BCC Minutes 04/07/1998 R REGULAR MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, April 7, 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
Timothy L. Hancock
ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the
April 7th meeting of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners.
If you would rise for the invocation by Reverend Paul Jarrett of
the Naples Church of Christ, remain standing for the pledge.
REVEREND JARRETT: Our heavenly Father, we come before you at
this time with thanksgiving in our hearts. We're so very thankful for
the privilege of living in such a beautiful portion of your creation.
We are especially thankful for this time of year and the beauty that
it brings, not only in nature, but also in the atmosphere that
accompanies this holiday season in which those of all faiths are
caused to remember you and give thanks.
We thank you for the privilege of living in a country such as the
one we live in where each citizen is guaranteed the right, from the
youngest to the oldest, to express their feelings and their thoughts
regarding their situations and their needs. And we thank you for all
those who have come here today to participate in this governmental
process. We pray that you would bless each participant, that they
might express their thoughts well, and that you would be with the
commissioners as they listen to what is presented; that you would
grant them wisdom, that they might make decisions that will be in the
best interest of this community and will be in the best interest of
promoting the truth of the pledge that we make. That we live in a
country known for its liberty and its justice for all. And we pray
that those principles might shine forth in the process that occurs
here today. We thank you for all these things. Amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Reverend Jarrett, for being with
Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes to our agenda this morning?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, ma'am, we do this morning. The first is to
add item 8(D)(1), which is recommendation to approve the EHS
department pay plan, requested by Commissioner Berry.
Next is to add item ll(A)(1), funding for public guardianship
program for the balance of fiscal year 1998, a staff request.
Then we have addition of item 12(B)(1), which is petition number
PUD 8731(3), fezone from PUD to PUD, Gadaleta development, having the
effect of amending the same Gadaleta PUD in response to requirements
of the Land Development Code. This was continued from the March 24th
board meeting.
I'd like to continue item 16(B)(1) to the April 28th meeting.
This is the item to approve an alternate road impact calculation for
the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club development, at the request
of the petitioner.
We'd like to ask to withdraw item 12(C)(1). This is a creation
of impact fee ordinance for the Isles of Capri and the Ochopee fire
control districts. Staff's request.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Fernandez, could I ask you a question
on that?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's in response to our discussion about
perhaps doing something different with that fire district; is that
correct?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Correct. We had originally continued this item,
pending the board's decision on the future of the fire districts, and
since that's not resolved yet, we decided that the appropriate action
would be to withdraw that item.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But won't we need impact fee ordinance for
that district, no matter who ends up controlling it? Not necessarily
if they decide to merge with another district, I guess.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's potentially true, depending upon the
structure that we end up settling with. The impact fee mechanism may
still be the appropriate way to fund --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The reason I'm asking is because we've been
working on this for a couple of years, and I think the people down
there would like to go ahead and get it enacted sometime. Do we have
any idea when we would get back to this?
MR. FERNANDEZ: The staff is ready to present this item. If the
board is ready to hear it, we can -- we can continue it to a date
certain and hear the item, if you'd like.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine by me. Commissioner Norris, I
think you would know better what the residents in that particular area
are looking for than I, but it doesn't make sense not to have impact
fees for capital costs in a dependent fire district. It doesn't make
any sense, so --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well -- and that's the situation that we've
been operating under forever and have been working on this for quite
some time to get it done.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, I'm not sure why the -- under what
circumstances we would not want to have impact fees --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- so --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll agree with Commissioner Norris --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's go ahead. Let's pick a date.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- let's go ahead and continue it to a
date certain.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. How about a two-week period from today?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's fine.
MR. FERNANDEZ: So that -- that item will be continued until --
what is the date in two weeks? The 20th? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 21st?
MR. FERNANDEZ: 21st. My bad math, sorry.
The next is to withdraw item 16(D)(3). This is to authorize the
Board of County Commissioners to execute a notice of claim of lien for
sanitary sewer system impact fees. This is staff's request.
And we neglected to add another item. This is request to add
item 8(B)(1). This is the expansion of the scope of work for removal
of nonspecified material on the beach.
And that completes our list of changes, Madam Chairman.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's added at whose request?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mine.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 8(B)(1).
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there -- Commissioner Mac'Kie, do you
have any backup on that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As a matter of fact, there is. You've
probably just been handed it and don't know what it is yet, but there
is a -- an executive summary that Mr. Ilschner's office prepared.
There are three or four of those in a stack here, and this is one of
them.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It was -- I was inadvertently left out of
the loop there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, darn.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie, do you have anything
else to add?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I only have one communication item.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have a couple under communication, I
believe.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 10(C). Excuse me. 10(C), economic
development.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that all?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Under communications, I just want to
update the board on the eminent domain action of the transportation
committee in the house last week that I attended.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What item are you bringing that under, Tim?
Communications?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I assume it's communications. I won't be
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- requesting any action by the board.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we
approve the agenda and consent agenda with changes as noted.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and second. All in
favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #4A&B
MINUTES OF MARCH 10, 1998 AND MARCH 17, 1998 REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED
AS PRESENTED
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And I'll approve the -- I'll move that we
approve the minutes of March 10th regular meeting and March 17th --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- regular meeting.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and second. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL, 1998 AS CONSERVANCY VOLUNTEER HONTH -
ADOPTED
This morning we have several proclamations, and the first one,
which I have the privilege of reading, has to do with the Conservancy
volunteer month. If I could have Mr. Guggenheim and all volunteers,
if they would like to come up here and be on camera this morning, we'd
like to have you here so people at home can see you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a good thing you didn't bring all the
volunteers.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We'd have a fire marshal problem.
MR. GUGGENHEIH: Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning, David.
If you-all will come up here and turn around and face the camera
so they can photograph you and let everyone see you at home.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I note the people heading for the back of
the group.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The proclamation reads as follows:
Whereas, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida is the region's
leading non-profit environmental organization; and,
Whereas, the Conservancy has helped protect nearly 300,000 acres
of environmentally sensitive land since 1964, including Fakahatchee
Strand, Belle Heade and South Golden Gate Estates; and,
Whereas, the Conservancy actively assists with state and federal
land acquisitions and restoration programs in the greater Everglades
ecosystem; and,
Whereas, the Conservancy helps shape environmental policy in
South Florida by participating and monitoring more than 125 Southwest
Florida environmental issues annually; and,
Whereas, in addition to playing a key role in environmental
advocacy and protection, the Conservancy operates, in support of its
mission, the Naples Nature Center, Briggs Nature Center, the Wildlife
Rehabilitation Center, a water quality testing lab, and the Sea Turtle
Monitoring and Protection Project; and,
Whereas, the Conservancy provides environmental education
programs reaching thousands of adults and students every year; and,
Whereas, more than 5,000 members support the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida; and,
Whereas, more than 640 volunteers generously donate their time
and expertise to the Conservancy of Southwest Florida; and,
Whereas, these volunteers assist in the daily functioning of the
Conservancy, as museum docents, information desk volunteers, store
sales personnel, wildlife care givers, special events volunteers,
dockmasters, boat captains, volunteer mailers, office helpers and
horticultural assistants; and,
Whereas, local business professionals, including veterinarians,
medical staff and business leaders also donate their time and service;
and,
Whereas, in 1997, volunteers donated more than 45,000 hours to
the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of April,
1998, be designated as Conservancy volunteer month.
Done and ordered this 7th day of April, 1998, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Barbara B. Berry, Chairman.
I'd like to thank all of you for all of your efforts. Mr.
Guggenheim, I will present this proclamation and move this
proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: All in favor --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
(Applause.)
MR. GUGGENHEIH: Chairman Berry and Commissioners, good morning.
I want to express my sincere thanks for this recognition on
behalf of our volunteers. It's a pretty impressive list of
achievements for the Conservancy over its 34-year history. It has
grown up with this community. And I can say that the items on this
list would have been impossible without the power of volunteerism in
this community. It is -- it really sends a strong statement that the
number of people -- over 600 people in this community -- donate their
time to help us achieve our mission and make a better quality of life
here in Southwest Florida.
It is also a joy to work with these people, to come to work each
day and work side by side with them. They're wonderful, warm people.
They are our friends, as well as our co-workers. And I think it's
also important to say that as the Conservancy has grown up with this
community, clearly the volunteers here have made the community part of
the Conservancy, and the Conservancy part of this community.
And again, my profound thanks to all of you for this recognition
on behalf of our wonderful volunteers. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, David.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, David.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I appreciate that.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think this again speaks very well,
certainly for the Conservancy, but for many of the other groups in the
Naples and Collier County area who benefit with the help of
volunteers. When the call is put out, we have many people who answer
that call, so we certainly say thank you to all of you for what you
have done. Thank you very much.
Item #5A2
PROCLAivLATION DESIGNATING APRIL, 1998 AS ALCOHOL AWARENESS MONTH -
ADOPTED
Our next proclamation, alcohol awareness month. And none other
than our resident expert in this area is Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, thanks, Barb.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Want to explain that, Tim?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't -- I don't even want to touch
that. I'm getting an undeserved reputation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It wasn't alcohol abuse awareness that
you're the expert in.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I expect to be disparaged by the paper,
but not by the chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This is an ongoing little thing we have going
here.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's all right, Barb, I'll get you back.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sure.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I could ask Regina Wagstaff to come up.
This proclamation, for other reasons, does hit home with me.
When I was a boy of about 13, my father pulled a blue chip out of his
wallet, and it was a chip awarded my grandfather for 25 years of being
alcohol free by AA, after nearly destroying his family. So many times
these proclamations can hit a little close to home. And as I read
this one, that's precisely what I'll be thinking of. The proclamation
reads as follows:
Whereas, alcohol is the third leading cause of preventable death,
killing nearly 100,000 Americans every year; and,
Whereas, 13.8 million Americans suffer from alcohol related
problems, including 8.1 million alcoholics; and,
Whereas, 43 percent of Americans have been exposed to alcoholism
in their families; and,
Whereas, 13 million Americans drink heavily, which means they
consume five or more drinks at a time on five or more days a month;
and,
Whereas, heavy drinkers are five times more likely to use illicit
drugs as Americans who do not drink heavily; and,
Whereas, nearly one-fourth of all Americans admitted to general
hospitals have alcohol problems or are undiagnosed alcoholics who are
being treated for the consequences of their drinking; and,
Whereas, alcoholism and alcohol-related problems cost the
American economy at least 100 million dollars in health care and cost
productivity every year; and,
Whereas, alcoholism and alcohol-related problems can be prevented
and treated.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of April,
1998, be designated as Alcohol Awareness Month, and call upon all
citizens, parents, governmental agencies, public and private
institutions, businesses, hospitals and schools in Collier County to
join me in fighting America's number one drug problem by pledging to
support research, education, intervention and treatment for alcoholism
and alcohol-related problems.
Done and ordered this 7th day of April, 1998, Barbara B. Berry,
Chairman.
My colleagues, I move the acceptance of this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor?
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
Motion carries unanimously.
(Applause.)
MS. WAGSTAFF: Hay I say a few words?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Certainly.
MS. WAGSTAFF: I too have been personally affected by alcoholism
in my family, which is part of the reason I do this work, and I want
to thank the Commissioners for signing this proclamation to help raise
the awareness of all Collier County residents to the problem of
alcohol in our society.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank a few of our
committee members. We have an alcohol awareness committee that's been
working for the past month to establish about 18 different activities
in the community. Frank Mattera is with the Collier County Health
Department. Tracy Lundgren is with Charter Glade. Bob Troesch is
with Catholic Charities of Collier County. Sandra Buxton is with
Naples Community Hospital. And we also have representation from the
Collier County Sheriff's Office, the Naples Police Department and the
Collier County school board -- Collier County public schools on our
committee. So we have had help from other agencies.
I would just like to highlight a couple of the activities that
we're doing to inform the Commissioners and the community. We're
trying to implement a program called the TIPS program. It's a
program that teaches intelligent patronage service by restaurant and
hotel bartenders and owners to their patrons to make sure they're not
leaving intoxicated, they're not selling to minors, that type of
thing. We're trying to implement that in our county.
And then also, we have a presentation that's going to be done on
April 20th at the Collier County Health Department at 7:00 p.m. and
also on April 22nd at the Golden Gate Community Center, and that's
going to be a presentation by some local experts trained in the field
on the effects of alcoholism and where to get help in the county.
So we'd like to invite everyone out to attend those. And I'd
like to ask the citizens to help join in this fight to become educated
and to work on the prevention efforts to prevent alcohol abuse in our
society, because like the statistics said, half of us in this room
have probably been affected by this disease. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez?
Item #12B1
PETITION PUD-87-31(3) REZONE FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" GADALETA DEVELOPMENT -
CONTINUED TO APRIL 14, 1998
MR. FERNANDEZ: Before we continue with the agenda, I'd like to
ask the board to give consideration to an item that we asked to add to
the agenda, the Gadaleta PUD. The petitioner is present and has
requested to have the item continued. Rather than delay this and have
it come later on the agenda, I thought I'd ask if the board is willing
to consider the item now to continue it so that he may leave early.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How long would you like it continued
to?
MR. FERGUSON: Commissioners, just until next week, because my
understanding was you only heard planning petitions on the second and
fourth Tuesdays, and I was told this was going to be next week.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to continue the item in one
week at Mr. Ferguson's request.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Identify yourself for the record.
MR. FERGUSON: For the record, my name is Tim Ferguson --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
MR. FERGUSON: -- and I represent the Gadaleta PUD.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second to
continue the Gadaleta PUD. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
MR. FERGUSON: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Kind of scary hearing that, huh?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. Madam Chairman.
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 2, 1998 AS KICK BUTTS DAY - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on then to our next proclamation.
Mr. Norris and Kick Butts Day.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I assume there's some significance
here.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The obvious.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't even go there.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not even going to start on that one.
Is Frank Mattera here? Mr. Mattera, if you would come up and
have all your troops line up here once again, we'll let the -- let the
camera show them and people see them at home.
While they're coming up here, it might be interesting to note
that -- that I kicked butts at a -- at a very strange time. It was
during basic training in the military is when I kicked butts. That
was back in 1961. For those of you that can still do math, that's 37
years ago.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good for you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: How is that when you're only 35?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it's a strange quirk of fate.
The proclamation reads:
Whereas, teen smoking is on the rise and smoking among high
school seniors is at a 19-year high; and
Whereas, more than four million kids aged 12 to 17 are current
smokers; and 3,000 kids become regular smokers each day; and,
Whereas, the Centers for Disease Control predicts more than five
million children under age 18 alive today will die prematurely from
smoking-related disease, unless current rates are reversed; and,
Whereas, smoking-related illnesses already kill more than 400,000
Americans each year, representing more deaths than from AIDS, alcohol,
car accidents, murders, suicides, drugs and fires combined; and,
Whereas, many of these deaths could be prevented; and,
Whereas, the children of Collier County will no longer tolerate
the tobacco industry's efforts to manipulate them into buying lethal
and addictive products through insidious advertising campaigns; and,
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County
wishes to stand up with the children of this city in opposition to the
advertising and marketing of tobacco products to children.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that April 2nd, 1998 be
designated as Kick Butts Day.
Done and ordered this 7th day of April, 1998, by the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida.
And Ms. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we accept this
proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
(Applause.)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Spring break and you've got to be here?
MR. MATTERA: Commissioner Norris -- thank you very much,
Commissioner Norris and Commissioners.
It's truly an honor to be here today. As you know, tobacco is
the number one health problem in our country. As you have cited, over
400,000 people die each year because of tobacco-related illnesses, and
30,000 here in Collier County -- and 30,000 in the State of Florida.
What we are doing with Governor Chiles and the State of Florida
-- they have just won a major legal battle with the tobacco companies.
They have allocated out some of those monies to reduce and prevent
tobacco use in Collier County.
What we have done in the past, even though it's been somewhat
effective, hasn't even begun to touch the problem. Governor Chiles and
the State of Florida has directed that the youth of each county step
forward and assist in this endeavor. And I'm proud to say that the
youth standing here today have stepped forward and taken a leadership
role. They have recently gotten back from Governor Chiles' teen
summit.
And if you would be so kind to allow them to have three minutes,
they would like to introduce themselves and tell you what they're
going to do in Collier County to stop and reduce tobacco use in our
county.
Would you please step forward, introduce yourselves and tell them
what you plan to do. Thank you.
MR. WEIDENHILLER: Okay, here's what we're going to do. My name
is Nick Weidenmiller, I'm part of the Naples team.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You've got to go on the -- over to the
podium, please.
MR. WEIDENHILLER: Okay. Like I said, my name is Nick
Weidenmiller, and I'm part of the Naples teen organization, just like
the rest of them. And what wewre going to do is wewre each going to
introduce ourselves and tell one thing that we plan to do in this
county to help to keep kids from beginning to smoke. MR. MATTERA: Come forward.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Come on, donlt be shy.
MS. WINGE: My name is Dawn Winge, Iim 16, I go to St. John
Neumann, and I think we should have better law enforcements in
schools.
MS. ELLIS: My namels Denise Ellis, and I go to St. John Neumann,
and I think we should have more smoke-free buildings.
MR. PRIO: My name is Ryan Prio, Iim 15 years old, I go to Barton
Collier High School, and I propose to make a billboard listing all 401
poisons and 43 carcinogens found in cigarettes.
MS. TOWNSEND: My name is Jackie Townsend, I go to St. John
Neumann, and I propose that they put silent smoke detectors in the
restrooms to alarm the authorities of anyone smoking.
MR. CACCHIONE: Hello, my name is Tom Cacchione, and Iim an
eighth grade student at Gulf View Middle School, and I think the
D.A.R.E. program should be more extensive through grades K through 12.
Thank you.
MS. GONZALEZ: My namels Iris Gonzalez and I would -- Iim in
tenth grade in Naples High School, and I would like to see smoking
banned from all types of media.
MS. KIRETA: Hi, Iim Karessa Kiteta, I am tenth grade at Lely
High School, and I propose that we have a county-wide death day which
consists of taking the percentile of teens and students that die each
day from smoking and passing out black balloons at schools, and those
students that receive the balloons cannot speak for a whole day to
represent the students and in commemoration of the people that have
died from smoking.
MR. WEIDENMILLER: And Iim Nick Weidenmiller, Iim an eighth grade
student at Gulf View Middle School, and I think that we should have
monthly sting operations of local convenience stores to find out
whether or not they sell to underaged children, and if they do, we
will prosecute them.
And -- oh, and this is Betty Ng, shels a tenth grader at Lely
High School, and she has lost her voice, but shels here and -- okay,
and so what welre going to do right now in -- sort of in a way to
thank you is welre going to present you a song that we wrote while we
were at the teen summit, and the title of this song is Killing Me
Slowly.
(Singing) I heard it made you feel good, I heard it gave you
style, and so I went and tried it, been addicted for awhile. And now I
see the real truth, itls slowly taking my life, holding my death in my
fingers -- one time -- smoking my whole life away -- two times --
killing me slowly with each drag, killing me slowly with each drag
taking my whole life with each smoke, killing me slowly with each
smoke.
I see my teeth are yellow, embarrassed by my smile, I thought it
made me cooler, instead cramped my style. I pray that I can quit
soon, but I just kept right on, holding my death in my fingers -- one
time -- smoking my whole life away -- two times -- killing me slowly
with each drag, killing me slowly with each drag, taking my whole life
with each smoke, killing me slowly with each smoke.
MR. WEIDENMILLER: Sit down, welre not done yet.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I know thatls a Weidenmiller.
MR. WEIDENMILLER: All right. Now, my friend Ryan Prio is now
going to lead us in a little chant we learned when we were at the
summit, and itws going to depend on your -- and your -- participation.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. PRIO: Okay. When I say smoke, you say free. Smoke.
AUDIENCE: Free.
MR. PRIO: Smoke.
AUDIENCE: Free.
MR. PRIO: When I say donlt, you say smoke. Donlt.
AUDIENCE: Smoke.
MR. PRIO: Donlt.
AUDIENCE: Smoke.
MR. PRIO: When I say smoking, you say kills. Smoking.
AUDIENCE: Kills.
MR. PRIO: Smoking.
AUDIENCE: Kills.
(Applause.)
MR. WEIDENMILLER: All done.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One thing I think we need to do is get a
videotape of this off of Channel 54 and ask the schools to run it.
(Applause.)
MR. WEIDENMILLER: Really.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: During morning announcements, you know,
during this month, because you guys have put a lot of work into this.
Thanks to each of you. Youlre a talented bright group of people. And
if we can get folks to follow your message, welre all doing well.
Iim sad to announce, though, that the state this year failed to
give counties the authority to preempt the state maximum smoking laws
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- so the ability to provide smoke-free
places in Collier County is gone away this year because the state
legislature refused to allow us to do it. Weill keep fighting for it,
and thank you for your work.
MR. MATTERA: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think itls one thing to hear the message
from adults, but I think it means a whole lot more coming from you
kids out there. And I really appreciate the work that youlye done.
And youlre the ones that need to deliver the message to your fellow
students. So thatls super.
And thank you for all your work, too, Mr. Mattera.
(Applause.)
Item #5A4
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL, 1998 AS WATER CONSERVATION MONTH -
ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And our last proclamation, Mr.
Constantine.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You poor man.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if you thought that was
entertaining, wait 'til you see Ron Hamel.
We have with us Ron Hamel of the Gulf Citrus Growers Association,
and I believe he's brought a whole slew of folks with him. I'm not
sure what song they'll be doing today, but could you come up? Let me
read --
MR. HAMEL: The sunshine tree.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The following proclamation:
Whereas, the Florida Water Wise Council, Inc., an organization of
public and private partnerships, was created in 1993 by the Florida
Xeriscape Committee in order to encourage all aspects of water
conservation among producers and users to promote and achieve sound
water management practices which will protect the environment; and,
Whereas, with over 100 volunteer members representing industries,
organizations and government agencies, the Florida Water Wise Council
strives to foster cooperation among diverse water-use interests,
including members of the agriculture industry, the plumbing industry,
utilities, developers, environmentalists, manufacturers, contractors,
educators, baby zebras, as well as governmental and regulatory
agencies; and --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Huh?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think he threw that one in.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Whereas, the Florida Water Wise
Council has identified an additional opportunity to raise conservation
awareness and has designated April, typically the last month of
Florida dry season when water needs are most acute, as Florida's
inaugural Water Conservation Month to educate consumers about the need
for conservation and the ways in which they can help save the state's
precious water resources; and,
Whereas, residential, commercial, agricultural and industrial
water-users have many ways to save water, including ultra-low-flow
plumbing, periscope landscaping and the wise use of lawn sprinklers to
help conserve water.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of April,
1998 be designated as Water Conservation Month in Collier County, and
urge every consumer to become more aware of the need to save our
precious water supply and to take appropriate measures to conserve and
protect this vital natural resource.
Done and ordered this 7th day of April, 1998, BCC, Barbara B.
Berry, Chair.
Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Dave, were you singing with the kids, too,
or -- oh, okay.
MR. HAMEL: Madam Chair, Commissioner Constantine, members of the
Collier County Commission, on behalf of the membership of the Florida
Water Wise Council, we're extremely pleased and honored that you have
joined our Florida water conservation team by your official
proclamation designating April, '98 as Water Conservation Month in
Collier County.
A few weeks ago Governor Chiles and Commissioner Crawford and the
Florida cabinet presented a resolution which proclaimed April, '98 as
Florida's first water conservation month, and we appreciate the fact
that you have joined this effort state-wide and have brought this
effort locally to the citizens and industries here in Collier County.
As indicated, the Florida Water Wise Council is an organization
made up of public and private partnerships. We strive to promote
water conservation state-wide, and my job, as president -- I'm a
volunteer on this one -- is to foster this initiative state-wide and
hopefully bring it here to Southwest Florida where we're probably the
rapidly -- most rapidly growing communities in the state. Therefore,
it's even more important that we launch major initiatives here.
And in that regard I, I guess, read a article in the Naples Daily
News recently about this body taking action to try to move in a major
education initiative, and we want to be partners in that, as well as
some of the individuals here.
I'd like to just introduce to you the individuals here with me
today. Representing the commercial industrial manufacturers, Andrew
Fendrick, who is a local resident. He's also a fellow board member of
the Florida Water Wise Council. And Andrew is going to present each
of you with a official Water Wise Council water conservation month
poster, so you can bring that and hang it in your office, hopefully,
or an appropriate place.
Next, representing Collier Soil and Water Conservation District,
Rob Griffin, who is a member of the board. And also Tony Polissis
(phonetic), who is our district conservationist with U.S.D.A. Also,
Mike Taylor, with Collier Enterprises, and a vice president of Gulf
Citrus Growers, one of our citrus representatives on this. And Mr.
David Guggenheim, executive director of the Conservancy, who was
recognized here. I didn't know all the coordination here between the
volunteer day and our proclamation and alcohol and tobacco all at the
same time. I mean, what a day in Collier County.
I would just like to say that this is a historic event for the
State of Florida and also for Collier County. And we pledge our
support and efforts to help promote this on an annual basis, and more
importantly, help to make a difference in the community by reducing
our use of water and planning sound water management.
And I certainly do appreciate, on behalf of Water Wise Council
and also my organization, Gulf Citrus, for having this opportunity to
be with you here today, and we -- we will do our part in teaming up
with the county and different conservation groups within the county to
foster this education. And whatever we can do, let us know.
And I'd like to just turn it over a minute to Rob. He has a few
comments regarding some of the activities that the Soil and Water
Conservation District will have this month.
MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you. For the record, my name is Rob Griffin
with the Collier Sewer and Water Conservation District.
I'd like to first say that we are -- I thank you very much, we
are in full support of this proclamation. Some of the services that
we offer at the Collier Sewer and Water Conservation District or
number one, that we are a voluntary, not regulatory, agency.
Our biggest thing that we're most proud of is our mobile
irrigation lab. It has been in existence for the past 10 years. We
have a documented savings of approximately 24 billion gallons of
water, which is equal to three years of water usage here in Collier
County.
This month we have a speech contest and also a poster contest
that is going to be held for the school-aged children here in Collier
County. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
And thanks to all of you for the efforts that you've put forth.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And there appears to be plenty of seating
in the front now.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Suddenly it's like we're all in church,
everybody's in the back and there's nobody in front.
If you'd all like to move forward, you're welcome to do so.
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
At this time, it's our privilege and pleasure to present to
our employees service awards for their service to Collier County
government. And we're going to start off with longevity first. And I
believe our first individual is Howard HcFee, who I've personally
known for I think probably most of these 20 years, Howard, and it's
our pleasure to present your award for 20 years in Parks and
Recreation.
(Applause.)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Halfway there, Howard.
MR. HcFEE: The other half is gone, I'm afraid.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Our next individual is Lynn Evans, in Risk
Management, 10 years.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Congratulations, and thank you.
Would Mark Keohane come forward, please; 10 -- or five years in
building review and permitting. Is Mark here this morning?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: He's reviewing and permitting as we speak.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We'll make sure that he gets his
certificate and pin.
Roy Hiele, building review and permitting. He's also reviewing
and permitting.
Lynn Atkinson, building review and permitting.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think they're kind of busy today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: They're all working today, huh? Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They all went to a different location.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: How about George Fartell, in Parks and
Recreation, five years.
(Applause.)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there another pin for working with
Howard for five years?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's it. Thank you-all very much.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We lost another row.
Item #7A
RICHARD J. SHITH, VICE PRESIDENT - GOLDEN GATE ESTATES CIVIC
ASSOCIATION REQUESTING A WAIVER OF FEES AND DEPOSITS FOR DIRECTIONAL
SIGNS FOR MEETINGS - STAFF TO BRING BACK ON REGULAR AGENDA IN TWO WEEKS
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, moving on then to public petitions,
our first one this morning is Richard J. Smith, vice president of the
Golden Gate Civic Association, requesting a fee waiver. MR. SMITH: Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If you want to come to the podium, please,
and identify yourself for the record and state your case.
MR. SMITH: Good morning, Madam Commissioner, fellow
Commissioners. Richard Smith, vice president of the Golden Gate
Estates Area Civic Association.
We have asked the Commission for a waiver of fees that are
required for putting directional signs to our association meeting. And
we think that this would be warranted because our association, we
think, does a community service in trying to ascertain and to promote
the goodwill of the community and what the goals are of the Golden
Gate Estate Association -- Civic Association.
So we would request that you consider waiving the fee for the
placing of signs for directing the citizens in the Golden Gate Estates
area to our meeting on Wednesday night, the third Wednesday of every
month.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Any questions regarding this from Mr.
Smith?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What kind of directional signs are we
talking about? Are these -- are you talking just a temporary sign
that's put up that day and taken down?
MR. SMITH: Temporary that day. They are -- there's -- as I
understand it, there's a memorandum that the county has approved that
provides a certain size that these have to be and that sort of thing,
so we're --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Certain number?
MR. SMITH: -- complying with all of those.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the maximum number of these signs?
MR. SMITH: I'm not sure what the maximum number is, but we're
only going to be putting them in three different locations.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Seems to me if there -- if -- if we're
talking about temporary signs that are put up that day and taken down
the next, that doesn't -- I mean, that doesn't require a lot of work
on our part. I guess I'd like to know one, the extent of how many of
these types of permits we get. I don't even know what the cost is, to
be honest with you.
MR. SMITH: Twenty-five dollars.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And it's a sign -- I believe you -- aren't
you the one, Richard, that puts the signs up, or --
MR. SMITH: Yes. Yeah, I'll be --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He's the one that puts them up, it's not --
the county is not -- they don't do it. It's the individual that does
it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's just to make sure that any sign
that's put up has a permit.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right.
MR. SMITH: Apparently the -- these would be put in the easements
of the county-owned easements in -- the code enforcement people, if
you don't get the permitting to do this, will -- they remove these
signs --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. SMITH: -- and so we need to have a permit. And in getting
the permit, there's a fee, and that's what we're asking, is to waive
that fee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So you're going to get the permit every
month.
MR. SMITH: No, I beg your pardon, Commissioner. What we're
requesting is a permit that we would use each month. It's kind of
like an ongoing permit.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair, in keeping with the board's policy
on public petitions on your agenda, I think the appropriate thing
would be to refer this to staff and have the staff bring these to the
board for action, and that way we'd be able to cover the questions
that you have and be prepared to speak to them. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion we bring this back in
a couple of weeks' time and answer the questions of both Commissioner
Mac'Kie and Commissioner Hancock, if posed to our staff. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second to bring
this back. Two weeks, is that part of your motion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, two weeks to have the information
necessary to go ahead and take whatever action. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
MR. SMITH: Okay. I haven't seen any zebras out that way.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I just hope they're conserving
water, if you do see them.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
We had a motion and a second. I guess we'd better vote on it.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Kind of skipping over that voting part a
few times today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I guess.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She knew what we felt.
Item #7B
MR. RICHARD MELICK, NAPLES CONCERT BAND REQUESTING A WAIVER OF PERMIT
FEES FOR CONCERT HELD ON MARCH 29, 1998 - STAFF TO BRING BACK ON
REGULAR AGENDA IN TWO WEEKS
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Richard Melick, Naples concert band,
requesting a waiver permit fee for the concert held on March 29th,
1998.
Is Mr. Melick here?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. Well, I guess it's --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's the same --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- situation.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're going to have to bring this one back as
well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bring it back.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Although, they've already had the concert.
This is an after-the-fact waiver.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But I think we -- since it's a public
petition, can we take action today?
MR. FERNANDEZ: It's your policy, but I think the -- the standing
policy has been to refer these under public petition to staff for an
agenda item so that they're noticed properly and so forth.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Frankly, I'd like to see, because
again, I'd like to know --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- how is this comparable to other
public events that go on? What are we doing when we waive this? Are
we going to suddenly have 100 requests and so on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same questions. That's a good point.
So motion to continue for the same two weeks.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion to continue.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, I'm not sure a motion to
continue is appropriate.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a motion to bring -- to have staff
development bring it back.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Bring it back.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Bring it back.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Bring it back in two weeks.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion. Do I have a second?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, on that particular item, I
thought we had asked at one point to kind of develop a budget, because
obviously these could grow in number in a given year; next thing you
know, the taxpayer is paying, you know, 1,000, $2,000 to benefit
not-for-profits, and that's precisely the thing we got away from when
we stopped writing checks to, you know -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Project Help.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- not-for-profit agencies. So I just
think if we're going to do this, we need to at least have a budget
line item each year that we -- that can be met, but not to exceed.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think perhaps we do need a whole report on
this permit fee kind of thing, because I understand that this is -- I
mean, we've seen two of them this morning, but there are others that
are out there, some have been approved a long time ago, and it's my
understanding that some of those are just kind of ongoing. Well, how
long is ongoing? A year -- or six months, a year, two years or five
years? I think we just need a little bit of a report, maybe, on that,
and --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Big picture. What's the whole --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The big picture, right. And let's see what
the real need and necessity is out there and take a good look at it.
Item #SB1
CONSIDERATION TO INCREASE THE SCOPE OF WORK ASSOCIATED WITH CONTRACT
NO. 97-2771, REMOVAL OF NON-SPECIFICATION MATERIAL FROM THE NAPLES
BEACH - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED WITH WORK EFFORT #4
Okay, thank you very much. We'll move on to the public works,
8(B)(1), rocks. Mr. Ilschner.
MR. ILSCHNER: Good morning, Madam Chairman, members of the
board. This morning -- my name, for the record, is Ed Ilschner,
public works administrator.
This morning I'm here to present an add-on item at the request of
Commissioner Hac'Kie. The title of that item is consideration to
increase the scope of work associated with contract number 97-2771,
removal of nonspecification materials from the Naples Beach.
This is a project that you authorized on February the 24th, 1998,
and is being carried out by Mr. Bobby Cadenhead, and it is for a price
of approximately $99,982.
This project has been underway since March the 16th, 1998.
Subsequent to that action, the City Council, through Mayor Barnett
from the City of Naples forwarded correspondence to Chairman Berry
requesting considering of the board that we expand this project to
include removal of all rock and to include all segments of the beach.
We responded to that particular correspondence by informing the
City of Naples that we would prefer to proceed in the manner in which
we had established by staff, which specifically was that we determine
several test locations, determine a testing protocol that would
indicate whether we were successful in achieving permit requirements
under rule 62-B of the Administrative Rules of FDEP.
After that action, the Beach Renourishment Maintenance Committee
met, and after much discussion, asked that again the Commission
consider expanding the project to include all reaches of beach, and
that we use the current process being employed by Mr. Cadenhead to
remove all materials that would be classified as nonspecified
materials.
On Friday of last week, we met at the beach with Commissioner
Hac'Kie and Mr. Fernandez, myself, Harry Huber, a representative from
Coastal Engineering and Mr. Joe Herms, City Council member for the
City of Naples. And during that meeting, of course the concern was
trying to achieve a beach free and clear of all rock material.
And Mr. Herms suggested at that particular meeting that we
consider setting up test holes at two locations: One, the Ritz
Carlton, which had been cleaned previously, and the original project
of nonspecified materials, and then finally at a location 32nd Avenue
South.
We have completed that analysis and attached it to your agenda
item today as a result of that analysis. It's -- I'll refer you back
to the very last page of that agenda item, and it's called summary of
test pit sampling data. That's the result of that particular effort.
In the staff reviewing this item, we have developed four levels
of effort, as we call them, or level of work effort. One is, of
course, our current work effort which is defined by the original test
holes we've taken, and the protocol that we've submitted to the Corps
of Engineers and the FDEP for their consideration, and involves
primarily those reaches of beach for which we have logs from the
original construction project that would indicate nonspecified
material had been placed there by the contractor. That's level of
effort one, approximately $100,000.
In conducting additional tests to determine native beach
conditions, what is the material gradation of a native beach, we
determined that that varies from 0.84 percent by volume of rock in the
dry beach area to 1.3 percent by volume of rock in the water area.
That's a native beach condition. And that's of course what we have
submitted to the Corps for their consideration.
Level of effort two would involve the 1.3 level. If you were
going to say we want to establish a cleaning effort that would result
in 1.3 percent of rock by volume of material on the beach, we would be
looking at in the table that you have in your item work effort two.
That would involve about 38,250 yards of material, and the cost would
increase to $150,410 from the current 100,000.
We looked also at the next standard, which would be of course the
.84 on the dry beach by volume, and the 1.3 out in the water area. We
identified that as work effort three, involving about 56,000 yards,
and approximately $212,000 in cost.
And then finally, the Beach Renourishment Committee, maintenance
committee recommendation, the City of Naples request and
recommendation, and Mr. Herms, an individual member of that council's
recommendation, was that we consider work effort four, which is to go
in, expand the effort currently underway by Mr. Cadenhead's operation,
his firm, and include all reaches of beach in the original Naples
Beach project. That would total almost $377,000, and would involve
about 103,000 cubic yards of material.
Our staff recommendation to you is that we continue the process
originally established by staff, and namely, that is that we -- and we
have copies, by the way, this morning of the protocol that we have
established and sent to the Corps of Engineers and the FDEP. We also
have Coastal Engineering representatives this morning that can brief
you on that protocol, can brief you on the steps that we will take if
you approve staff's recommendation this morning, how we'll go about
doing the project, and can answer any technical questions that you
might have.
We're recommending to you that staff be allowed to continue the
original process it established; that we be encouraged to go
immediately to face-to-face meetings with the Corps and the FDEP and
get an answer quickly as to what is going to be the requirement to
comply with rule 62-B. That's the first action we're recommending to
you.
That you -- in order to proceed with this project, depending on
whatever results occur, from current level of work effort all the way
up to work effort four, if that should be the results of our
negotiations with the Corps in order to meet permit requirements, that
you authorize us an expenditure level up to but not to exceed
$350,000, that you authorize staff to effect field change orders, if
you will, as we proceed with the work. Because the work technique
that we will use will involve testing as we go down the beach. And
when we find clean material, we stop. And we continue testing, we
find bad material, we clean.
So it's going to be very difficult, depending on which test
criteria we choose. If you choose something exceeding .84, we're
definitely going to be going to work effort four. So it all depends
on what you end up doing this morning, or, in other words, what the
Corps might do if you direct staff in that direction.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I comment at this point just on the --
because I've spent a lot of time on this issue, so I've got a picture
of, you know, .84 versus 1.3 versus 0.
It's -- there's two questions here fundamentally. One is that we
have an obligation to meet rule 62-B, and that is, you know, to have
-- remove all nonspecification material from the beach. And the
agencies will tell us what that is. They will tell us, is that 1.3
percent rock, is that .84 percent rock or is that no rock.
Then there's a second question that falls to us and that is, at
what level are we satisfied on behalf of the community with the
cleanup effort? You know, there's the state and federal requirement,
and then there's the community expectation.
And just -- as indicated, on this -- on the last sheet, if you
look at the screened beach at the Ritz, they got zero. If you look at
the --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And how far down was that test taken?
MR. ILSCHNER: That was taken to the original fill level.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then if you look at the beach down in
front of Port Royal, at 32nd Ave., they have 0.05 percent rock. MR. ILSCHNER: Almost virtually zero.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Almost zero. So -- so the question --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They also have .26.
MR. ILSCHNER: Right, which is not --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which is almost zero.
MR. ILSCHNER: Not quite.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. It's signifi --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Visualizing .26 versus 0 versus .6 or 7, I
mean, it kind of -- you know, we're talking less than one percent rock
here, right?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And you know, that's exactly why -- and
let me just pause for a second to thank staff. I have never seen a
better effort. These guys showed up at the beach on Friday at 5:00,
and since then 'til now they have produced -- they've done these
tests, they've done the analysis, and they've produced this staff
report, and I just want to commend you, it's outstanding work, and it
was very difficult work, but it does make the point that you just
about have to walk on the beach to say -- as we walked down the beach
with Ed, I'd say, you know, "This, no, this is not what the Naples
Beach looked like before renourishment. This is not what it looked
like. We will not be satisfied with this. Now, measure this and tell
me what it is, because that's not what we want."
And that's -- you know, as we walked down the beach, you just
about have to do it that way to get a visualization, as you said, of
the difference between 0.05 and 0.26.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now, help me understand what parts of
the beach, because I've walked the beach, but obviously I haven't
walked the nine-mile stretch -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- they redid, so tell me what parts
specifically you are talking about.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're essentially talking about from
Central Avenue to the pier. Does that ballpark --
MR. ILSCHNER: From Fourth Avenue down to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fourth Avenue north?
MR. ILSCHNER: -- 14th Avenue.
Fourth Avenue south --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: South, okay.
MR. ILSCHNER: -- down to 14th Avenue, inclusive of that. Between
14th and 15th Avenue south.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's basically from Central to the pier.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that exclusively where the one
percent or whatever it is rocks are? There's nothing north, there's
nothing --
MR. ILSCHNER: Well, now the --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just -- you know, pick something
at random up on the north end of the project there is no rocks at all.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I tell you why that's --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I get --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- an answer to my question?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think you have.
MR. ILSCHNER: Let me ask our representative from Coastal
Engineering. You're getting into a history area that I'm not familiar
with, so let me get you someone that can answer that specifically for
you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's just if there's a problem, I
certainly want to solve it. But if --
MR. ILSCHNER: Right.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- there's a problem on the beach, I
don't want to only solve it within the city limits. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Agreed.
MR. ILSCHNER: Let me introduce, Commissioner Constantine, Dr.
Hike Stephen of Coastal Engineering who can answer that question, I'm
sure.
MR. STEPHEN: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Hike Stephen. I'm the president of Coastal Engineering, and
we were the -- worked with the staff in collecting the samples and the
preparation of the protocol to the DEP.
The -- as was stated, the purpose of the protocol, to answer your
question, was to test a section of beach that had never been nourished
that had hard rock bottom offshore of it that was deemed compatible
when the Corps of Engineers and the DEP made their site visit at this
location.
We randomly went to three DNR monuments on the Park Shore beach,
stations 46, 45 and 44, as I recall. And that data is in the protocol
that is in front of you. Basically those samples ranged from 0 to .2
to .5 to .8, to as high as 1.2 and 1.3. So that's termed the control
beach. And if you went out at the Registry and you walked south from
the county park down to the next county beach access down by the
Groins at Seagate, you would be walking on that beach; that is, part
of the beach that Stephen Leatherman has indicated in the top 20
beaches in the country.
There is an occasional -- even in the area that we've screened
and that we viewed Friday evening with Commissioner Hac'Kie and Mr.
Herms, there is an occasional roller rock on the surface. You can
take a -- go out on the beach, you shut your eyes, you dig a hole, and
after the beach has been screened, there's zero percent rock in that
beach, because the screening process we're using takes care of that.
The -- to the best of our knowledge, the biggest concentration is
where we are dealing right now, the -- we have definite evidence that
there was material improperly placed at Fifth Avenue and at 13th
Avenue, and a little bit at Broad. And those areas have popped up in
our testing. They came up with nine percent rock and seven percent
rock and four percent. So those areas -- we're in the right place.
Mr. Cadenhead is doing an excellent job. The material is being
removed from those areas, and the -- really, the only way that we're
going to know the precise limits is to do as Mr. Ilschner indicated,
is that we want to sample the edges, if you will, to make sure that we
have gotten the material that -- the large quantity of material that's
been improperly placed.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So my question --
MR. STEPHEN: There's no --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- again, which -- Hike, the question
again is you've identified a 10-block area. I had a very simple
question, and that is, is this the only place where there are rocks,
or are there other places up and down the beach where we're going to
have the same problem, either that are identified as part of this
project or that citizens have been -- expressed concern about? I just
don't want to have six months from now somebody come back and say
wait, we've got the same thing at X, Y Z location.
MR. STEPHEN: The -- part of the protocol is to keep track of
that. We don't have any other major problem areas that I'm aware of
at this time. But the -- but part of the purpose of the protocol is
to make sure that the -- these beaches are observed, and if there is
rock that crops up, that it's cleaned up into the future.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I try this answer, and you correct me
if I'm wrong? Because as I understand, part of why the boundaries are
where they are is that the sand within these boundaries came from a
borrow pit where the contractor exceeded the limits of the approved
area, and/or where there was nonspecified material within this borrow
pit. And that these are basically the boundaries of where the rocky
sand from that particular pit was dumped.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which leads to another question, then.
Who's going to pay for all this? Since -- and I -- it's really a
two-part question. Because if the contractor went outside that area,
I still have that question as we did at the $99,000 level; the
contractor should be responsible if they failed or erred somehow in
their effort.
But also, when you say well, as part of this we would like to do
testing up and down, it just seems to me -- and maybe I'm naive, but
it just seems to me that that should have been part of the process
anyway; when we lay a beach out, we're going to do some testing to
make sure everything's all right after the fact. That shouldn't have
to be an add item.
MR. STEPHEN: You're correct. And the test -- that type of
testing was done. The -- as I understand, the current aspect of the
contract, part of the reason that we wanted to sample this area in
more detail -- where we're working right now, the area between Fourth
and 14th, is to make sure that we identified and noticed the
contractor on any areas where he might have liability. And that has
been done.
So at this point, the effort again, for any area where he exceeds
the permit criteria, would be deemed to be chargeable back to the
contractor, along with our services and staff services.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So that would be for the -- this
amount, as well as the original 99.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Has to be.
MR. STEPHEN: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I could tag on it, what I don't
understand, Hike, is if the contractor was from an approved -- was
drawing from an approved borrow area and the material in that borrow
area was bad, how is that the contractor's fault?
MR. STEPHEN: Well, there's no evidence that that -- I don't
necessarily agree with Commissioner Hac'Kie that there's direct
evidence that there was any material in that borrow area that was bad
and pumped on the beach.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what the contractor asserts, and I
certainly am not venturing an opinion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And they can fight it out --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's for them to fight out.
MR. STEPHEN: That's correct. I mean, the contractor has --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just don't want the TDC fund paying
twice for work that should have been done once. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ditto.
MR. STEPHEN: Correct. And the records and the evidence that we
have provided to this board, I believe, and to the county attorney's
office -- I know Commissioner Hac'Kie has seen it -- it's unequivocal.
It's very, very clear that the contractor excavated in these locations
several feet below the designed grade, and even below the allowable
tolerance.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And does that volume of error roughly
match the volume of material we're talking about on the beach? That
seems to me that would be --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's the crux of the -- that's what
they'll fight about for a long time.
MR. STEPHEN: Well, the -- what happens ultimately is that the
contractor excavates outside the bottom of the control line, the grade
in the borrow, and he pumps that into a barge. And he may mix that
with other material that he swings over and maybe actually
contaminates good material. So what we are able to identify, and
that's why we physically -- you can see it. You can -- when it's
excavated and screened, when the cobbles come out, that material is --
was not definitely in the borrow area, it was taken from outside.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. Question for --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Mr. Ilschner.
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In November of '95, we had a similar
discussion about the layering, the double layering. And in that
discussion, we started off talking about material that was more shelly
than sandy. And then it went into rock fragments. And then as --
from the record that Mr. Boggess has supplied me, I go back and I find
rock stated in there.
Now, the term we're going to bury the rocks, which has been
bandied about so favorably was never presented to this board. But we
were told that at that time that this double layering and armoring
would do two things: One, it would serve to create a more stable
beach, which was a good thing; and two was that Mr. Gonzalez assured
me that the good material would not be washed off so that we'd have
rocks popping up in two to three years. Well, it didn't even take two
years.
So I do feel like at that time on the double layering concept we
made a decision based on information that in essence there was enough
good material in a stable enough beach, that material would slowly
erode down, and by the time we -- it was time to do a renourishment
again, we wouldn't be dealing with a rock or shell problem by that
point.
That obviously has not been the case. So I'm very reluctant to
-- you know, when I hear, well, this will take care of the problem, I
feel like we did that once. We were told, we've encountered some
difficulties, but we can handle it and everything will be fine, and
that isn't the case.
You weren't here then, but I just want to point out that -- you
know, I -- I'm more of the proof's in the pudding at this point on
this project, because what I've been told on two separate occasions
about decisions this board has made have not panned out and not -- we
haven't had major storm events, so I'm just -- you know, I'm very
skeptical at this point. I want to move ahead and fix the problem,
but dang, I don't want to sit here two years from now and fix the
problem again.
MR. ILSCHNER: Commissioner Hancock, I think we're going to be
mixing apples and oranges here. And if I can beg your pardon for a
moment, I think the double layering area is not involved with the
cleanup at this point. Am I incorrect on that?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It was -- part of the Naples Beach was to
be double layered also, not just Vanderbilt Beach.
MR. STEPHEN: There was a -- just for clarification, there was a
600-foot section on the Naples Beach that was attempted to be done
with the dual layer that was utilize the material out of the approved
borrow area, again, within the lines and grades.
The dredge records show that the contractor went below the borrow
area in a part of that section, and so there was -- we're cleaning up
and addressing that area as part of this current contract.
And again, it seems like we've spanned a long period of time, but
right -- the observations made in October and January of this year
were the basis for the current contract that is now actively underway.
This action is pursuant -- you know, moving successfully along, and
that material is being removed.
And part of our reason for supporting the staff recommendation is
to allow additional effort to try to get this -- all of this work done
before the end of turtle season. We have to apply for an extension to
the turtle season, and it's our goal to get the work done so that we
don't have to keep coming back and coming to this board again and
again.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And Tim, that's exactly -- I mean, I have
the same -- frankly, it makes me mad to think that we got advice and
made decisions that -- I don't think we got good advice. I really
don't think we got good advice at the time, if I understood what I
thought I understood at the time. And so I'm not excited about
science today.
What I am excited about about this particular proposal and why
it's so important that Mr. Ilschner be given the authority to sign
change orders at the beach is because they'll be out there digging; if
there's rocks, they keep going, if there's not rocks, they stop, you
know, and up to $350,000. That's what we ought to authorize him to
do.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the question to me is not so much as I
understand what Mr. Stephen has said. The double layering may or may
not have proven true, but the material that was supposed to be put on
top of the double layering --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- you know, was not what was anticipated.
It was obviously more rocky.
So like you, whatever we need to do to get the problem solved is
first and foremost, and to make sure that the -- that those who
contributed to tourist development tax in this county, you know,
didn't throw money twice at the same problem equal concern. So if we
can move forward with those two things today, then I'm all for that.
But I don't want one to move forward without the other by any means.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have a question.
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is there any section of beach that's original
that hasn't been filled?
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes. 32nd Avenue south was one of those areas --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's why I was --
MR. ILSCHNER: -- that had not been. That's a native beach.
Park Shore Beach, as well, where we did some testing as well.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's why we asked them to test 32nd Ave.
way down south.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Because this was all done before I got on --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- the Commission, and that's my reason for
asking.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pelican Bay, that's right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: All of Pelican Bay was not touched with --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a natural beach.
MR. ILSCHNER: Correct. And those are areas that are native
beaches that have not been touched. And we're using those as our
basis for going to the Corps and saying these are beaches that we have
that are native, and we'd like to ensure that the beaches that we
leave on Naples equate to that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I hate to tell people, but native beaches
do have some rocks on them.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, some of --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I mean, they do have --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- them do. But -- they do, and I have to
accept that. And frankly, I argued about that until they just forced
me to face the reality that native beaches have some rock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Anyone who's a diver knows that you go out
in 20 feet of water and there's rocks on the bottom. I mean -- you
know.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right. And they roll up in the
tide, but --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This raises another question with me, though.
If you go out into the water, what are you going to find? How far out
into the water -- what -- what kind of material are you going to find?
Are you going to find rocks?
MR. STEPHEN: On the natural beach?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: On the natural beach.
MR. STEPHEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Some.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Some.
MR. STEPHEN: You may find there's rock as close as four or 500
feet off of the bottom of the beach. You go right out and you go into
a -- literally a solid band of rock from Wiggins Pass all the way
south to Doctors Pass, around south of Doctors Pass, down along the
Naples Beach to a few hundred feet north of the pier. And then there's
another patch just south of the pier of rock offshore. And the rock
is everything from gravel size to boulders two feet in diameter with
relief of a couple of feet high.
And we had to map all of that as part of the early surveys for
the beach project to protect it, because it's a -- deemed a
biologically productive habitat. It has a fishery resource; it has a
lot of algae and other organisms living on it, sponges, and that
material breaks loose and rolls around in the surf and gets thrown up
onto the beach during storms as a normal course of action.
And the -- the agencies recognize this. The statute 62-B is
deemed a guideline, and while it says that all fill should be sand,
free of rock, it says generally free of. And that's why they
suggested that one of these pristine natural beaches be used as a
control beach and that we sample it according to the procedures
outlined in the protocol, and that would then be a basis for their
establishment of what is -- what should be clean is clean. What --
compared to what.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But keep in mind, you know, that we do
have now these tests at the far north, at the Ritz, and at the far
south that, you know, we may have something better than the average
beach. And our expectation is for something better than the average
beach and that's --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those are --
MR. STEPHEN: That's very correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- areas that have been sifted,
though; is that correct?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, no, no.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The Ritz?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The Ritz has.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The Ritz has.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The Ritz is sifted. Port Royal is
completely natural.
MR. STEPHEN: Right. That's very correct. I mean, the --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I say something on that point about
the Ritz, too, guys? This is a place that makes me angry is that when
the rock was discovered at the Ritz, it was sifted, and it's got zero.
And when the rock was discovered down at the city beach where those of
us who live here go, it was buried. And we got, you know, point --
we've got a lot. And why would we have a higher standard for the Ritz
than we have for us who live here?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if that's a completely
accurate portrayal.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not. It's '-
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- frustration.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The contractor was on the scene and still
working when the problem at the Ritz was discovered.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why wasn't it discovered at the City of
Naples sooner?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know. I got a phone call from the
Ritz, and I got our staff out there, and we looked at it, said there's
a problem, and told the contractor fix it and the contractor fixed it.
You know, I don't make any apologies for that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not suggesting you should.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the fact that it didn't happen in the
city, I don't know why.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I want to know.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Had I got the same phone call on the
city, I would have done the same thing. But I didn't.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But to suggest that the Ritz is being
held to a different -- a higher standard I think is misleading.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, I didn't intend that. What I
meant is at this point now, we have to decide what standard we're
going to hold our beaches to, and I hope that we'll hold it to
something higher than rule 62-B. Hold it to what the beach is at Port
Royal.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think it's realistic to hold
it to a zero percent standard. I think I'm perfectly happy with
mother nature. I wish our beaches didn't erode away and we had them
all the way that they were whenever. And mother nature doesn't have a
zero percent. So if that's at, you know, some livable percentage, I
can certainly live with that. I don't think it's realistic nor
probably cost affordable to try to go with zero percent up and down
the beach. I don't think it's necessary, either.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chairman, I know we have public
speakers, and it's just come to my attention that Councilman Herms
who's here wasn't aware of our policy of registering ahead of time. I
hope that since he's been a big part of this, you'll allow him to
speak, even though he didn't register in the exact moment.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Shoot no.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't know. It's iffy.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: We make no exceptions for the general
public, but for an elected official.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Now that we've properly embarrassed him.
I would quickly fill out the form, Joe.
At this point in time, unless there's any further questions from
staff, we'll hear from public speakers on this.
MR. FERNANDEZ: First speaker is Bill Boggess, second speaker is
Dick Lydon.
MR. BOGGESS: Well, I'll say that it's -- will be difficult to
answer all the things that were said in the last half hour in the five
minutes allotted to me. But I can thank -- and we can thank Mr.
Hancock for taking the bull by the horns last October and getting this
thing started.
As he stated December the 16th, let's do this like cutting a
dog's tail off, let's get the whole tail, not one inch at a time.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And here we are.
MR. BOGGESS: We currently have about one inch of that dog's tail
cut off with the current contract. If you go along with the beach
committee and what the city requested, you will have 65 to 70 percent
taken care of.
There is 1,700 lineal feet in front of the Ritz Carlton hotel
that has two-thirds of the fill impregnated with rock, according to
your honorable Dr. Stephen, as he told the committee, and it's in the
minutes at the beach committee, on June 6th and July llth, 1996. The
state told him to remove all rocks, and if you can't get the rocks
out, haul the material off and bring in new sand.
The Corps of Engineers is well aware, the FDEP is well aware of
this. The Corps of Engineers addressed that particular problem in
their notice of noncompliance, if you'll read it.
Now, let's go to those notices of noncompliance and the state's
notice of permit violation. The Corps of Engineers clearly
stipulates, beach compatible sand means that the sand will be free.
Now, maybe I don't understand the definition of free. Free of rocks,
cobbles, driftwood, compatible with the native sand material. And
they related that the inspection revealed that large quantities of
incompatible material consisting of rocks and cobbles exist, both at
Naples and Vanderbilt Beach. This was their letter of February 25th,
addressed to Mr. Huber, and copied to the board.
Now, a month later -- this was a result of an inspection on
February the 18th when the Corps, the FDEP, the consultant's engineer
-- not the geologist -- and Harry Huber, John Steiger and myself
viewed the beach from Second Avenue to just beyond the pier.
At that particular time, it was obvious that your project, 27-71,
did not encompass the area that had rocks. That -- therefore, the
Corps of Engineers suggested that it appeared that you needed to
explore and find out where the rock is. At which time I reminded him,
and Mr. Huber agreed, that a year previously they had screened
material from Fourth to about 10th or llth, and they got rock all the
way. Varying amounts at different locations. You don't -- don't think
that it's even amount of rock all the way. There's lesser at some and
more at others.
So that is where this digging occurred. Now, let's get to the
Environmental Protection Agency's letter.
When you design a beach and you hired a consultant who I presume
you thought knew what they were doing and had the experience to do
this particular project, they have certain guidelines which you are to
follow, such as is rule 62-B-41007. Within that, it allows the
consultant to vary and deviate from the standards that the state has
established by legislative action.
I've asked Dr. Stephen, Mike Popp (phonetic), Harry Huber, if
there was any deviation applied for. They said no. In the final
certification that Mr. Popp signed on December 2nd, he did not
indicate any dual layering. He did indicate that there was some
material -- rocky material on Naples Beach that the county was going
to take care of. So how are you going to hang the contractor when you
have that in an official document?
But the state -- the 62-B-41-7 -- and it is quoted in this notice
that was sent to Mr. Hancock, all fill material placed shall be sand,
which is similar to that already existing. I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Boggess.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Dick Lydon, and then Mr. Joe
Herms.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would be the Honorable Joe Herms.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Honorable Joseph Herms.
MR. LYDON: For the record, Dick Lydon, chairman of the beach
renourishment committee.
Ladies and gentlemen, seems like I've spent a lot of time down
here. But first off, I'd like to say that in the magazine Conde' Nast
Travel (phonetic), Naples Beach has been selected and chosen and voted
as one of the fifth -- five top beaches in the world.
Now, obviously the people at Conde' Nast either stayed at the
Registry or the Ritz; but nevertheless, the Ritz situation, I think
you might take into consideration, we're finding it is perfect. And
that's exactly what everybody wants is perfect. But how does it get
perfect? It gets perfect by the fact that the Ritz spends a lot of
their time and their money getting those rocks that may show up from
time to time.
We still have a few rocks on the beach at Vanderbilt. As a
matter of fact, on the 25th of April, we're going to have a little
rock picking contest up there and see if we can't get a few of them
off. But the --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If that's like tomato picking, I'm in.
MR. LYDON: You're in. I knew you would. I'm going to send you
an invitation. While all the rest of us are out in the bay, because
that's also the day we clean up Vanderbilt lagoon.
But I think what we have to determine here is what represents --
what do we really want? Do we want pristine? Now, if you want
pristine, I would suggest to you, go to the Waikiki Beach in Hawaii,
and between 2:00 and 4:00 every morning they bring truckloads of brand
new sand in and spread it around with a Caterpillar tractor. I'm sure
the people down at Naples Beach would be just delighted.
Pristine to me -- pristine to me is a word that really doesn't
exist. What I'd like is natural, what we had before. What we had
before is what we're trying to get back to.
What I fear -- what I fear that is being requested of you-all is
to get back to better than we had before. And I think if we can just
maintain over the next eight years or ten years, the beach, as it
exists -- which action we took at the last beach committee meeting by
putting some 50,000 cubic yards of sand on that beach to keep it
looking nice. I worry a little about the sand that's coming in from
upland. It may be too fine. If we get some blows, we may lose some
of it. But that's the price we're going to pay.
The other thing I'd like to urge you is don't push this turtle
envelope so far. We've pushed that sucker awhile. And Maura Kraus
(phonetic) has just done one great job in getting some help and some
relief from those people up there, but let's not get into it too far,
because there may come a time again when we need him real bad.
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to stand up here.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Lydon.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is the Honorable Joseph Herms.
MR. HERMS: Thank you. And I appreciate being able to speak to
you on this very important issue.
As many of you know --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would you identify yourself?
MR. HERMS: Yes, Joseph Herms, city councilman. I reside at 167
Third Avenue North, in the City of Naples.
Fred Coyle, Fred Tarrant and myself ran on a campaign promise to
get rid of the rocks on the beach, and that's one of the reasons I'm
here today is that I want to encourage you to do the complete project,
spend approximately $425,000 this year, with the 99,000 that you've
committed to dig up the complete beach and rid us of the rocks that
are there.
There's obviously been discussion by your staff, the consultants
and yourselves as to what percentage of rock was in the natural beach.
I can guarantee you that the beach that you have in Port Royal was
exactly the same beach that we had in Naples.
And interestingly enough, where I live on Third Avenue North, the
pumped in sand has absolutely no rock in it. It was a beautiful beach
that you provided to us. But if you walk down there today, you will
be very disappointed, because there's all rock in the surf.
You say how did that occur? And one of your questions was, is
this all of it? Unfortunately, it's not. What's occurring is we
ignore the situation; is that the rock is eroding from the face of the
beach, and that rock is getting into the surf, and it's moving up and
down the surf.
If we don't do the whole beach right now, you're going to be back
in the fall and next spring doing it all over again, because this
material is going to be back out into the surf.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but when
you say the whole beach, are you saying nine miles?
MR. HERMS: No, no, excuse me. The identified Fourth Avenue
South down to the pier area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You mean work effort four.
MR. HERMS: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Work effort four, if you've seen the staff
MR. HERMS: Right, work effort four.
And it's imperative that we do it, because we'll just be back
doing it all over again. In fact, right now, on Saturday -- you paid
last year to have this area sieved down to about three feet. On
Saturday, they dug exactly the same material up and ran it through the
screening machine again, and you paid for it again this year. And you
will pay for it again next year for the same thing. So I think it
just makes a lot of sense just to take care of it all.
The other thing that's intriguing about this beach is if you look
when they're digging down to about a four or five foot level, there's
a phenomenal amount of rock in that bottom area. The protocols that
are being done by your engineer, I believe, are only down to a two or
three-foot level.
Those protocols are not accurate. You submit those protocols to
the federal and to the state agencies, and you've wasted a lot of
time. You need to go down to a six, seven or eight-foot depth with
your protocols. Otherwise, that's where the rock is. It's all buried
real deep within the area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Joe, can I ask you a question about that,
because --
MR. HERMS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that's new information for me. But the
renourished beach isn't six foot deep.
MR. HERMS: Yes, it is --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is?
MR. HERMS: -- in different areas, yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In some places it's --
MR. HERMS: Yeah, it is.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- six foot deep?
MR. HERMS: Yep, uh-huh.
It was interesting, because on Saturday they were digging the
area, exactly the same area last year that you had sieved down three
feet. And when you look down into the bottom of that pit, I could not
believe the amount of rock that was buried in there. And then you can
clearly see when they hit the original beach. And the rock is really
lower.
And that's even indicated by what the various letters that were
done here. I mean, it shows that they were trying to layer this, and
the material's lower.
And that's what's occurring on that face of the beach, is that it
erodes that material. You're not seeing it on the very top layers,
but it's down below. And it has a phenomenal amount of rock in it.
It was interesting, I asked Mr. Cadenhead this morning
approximately what percentage of rock is he removing, and he says
approximately six -- excuse me, seven to eight percent by volume of
the materials being removed is rock. And I would propose that the
material buried underneath is much higher; probably 18, 20, 25 percent
rock.
So I thank you for your consideration, and I hope we will move
forward with alleviating the rock problem and your headache and our
headaches in the city, and have a beach like it was with almost zero
percent rock. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
Mr. Ilschner, I have a question.
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If there are areas on that beach that are six
to seven feet deep that have had that new fill put on them, or sand,
or whatever you want to call it, how do you go about sifting down? I
mean, this is like taking every inch of material that's been placed on
the beach and resifting it. Is this -- is this a logical approach to
this whole thing? This somehow has just --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: May be the only approach.
MR. ILSCHNER: Well, if the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the only approach.
MR. ILSCHNER: If the effort is to -- we go to the areas that
identified problems. The protocol called for us to try to identify
the limits of nonspecified material. And it was our intent to go down
to the fill level, the original fill level. Now, that may vary. It
may vary from four feet all the way down to six or seven feet. But
that's identifiable, because you can see the different strata, the
different coloration, et cetera.
And so our protocol that I think we handed out to you has a
cross-sectional element in it, and does indicate that we're going to
go down to the original fill level, using this protocol.
So that answers the honorable councilman's indication that we
need to get down to that original level.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Ilschner?
MR. ILSCHNER: Now, there may be some native areas on the beach
where you go down below the original fill where you may encounter
rocks. No question about that.
It depends on what you want to achieve, Madam Chairman. If you
want to have a beach completely free of any rocks in the future, then
that's easily done by going down to these levels that we're taking
about, six or seven or eight feet.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Ilschner --
MR. ILSCHNER: Whether that's practical or realistic is a
different issue.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: On the test pit sampling data, if I'm
looking at the right thing; the pages aren't numbered, but it's the
third page from the back of the protocol. It talks about the monument
-- you know, the block locations and then the depth, width, length and
height volume of the test pits, and only two of those, one at -- both
of them being at Second Avenue South, go down five, six or seven feet.
The rest of them are all zero -- mostly zero to three, and some four.
A couple of them are four feet.
Can we rely on the fact that these depth -- these test depths
took us to the bottom of the fill?
MR. ILSCHNER: That's my understanding. But let me call on again
Coastal Engineering rep.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He's behind you. Other side.
MR. STEPHEN: I'm sorry, over here.
I looked around that side and he wasn't there a while ago.
MR. STEPHEN: For the record, Mike Stephen again.
The test pits were taken out on the Dry Beach at the top of the
beach face on the active berm.
Typically at those locations we encountered the native beach,
sort of as shown on figure two, which is attached to the back of the
-- of the protocol. And you can see the various -- the depth of the
beach varies from three to five feet at that location.
Now, the cleanup specification goes down to a depth of actually
six, six and a half feet. We were out -- I was also out there
Saturday morning. Mr. Cadenhead was excavating in the deepest portion
of the back side of the beach, and he actually was getting down, we
checked, and he was -- his cut depth was picking up and throwing onto
the pile in the last cut a dark brown sand that had peat fragments in
it, peat stains. I mean, it was a --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a historic beach right there.
MR. STEPHEN: That's a historic beach, yes, sir. And so the --
part of our operational protocol is to use a backhoe and to make sure
that -- we won't go to exactly the same spot. We'll vary in and out
along the beach to make sure that we're getting down to the native
natural beach and can examine what is there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's good, and I appreciate that,
but I just really needed an answer to my question and that was on the
third page from the back here where we have controlled beach test pit
sampling data, March 27, '98, we got the -- MR. STEPHEN: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- monuments, locations, depths?
MR. STEPHEN: Correct.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Only a couple of them go five feet or
more. And I'm wondering, can I be sure -- can you assure me that
those depths for testing at each of those locations took us to the
natural beach?
MR. STEPHEN: Well, these are our -- this was natural beach at
zero to one, natural beach all the way down to four. There's no fill
there. There's no artificial beach at these locations.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, these are samples of existing --
MR. STEPHEN: These are samples of Park Shore on --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then it -- then how --
MR. STEPHEN: -- on the -- on the control beach data, and on the
summary of the test pit sampling data.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. You don't tell us how deep you
went.
MR. STEPHEN: That they also averaged about four feet or so deep,
those pits. These are summaries of what is much more data, much more
information.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Michael, when you did then -- because I
was looking at the wrong page, so it's the next to the last page --
MR. STEPHEN: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- summary of test pit sampling data.
When you test it -- because you can understand, the reason I'm
asking this question is, I don't want to do what we're -- again, what
we're doing already today and that is little pieces of the dog's tail.
Can I -- can I be sure that you have tested to adequate depths?
And adequate depths to me are depths to the depth of the original
beach. The question that Mr. Herms just raised -- MR. STEPHEN: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- is my question.
MR. STEPHEN: We have a --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And please -- I know that you're --
sometimes you're so smart that you have a hard time giving answers in
people language. Just help me have this --
MR. STEPHEN: I appreciate that. I'll -- I'm going to hand out a
-- we're handing out a graphic, and it's stamped draft, to try to --
this is another way to look at this. This is the same information
that's in that table, and maybe this will -- this will help.
On the left side of this graph is percent gravel. Along the
bottom of the graph are street locations where the test pits were
taken.
What we've done is, the current level of activity, this level
one, is crosshatched in the boxes. And what's shaded at the bottom is
all of the area 0 to 1.3, which is, if you will, control beach.
And what we see is, is that if you look at the crosshatched boxes
that the -- the sampling that was done by the test pits very closely
reflects the work that is already proposed under the current contract.
If you look down at 14th, down to the lower right of the graph,
and then you look up at 13th, we may have actually mislocated or need
to slide. We could exchange the work that's proposed for 14th and
move it up to 13th and take care of that high 309 trough sample.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How deep do these samples go, Michael?
MR. STEPHEN: Well, the T samples are the ones taken out in the
water. They're about two feet deep; two to three feet deep. We're
excavating to minus three. And that's where the highest concentration
of rock was sampled.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Does that two feet depth get us to the
original beach?
MR. STEPHEN: The excavation to minus three, which is what we're
-- what the design cut is out there, definitely does, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Remembering that if you look at the
profile out in the water --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It narrows.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the depth is --
MR. STEPHEN: Yeah, it narrows down.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- much smaller than that --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But it also varies along the length of the
beach. Sometimes you have six feet of new sand, sometimes you have
one foot of new sand in depth.
MR. STEPHEN: Well, we also went out and dug deep holes in the
bar to make sure that we were far enough offshore, and what you can
see is, is that the -- you know, there's some open boxes, for example,
up at Fourth, up in the upper left-hand corner, a little half-box
open. Those are areas where we -- that are at the edges of the work
that we now have proposed where this excavation that we would use, the
protocol that we would use, would help us make sure that we're getting
far enough and that -- and we go all the way down to the native beach,
and we use that to confirm to the Corps of Engineers and to the DEP
that we have in fact gone far enough and that the samples to the north
and south of any area that we're working are clean according to the
protocol.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me ask one more question and then I'm
going to stop, because I'm taking too much time, but it's for you,
Michael, and that is, I am -- I am confident that the work that we
currently have, the 90 -- $100,000 worth of work, is not adequate to
address the problem. And the more that I am shown scientific data to
show that that is adequate, the less I trust the scientific analysis,
because my eyes tell me that it's clearly not enough. It's positively
not enough.
So is it your professional opinion that the $100,000 level one
job is enough, or should we do level two, level three or level four?
MR. STEPHEN: Well, currently, I totally support the staff
recommendation to this board. We know that the more ability that we
have to excavate adjacent to these areas, the more ability we have to
define the precise limits. Our initial limits were based on the
contractor records and our field observations and on the post-storm
observations where these -- where those same areas caused rock to be
exposed as the beach adjusted through time.
This is a -- now a higher level, a more accurate representation,
and what the staff recommendation proposes is an even higher level.
And so I think that the ultimate end point is, as Mr. Ilschner has
presented to you, is going to be whatever is deemed appropriate and
acceptable by the agencies with respect to the permit compliance
issue. And beyond that is up to this board and this community from a
cosmetic or a -- or a perception standpoint.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But your science -- your scientific review
confirms that we do need to do more than we're currently doing, and
that we should authorize this up to $350,000 based on continuous
testing as we move forward, that we should --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I thought you were only going to ask
one more.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I know, but it's just so hard to get
an answer.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You promised.
MR. STEPHEN: Yes. I mean, if you look -- just specifically, if
you look at the area between Eighth and Ninth, for example, there's an
area that we have a couple -- and down at llth, there's some white
boxes there, those are areas that we think we may need to expand based
on the field sampling.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie, what are -- what
-- what are you debating with him? He agrees with you, it sounds
like.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I'm just wanting him -- good, I
wanted to be sure he was saying that. It sounded like to me he was
saying something a little different.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, do you --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: He started out his comments by saying he
fully supports the staff recommendations.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, do we have additional
speakers on this?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Should we close the public hearing?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't need to.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, we don't need to.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Close the hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In that case, I'm going to make a motion
that we direct staff to proceed with staff recommendation, which
includes work effort four.
In addition to that, I think we need to do test areas north of
the Ritz Carlton and Vanderbilt Beach -- if they have not been done
already or not included in this -- to ensure that what was done up
there is consistent with standards commensurate with work effort four.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any
further discussion? All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Thank you, Mr. Ilschner.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Ed.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we need to give our court reporter a
little break.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we do, yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll take about ten minutes.
(Brief recess.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm glad you-all moved forward. It was
getting a little lonely up here.
Item #SD1
EHS DEPARTMENT PAY PLAN - APPROVED
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What is our next item?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: (D) (1).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The next item is item 8(D)(1), an item
that I added back to the agenda. Mr. Ochs.
MR. OCHS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Leo
Ochs, support services administrator.
The add-on item that you have before you this morning is a
recommendation to adopt a series of changes to your pay plan,
specifically with respect to a number of position titles in your
emergency medical services department.
Each year, as I'm sure the board knows, your human resources
staff conducts a survey of the board's pay plan to check its
competitiveness against a salary survey that the Florida League of
Cities conducts annually.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Leo, I'm terribly sorry to interrupt,
but I know that each of the commissioners have been briefed on this.
We've got a really, really good EMS department with some really,
really good people, and we'd just as soon keep them. So is there any
downside to this?
MR. OCHS: No, sir, not in my opinion.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand -- I've got a couple of
calls, and I know Commissioner Norris has raised the question of -- a
couple of questions to do with EMS, which I appreciate, but I think is
separate. I think we need to look at those things, but I don't think
we need to hold off on a pay plan increase.
So we might have a bunch of public speakers, but just by way of
straw vote --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's got my support.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I'm certainly in favor of it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That is the exact reason --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- I brought it back. I'm not diminishing --
if Commissioner Norris has a concern, that's fine, but I thought this
as being two different issues, and that's why I brought this and
wanted this issue brought back.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I certainly agree. That's three.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree also.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Four.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. And I don't have any
objection to the pay plan increases either, but just if we have a lot
of employee turnover and only one subject is analyzed, I think that's
a short-sighted analysis. I want to see some in-depth analysis on
some other items as well.
Now, obviously we're going to go ahead today with the pay plan
adjustments, but I hope the board doesn't lose sight of the fact that
we -- we should go ahead and do some analysis on what else is going on
within our EMS department.
Because interestingly enough, an interesting little phenomenon,
I've had a number of calls from EMS people encouraging us to do so.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have, too.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And that's fine. But as I say, I look at
this as kind of a two-step approval; number one, that we go ahead and
make sure that the pay is adequate for these employees, that's --
that's one issue. And the second issue, if it's a management issue,
then I believe that Mr. Fernandez, we need to direct him -- if it's
the desire of this Commission, to go ahead and direct him to conduct a
management study. I believe that that would be in order at that point
in time. If it's --
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What I'd like to hear is from Mr.
Fernandez, frankly, if he thinks we need to do a management review. I
mean, we are prohibited by law from interfering with -- we need to
communicate with him and tell him what we hear from the public, and
then he makes decisions about whether or not he investigates his
staff.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I suggest we stay on the agenda
item --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and just deal with the pay plan?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, let's go with the pay plan at this
point in time.
So you made a motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- approve the item. I understand
there is one public speaker.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, second was mine.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hancock's.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand.
I guess before we go ahead and vote on this, we'll have a -- if
there are public speakers, we'll have them.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, we have one public speaker, Janet
Vasey.
MS. VASEY: Janet Vasey, for the record.
I did have a couple of comments on the pay plan itself, and then
I'd also like to address the management issue, if you think that it's
appropriate to address it at this point.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm not sure that it's appropriate at this
time, Janet, the management side of it. I think that needs to be
determined by Mr. Fernandez.
MS. VASEY: Okay. As to the pay plan, I'm -- I think it sounds
like it's something that needs to be done. There's a lot of
competition out there for EMS people. I think we've seen it even
locally. Now fire districts are hiring EMS personnel, and they can
pay them a lot better than you can. So I think you have to -- you
have to recognize that need and make sure -- make sure that you can
hold on to them.
A few years ago attrition was a problem in the sheriff's office
and it was addressed by a pay plan increase, and I think that's the
same problem that you've got here. It wasn't really a management
problem there, and I don't think it's a management problem here, but I
won't go into that one. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you for not addressing the
management issue.
MS. VASEY: I could have gone on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She had more.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At any rate, we have a motion and a second.
I'll call for the question. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Ochs.
Item #9A
CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A SERVICE CHARGE OF TEN
DOLLARS PER EACH CIVIL CASE FILING TO PARTIALLY FUND A LEGAL AID OFFICE
TO HANDLE FAMILY LAW LEGAL ISSUES FOR INDIGENT RESIDENTS OF COLLIER
COUNTY - STAFF DIRECTED TO ADVERTISE FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Moving on then to county attorney's report. An ordinance to
establish a service charge of $10 for each civil case filing to
partially fund a legal aid office. Mr. Hanalich?
MR. HANALICH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Ramiro Hanalich, chief assistant county attorney.
At this point you have an executive summary consistent with your
prior direction to staff and to the proponents of this proposal, the
Collier County Bar Association.
This summary lays out the proposed filing fee that will be used
to support this legal aid office.
At this point I would turn the podium over to the representatives
of the Collier County Bar Association to address the proposal with
you.
MS. RIDDLE: Good morning. For the record, Helinda Riddle.
We are here today on this proposal, and briefly, I just want to
tell you that in the 11 years or so that I've practiced here, 14 years
overall, I think that as an attorney, we've all seen the need for this
funding, despite the terrific efforts of our volunteer lawyers'
project.
In Collier County, we have a very active Bar Association that
provides hundreds of hours, and even so, we have been unable to keep
up with the demand in this particular area.
The speakers that you will be hearing from today will be Jill
Burzynski -- let me back up a little bit. First you will hear from
Christine Greider, who is the past president of the Bar Association,
and who will speak to you directly about the Bar's involvement in this
project and how this has come about.
I would like to point out as well that Christine is a past
recipient of the pro bono service award. It's a -- an award that is
given by the Supreme Court Bar Association, but it is a circuit-wide
award.
Also, next after that will be Jill Burzynski who is on the Bar
Association board of directors and chair of this committee, who will
talk to you about the nuts and bolts of the proposal.
I should also mention that Jill Burzynski is this year's
recipient of the pro bono service award as well.
We have an opportunity as well, and I will address you later on
to give you at least one sample case, if you will, of the types of
cases that are falling through the cracks with the system that we have
in place. But I'd like to ask Christine to start out by talking to
you about the association.
MS. GREIDER: Thank you, Helinda. For the record, Christine
Greider. I'm the immediate past president of the Collier County Bar
Association, and I had the unenviable task as the president during the
1996-1997 term to go to the in excess of 600 members of the Bar
Association to ask not only that they continue to give their time and
their talent to assisting the poor in Collier County, but also to
increase their Bar dues by 50 percent. That was passed by the Collier
County Bar Association last year; with the commitment that the
committee, headed by Jill Burzynski, come to the County Commissioners
to request the additional filing fee, as we are here today.
As Helinda mentioned, the Bar Association, through the efforts of
our executive director, Judy Baker, screen in excess of hundreds of
cases for pro bono legal assistance. And that's coordinated through
our volunteer lawyers' project.
We handled in excess of 100 cases last year, and that's not just
money, that is attorneys in private practice stopping what they're
doing to assist those who are not able financially to obtain legal
representation here in Collier County.
I'm proud to be a lawyer in Collier County. I am proud of the
Bar Association saying yes once again when we've asked them to assist
the poor in Collier County.
Helinda Riddle, who, by the way, is also a past recipient of the
Florida president's pro bono award -- and it doesn't surprise me that
the three of us are here today asking for your help. But she'll
explain to you the number -- the number of cases that we see and also
the types of cases that we see.
And with that, I'll turn it over to Helinda who can -- or
actually to Jill, who can explain more about the nuts and bolts of
this proposal. And again, I strongly encourage you to support this
amendment. Thanks.
MS. BURZYNSKI: I'm Jill Burzynski. I'm on the Collier County
board of directors of the Bar Association, and I'm here to request
that you establish an ordinance which will charge a service fee of $10
for each civil case filing to partially fund a legal aid office. And
the legal aid office would handle family law issues for indigent
residents of Collier County.
The proposed ordinance is authorized by Florida Statute 28.241-1,
which allows for a service fee to be charged for filing -- when you're
filing a civil case, that there would be an additional $10 charged,
and that money then would go to partially fund the legal aid office.
If -- should the Commission decide not to fund this legal aid
office, you should be aware that there are some hidden costs to the
county. First of all, the Bar Association's efforts we know are not
completely addressing the needs that are out there. And that's why
we're here. And so by not addressing that need, the hidden costs
include that there are a lot of pro se litigants, people in the court
system without a lawyer, without real knowledge of what the court
system is about.
And a lot of times if someone has a lawyer, they -- their
expectations can be brought into reality, and every idea that they
have about what they might be entitled to can be really adjusted, and
not everything has to be brought before the judge.
Oftentimes when you're litigating against a pro se litigant, you
go to the judge constantly, because they don't really know what is
ever -- what's appropriate to ask for. So there's the cost to the
judicial system and the backlogging of cases, that there would be a
more efficient justice were more people to be represented in this
fashion.
Another way that there's a hidden cost to the county is if people
are out there not believing that they can afford a divorce, they may
stay in a bad situation too long, and hopefully, we would see a
decrease in domestic violence reports if -- if people had a place to
go.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Jill, can I ask two or three --
MS. BURZYNSKI: Sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- specific questions?
MS. BURZYNSKI: Certainly.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much will this raise annually,
about?
MS. BURZYNSKI: We think that the filing fee alone will raise
roughly $80,000.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And for those of us who don't spend
our days in the courthouse, the typical civil case, what are the cases
-- what are -- where will this $10 be applied? MS. BURZYNSKI: All civil cases.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Give me some examples of different
extremes of civil cases.
MS. BURZYNSKI: You know, contract disputes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: PI.
MS. BURZYNSKI: PI, family law. You know, any civil filing.
Probate, guardianship.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would be personal injury, for the
non-law bound.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Slip and fall. Motorcycle accidents.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. And then explain the extent
of -- and really, the limits of the services you're looking to provide
here. You've talked some about domestic situations. What else would
this be available for?
MS. BURZYNSKI: Just family law; divorces for indigent people.
We don't want the legal aid office to be out there to do other things.
I mean, this is a situation that we consider more of a crisis; there
are children involved. And that's what we want to be doing, not every
other kind of lawsuit.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right, thank you.
MS. BURZYNSKI: Did I address all of your questions?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, you did.
MS. BURZYNSKI: Oh, okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock --
MS. BURZYNSKI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- I believe has a question.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I note in your application that you have
already approached the United Way, and you have to be in existence for
a full year before the United Way will entertain an application for
funds.
MS. BURZYNSKI: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I assume you will continue to apply for
those funds?
MS. BURZYNSKI: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. BURZYNSKI: Any grants that may be available, we will be
applying for.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: First of all, I'm supportive of the idea
and want to support it today, but I'm going to say something I said
when we also adopted the domestic violence program in Judge Wilson's
court, and that is that these things tend to feed on themselves. You
have a known problem out there. And once the offer of aid become
available, what you thought was a known quantity tends to grow, and
these types of programs have a tendency to again seek a higher level
each year, and then they really don't tend to level off.
So what I would like to encourage is I'm supportive of the ten
dollar filing fee and the purposes as you have described here, and
wish to thank you for that, but I want to emphasize that I think it
would be prudent to look to whether it be United Way, private
donations and fundraising, as you have already, to fund any growth or
expansion that would be required based on caseload, first and
foremost, before this board at any point in the near future considers
any type of increase or additional amount in the filing fee. So I
just wanted to kind of set that out there as a --
MS. BURZYNSKI: I would agree wholeheartedly with that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Norris -- or Commissioner Norris I
believe has a question.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I do. Ms. Burzynski, you said early
in your remarks that this was to benefit indigent residents. Those --
by that do you mean anyone that's indigent or only citizens of Collier
County --
MS. BURZYNSKI: Citizens of -- I'm sorry, just citizens of
Collier County would be eligible for this program. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's all.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are there any further questions?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- motion and a second to approve. All in
favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Now I'll ask you, do we have any public speakers on this?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, you had one that was not able to
stay, and I'll just mention it for the record. She gave you a written
statement that I'll put in the record. Her name is Margot Escott.
And I have her written statement.
The other registered speaker was Judy Baker, who was mentioned as
being executive director.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Does Judy want to talk us out of this? All
right, thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great work, guys.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 98-97 APPOINTING WILLIAM T. LEWIS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on then to the Board of County
Commissioners' appointment of a member to the Collier County Code
Enforcement Board South.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll nominate William Lewis.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second for
William T. Lewis, who is a subcontractor. Any questions or comments?
If not, all in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #10B
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE MARCO ISLAND BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY
COHMITTEE - NO ACTION
The next one is an appointment of members to the Marco Island
Beautification Advisory Committee.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Fernandez, aren't we going to turn this
-- or dissolve this committee? Hasn't Marco Island already
established their own?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. As of October 1, this
committee will be off our books, as I understand it, once the fiscal
year begins.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's as I understand it, yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel, what --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. In fact, I met with Mr. Smykowski, Jim
Hitchell of the clerk's office and others yesterday in regard to the
imminent transfer of this HSTD and three other HSTD funds to the City
of Marco, which just this past week approved by resolution the request
pursuant to their charter for those funds.
Additional information is that these HSTD's will be terminated.
The advisory boards will no longer be of a need to continue in
existence. The county attorney will be coming to the board shortly
with repealer ordinances for those ordinances that are currently in
existence, both for the HSTD's, and for any ordinances of related
advisory boards.
And the transfer of the funds for the particular HSTD's requested
by the City of Marco is an operation of law and does not require any
additional activity or direction or approval of the Board of County
Commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Then is it appropriate to go ahead and
approve this appointment, or should we let -- what should we do on
this?
MR. WEIGEL: It's not inappropriate to approve it, but I don't
even think they will be meeting again unless they have a schedule to
meet very, very quickly. The check --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why don't we just --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can count on their resume, though.
MR. WEIGEL: -- should be cut every week.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Should we just continue it indefinitely,
unless they ask us to do it?
Motion to continue indefinitely.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion to continue
indefinitely.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, you're
comfortable with that?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'm just not sure that the answer is
clear enough, because either we are or not going to have -- Marco
Island has set up their own committee, the same thing, under their
auspices.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So I'm not sure that we should even have a
duplicate committee --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: -- having meetings, much less be appointing
someone to it.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Unfortunately, though, as long as we have
an MSTU on the books, we have an obligation by ordinance to have a
standing committee. Otherwise, we're in violation of the ordinance
that established it; is that correct, Mr. Weigel? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's continue indefinitely.
MR. WEIGEL: That's true. I don't think -- I don't believe that
there's a situation of a lack of ability of a quorum of this MSTU if
this particular appointment or appointments are not made.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris, are you asking for
direction other than the motion and second that was made?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you want a motion to withdraw the item?
I'll withdraw it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I was just thinking perhaps -- where
are we on transferring the money? That discussion's underway as well,
right?
MR. WEIGEL: It is.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, if I may respond. Pardon me.
I signed a memorandum to the finance director this morning,
indicating that we have received the certified copies of the action
taken by Marco Island to dissolve the MSTD's. Our indication is that
the checks transferring the funds will be written this week, so I
think the discussions are over and the actions are underway.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And so my point is that once we transfer
the money, we should just go ahead and -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Dissolve.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- dissolve the committee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that will happen when we get those
terminating ordinances? That was what I thought we anticipated.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. Although the board hasn't, in the
entertainment of this agenda item, given me its direction. Quite
frankly, I am practically going to unilaterally bring that back, as
just the next logical step pursuant to the operation of the charter --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Can we withdraw this then?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was going to say, rather than leaving it
linger.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, let's withdraw.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're going to withdraw this item from the
agenda?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: She's withdrawing her motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll withdraw my motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, you're going to withdraw your motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But what my intention would be -- well,
you tell us how to do it, Mr. Weigel.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, you tell us how to proceed, because
it's a little bit confusing.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, when --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why don't we just take no action on the
item?
MR. WEIGEL: -- try to take no action, yeah.
Item #10C
DISCUSSION RE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL - COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE
TO SERVE AS LIAISON TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, moving on.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Moving on.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, moving on then to Commissioner
Constantine, an issue regarding economic development.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We talked again at our workshop, as we
did a couple years ago, about how we all think economic development's
a high priority item. And I mentioned particularly liaison to the
economic community.
And we meet, each of us, I believe, quarterly with the EDC
anyway, but I thought particularly with Greg and with not only the EDC
but our foreign trade zones with the airports and so on, we ought to
have a member serve in that liaison capacity.
And as I had said the other day, I think we ought to rotate that
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the point, Commissioner
Constantine, to serve for the initial year?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is it a year or rotating?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to say rotated annually
just so that everybody on the board gets a chance to be invested in
those things. I think quarterly we're going to meet with the EDC,
each of us anyway, but as far as reaching out to the other parts of
the economic community, we do that annually.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, so this is different than the
Economic Development Council's request for quarterly appointments to
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and initially the EDC had talked
about having a commissioner do that for a year, but then they've tried
to make a point starting I think two quarters ago to meet with each of
us quarterly anyway, and they, I think -- I don't know that we need a
formal person every three months to alter there, as long as they're
sitting down with each of us anyway.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, because it's my understanding that
the EDC, their board had requested that we appoint a liaison that
would rotate on a quarterly basis to just increase the board's
familiarity with the EDC relationship, and I was in agreement with
that. I thought it was a pretty good idea.
And I don't really want to take action that either precludes or
says we aren't interested in doing that until we've had an opportunity
to discuss the EDC's request.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, and that's certainly not my
intention. I'm --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- just trying to have a liaison to
reach out to the Economic Development community.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, how about if I amend my motion to
say we appoint Commissioner Constantine to serve as our first liaison
to the EDC at a term to be determined by recommendation, you know,
from the EDC board? They can tell us if they want quarterly or
annually.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Will that accomplish your desired goal
initially?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not completely.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because again, my point isn't just the
EDC isn't -- they aren't the whole economic development picture.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's true, and --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I -- if you could combine what
you were going to say before and that, I mean, to reach out to the
others for our annual basis, and I just -- I think we should all
rotate that regularly just so everybody has some personal investment
in it. But if EDC wants to do that quarterly, that portion of it we
can do quarterly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that two -- there could potentially be
two issues: One is that we have right now established Commissioner
Constantine as the -- as the representative liaison with economic
development issues, not just at the EDC, but also foreign trade zones,
the airports, and then we'll respond to whatever request we get from
the Economic Development Council? Yeah, that's a motion. Because
frankly, if you don't have a year in it, quarterly, I don't know how
much you're going to be able to accomplish.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm comfortable with the motion the way
it's phrased now, but the reason I liked the quarterly is we all know
that we have a partnership with EDC; I think it's helpful for all of
us to understand where those dollars go, how they're being used, and
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- whatnot. So I think separating the
two, I'm comfortable with the motion. I just didn't want to preclude
the EDC proposal.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gotcha.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And a second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #11A1
FUNDING FOR PUBLIC GUARDIANSHIP PROGRAM FOR THE BALANCE OF FISCAL YEAR
1998 - TRANSFER OF FUNDS AS RECOMMENDED BY BUDGET DIRECTOR APPROVED
Next item, item ll(A)(1), funding for guardianship program.
Looks like Mr. Middlebrook is here to speak with us today.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yes, ma'am. Good morning. Thank you. For the
record, Mark Middlebrook, St., deputy court administrator, 20th
judicial circuit.
I'm here today to seek your permission to increase our budgetary
amount in our public guardianship fund, which is our fund 192.
As you may recall, sometime last year we came before you seeking
a change to the ordinance to allow us to appoint a public guardian for
Collier County. There's been some changes in the law which would
allow us to do that.
Prior to that, we had approximately nine assistant public
guardians. Frankly, as you can tell, in fiscal year 96-97, we spent
$76,000 on this program, and in the opinion of the court
administrator, that was far too much money.
We determined that we could lower that amount to approximately
$48,000 a year by appointing an attorney, a local attorney here in
town, or law firm to be our public guardian. So we project for fiscal
year '88 -- or excuse me, 98-99 to have no more than approximately
$48,000 spent on this program.
In order to do this, though, there was an overlap of these nine
assistant public guardians because of the requirements involved in the
guardianship law and our appointed public guardian that caused us to
have to expend more money than we had anticipated. In essence, we are
paying double duty. It's a requirement through the legal maneuver.
Because of that -- and this is an anomaly we don't ever
anticipate ever occurring again. We project that we're coming up
short, and, in fact, we have reached our limit to spend money, as is
budgeted.
So we are seeking the transfers of monies into the fund --
approximately $20,000, to come out of the 681 fund, which is our court
fund -- to go into the public guardianship fund. We want to reduce
the reserve contingencies by $3,000, and appropriation of $12,000 in
carryforward money.
In essence, what we are saying, we have matching money. We still
have approximately -- I believe it's $20,000 in matching money to
match the filing fees that we collect. But we want to maintain a
one-for-one match on that. So we are not asking for any additional
money to come out of the board's reserves. We can handle this all
in-house within the court budget and still meet our requirements.
Additionally, we are seeking this board to direct the county
attorney's office, if it sees fit, to rewrite the ordinance for the
collection of the filing fee from $4 to $6.50. We anticipate --
because there has been some reduction in filings, we anticipate a
shortfall for next year in the filing fees.
The $30,000 that we budget each year for matching money would not
change, so we would maintain the same budget. We aren't increasing
that budget one dollar. What we are increasing is the amount of money
that comes in from filing fees to hopefully reach, as we have seen, a
$1,600 a month fee collection. We would need to increase that to
reach our $48,000 for next year.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In and of itself, not a problem, but we
just increased civil filing fees by $10 with the last action, and now
we'd be looking at an additional two and a half dollars. And that's a
-- in one day, you know, that's kind of a jump.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much are filing fees prior to that
$10 per year?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I don't know. I believe they're $70 and
change. That's something that the clerk's office is responsible for,
but I believe that's what they are.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because it used to be for $65, anyone can
sue anybody, so I guess --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But let's get the official word. Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I think on a good day, $72 will allow you to sue
anybody right now. Until the board acted today.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's 82 and the proposal here is to make it
to 84.50.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we end up with about a 14 percent
increase in a day.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's a pretty good day's work.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or pretty bad, depending on your point
of view.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess my concern is if we -- you're
anticipating a reduction in the number of civil cases filed next year,
and that's the -- in addition to making up for this year, it's also --
you're projecting a reduction next year, is that the reason for the
increase in fees?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We're -- this is going to sound rather odd, but
really it's not. We're projecting a reduction of our projection.
In essence we set our fee on a certain projection, and we haven't
met that this year, and we assume -- and it's the only way we can go
on a worst case is that it's going to remain about that same level
next year.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if we -- are we going to have attorneys
on the street going hungry next year? Because it sounds like they're
filing less civil suits. And, you know, we wouldn't want to see that
happen.
I guess I'm just a little -- I would almost rather do a -- an
amendment from reserves to cover this year before we go adding another
2.50 onto an already ten dollar charge that we did today. I just '-
I'm looking for another way to do that, because I don't know, maybe
we'll get lucky next year and more people will sue each other. You
never know.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, we would also come up with a shortfall
for next year without the additional money. We would have to come
before you seeking something other than a dollar for dollar match, in
essence. If you -- and Mr. Smykowski can probably much better
describe this, but if you wish to just place the $30,000 that we
budget every year directly into the fund, we would be pretty close to
meeting our needs without raising that filing fee, but we would no
longer be on a dollar for dollar match. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A no-win either way.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine, you had a question?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hello? Is there anybody there?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why aren't we hearing this during the
regular budget season, if it's for next year's budget?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, we have a shortfall this year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand. But you said there's
two different parts here.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I understand the shortfall part.
But if you're then looking at okay, what about increasing the fees for
next year, because we project a lower projection for next year, why
aren't we handling that during budget season?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, we certainly can. It requires an
amendment to your ordinance, to begin with. And we were just seeking
your permission to have the county attorney's office begin that
process.
In addition, we need this extra money generated this year to meet
what we project to be our goal of $83,000.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the real life impact if we
don't? I mean, we joke about gee, attorneys going hungry, but what's
the real life impact? Who's being impacted if we do not do this?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: The citizens. Because --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Give me a --
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: You-all.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- real life example, not just a
generic citizens answer.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: All right. We -- well, in essence, if we don't
fund the program; is that what you're saying? Or are you saying who's
going to be --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if we don't -- if we decline
your request today, what happens?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, I believe this county is going to be sued
by the law firm that we've contracted with to do this for the next 40
months of -- that remains in the contract, which is $3,500 a month.
That's probably going to be the first thing. Because I believe until
we can pay this, we're in default at this point. And we can't pay it
because we have reached our budgetary maximum of paying.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm working really hard to get what is
the real life impact, John Q. Public; what happens to him if --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Person who needs a guardian.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Okay. Well --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't really care about some
attorneys that we've contracted with that we're giving money to;
that's not my question.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: The reason we have this ordinance is there are
people that meet a statutory requirement that are unable to care for
themselves. The original reason this came about was that there were
people in the hospital that had nowhere to go, that had no one to look
after their affairs, that were incapacitated, and they were impacting
the courts without representation. There was no attorney or person
that could say yes, this person has no money, this person has nowhere
to live. It was impacting the courts under the guardianship.
We have this program that first determines if the person is
eligible, because if they're not, the person pays out of their --
their existing money for a guardianship. It's a paid guardianship. If
they meet the statutory requirement, our attorney, our county
appointed attorney, who's the public guardian, finds a place for this
person to live in subsidized housing, sets up the Hedicare/Hedicaid
requirements, and sets up a bank account for this person, signs them
up for Social Security collection, and basically provides them a place
to exist in their incapacitated mode.
The majority of the -- we have approximately 42 people right now,
the majority of them, although they were residents of Collier County
and are our responsibility, we don't have facilities in this county,
so we have to send them out to other counties to their housing
opportunities. So we don't have that many people here in Collier
County actually living here.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But we're still responsible for them.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: But we're still responsible for them.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it sounds like if we don't find a way
to reconcile the funding shortfall, in addition to being in default on
the contract -- defaulted on the contract, we stop providing that
service.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yes. And this occurred prior to my arrival to
the county, but my understanding is that they brought this before this
board at some point previously with those very reasons, and I believe
the board obviously felt that it was a worthwhile program.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And we are required to have this in place,
Mark; is that correct?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I don't know if there's -- I'd have to defer --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: -- to Mr. Weigel. I don't believe --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're statutorily authorized --
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: -- we're required. I believe it's an
opportunity to have it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I see.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I don't believe there's a statutory
requirement.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Smykowski?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yeah, for the record, Michael Smykowski, OHB
director.
On page three of the executive summary, there's just a little
analysis that shows what the current budget is, what the amended
budget would be if the recommendations made by Mr. Middlebrook are
approved, and then it shows actually the forecast, which is actually
the cash that we anticipate coming in.
The program is funded on a dollar for dollar basis. In other
words, the -- whatever civil filing fees are received dollar for
dollar, there's a corresponding match from the general funds. So that
relationship is dependent upon the number of civil filing fees
received.
We budget 30,000 in each. Unfortunately, the projection is for
25,000; that is inclusive of the fee increase. If the fee increase
were not approved, that 25,000 in civil filing fees would drop to
about 19,000, and then -- so you lose 6,000 there. And then the
corresponding general fund match would decrease 6,000.
So you would either have to fund it from -- Mr. Middlebrook is
recommending a transfer from the court's fund 681 to make up the cash
difference of 20,458 here. That problem would be exacerbated by
another approximately $12,000 if the board did not approve the fee
increase and you wanted to keep that one-for-one match relationship
upon which the program was initially founded.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why is this an add-on today?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We attempted to get it to the county manager's
office, but there was a communication error about getting it on the
agenda in time.
In essence, there was an error between myself and a staff member
about placing it on the agenda today. But we have three months' worth
of bills that we are awaiting to pay that the clerk will not pay until
we can get this resolved today.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, no, I'm having flashbacks.
No, unless we're going to scrap the program -- and I don't think
we're sitting here today saying that's what we want to do -- we've got
to find some way to remedy at least the current fiscal year
difficulties, one way or another.
So help me understand, Mr. Middlebrook, in order to complete this
fiscal year, what are the additional funds being requested --
regardless of source, what are the additional funds in total to
complete our minimum requirements this year?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, we need -- we need to meet -- our
projection is $83,100. We're also required to have a reserve, by
statute, in that account. I don't know the exact amount off the top
of my head that we're going to need. I believe it's going to be
somewhere close to 30 -- $35,000 or somewhere around there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, I apologize if you said it, I
missed it. But the reason why we need more this year? We have more
people that require this assistance this year, or --
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, we changed how we do things. We went
from spending $76,000 last year on this program to our projection for
-- not this budget year but next budget year of $48,000. So we're
trying to save the county roughly $30,000 in fees. We did not feel
that it was running efficiently by having assistant public guardians
who were billing us at $30 per hour for whatever function they're
performing at that moment. Obviously, we will save approximately
$30,000 by doing this.
We had to overlap, though, because there was a 90-day period that
the guardian -- assistant guardians had in which to close out their
accounts. They also by law had the opportunity to challenge being
dismissed in court. And there has to be a certain amount of time to
allow them to do that.
And it was because of that overlap between having a public
guardian and still having the assistant public guardians on the case
that we have found ourselves in a position of expending more money
than we anticipated.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now you're really confusing me,
because if we're going to save $30,000 next year, why do we need to
increase fees?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, but what happened, this year they have
the overlap of the nine guardians, plus they went ahead and hired the
law firm, correct?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Next year you're not going to have the
nine guardians.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Correct.
We know basically that it's going to cost us $48,000, because
it's $3,500 per month --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, my question is, is we're going
to save $30,000, why do we need to increase fees?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I'm going to try and answer that.
We're looking at $48,000 next year. Our projection is that we
are taking in $1,600 a month in filing fees. We do not believe, or if
we are, we're very close to, meeting the $48,000 that we need for this
program at $1,600 a month. We are only -- with the matching, it comes
out to $3,200 a month. We do not believe that that's going to be
sufficient to fund our program. We need an increase of approximately
$800 a month.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to be very frank. I don't
understand this. I don't -- I'm confused by what he's saying. He's
-- the more he talks the more -- you've confused me. And having just
picked it up now, and having an add-on item, if I have to vote on it
now, I'm going to vote against it.
And so I would ask the board if we can continue it for a week,
and maybe Mr. Middlebrook and I can sit down. But the more you talk,
the more it doesn't make sense to me, and that's probably my fault.
But having an add-on item and having -- if this was ready last
Wednesday or Thursday -- I don't know why it just came in my hands
this morning. And I'm just not prepared to vote in favor of something
I don't comprehend. I'm not going to spend more money on something
that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me right now. It may be a
great idea, but you haven't enunciated it very clearly to me.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I have a question, too, on the
funding. You say 3,500 a month is what you need to get you where
you're going?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, we have a $3,500 a month contract with --
there's a travel fee, because they have to travel as far as St. Pete
and so on, so we're '- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's the difference between 42,000 a year
and 48,000 is travel?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. But --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess what I'm faced with is I am
reluctant to do the fee increase today, again, because as I do the
budgetary numbers, I come up with a 30,000 general fund match, 19,200
in filing fees; that's 49,200 for next year. You need 48. You have to
have a $1,500 contingency. We're within a few hundred dollars there.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: It would be fine if we didn't go for the dollar
for dollar match. If you released the $30,000, we're probably going
to be okay. But right now, as the ordinance is written, it's a dollar
for dollar match.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: From whom?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: From you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And so if we wipe that away, you don't
have a problem, you don't need an increase? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, doesn't that make more sense?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And spend the money --
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: But that's for next year. We still need to --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would the board indulge me in
continuing this item for a week?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I hate to, but I've got to agree, I'm
lost.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Waiting seven days -- you said we're three
months behind -- only puts us three months and seven days behind. I
mean, is that -- you know, is it going to trigger anything, or a
failure in service waiting seven days to get what I believe will be a
favorable decision to go ahead and pay the bills? But when we have at
least two commissioners that are very unsure of what they're voting on
here, I'd -- you know, I'd rather not see it fail.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I ask one -- just Mike has been up at
the -- Mike Smykowski's been at the microphone a couple of times, and
he knows how to talk to us in budget terms that we understand. Would
it be worth taking a shot from Mike to explain it?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sure.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: For the record, Michael Smykowski, OHB director.
The problem is the match relationship is a dollar for dollar
relationship, so funding for the program, as it's currently
contemplated for next year, if -- on an annual basis with no fee
increase, we would -- we're generating approximately $19,000 in civil
filing fees. That would generate a corresponding nineteen thousand
dollar match from general fund money; 38,000 obviously is not 48.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: And no contingencies whatsoever.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How did we ever generate 83,000 or
78,000, or whatever we've done, that we're now going to save 30,000
from?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Subsidies.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Subsidies from the general fund.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Well, yes. Mr. Middlebrook, as part of the
answer, essentially he's taken 20 -- almost $20,500 from his courts'
fund essentially to fill the gap between revenues and expenses here.
And that was viewed as a better alternative than going -- asking the
board for general fund reserve money. So he's essentially eating that
problem within his existing budget, which is something -- for better
or worse, we try to convince people to solve their own budgetary
problems within their existing dollar allocations.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Smykowski, what can we do to solve the
problem this year, and then deal with the rest of this in the next
budget cycle?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What -- in other words, what's --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: If you didn't approve the fee increase, you would
either -- you would need approximately -- the civil filing would drop
to $19,000, with a corresponding general fund match of $19,000; you'd
be short $12,000 to be made up from some other source.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's this year, this calendar --
this fiscal year?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Or, you know, if you wanted to change how
-- the match relationship and say if we're allocating $30,000 a year
and we're going to ante up 30,000, regardless of the amount of civil
filing fees, that would be another option. But that changes --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would be a dumb one.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That changes the relationship upon which the
program was founded.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would be a bad option.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So what you're basically saying is we need --
we need --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: $12,000 --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: $12,000.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- from general funds reserves.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: To bail him out of this fiscal year. In other
words, to get him to the end of this fiscal year, we need -- he needs
$12,0007
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. And that would come from either --
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I think we need the 20,000 plus 12, do we not?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. We're assuming already the transfer from
courts is a necessity.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, you're 20 --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- you're transferring inside.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: And then we need an additional 12,000 --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The only real issue here is are we going to
increase the civil filing fees, which would increase the anticipated
revenue from 19 to 25 and then increase the corresponding general fund
match from 19 to 25. If you don't do that, you need $12,000 from
general fund reserves, or you tell Mr. Middlebrook you're going to
have to absorb it in additional transfer from the courts' budget.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Or cut services.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which sounds --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Or -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or cut the service.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The last two options --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Or eliminate the program.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- frankly sound far more appealing
to me, either trim the services or find it elsewhere in the court
system rather than come here.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I -- I don't see how --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we do this service issue --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- we can trim the services on that one.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- in this particular year. If the service
is going to be cut --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me, too.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- I would rather do it in the next budget
year --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He, too.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- where people are put on notice that we're
going to have to reduce the service, if that's indeed what we're going
to do.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's fine, I don't have any
objection to that. And I would like to see us do that, perhaps look
at that as an area to trim for the upcoming year, but then in the
meantime, the other option that I heard said there was -- they can
look for the money elsewhere in the court budget.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, they've -- they have a $32,000
problem; they found 20,000 off of it within their own budget.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're two-thirds of the way there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the question is can they -- can -- you
know, if we force you to, can you find the rest?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, we haven't been able to spend a whole lot
of money this year, so I imagine we might be able to, because of the
other problem we experienced.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: So I imagine since there's a lot of things we
haven't bought, we can probably try not to do it. I'm sure we can
identify something somewhere.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, let's do '-
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: My suggestion --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- this for this year --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: My suggestion is that for this fiscal year,
Mark, and then next year, when we --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Big picture.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- get into the budget cycle for this next
year, then we need to take another look and --
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: And that's certainly fine, ma'am. That's -- we
kind of wanted to keep it within our budget anyway. We weren't trying
to seek additional money other than that filing fee. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: At this point, it would help you if we
approve a transfer fund up to 32,000 -- a transfer of up to $32,000
within your budget to handle this year's problem, then we'll deal with
the overall cost and program in the budget; is that --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If that's --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- acceptable?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- a motion, I'll second it.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, and we also -- I'm not sure. I know one
of the contingencies of the clerk's office was we need to have -- and
again, I'm not sure if this includes it, if it does, forgive me. But
we need to be able to spend the -- up to the $83,000, 100 -- $83,100
that we project, because we are right now at our maximum budgeted
amount to spend. So I don't know if by allowing us to transfer that
also increases that amount, but --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Okay.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: It will. If you increase the transfer to the
32,458 and appropriate the carryforward, the general fund match and
civil filing fees will drop to 19,000 apiece, and you'll have the
83,100, which is the total projected expenditures in this program
through -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, yours is a
transfer from 681, the court services fund?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. With anticipated -- correct. And my
transfer -- my motion reflects the amounts just stated by Mr.
Smykowski --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to be more specific.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second.
Any further questions or comments? Do we have any speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Thank you, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're welcome. Thank you. And thank you,
Mr. Smykowski.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: You're welcome.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on then to -- well, my goodness, I
think we have --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Public comment.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- down to communication.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Public comment?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any public speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: There are none.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: None?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have nothing today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel, do you have anything that you
would like to speak with us about? MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie -- or Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I have nothing, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You have nothing?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have nothing today, thank you.
Item #15A
DISCUSSION RE PROPOSED AMPHITHEATER - CHAIRMAN TO WRITE A LETTER TO MS.
DANIELS VOICING SUPPORT OF THE BCC
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I do. I have one announcement. Due to
inaccuracies and statements made that have no basis in fact,
unfortunately, I'm going to have to terminate the services of my press
agent. And so I'm using this opportunity to alert all members of the
media that Commissioner Mac'Kie is no longer allowed to speak on my
behalf.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I'll let it go just at that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, how do you follow that one?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But do I -- do I get my last check?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. It's the same as the one before.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sizeable, I'm sure.
My comment, and I'm just bringing this up under Board of County
Commissioners' communications, I notice that there has been some
discussion in the media regarding the proposed amphitheater by Ms.
Daniels in conjunction -- and she's involved, obviously, with the
Philharmonic and so on. Commissioner Hancock had been trying to help
solve a problem there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Help her get information.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I did likewise. We didn't know that,
that each of us, I guess, were trying to provide some direction. And
I'm -- I brought this to the Commission today, just merely for some
direction in whatever we want to do on this, but -- and I don't know
how the rest of you feel.
Do you feel like it is important that we at some point in time
direct our staff to perhaps work with her in trying to find some kind
of location or at least letting her talk with our staff or encouraging
our staff to speak with her? Letting her know of any property that
might be available for such an endeavor? I'm not committing dollars,
don't everybody get in a real -- kind of a snit out there about
dollars. But I am committing -- or asking what your feelings are on
it.
I don't feel like -- one single commissioner, I certainly don't
have that authority to make those kinds of commitments, but I think
it's something that that the board as a group needs to think about it.
It's either yea or nay or forget it or go home.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Talk about your economic development
opportunities. I mean, the economic impact of something like that in
Collier County is tremendous, and I would hope that our staff is
already working on it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The economic development, whether you
go to Palm Beach or up to Manassas, Virginia, or you go anywhere where
these amphitheaters are popping up, and what they do for business
around them and the communities is very good. So yeah, I think
probably see if our staff can help locate that somewhere within the
confines --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I certainly agree, but I don't think
we even have to ask our staff or encourage them to do something like
this. I would hope that they would certainly give someone like this
access and be cooperative without our direction.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Frankly, I suspect they're cooperative
with everybody who goes --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, I would think so, too, but I didn't
know if this is something that the Commission wanted to encourage that
perhaps our staff -- Ms. Daniels has not spoken to me in regard to our
staff getting involved. This is my own initiative here. But I was
just wondering if it would be a proper kind of invitation or
correspondence to her to let her know that if -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- that kind of thing is needed, that perhaps
our staff could be willing to work with her.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry, if you're seeking --
again, I had the pleasure of working with Myra to help find out some
information on a particular site, one that I actually suggested to
her. But if you're asking if the board would authorize you to, you
know, basically write a letter to Myra saying that through the
chairman or through the county administrator, that any additional
information she may need that we can help her find we stand ready, I
think that's a terrific idea and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do, too.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and support it wholeheartedly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hope you would write a letter
encouraging her to, you know, let her know how strongly we feel that
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would love to see this thing in Collier
County --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me, too.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- instead of Lee, but, you know, the
region -- at least the region will benefit one way or the other. But
obviously, just being selfish, I'd love to see it in Collier.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great idea.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's all I have. And I hope you-all have a
nice reminder kind of a holiday here.
Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have nothing to add at this time.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm so sad.
Item #15B
DISCUSSION REGARDING EMINENT DOMAIN LEGISLATION
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Two things: One's quick. I failed to
announce it during proclamations, but today is Valetie Hancock day.
It's her birthday.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Twenty-nine again, I understand.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Happy birthday.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, 29 again.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Happy birthday, Valetie.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: She is not watching, I guarantee you.
Even though it's spring break, this is the last thing she's going to
turn on today.
The next thing is I went up to Tallahassee on Thursday of last
week to address the Transportation Commission on the eminent domain
legislation, which is a position taken by the Florida Association of
Counties.
In a nutshell, we've had the petroleum marketing industry and the
petroleum industry, along with their eminent domain attorneys,
crafting legislation in Tallahassee that will have the result of
swinging the pendulum on damages so far to the other side, if there is
such a side, that we would see -- Dade County estimated that their
projects over the next five years would have one billion dollars added
to them. Orange County estimated they would have to reduce their
roadway building programs by up to two-thirds.
And the reason for it is only nine states out of 50 pay business
damages when takings occur, whether they be in part or in whole.
Florida is one of those nine. And we actually are second or third on
the list in total amount of business damages paid in the entire
nation.
There have been a handful of cases, four or five, that are
situations where the people whose property were being taken were not
treated fairly. Even through the court system. That's going to
happen. I imagine the percentage is very, very low. Most counties
settle their eminent domain proceedings pre-litigation in about 70
percent -- 70 to 80 percent of the time.
What this ord -- or this bill has the potential to do is, for
example, if you are altering the access to a shopping mall, not only
are you going to have to pay the property owner for altering that
access, you now would have to compensate by way of business damages
each tenant within that mall.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But only to the extent that it, you know,
reduced their profits.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, only to the extent that the proposed
business damages could be shown. They're not even willing to do it
based on sales tax revenue receipts and actual impact of businesses.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a difference.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In other words, what happens is the
attorneys -- eminent domain attorneys get involved so far in the
process and are basically throwing out numbers to the point that it's
going to dramatically increase what we do already. Let's not forget
that most of these roadways are indeed public purposes.
So in trying to strike that balance between private property
rights and whatnot, this bill appears on the surface to try and do
that.
The reality is it will cause us to fail in our ability to provide
concurrent roadways with growth, unless we increase impact fees and
subsidize it through ad valorem taxation. Period. That's bad
legislation.
I appeared before the Transportation Committee, expressed that.
I was very well received. But the oddities of what they did in that
committee were that they ended up passing an amendment to the bill
without voting on the bill.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, that's not unusual.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it remains in the committee, and that
was their last scheduled meeting. There may be a special meeting
called -- there may be a special meeting called, and if so -- you
know, I don't think in our travel budget I have the funds in the FAC
funds remaining to go up and try to work on it again. We'll have to do
it from here.
But I wanted to bring you up to date on that. Because everyone
-- we should compensate businesses fairly for takings, period. But
this swings the pendulum so far to the other side, that of last year's
total pie of funds paid in eminent domain, only six percent went to
business damage, while 12 percent went to legal fees.
And when the eminent domain attorneys are the driving force
behind a bill in eminent domain, the taxpayer needs to beware. And
when the petroleum industry is whispering in the ear of the bill's
sponsor while he's at the podium addressing the Transportation
Committee, the taxpayer needs to be aware.
And the Florida Association of Counties and I were at least there
in a vigilant trying to work with this, and we'll keep doing it as
best we can.
It is an amazing process. Going -- just going to Tallahassee is
one thing, but going to a committee meeting. You know, 90 percent of
the issues go through and you understand them. But when you start
seeing an amendment to an amendment after a strike-through amendment
with motion to delay the question and all this other garbage, you
know, it's unbelievable. But --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Makes our process seem simple, doesn't it?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We are just fluid.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Streamlined.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We are fluid compared to Tallahassee.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, we are fluid, but we've taken an
extremely short agenda and run it all the way to noon.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Amen.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That was my goal, Mr. Norris. I don't want
to break your record, so I thought how can I take this short agenda
and make sure we get a good three hours out of it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Coincidentally, it just turns out to be
lunchtime.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Isn't that nice?
Do we have anything further?
Meeting's adjourned.
***** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Constantine
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent
Agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
PARTIAL RELEASE OF LIEN TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR REMOVING THE
LIEN AGAINST JOAN QUINN RE A PORTION OF TRACT 20, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES,
UNIT 8
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 98-90 THROUGH 98-95 REGARDING WAIVER OF IMPACT FEES FOR SIX
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES TO BE BUILT BY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY IN NAPLES
MANOR LAKES; LOT 6, BLOCK 4; LOT 7, BLOCK 4; LOT 3, BLOCK 12; LOT 14,
BLOCK 12; LOT 22, BLOCK 13; AND LOT 23, BLOCK 13
Item #16A3
APPROVAL FOR RECORDING FINAL PLAT OF TERRACINA - WITH STIPULATIONS,
LETTER OF CREDIT AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 98-96 RE WAIVER OF ROAD IMPACT FEES, LIBRARY SYSTEM IMPACT
FEES, PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITY IMPACT FEES, EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES SYSTEM IMPACT FEES AND EDUCATION FACILITY SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
FOR A HOME TO BE BUILT BY RICHARD A. AND LAURA L. CARLETON AT 1790 18TH
AVENUE N.E. IN THE A_MOUNT OF $3,929.52
Item #16B1 - Continued to April 28, 1998
Item #1682 - Deleted
Item #1683
RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE CURRENT YEAR REVENUE FOR PROJECT NO. 60061
LIVINGSTON ROAD
Item #1684
AUTHORIZATION OF THE REDESIGN OF IHMOKALEE ROAD TO PROVIDE FOR A FUTURE
SIX LANE IMPROVEMENT FOR PROJECT NO. 69101
Item #1685
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT CONTRACT NO. 91-1763 FOR
ENGINEERING/ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES WITH WILSON, MILLER, BARTON AND
PEEK, INC. FOR THE GORDON RIVER EXTENSION BASIN STUDY, PHASE III,
ADDITIONAL DATA COLLECTION
Item #1686
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HUHISTON &
MOORE ENGINEERS FOR THE MARCO ISLAND SEGMENTED BREAKWATER PROJECT
Item #1687
A_MENDHENT NO. 3 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEHENT WITH HUHISTON &
MOORE ENGINEERS FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE BIG MARCO AND CAPRI PASS
INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN
Item #1688
WORK ORDER NUMBER VB-27 FOR RESTORATION OF BAYVIEW PARK BOARD RAMP AND
SEAWALL, PROJECT NO. 80067 - AWARDED TO VANDERBILT BAY CONSTRUCTION FOR
$75,850.00
Item #16C1
SUHMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM GRANT FOR IHMOKALEE AND NAPLES SUHMER
RECREATION PARTICIPATION
Item #16C2
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND AN
EMPLOYEE (MS. NANNETTE GERHARDT)
Item #16C3
PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF A WATER PLAY AREA FOR VINEYARDS PARK -
AWARDED TO CONTRACT CONNECTIONS, INC.
Item #16D1
USE OF STATE CONTRACT WITH NATIONSBANK FOR A PURCHASE CARD PROGRAM AND
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN APPLICATION
Item #16D2
PROPOSAL 98-2778 FOR TELEPHONE SERVICE OUTSOURCING - AWARDED TO
GULFCOAST TELEPHONE CO., INC.
Item #16D3 - Withdrawn
Item #16D4
SETTLEMENT IN THE LAWSUIT OF THOMAS HIGGINS V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO.
95-4766-CA-01-TB IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,000
Item #16D5
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER $45,000 FROM RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES TO
REIMBURSE PRIOR YEAR REVENUES AND REFUND TO THE HITCHING POST RV IN THE
AMOUNT OF $44,755.22
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENT 98-185
Item #16G1
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
Item #16H1
BCC TO SERVE AS LOCAL COORDINATING UNIT OF GOVERNMENT IN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA'S DEPARTMENT OF COHMUNITY AFFAIRS' ANTI-DRUG ABUSE ACT FORMULA
GRANT PROGRAM
Item #1611
AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO THE LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH GOODLETTE,
COLEMAN & JOHNSON, P.A. BY AND THROUGH MICHAEL W. PETTIT AS LEGAL
CONSULTANT AND, IF NECESSARY, CO-COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR THE COUNTY ON
MATTERS IDENTIFIED IN THE LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT REGARDING THE
GLADES, INC. CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Item #1612
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE RESOLVING THE CLAIM OF SUNTRUST
BANK, SOUTHWEST FLORIDA AGAINST COLLIER COUNTY AND DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS,
INC. WITH REGARDS TO NAPLES AUTO CARE CENTER PROPERTY ON DAVIS BLVD.
Item #1613
SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED ROBERTA DASZKOWSKI V. COLLIER
COUNTY, CASE NO. 97-2612-CA-01-HDH
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:00 p.m..
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
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 SERVICE,
INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC