever is each year. But at the
same value now. They're not going to have to cut through a golf course
or home.
MR. ANDERSON: Exactly, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you're doing that voluntarily?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions for the petitioner? Do
we have any other speakers, Mr. Fernandez?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I had a couple of points just to make
sure --
MR. FERNANDEZ: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You need to ask the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I just want to clarify with him to make
sure I understand this.
That we had a discussion about the connection of this property to
an adjacent property. And it was your understanding that the adjacent
property may not be developable because of environmental
considerations.
MR. ANDERSON: It's my understanding from my client, who, in
their permitting with the water management district explored the
possibility of an interconnection between this PUD and what's known as
the Westport Commerce Center --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Correct.
MR. ANDERSON: -- and they were discouraged from providing an
interconnection because of environmental concerns that the water
management district has with regard to the Westport Commerce Center
PUD.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. And also, that within your
development, with the landscaping along 951, that you would have
sufficient berm there to protect that area so that it's visually
attractive to those traveling that route?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. My client would plan to put up the same
type of berming and landscaping for this project as you see with the
Naples Heritage project along 951.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And that they're also going to include a
post office and ATM within the development to cut down on trips? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will there be any landscaping issues
in that voluntary hundred-foot right-of-way along Davis that will
later become an issue? I'm just wondering if you pretty that up and
the state takes it, are we getting back to where we would take golf
course or the state would take golf courses or houses or, in this
case, some sort of beautified thing that they would then have to
replace or pay for?
MR. ANDERSON: On the PUD master plan, the only thing that is
within there is a lake and preserve area.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just a little bit of a lake, just a little
piece -- would you point to it on that?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's that tiny --
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do we have any public speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No public speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll close the public hearing. Do I have a
motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move approval with stipulations Mr.
Anderson has outlined.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. If there's no
further questions. I'll call the question.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
Item #12C2
RESOLUTION 98-502, RE PETITION VAC-98-023, TO VACATE A PORTION OF A
WATERWAY ADJACENT TO LOTS 12, 13, 17, 18 AND 19, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
OF "PALM RIVER SHORES" - ADOPTED
The next item is item 12(C)(2). Petition VAC-98-023, is to
vacate a portion of a waterway adjacent to Lots 12, 13, 17, 18, and
19, according to the plat of Palm River Shores. Mr. Hulhere.
MR. HULHERE: Good afternoon. Thank you. Bob Hulhere, planning
services director. Just to let the board know, this petition would be
on the summary agenda, except that we had received a couple of phone
calls inquiring as to the ownership nature of the bottom lands of this
waterway. And for that reason, we've placed it on the regular agenda.
It is a request to vacate a portion of a waterway in the Palm
River Shores plat, and staff has reviewed this request and received no
objection from internal staff. All indications are that both the
jurisdictional agencies, the Corps of Engineers, as well as the FDEP,
do not object to this proposal. And our recommendation is for
approval.
I do not know if you have any speakers here who wish to speak on
this item, but the applicant is in attendance. MR. FERNANDEZ: No.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just couldn't find the lots.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you want to hear from the petitioner?
MR. MULHERE: I have a map that would probably clarify it a
little bit.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The look on your --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: This wasn't particularly helpful.
MR. MULHERE: There's one on the screen. And I realize that's a
little small. I'll try to -- we're talking about this waterway right
here. And it's just a portion of it. And I have a larger map here,
which I'll also put on the screen which may be helpful.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That looks like it says lots 21, 20, 22.
MR. MULHERE: There actually are no particular lots that are
being vacated, it's just a portion of a manmade waterway.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's adjacent to certain lots.
MR. MULHERE: It's adjacent to lots 12 and 13. And I put a
larger map on your screen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't guess it matters, but I just can't
tell where it is.
MR. MULHERE: Also, just to place a correction, this --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just this band here?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know, but in the scheme of things, where
is it? It's that or that or --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: One of these.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it the end of the waterway?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's the end of the waterway, as I
understand it, and I think Mr. Anderson showed me some pictures, and
it's kind of overgrown and pretty scrubby looking at this point.
MR. MULHERE: I just want to add on the record a correction. The
jurisdictional agencies have no objection and indicated that no permit
would be required.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any questions, further questions by
commissioners? No public speakers? I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
petition VAC-98-023.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
much.
Item #14
We have a motion and a second to approve
Motion carries five-zero. Thank you very
STAFF' COMMUNICATIONS - CLERK'S LAWSUIT AGAINST JUDGE STARNES TO BE
HEARD IN COURT ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1998
And the next item, 12-C-3 has been continued indefinitely.
And we are now down to communications from staff. Mr. Weigel, do
you have anything that you'd like to share with us?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, two things. One, I want to thank you very
much, kind of the end of the year. Thank you very much for the
renewal of my contract and giving me an opportunity to work with you
in the years ahead.
Secondly, perhaps on a lighter note, Thursday is a hearing -- the
county is involved in court on Thursday with the clerk's lawsuit
against Judge Starnes and the county. It's 10:00, with visiting Judge
Salmon.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The Clerk's lawsuit against Judge Starnes?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, it's been going on for a year and a half.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This is the one that's gone back for a long
period of time that we were all involved.
MR. WEIGEL: We're finally in court. That would be this Thursday
at 10:00.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This had to do with -- remember the payment
to the court people, I believe? Am I correct?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was trying to think why the Clerk sued
Judge Starnes, but he sued the circuit. I got it.
MR. WEIGEL: The question was why the clerk sued Collier County,
because we adjusted the budget, we revised the agreement. We did
everything that was requested of us, but we're still in the lawsuit
and we'll be there Thursday.
CONTINUATION OF ITEM #8E3
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE HICROVAX TO ALLOW STAFF TO MEET THE Y2K
WORK PLAN SCHEDULE - CONTINUED TO JANUARY 12, 1999
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, the only item I have is the
consideration of the item that was tabled by the board. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
MR. FERNANDEZ: It's item 8(E)(3).
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you have information? If so, I'll move
it from the table, or make a motion.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We don't have the written confirmation the board
was looking for from the vendor. We've been attempting to contact the
vendor. We may have some verbal assurances, but I don't think we --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I move we continue the item until our
first meeting in January.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Pardon me?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're going to continue the item until the
first meeting in January. We have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I guess it doesn't matter, but it was
already on the table. It would have stayed there until we untabled
it. But it doesn't matter.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez, anything else?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Nothing else, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Have a wonderful holiday.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Couple of things. It particularly
doesn't matter, because contrary to Mr. Korn's opinion, we don't
operate strictly by Robert's Rules.
Related to that same item, we used to have a policy that I would
like to see us return to, and that is add-ons cannot be put on the
consent agenda for the -- and this is a great example. We happened to
catch it. But there's no information on there, no fiscal impact. No
detail. You got this yesterday in a three paragraph memorandum form
and no detail involved at all.
And if we add it on, that's fine. But we ought to add these
things on a regular agenda. Consent agenda are those items that are
just going to blow through.
If it's an add-on, obviously the public doesn't have any advance
notice, so at the very least, we ought to have a discussion on it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree with that, because we won't --
haven't had any chance to think about it, look at it the night before
or weekend before.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I wish everyone a very Merry Christmas.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was my second item. I'd like to
wish everyone a very Merry Christmas.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Too late, I've already done it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'd like to conclude the meeting today by
saying a sincere thank you to all of the staff. This is my last
meeting as your chairman, and I'd like to thank all of the staff for
everything and all the kindness this year helping this chairman get
through the year and being able to answer questions when I've called
in a panic and needed some answers, I want you to know how much I did
appreciate that, and thank you for all of that.
My thanks to Mr. Weigel for trying to help keep me out of
trouble. That's probably a large task in itself.
Mr. Fernandez, thank you for your help, as well. And I couldn't
leave the meeting today without thanking obviously our court reporter,
who's been with us all this time and put up with all the things that
we try to do up here.
Jim, thanks for being here and keeping us safe, hopefully.
And last but not least, yesterday was Ms. Filson's birthday and
we need to recognize that and thank her, but also thank Sue for all
the efforts this year on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners,
for taking care of us and also the rest of our staff: Trish
McPherson, Chris Brighton and -- I'm going to forget somebody -- and
Sam, our receptionist. So my sincere thanks to all of you. I
appreciate everything that you do on behalf of the Board of County
Commissioners.
And I, too, wish all of our Jewish friends a very happy Hanukkah.
The era right now is a celebration of light for them. And to our
Christian community, a very, very Merry Christmas and the best of New
Years.
Thank you very much, and our meeting is adjourned.
***** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Carter
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent
Agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 98-488 RE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF "QUAIL WEST UNIT ONE, REPLAT
BLOCK C, SECOND ADDITION" FOR THE DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 98-489 RE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF "ISLAND COVE" OF THE ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
Item #16A3
EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.671 CREATIVE HOMES II COHMERCIAL EXCAVATION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 91-102 LOCATED IN SECTION 29,
TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST: BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY VACANT TRACT,
ON THE EAST BY VACANT TRACT, ON THE SOUTH BY 66TH AVENUE N.E. R/W AND ON
THE WEST BY VACANT TRACT WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A4
AMENDMENT #1 FOR CONTRACT GC530 WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP)
Item #16A5
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "VANDERBILT GALLERIA PHASE ONE" - WITH
STIPULATIONS
Item #16A6
APPROVE FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "TIBOURON-THE NORMAN ESTATES AT
PELICAN HARSH UNIT 23"- WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
STIPULATIONS
Item #16A7
FINAL PLAT OF "SILVER LAKES" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A8
FINAL PLAT OF "WHITE LAKE CORPORATE PARK" AND APPROVAL OF PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - WITH LETTER OF CREDIT AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT
Item #16B1 - DELETED
Item #1682
AN INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, HENDRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, FOR
CONTINUED USE OF INMATE LABOR IN ROAD MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
Item #1683
ACCEPTANCE OF THE SURPLUS BID S98-2858 FOR AN AMTEL DIRECT-LINE 600
SERIES CALL SCREENING SYSTEM IN THE AMOUNT OF $205 FROHAMTEL SYSTEMS
Item #1684
BOARD APPROVAL OF A ROAD IMPACT FEE FOR THE LELY MUSTANG GOLF COURSE
BASED ON A SITE-SPECIFIC COMPUTATION
Item #1685
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND WILSON,
MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,600 FOR ROADWAY AND
SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT IHMOKALEE ROAD AND WILSON BOULEVARD
Item #1686
BID NUMBER 98-2865 TO THE FLORIDA MUNICIPAL EQUIPMENT, INC. IN THE
A_MOUNT OF $34,870.00 AND BID 98-2869 TO CREEL FORD TRACTOR COMPANY IN
THE A_MOUNT OF $34,562.00 TO ENABLE THE PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL BEACH
CLEANING EQUIPMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES AND
MARCO ISLAND BEACHES
Item #1687
GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY "A" FUNDING FOR
BEACH MAINTENANCE AND INLET NLA/~AGEHENT PROJECTS IN THE A_MOUNT OF
$166,458.00
Item #1688
CONSERVATION EASEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION REGARDING THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL RECLAIMED WATER STORAGE
PONDS, PROJECT 74011
Item #1689
PETITION TH 98-02 FOR NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC NLA/~AGEHENT TO TRAFFIC CALM A
PORTION OF CURLING AVENUE EAST OF THE ENTRANCE OF BOCA PALMS NAPLES TO
THE VICINITY OF WINTER VIEW DRIVE AND INSTALL THREE SPEED BUMPS ON
CURLING AVENUE
Item #16B10
BID #98-2882 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF VARIOUS BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN
PATHWAYS - AWARDED TO BONNESS, INC
Item #16Bll - CONTINUED TO 1/12/99
Item #16B12
REIMBURSE WATER AND SEWER IMPACT FEES TO THE MAYFLOWER CONGREGATIONAL
UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST
Item #16B13
A LAWSUIT AGAINST BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION FOR CLAIMS ARISING FROM
THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TREATMENT PLANT, PROJECT 70002
Item #16B14
A BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROPRIATING $57,834.00 OF RESERVES IN FUND 473 TO
THE SOLID WASTE NLA/~DATORY COLLECTION FUND BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S
OFFICE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
Item #16C1
THE PURCHASE OF MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT FOR SOUTH NAPLES COHMUNITY PARK -
AWARDED TO JOHN DEERE COMPANY
Item #16D1
RESOLUTION 98-490 AMENDING THE COUNTY PURCHASING POLICY (1) TO FORMALLY
ESTABLISH A VENDOR PERFORMLANCE AND EVALUATION SYSTEM AND (2) TO ENABLE
THE COUNTY TO BE FULLY ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE COHMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT FUNDS
Item #16D2
RESOLUTION 98-491 RE A LEASE AGREEHENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND STATE SENATOR BURT L. SAUNDERS FOR UTILIZATION OF OFFICE
SPACE AT THE COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 98-492 RE A LEASE AGREEHENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND STATE
REPRESENTATIVE DUDLEY GOODLETTE FOR UTILIZATION OF OFFICE SPACE AT THE
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
Item #16D4
RESOLUTION 98-493 RE A LEASE AGREEHENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
CONGRESSNLA/~ PORTER GOSS FOR UTILIZATION OF OFFICE SPACE AT THE COLLIER
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
Item #16D5
A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEHENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COHMISSIONERS AND THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF OCHOPPEE FIRE
DEPARTMENT FIRE FIGHTERS AND FIRE LIEUTENANTS LOCAL 3670
Item # 16D6
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Item #16G1
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
Item #1662
HISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the BCC
has been directed to the various department as indicated;
Item #16H1
A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND ALAN AND PATRICIA BOOLE FOR
OFFICE, WORK SHOP AND PARKING AREA SPACE LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE
SHERIFF'S OFFICE MAINTENANCE GARAGE FACILITY ON ARNOLD AVENUE
Item #16H2
A BUDGET A_MENDHENT IN THE A_MOUNT OF $17,580 TO COVER THE INCREASE IN
THE FY-99 TAX INCREMENT PAYMENT TO THE NAPLES COHMUNITY REDEVELOPHENT
AGENCY
Item #1611
RESOLUTION 98-494 AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPHENT
AUTHORITY TO ISSUE REVENUE BONDS TO BE USED TO FINANCE EDUCATIONAL
FACILITIES FOR SEACREST SCHOOL
Item #1612
RESOLUTION 98-495, 98-496, 98-497 RE THE HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY TO ISSUE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS TO BE USED TO
FINANCE QUALIFYING APARTMENT PROJECTS; SADDLEBROOK II, WHISTLER'S GREEN,
AND WILD PINE RESPECTIVELY
Item #1613
A LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FIXEL AND MAGUIRE AS LEGAL COUNSEL TO
REPRESENT COUNTY RELATING TO COUNTY'S PROPERTY ACQUISITION INTERESTS
INCLUDING EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS FOR THE IHMOKALEE ROAD FOUR-LANING
PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 69101) BETWEEN 1-75 TO C.R. 951 AND FOR THE GOLDEN
GATE BOULEVARD FOUR-LANING PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 63041) BETWEEN C.R. 951
AND 2ND STREET S.E.
Item #1614
RESOLUTION 98-498 ESTABLISHING A UNIFORM COUNTY POLICY IHPOSING FEES FOR
THE INSPECTION, EXAMINATION AND DUPLICATION OF PUBLIC RECORDS PURSUANT
TO SECTION 119.07, FLORIDA STATUTES
Item #17A
ORDINANCE NO. 98-113 RE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE
NO. 90-111, AS AMENDED, WHICH CREATED THE PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE
TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT
Item #17B
ORDINANCE NO. 98-114 CREATING AND ESTABLISHING THE GOODLAND/HORR'S
ISLAND FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 98-499 RE PETITION NO. ASW-98-1, BLAIR A. FOLEY, P.E. OF
COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. REPRESENTING ANTHONY VOIGHT,
REQUESTING A 400-FOOT WAIVER FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SEPARATION OF 500
FEET BETWEEN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2934
TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (U.S. 41)
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:30 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/ EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
BARBARA B. BERRY, Chairperson
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING
BY: Cherie Leone