BCC Minutes 02/17/1998 R REGULAR HEETING OF FEBRUARY 17, 1998
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
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 S. Berry
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'kie
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator
David C. 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
February 17th board meeting of the Collier County Commissioners.
If you would rise for the invocation by Tom Olliff this morning
and remain standing for the pledge of allegiance.
MR. OLLIFF: Heavenly Father, we come to you this morning and we
thank you so much for the opportunity that we have to live here in
Collier County and to gather here as a community and conduct your
business.
Father, this morning we want to pray especially for the family of
Brent and fellow employee, Tammy Smith. Father, we pray that you
would have your hand on that family and that you welcome their son
with open arms this morning.
Father, we also this morning are especially mindful of our EHS
Department. We are especially thankful for the paramedic staff.
Father, we are thankful that we have a dedicated staff like that to
serve you here in this community.
Father, we pray for this meeting today. We pray that you have
your hand on this board and the staff. We thank you so much for the
participation of the community who comes to participate in these
meetings. Father, we pray that the decisions that are made here today
will reflect your will for our community.
These things we pray in your son's holy name. Amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At this time, I'd like to -- if there are any
open seats -- if you are sitting next to an open seat, if you would
kind of raise your hand and indicate that there is a seat next to you
so that someone that might be looking for a place can find a place to
reside for the short time here.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Host people standing are looking for a
quick exit.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I know it gets to be a long time having to
stand, so if you can find a seat, please do so.
There's an item on the agenda this morning that may be a little
confusing for some, and, normally, after each item, we do have
speakers, but one of the items that I'm sure many of you might be here
for this reason this morning has to do with the fire service, the
county's dependent fire and rescue districts. That's an information
to the Board of County Commissioners. We're not going to be having
any speakers on that this morning. In other words, it's not up for
debate. What we're going to be doing is getting information from our
staff regarding the dependent fire districts. At that time, we will
discuss what we're going to do and go further with it, or whatever
we're going to do, but we are not going to be having any speakers on
it because it is strictly a situation where the county is going to be
delivering information to us. And I know many people that I spoke
with, particularly in the Ochopee fire districts I had asked them if
they had wanted to come and certainly listen to this, this would be a
prime opportunity to do so. So everybody's hearing the information at
the same time. That's the reason you're here this morning.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry, as a point of
clarification, of course any time before the board takes any official
policy action, there would be a hearing in which --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- all individuals who have a concern are
able to speak at that time.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No action is going to be taken by the
board today --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- definitive or final in any way.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely correct. It's just a matter of us
being able to get the information, you're being able to hear the
information at the same time so there's no -- you're not hearing
something at one other time and we're hearing something at a different
place and time. We're all going to be hearing this at the same time
right here, so it eliminates this kind of a confusion that we've had
in the past.
Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes to the agenda?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman. The first is an add, Item
8(D)(2). This is a recommendation to extend the proposal period for
RFP 98-2779. It's a staff request.
The second item is to withdraw Item 8(B)(2). This is Bid Number
97-2771, removal of non-specification material from the Naples Beach
to C.B.E. Trucking Company, Inc., in the amount of $99,982 and report
on other beach renourishment project matters.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to the
reason for withdrawing that item?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please.
MR. FERNANDEZ: My understanding is we have received a bid
protest on that item, and that, under our policy, it's appropriate to
delay the item.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I just wanted to make sure it
wasn't going to end up in the form of an accusation of delay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The next is to move Item 16(C)(1) from consent to
8(C)(1) on regular. This is an item to direct staff to forward to the
HSTU committee a proposal to include the acquisition and development
of land for a neighborhood park as part of the proposed improvement
project.
That completes our list, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are there any other changes from commissioners
to the agenda?
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No changes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No changes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe we, based on our joint meeting
with Lee County, we should have an item on the agenda today to ratify
the decision made by this board at that joint meeting, so I'd like to
add a discussion and direction regarding the Army Corps of Engineers'
proposed E.I.S.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. That would come under Item 10, I
believe. 10(C); is that correct?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe that's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can we take action under 10 (C)?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. Good catch. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're the man.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Chairman, I make a motion that we
accept the consent agenda and agenda with changes as noted.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I will also move that we approve the
minutes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We don't have any minutes, but you can still
approve them if you want.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not seconding that one.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just a habit.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 22-28, 1998, AS ENGINEERS
WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hoving on then, proclamations.
Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
It's my pleasure this morning to read a proclamation proclaiming
the week of February 22nd through 28th as Engineers' Week. And here
to accept as the vice president of FES Calusa Chapter, Mr. Steve
Kempton.
Good morning, Steve.
MR. KEMPTON: Morning, Tim.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The proclamation reads as follows:
Whereas, engineers help to design, construct and maintain the
infrastructure and the facilities that contribute to a high quality of
life for all residents of Florida; and whereas, Florida's future
growth depends on engineers executing innovative, creative,
high-quality solutions to technical problems; and whereas, the stated
purpose of the Florida Engineering Society shall be to advance the
public welfare and to promote the professional, social and economic
interests of the engineering profession and to stimulate and develop
professional concepts among all engineers through education and in
practice; and whereas, current members of the Florida Engineering
Society and the Florida Institute of Consulting Engineers are making
strides to interact with the engineering education sector to prepare
future engineers to maintain our economic leadership and quality of
life; and whereas, it is fitting that we recognize and honor the
continuing contributions of America's engineers by observing
Engineers' Week with the motto: Engineering the Future.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of February
22nd through 28th, 1998 be designated as Engineers' Week in Florida
and urge all residents to join in paying tribute to the contributions
of engineers in our society.
Done and ordered this 17th day of February, Barbara B. Berry,
Chairman.
Madam Chairman, I'd like to move acceptance of this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries unanimously.
(Applause.)
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have two service awards this morning being
presented by Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, it's my honor to
present both a five-year and a ten-year pin.
Serving in Revenue Services, has been with us for five years,
Harilyn Champeau.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There she is.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Come on up.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And for 10 years' service in the
challenging position of Traffic Operations, I suspect it gets a few
phone calls, Daniel Wilcox.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Answering one of those calls right now.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He's stuck in traffic.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We will make sure that Mr. Wilcox gets his
pin and certificate.
Item #5C
PRESENTATION OF "PHOENIX AWARDS" TO RECOGNIZE EHS PARAMEDICS
At this time it's my pleasure to present the annual Phoenix
Awards.
Our first award, it says, in recognition of Valentine's Day,
the Board of Collier County Commissioners would like to recognize the
EHS Department paramedics who have restored a beating heart. The
Phoenix Award is presented to EHS paramedics who, through their skills
and knowledge, have successfully brought back to life an individual
who had died.
On October 28th, 1997, Mr. Edward Wilson collapsed after he
stepped off the treadmill at a local fitness center. Bystanders
immediately called 911 and began CPR. Within minutes, EHS Department
paramedics arrived. Paramedic Kathryne Warren and Lieutenant Doug
Roberts immediately assessed the situation, finding Mr. Wilson not
breathing and without a heartbeat. Immediate advanced life support
care was initiated and after delivering two defibrillations or shocks,
Mr. Wilson's pulse and breathing returned. Eight days later, Mr.
Wilson returned home to his family and friends.
Mr. Wilson, would you please come forward and present the Phoenix
Awards to the two EHS Department Paramedics who brought you back to
life?
And if Paramedic Kathryn Warren and Lieutenant Doug Roberts would
come forward, please.
(Applause.)
MR. WILSON: Lieutenant Roberts, I'm so happy I could give this
to you, otherwise if you weren't there, I wouldn't be here, and I'm
just happy that I could give you this award. You well deserve it.
Your training has paid off. All the times that you have spent going
back and forth, and I was glad to see in the paper yesterday that they
were going to make a pathway so that the emergency vehicles could get
through some of this traffic. Thank you very much.
MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Our second award is presented by Mrs. Haxine
Quinn.
On January 27th, 1998, Mrs. Haxine Quinn's heart and breathing
stopped. When EHS paramedics arrived, they found Mrs. Quinn
unresponsive. Utilizing their advanced life support skills,
Lieutenant Enrique Gonzalez and EHT Art Rodriguez applied a Cardiac
Pacer to speed up her heart rate. Mrs. Quinn's heart failed to
respond. CPR and cardiac medication were administered. Mrs. Quinn
was successfully brought back to life and is here today to personally
present the Phoenix Awards to the EHS paramedics who responded to her
911 call.
Hrs. Quinn, would you come forward please?
And also Paramedics Lieutenant Enrique Gonzalez and EHT Art
Rodriguez.
(Applause.)
MRS. QUINN: I want to thank you boys so much. You saved my
life, and I'm so happy I got to meet you today.
Thank you. Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And at this time, I would like to present the
remaining Phoenix Awards to the EHS paramedics who have responded to a
911 and brought back to life a community member who had died.
I'm going to ask you, as I call your name, to come forward, and
I'll hand you your certificate and then just remain up here so we can
get a good look at all of you.
The first one is awarded to Lieutenant Wayne Watson.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Geoffrey Swets.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This next individual has two Phoenix Awards,
Lieutenant Tim HcGeary.
(Applause.)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Only two this year, Tim?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much, Tim.
The next one is Lieutenant Rich D'Orazio.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much.
Lieutenant Jonathan Harreden.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much.
Stephen Rockey, Commander.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much.
Lieutenant Annie Hunter, and I'd like to mention this is her 8th
Phoenix Award.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much.
Captain Sue Lemay.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much.
This next person is with the City of Naples Police and Emergency
Service Firefighter. He's part of a three-member team concept. Rob
Henzmann.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much, Rob.
The next one's Paramedic Christa Cavenago.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Lieutenant Mary Esch.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Captain Helen Ortega.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much.
Paramedic Sandra Pitts.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much.
Lieutenant Juan Ortega.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much.
This next individual is a Golden Gate Firefighter, Dave McGregor.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much.
Next one is William Chipps. This is his -- he has two Phoenix
Awards. He's a paramedic.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Lieutenant Dave Becket.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're going to be renting out an
auditorium for these awards.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Lieutenant Hovert Polero (phonetic).
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
And Paramedic Marc Matthews.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Congratulations. Thank you.
Marco Island firefighter, and he's part of a three-member team
concept, Donny Jones.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much.
Lieutenant Enrique Gonzalez.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much.
Paramedic Patricia Schilling.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Marco Island Firefighter, again part of a
three-member team concept, Ken Alfred.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much.
And last but not least, Lieutenant Cartie Morningstar.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much.
It is so nice to know that we have such professional and
dedicated people before us. I certainly, for one, hope I never have
to see you in a professional situation, but I certainly appreciate the
fact that we have all of you and that you have done such outstanding
work. Thank you so very much.
(Applause.)
MS. FLAGG: Commissioner Berry, Mrs. Quinn would also like to
present something to the paramedics who had resuscitated her.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right.
MRS. QUINN: Sweets for the sweets. Thank you so much. I can't
thank you enough, you two.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much again.
Item #8B1
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH LONG BAY PARTNERS (LBP) FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A PORTION OF LIVINGSTON ROAD LYING BETWEEN IMHOKALEE
ROAD (CR846) AND THE COLLIER-LEE COUNTY LINE - APPROVED WITH CHANGE
Moving on, then, to Item 8(B)(1), an agreement with Long Bay
Partners for construction of a portion of Livingston Road between
Immokalee Road and Collier-Lee County line.
MR. ILSCHNER: Good morning the members of the board. For the
record, Ed Ilschner, public works administrator.
In December, we presented to the board a proposed joint
participation agreement with a group called Long Bay Partners for the
development of Livingston Road from its current term of 700 feet north
of Immokalee Road to the Lee County line and subsequently into Lee
County to Bonita Beach Road.
During that presentation, you expressed certain concerns. I am
pleased to be able to stand before you today and say that I believe
our current agreement addresses all of those concerns, Madam Chairman.
I'm here to answer any questions you may have. I believe the
executive summary may provide sufficient for you. If you have a
question, I'll be glad to answer those.
There is one change that occurred to the agreement that you
presently have in your packet. It's to Item 12(A). I would like to
call on the county attorney to address that recent change. It is not
substantive, but there is a change, and he needs to explain it to you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ken, can you find Dave?
There he is.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel, in regard to Item 12(A) of the
agreement, a change?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
The slight change is in Paragraph 12(A), one, two, four -- seven
lines down, starting with the page transportation currency -- let's
pass this out.
Mr. Ilschner is passing out to you Paragraph 12, 12(A) which
shows the addition in underlining upon which I'm going to also note an
additional sentence addition which I just started to mentioned to you,
not knowing you didn't have this page before you.
The County Attorney's Office and staff have been reviewing the
document advising of changes, suggestions and brings the language to
where it is today. And this last portion showing on Paragraph 12(A),
in the underlined portion of 12(A), is a change to be brought to you
as the record today. And then, if you are ready, I will mention an
additional sentence to be added, seven lines down. That line starts
with the words transportation concurrency.
Immediately following the word concurrency would be an
explanatory sentence which reads as follows: Such vesting shall be
evidenced by the issuance of a certificate of public facilities
adequacy, patens, for transportation facilities, closed patens, at the
time such Phase One road impact fee credits are granted, period.
I do not know if Mr. Ilschner is going to discuss further or ask
me to discuss further the underlined sentences that are generally
appearing in 12(A). I'll leave it to Mr. Ilschner to direct me
further at that point.
MR. ILSCHNER: That was my intent since I had not seen this
until this morning.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Very good.
I'll start here and then the represented petitioner may wish to
add to the discussion.
The intent was to make this agreement as self-evident as we could
and to reduce and remove areas of difficulty of understanding both for
the county purposes and the developer purposes as well as the affected
property owners ultimately affected under the agreement in the future
for potential S and E's of impact fee credits.
You'll note that in Paragraph 12(A), there is reference to a
particular number of units, single-family units, referencing a current
road impact fee reflected in our current road impact fee ordinance per
a unit of that type.
The same exists in discussion or description of 640, a particular
number of multi-family units which may be one to two stories and the
current road impact fee per unit per the current ordinances also
referenced there.
Midway through, just beyond where I added the sentence to you on
the 7th line a few moments ago, it indicates that the developer,
L.B.P., shall pay the increase in the road impact fee which may occur
subsequent to the date of the agreement at the time it obtains a
building permit.
Then there is exemplary language placed thereafter.
I think the last sentence of Paragraph 12(A) is also instructive,
indicating, and I quote, the total units to be constructed on the
property, and the property is a defined geographical territory, shall
be determined in accordance with current and/or future zoning
approvals by Collier County, provided, however, that L.B.P. shall be
entitled to Phase One impact fee credit as set forth above.
Again, I believe this is fairly self-explanatory, but if there is
any specific question, Mr. Ilschner, I or a representative of the
developer will be happy to respond.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't understand the example in the
paragraph. It seemed to me it was -- if I'm understanding what I
heard the board say that we wanted and what it looks like it says
before the by way of example is, here is how much impact fee credit
you're getting today, here is how many units under today's impact fee
assessment amount you'd be entitled to. If, however, the impact fees
go up, you have to pay the spread. Okay. That's what -- and then --
but I don't understand the by way of example.
Could you help me see how that is an example of what I just
described? It doesn't seem to me.
MR. CUYLER: The example is that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Say who you are.
MR. CUYLER: For the record, Ken Cuyler --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
MR. CUYLER: C-U-Y-L-E-R.
The example shows your current -- the $1,300 figure is your
current impact fee. The example is if, for example, it went up to
$1,500 per unit, the $1,500 less your current fee is $121. We would
then be required to pay that additional amount.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great. Thank you. I see that now.
MR. CUYLER: The other two portions of the wording were really,
first of all, to make sure that we were required to pay the additional
amount. That was something the County Attorney's Office was looking
for. And the last sentence is simply for the purpose of showing those
units aren't vested pursuant to this agreement in the zoning sense.
It is whatever current or future zoning approvals will dictate what
the units are.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Further questions, Commissioner? Commissioner
Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not right at this moment.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. I think the staff has done a real
good job in addressing the concerns we expressed both financially and
from a policy standpoint.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I have just a general question that
maybe just I want to use the opportunity to ask the representative of
the developer.
Alan Reynolds, I guess, for the record?
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, good morning. I'm Chairman Alan Reynolds
representing Long Bay Partners.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just in response to what I've been reading
in the newspaper and concerns about whether or not we do an adequate
job of being sure this particular developer is, you know, making the
contributions to the community that are necessary, you know, as a
result of his developments, I'm just curious to know the status of
that.
When I think about The Vineyards, for example, and a school and a
park site that came as a result of that one project, what -- maybe you
could tell us something about what community amenities -- it's not
directly related to this petition, but I just thought it was a good
opportunity to try to get that information in a public forum.
MR. REYNOLDS: You're asking about amenities that would occur
within the community that this would be accessing?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, that would be available to the
general public that, you know, school sites and park sites and things
that normally come about as a result of the D.R.I. process. Since
you're not in that process, is there anything positive to report, is
my question?
MR. REYNOLDS: I guess what I should report to you is that we
have not yet filed an application that will cause the two pieces of
property in question to be consolidated. There are existing PUDs on
both the Livingston Country Club and the Dynabel PUDs, and both of
those PUDs have the normal kind of conditions you would have in a PUD.
What our intent is is to, as we move forward, come back to you
with a PUD amendment that will consolidate those into a single project
and, at that time, you and your staff will be reviewing that
application to determine, you know, the acceptability of the proposal.
So I can't tell you specifically that there are any amenities that are
being volunteered at this time because we're not at that point yet in
the process with the planning of the project.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner, if I might add a point in
regard to the Vineyards, I would have to check the dates, but I
believe that school was built back in the time when a developer could
donate X. number of acres for a school site. That all went out the
window when impact fees came in line.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was sort of in lieu of the impact
fees in the old days.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Once that came on, then large developments,
it ceased, because many times they could give a school site, but it
wasn't an appropriate place for a school site. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So what happened then, the school had a piece
of land, they had to turn around and sell it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Pelican Bay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Whatever -- well, that's a prime example,
however, that might --
MR. REYNOLDS: Similar situation applies to county parks.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Exactly.
MR. REYNOLDS: The dedication of that park preceded the two
impact fees that you now collect for both regional and community
parks.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you for clearing that up for me.
That's real good, because obviously you're going to be paying
significant impact fees for roads and parks and schools and nobody has
anything bad to say about any of the developments up there. They're
certainly, in themselves, amenities to the community because they're
such beautiful projects.
Thanks. I just wanted to get a chance to air that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Reynolds, I have a copy of the
resolution by the Board of Commissioners in Lee County. One of the
critical elements of our moving forward was that this is not a road to
nowhere but, in fact, an intercounty link between Collier and Lee
County for the -- not just traffic relief purposes, but also for
hurricane evacuation and whatnot. And, as I understand their
resolution correctly, they have made a commitment in partnering with
Long Bay Partners to provide that roadway within three years, is it?
Am I reading that correctly?
MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah. They have said they're going to complete
essentially the same tasks that you all have said that you will
complete by the year -- by December 31st, 1999. They're going to
complete those similar tasks by January 1st, 2001.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. We had discussed at the last
meeting the phasing of impact fee credits and, again, I just want to
clarify this so I understand it fully.
Mr. Ilschner, the impact fee credits are credited in such a way
that those properties only immediately bordering the proposed roadway
initially are subject to impact fee credits? MR. ILSCHNER: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Once that roadway is completed to Lee
County and then becomes a part of a regional system of roads, then the
impact fee credits open up to the district the roadway occurs in; is
that correct?
MR. ILSCHNER: That is correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I have some numbers here that were
prepared by Long Bay Partners at my request regarding the, in essence,
the time value of money because this roadway is being built two years
earlier than we would have to get started and at no interest cost to
the county as a bond would if that had to be issued.
But conservatively is the number, Mr. Ilschner, of -- the county
is saving approximately, when this is all said and done, about a
million dollars? Would that be a fair estimate in your opinion?
MR. ILSCHNER: I haven't looked at those figures, but that could
be the case, yes. I haven't looked at them and I can't say yes or no.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They seem to -- I provided your office
with a copy of them, but they appear credible to me and I think that's
important also.
One thing that has not -- and Mr. Reynolds, I didn't bring this
up previously, and I apologize for that, but one thing that hasn't
been discussed is obviously your client will have an interest in the
aesthetics of the roadway.
Can we be looking for, sometime in the future, an agreement
regarding landscaping of the roadway?
MR. REYNOLDS: We would welcome that, and, frankly, encourage
that. We do intend on putting together a beautification program and
we would like to come back to you at the appropriate time and present
that to you, so yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further questions?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: None by me.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other commissioners?
Do I have a motion, then?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve the
agreement.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero.
MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you very much. I would like to thank your
staff as well for all their hard work.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Reynolds.
Item #8C1
STAFF TO FORWARD TO THE BAYSHORE MSTU COMHITTEE A PROPOSAL TO INCLUDE
THE ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AS PART
OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - APPROVED
Item 8(B)(2) has been withdrawn. We'll move on, then, to Item
8(C) which is an item that was in the consent agenda which has been
moved up, the Bayshore MSTU committee proposal. Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. Tom Olliff, public services
administrator.
The only reason this item was removed off of your consent agenda
was just because after the executive summary was actually prepared,
the staff learned about an outstanding sewer assessment on the project
that I needed to make the board aware of.
This is an item that the board has discussed on a previous
occasion. It is the property off of Bayshore Boulevard that is being
proposed as donation for a neighborhood-type park. My understanding
is that the MSTU advisory committee is -- had its advertising closed
so that committee should be created and in front of you for adoption
shortly.
All we're asking is that you direct us to forward a discussion
item for that advisory committee to consider the inclusion of this
neighborhood park as part of that MSTU. And I think that's in keeping
with your park policy recently established that neighborhood parks be
funded by the specific area and properties that actually benefit from
that neighborhood park. With that, I'd be happy to answer any
questions you might have.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I assume you're
comfortable with this?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excited about it, frankly, and appreciate
you guys continuing to let it move through the system, you know, with
the payment coming exclusively from the area that would benefit.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, if there is not a
public speaker, I'll make a motion to approve the item. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second.
Do we have any public speakers on this item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, ma'am, we have none.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'll call for the question.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero.
Thank you, Mr. Olliff.
Item #8D1
STAFF DIRECTED TO SUSPEND PRESENTATION OF EAST NAPLES PROPOSAL UNTIL
INFORMATION IS PREPARED BY THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND BROUGHT BACK
WITH AN AGENDA ON HOW TO PROCEED RE THE TWO DEPENDENT FIRE DISTRICTS
Going on, then, to Item 8(D)(1). This is the discussion
regarding the fire service. This is in the county's dependent fire
and rescue control taxing districts.
Mr. Ochs.
MR. OCHS: Leo Ochs, support services administrator.
Several weeks ago, the Board had indicated its desire to review
and discuss the operations in their dependent fire districts those
being the Isles of Capri Fire and Rescue Control District as well as
the Ochopee Fire and Rescue Control District. Towards that end, staff
has developed a brief presentation and provided some backup materials
in your executive summary packet to help facilitate the Board's
discussion this morning.
I would ask Chief Flagg to take you through about a three-minute
presentation and then will be available to answer any questions you
may have.
MS. FLAGG: If you will hang on a second, we have a technical
person who will take care of this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe the technical person ought to turn
off the lights.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would require a manual person.
MS. FLAGG: Good morning, Commissioners. Today I'd like to give
you a brief overview of two divisions within the Emergency Services
Department, specifically the Ochopee Fire District and the Isles of
Capri Fire District.
These divisions are part of the Emergency Services Department
which reports to the Board of County -- to the county administrator
and is governed by the Board of County Commissioners.
The Isles of Capri Fire District was developed by a BCC ordinance
at the request of community members. The areas served are Isles of
Capri, Fiddler's Creek and Mainsail Drive. Their total budget this
year is one hundred sixty-three two, with their primary revenue
sources being ad valorem taxes and the Collier County Fire Control
District.
Their current millage is one mill. Their operation of millage is
0.79 with a capital improvement district stationed at 0.2. This debt
will be paid off in April 2000.
Their current staffing is two and a half full-time firefighters
augmented by 22 volunteer firefighters. This results in staffing of
one firefighter a day, 12 hours a day, seven days a week. The
volunteers also augment that staffing.
The call volume is 260 total, with medical, 139; fire alarms, 54;
actual fires, 4; public assists, 63.
This district is served by a citizens' advisory board comprised
of five members.
The Ochopee Fire District was also created by ordinance. This
was through a referendum. The boundaries in 1992 were enlarged to
include Everglades City. The areas served are Everglades City,
Chokoloskee, Plantation Isle, Ochopee and Lee Cypress. Total budget,
eight forty-eight three with their revenue sources, again, being ad
valorem taxes, payment in lieu of taxes and general fund transfer and
the Collier County Fire Control District.
Their millage cap by referendum went to four mills. Their
current millage is 2.6 mills.
Their staffing is 11 full-time employees with two active
volunteers. Their staffing is comprised of one full-time fire chief,
three lieutenants, six firefighters and a secretary. Their daily
staffing on the fire ground is a minimum of two firefighters per day
and maximum staffing on the fire ground is three firefighters 24 hours
a day, seven days a week.
Their call volume was 577, actual medical, 345; alarms, 40;
fires, 88 and public assists, 104. This group is also served by a
citizens' advisory board.
In the Isles of Capri Fire District, the Isles of Capri Fire
District Advisory Board, by ordinance, is to serve as an advisory body
to the Board of County Commissioners and to develop the district
budget.
The advisory board, up until 1995, was accustomed to working with
an all-volunteer department. In 1995, it went to a partially paid
department, and, with that, professional policies and standards were
implemented.
This, at times over the last couple of years, has presented a
challenge for a professional staff, most recently resulting in
complaints of fire district personnel filing against the advisory
board.
In addition, this advisory board is under a current investigation
for potential sunshine law violations.
The Ochopee Fire District Advisory Board, this advisory board has
been working close with the Ochopee Fire District and, as of November
of '97, there was no concern relating to governance.
In December of '97, the Chief retired, and in January of '98, a
month later, there was a request to look at the issue of developing an
independent district.
What I'll provide for you now are some options and their
requirements in order to do that. There are two options for
government; a dependent district, which is the current situation, or
an independent district.
A dependent district is governed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners. An independent district is governed by district fire
commissioners. It would be independent from city or county
government.
A dependent district, the current system is an Emergency Services
Department. There is also an option for a contract for service
governed by the Board of Collier County Commissioners. The Emergency
Services Department has direct accountability to the county
administrator and Board of County Commissioners. It's a department
with consistent policies and a common mission, and enhanced services
are provided through utilization of existing resources.
A contract for service, the scope of work and accountability
would be determined by the contract terms and conditions. The
policies, operations and finances within the contract are solely the
responsibility of the contractor, and the county staff would
administer the contract.
In an independent district, locally-elected fire commissioners
would have complete control over district policies, finances and
operations. The cost to the district would likely increase for paid
commissioners' support and/or contract staff. It would require a
special act of legislation, and it would also, in all probability,
require a referendum, specifically being that Ochopee was created by a
referendum.
The supervisor of elections has indicated that the projected cost
for a referendum would be approximately $20,000. That's it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If they went to an active legislation, what
is the time frame on that? In other words, if they desire to be
become an independent district, what is the time frame?
MS. FLAGG: The local delegation would be January of 1999, and
then it would go through session. Session usually runs April to Hay
of '99, and then you could do a special mail ballot or you could wait
for the next general election. The next general election would be in
March of 2000. Or you could do a special mail ballot following that,
say, June or July of '99.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Help me get a perspective for how much
$20,000 is in this case.
What is the annual budget there?
You mentioned it would be $20,000 to do an election.
MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir.
The annual budget for Ochopee is 848,000 and the annual budget
for Isle of Capri is 163,200.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Awful big expenditure.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What would be the expense if it's on an
already-scheduled election? It wouldn't be anywhere near the 20,000;
isn't that correct?
MS. FLAGG: I'm only using the information that the supervisor of
elections provided to me. She projected it would be $20,000. It
would be a little bit more -- that would be a mail ballot.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Obviously, if it was -- it would cost --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If this were a --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It costs nothing.
MR. FERNANDEZ: There would be no additional cost if it's part of
this general election.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. That is the 2000 option, you know,
that she mentioned.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Hancock is trying to get your
attention.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Regarding staffing that, after hearing
them, don't seem to be in compliance with board policy on dependent
districts of fire service, I would like to go ahead and try to
understand those a little more while we have the opportunity.
It came to my attention at the Isles of Capri that we have a
paramedic who previously was stationed at that location at night, not
with a vehicle, but who was actually just there at the station. It
was their job to be there at night.
First of all, is that true?
MS. FLAGG: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So the people in Isles of Capri
that thought they had a paramedic in the evening hours at the station
are wrong?
MS. FLAGG: That -- the situation on Isles of Capri is normally
we have a minimum of one paramedic unit within each fire district.
Isles of Capri is the only district that we do not have a paramedic
unit within that district.
During the evening hours, we station one of our command officers
at the Isles of Capri station with a vehicle to respond to both
medical and fire calls.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You said something that is -- that I'm
very curious about. You said one unit in each fire district. Last
time we talked about budgets, we didn't care what district the unit
was in, we cared about response time. So whether they're by a fire
district in the EMS unit or not isn't the key, it's response time; is
that correct?
MS. FLAGG: It's response time and actual location, that is
correct.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That person who's stationed at
Isles of Capri or was there in the evening, however you want to phrase
that, if a call comes in for a fire, what does that person do?
MS. FLAGG: That person responds just like the paramedic units
respond in other areas.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In their vehicle?
MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No fire equipment, they don't take any
fire equipment with them, they do go into '-
MS. FLAGG: They don't respond in an apparatus, no, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: All right. Is that the only place that we
have an individual station like that?
MS. FLAGG: No. We have what's called a north battalion captain.
Each battalion has seven stations -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MS. FLAGG: And in the north battalion, we have a battalion
captain stationed in the Golden Gate Station and in the south
battalion, the south battalion captain is stationed in the Isles of
Capri Station.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Both those individuals roam as needed;
they are not tied to that area in any way, shape or form?
MS. FLAGG: In the north battalion, that is correct. In the
south battalion, the current procedure is during the evening hours,
the south captain remains within the Isles of Capri District.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that based on response time?
MS. FLAGG: Response time and coverage. That individual provides
both medical and fire coverage for that area to augment the staffing
that's there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hay I ask a question, because I'm trying
to understand an answer to your question?
It sounds like, and I'm sure you're not, but it sounds like
you're saying when he asked is there a person assigned full-time to
Isles of Capri at night, the answer was no, but we have somebody who's
there full-time at night.
MS. FLAGG: No, the question was without a vehicle. The person
has the vehicle. It's a medical command vehicle. Their schedule
works in the south battalion, which is the Isles of Capri area, that
person roams the entire south battalion through the day, and in the 12
hours of the evening hours, that person -- they're stationed at Isles
of Capri, but they roam throughout the day. At night, they stay at
Isles of Capri and they are restricted to the Isles of Capri District,
that command officer is.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So isn't that -- so I -- the question I
thought was asked that I'm trying to get an answer to is, is there an
EHS person stationed full-time at night, stationary at Isles of Capri?
MS. FLAGG: Yes, with a vehicle to provide both medical and
fire. They're not responding in a fire truck, which I think is what
the question was.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was part of the question.
MS. FLAGG: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But not all.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I'm in the clear on the reason why
we do that in Isles of Capri if it's not something we do -- and the
discussions I've had with folks in Isles of Capri is that through all
this discussion about fire service, they feel like they're going to
have something taken away because they feel they've had a paramedic
for them, and what I'm hearing is, yes, they're right, they've had a
paramedic in their district at night every night. No other district
has that.
MS. FLAGG: The other districts actually have full paramedic
units, fully-staffed paramedic units.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the other districts are huge. I mean,
you know, not an apples to apples comparison.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess my point is that we're paying
attention to district boundaries here which, when I think of EMS, I
don't give a hoot where the boundary is. I don't care. I want
response time as evenly throughout the community as is reasonable and
practical, and if the positioning of an individual at a given location
provides that community a greater service than the balance of the
community receives, then we have an equity issue. That issue needs to
be addressed.
Those folks feel like they have been given a level of service and
they're counting it towards their existing fire service because that
person, and you just said, responds -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To either.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- with some fire equipment. They don't
respond in a fire truck, but they do have some fire fighting
equipment, so those folks kind of think they have a fireman/paramedic
throughout the evening every night of the week.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They think that because they do.
MS. FLAGG: Well -- and to clarify that, what that captain does
is no different than what any other paramedic does throughout the
community, throughout the county.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Except for he does it in a very small
area.
MS. FLAGG: Right. He is restricted to the Isle of Capri
District in the evening hours.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's the equity question.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the equity question because when we
receive the justification for purchasing a new unit and hiring
additional personnel in EMS, the key issue is always coverage and
response time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Countywide.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Countywide.
And I have ridden with EMS enough to know and understand the
shifting of units and when it occurs and why it occurs and how it
occurs, so I think we have had a, in my opinion, an unfair glitch and
an unfair placement of an individual in a fire district when, again,
the district boundaries are not my concern. It's countywide coverage
because these folks are paid countywide. They're not paid from the
district.
I understand that is being changed or corrected and that that
person will be roving as they do in all other districts; is that
correct, Ms. Flagg, or is that not the case?
MS. FLAGG: The current situation is that that hasn't changed,
but there was some discussion about if there was a contract for
service and the most -- there is one coming up next week, a discussion
about contracting with East Naples to provide fire service on Isles of
Capri, if that were the case, then that command officer would go back
to full responsibility throughout the south battalion.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unless that happens -- I'm sorry for
interrupting, but I want to be perfectly clear -- unless there is some
change, if a -- I'm sorry.
If Isles of Capri continues to operate solely as a dependent fire
district without a contract for service, they are going to continue to
have that designated stationary EHS --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Individual.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- person. I never know what to call
them.
MS. FLAGG: Certainly, anything is up for discussion. I would
look for a direction from the county administrator for that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
Ms. Flagg, on Commissioner Hancock's line here, I've seen
correspondence and heard statements that the EHS personnel are at Isle
of Capri for 12 hours during the night, partially, if not mostly, to
cover -- to get fire coverage during that time period.
Are you here now today saying that's not the case?
MS. FLAGG: That person is trained to do both --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, that's not my question. His training
was not my question.
MS. FLAGG: It's for both.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The purpose for them being there is my
question.
MS. FLAGG: The purpose for being there is for both.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that gets to the heart of
Commissioner Hancock's question, since this is a taxing district, then
the inequity comes with the county supplying fire service in this
taxing district where it doesn't do that to other people's fire
control districts.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Exactly.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The second thing I have to ask you is, I
believe the information that you showed us up here shows that Ochopee
Fire District was originated in 19757
MS. FLAGG: Yes. The research that they did for us -- I just
need to double-check.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And the Isle of Capri was originated in
19787
MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it just seems that both of these two
districts have operated for all these years efficiently with very
little problems and very little controversy, but under your
administration, we now have citizens battling each other and we have
the -- both of these districts are in somewhat disarray, and one of
them has unionized. The other one is ready to do something different
to get away from your administration.
What are we to think about that?
MS. FLAGG: Well, I would offer that the change in Isles of Capri
occurred at the time they went from a volunteer, an all-volunteer
staff, to a paid staff, and, as a result, the letters initiated
immediately because when you go with a paid professional staff, you
have to implement standards and not only professional standards but
operations. And the advisory board in Isles of Capri was reluctant to
work within what the ordinance provides for them, which is as an
advisory body and to prepare a district budget. They were more
interested in getting involved in operational decisions, procurement
decisions, and hiring and firing decisions, and therein lies the
difficulty between the fire chief and the advisory board.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Tell us why -- or what was the
impetus to going to paid firefighters after all those years of
successfully having all-volunteer service?
MS. FLAGG: My understanding was that -- I was not involved in
the formulation of that decision, but my understanding was that it was
at the request of the community members that the previous volunteer
group, they wanted to retire, they had been involved in a group for a
very long time and they were ready to give it up and bring young
people into the district to serve as volunteers or paid staff, and so
in -- that is the time frame it happened, and there was an immediate
response to that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What -- I think in your material, you said
there are twenty-two volunteers listed.
How many of those actually live on the Isle of Capri?
MS. FLAGG: I believe it's three or four. I would have to check
to get you a --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: How many -- how many are available within,
say, ten minutes?
MS. FLAGG: I asked the chief that question. I think he told me
there are eight or ten. I have to state, though, that the issue is
not so much where they live but the fact that they have recently
implemented a requirement for the volunteers to work a twelve-hour
shift a month. And so what that does is augment the paid professional
staffing, so it's not so much an issue of where they live but what
their availability is to work shifts.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I believe there's more than
twenty-two twelve-hour shifts during a month. MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Flagg, it's unfortunate this
discussion is actually occurring on the same day we give out the
Phoenix Awards as the fear of a mixed signal exists, and I want to be
very clear --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't know what he said.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The budgetary decisions this board makes
every year on our EHS personnel, both equipment, training and
otherwise, has always been to try and provide our citizens not just an
acceptable level of service but the best in the state, if not the
southeast United States. I think we do that. I think we do it by
hiring extremely qualified, dedicated people. I think your
department, as evidenced today, is responsible for saving a great
number of lives that may be in another community, it would not have
been done as efficiently or effectively. I think everyone here today
and everyone that works in your department needs to pat themselves on
the back, if we don't do it enough, for that job.
My concern comes in -- in that, when we make those budgetary
decisions, in my mind, we're making them in the area of the provision
of advanced life support, the provision of ALS and BLS services to the
people of this community. Not in the provision of augmenting,
supplanting or cross training for fire protection.
There is a very clear line in Collier County, unlike some, where
fire service comes from. It's your independent or dependent
districts. My concern is that I have heard over the last couple of
years, which sounded like a good idea to me at first because our
people are out there in the field sometimes in a given -- even an
independent district, a truck shows up with maybe, and I've heard the
horror stories, one guy shows up with a truck waiting on volunteers,
there's two EHS people there, how can they assist and so forth, and
that seemed to make sense if cross training was required. But I think
it's gone beyond that, and my concern is that when we make the
budgetary decisions for the provision of ALS and BLS services in this
community, that's precisely what we're making them for. And the fact
we have expended funds for an individual stationed in Isles of Capri
at night, I think is contrary to what my direction and my concern is
during the budget cycle and during the appropriation of funds for EHS.
I understand there is a lot of cross training going on.
Are people that are hired by Collier County to be paramedics
being required to receive cross training in fire fighting?
MS. FLAGG: The discussion has been the fire school, attending
the 400-hour fire school. The answer is, no, they're not being
required to go. They are not being paid to go. They're going on
their own time. They're paying for the course themselves.
Obviously -- I appreciate you bringing it up because their
feeling is that we work very closely with the fire service, and when
it comes to them going to paramedic school, we are working very
intimately with them in terms of making sure they get on the unit,
scheduling our people to train them as paramedics, having them ride
our units, serving internship programs, and they are being reimbursed
for their efforts to go to paramedic school by their departments.
And, as of now, I have shared with them that, at this point, I have
not officially requested the Board of County Commissioners to provide
them the same benefit that the fire service is providing the
firefighters but certainly we support them that, if they do want to
go, they can certainly attend.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If they receive that training, does it
affect where they're placed within the EHS Department? MS. FLAGG: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So the individual who has been
stationed at the Isles of Capri, if they did not have any fire
training, would that have mattered in their placement there?
MS. FLAGG: That is a command officer. That's a captain, and the
captains and lieutenants, as part of -- we use the analogy when a
firefighter goes to fire school, they get what's called a first
responder training. It's a very basic training. You're probably
familiar with it. For the lieutenants in the system, they also get a
very basic fire training so that when they go to those calls in -- in
parts of our county where there is one firefighter on a fire truck
that they have some basic understanding of how to hook a hydrant or
lay a line and help them, but there is never any policy or procedure
as far as the paramedics actually doing what's called an internal
attack or going inside the house. Whether -- even if they're fully
certified.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But if they are certified and show
up on-scene and do that, is that acceptable to you as the director of
EHS?
MS. FLAGG: No, sir. Their -- their requirements are that they
do what's called fire-ground support. It's just we share support with
each other. When we go to a fire, we do fire-ground support. When
the fire department comes to a medical call, they do medical-ground
support. We work in support of each other ultimately for the benefit
of the community.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Have EHS dollars been used to
purchase cross-training equipment, whether it be bunker gear or
whatnot, that is typically a fire service item?
MS. FLAGG: We have -- protective equipment is something that, if
you look in the pictures in the newspaper, you will see plane crashes,
vehicle accidents, you will see the paramedics in the vehicle in the
middle of the plane crash; they are the only ones that are not
protected. They're surrounded by firefighters who are protected so
that if there is a flash, it's going to be the paramedic who burns
because they don't have the protective equipment.
Yes, I did put a proposal together and we're finalizing a cost
analysis on that solely for the purpose of protecting them in their
daily activities. It struck home very clearly when they flew me out
to Oklahoma City to assist in that bombing. I watched paramedics
working next to firefighters work next to law enforcement officers.
The firefighters were protected; the law enforcement and fire --
paramedics were not. And we had a nurse who was also in the building
doing search and rescue, and she died because she was not protected.
A rock fell and crushed her head.
The goal of protective equipment is to protect them. It is not
to enter a burning building.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. What all this comes to for me is
that when we -- and it came up -- we're here talking about fire
service, and I don't mean to make it an issue about EHS, but the
commingling of the appearance, commingling of funds in the support of
the Isles of Capri Fire Department is of concern to me. I want the
fire service to do what they do best and focus on it, and I would like
our EHS department to do what they do best and focus on it. And,
obviously, the two have to work together and, obviously, there are
some participatory arrangements that work to everyone's benefit. I
have no problem with those. But as pointed out in a memo I received
on Friday, very clearly, is this board makes the financial decisions
and the administration decisions rest with our county administrator
and Mr. Ochs and you.
However, if those administrative decisions are not in compliance
with what I feel the budgetary decisions this board are making are,
then we are involved, and we should be. And I think there needs to be
a clear understanding of the lines of separation between the provision
of fire service and the provision of EHS, and that's the same thing
I've told the fire chiefs that I have met with.
I don't want them doing our job because we're trained to do it
better, and I don't want us doing their job because they're trained to
do it better, point, period. So where there are those commingling
areas, we need to identify them, I believe, and we need to get rid of
them. And we need to work together, but do so as two separate
agencies, as fire service and EHS whether it be dependent or
independent. And if nothing else comes out of this today but that
thought, I hope that we'll at least agree on that. Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree with that.
I don't want to take a long time and make speeches, but I do want
to be real clear that anything that I've got to say is anything but
critical of Chief Flagg's administration. I am extremely impressed
and continue to be with the level of professionalism and don't have a
bone of contention with the operations and the job that you're doing.
I want to be clear about that.
I do think there are a couple of issues that need to be resolved.
One may well be the -- commingling is a little hard word, but it may
be, in fact, that the fire district budget should support half of the
salary of the stationed -- the designated person who's there at night.
That does seem, to me, that there is an easy solution to that problem.
I don't know what it is. You guys will figure that out.
The overriding concern, I think, is one that it's incumbent on
this board to resolve and that is just what is the chain of command
here when we have a dependent fire district that it is Chief Flagg's
responsibility to oversee and that dependent fire district has a
professional chief.
And I'm clear, and I don't know if I'm right about this because
it will depend on if a majority of the board agrees, but that the
advisory board's capacity, their job is just what it says in the
ordinance and that is to help us develop the budget for that district,
and it's critical that we send a message to that advisory board that
they -- their function -- they are not anywhere in the chain of
command. Their -- the chain of command, I think, needs to be cleared
up between the fire chief and the chief of EHS, and I don't know what
that is. That's Mr. Fernandez's job.
MS. FLAGG: No. There is no issue between the fire chief and
myself and the county administrator. The issue is strictly the
advisory board.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It needs to be clarified, then, what the
role is of that advisory board and with a great deal of thanks for the
work that they do in helping us to develop the budget. And making
that recommendation to Mr. Fernandez so that he can make a
recommendation to us, we can't allow operations in Phoenix
Award-related kinds of problems. We're talking life and death here.
We cannot have that advisory board interfering in the operations and
the decisions that are made about how to run that district. I think
that's critical.
If anybody disagrees with that, I hope they'll speak up, because
I think that's what's broken here.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll be glad to speak up on that.
First of all, I thought it was very interesting that you said you
had no problem whatsoever with the administration of the EHS chief and
then you went on to list a couple. But beyond that, you said the
reason for the existence of the advisory board is to develop a budget,
that's true, of course, but that's only part of it. They are also
advisory to the Board of County Commissioners through the
administration of the county and, therefore, they are -- they do have
a place in the decision-making process.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do we have their ordinance?
And just to clarify any -- I didn't intend -- if I communicated
a criticism of Chief Flagg, I didn't intend to. What I intended to be
critical of is the communication problem that has developed between
that advisory board and the chief, and I think it's our job -- the
criticism is frankly focused on this board. We need to clarify what
that role is so that she knows what it's her job to do.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that role is defined. Tom Olliff
is a perfect example. We have a parks and rec advisory board, and we
rarely take action on something involving a financial decision with
parks and rec until PARAB has had a chance to look at it and he is a
liaison between that board and us and conveys that to us. So we have
perfect examples of how it works. The question is, why isn't it
working in Ochopee and Isles of Capri? And if it's because the
individuals on the advisory board simply want to be independent, then,
good, go out and raise the money, get the signatures and go try to be
independent, but, you know, let's --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In the meantime, we have to work within
the framework which is that this is Bob Fernandez' job, and through
him, he tells Ms. Flagg what to do, and she tells her staff what to
do, and we appreciate advice from the advisory board, but the decision
makers are -- the decision maker is Mr. Fernandez, period.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Regarding the operation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
MS. FLAGG: The correspondence from the county attorney, because
each time that we sought to provide that information to the advisory
board -- and, again, the change happened from when they went from a
volunteer to a paid department, so the correspondence that I handed to
you was another piece of correspondence from the county attorney to
the advisory board saying procurement decisions, hiring and firing
decisions, operational decisions are the responsibility of the
department of the professionals, that the advisory board serves as an
advisory body and helps prepare the district budget.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hope that the message that is going to
be clearly communicated after today's discussion is leave the
professional decisions to the professionals.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sometime back -- I guess I'm the one that did
bring this and wanted it placed on the agenda because there seemed to
be a lot of concern out there and a lot of misinformation floating
around as to who was doing what and whose job it was to do that.
My big -- my concern still is this separation of fire service and
emergency medical. I don't pretend to know what the best practices
are for people who work in this on a daily basis. Maybe the
commingling is the way to go, the cross training, all those kinds of
things. That's not my issue, but the problem that I see here, I think
we've got two dependent fire districts, and I'm looking at this thing
strictly from the fire side of it. I'm not looking at it from EMS.
Put that on the shelf and let's look at strictly fire.
What I would like to see down the road, I would like both of
these districts to take a look and decide if they want to be
independent districts.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me too.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If that's what they truly feel -- what I
wanted to know today is what were the numbers, and everybody saw them.
There is a lot of people in this room that represent both of those
districts. You know what the numbers are out there. I'd like them to
go back to their districts, think about this, and decide if they
would, down the road, like to bring this up within their districts and
become an independent fire district.
Now, EMS is totally another matter.
Diane, that's what you oversee for all of Collier County, is my
understanding, correct?
MS. FLAGG: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That doesn't interfere here at all, but from
the fire standpoint, I'd like to know what the direction would be from
the two dependent districts, if they would like to try and do this on
their own, just that part of it. Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I would like to ask Mr. Weigel -- we heard
in our -- the presentation earlier that it would be as long as a
couple of years before we could get this on the ballot, but is there
any prohibition in state statutes from having one of our legislators
bring in a special act even yet this session?
MR. WEIGEL: I'm not aware of a prohibition of the -- and the
legislators may know themselves their own procedural abilities and
disabilities to do this at this late juncture. They may have some
committees that, with certain dates, that things actually have to be
in, and I'm afraid I can't comment on that at this point.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They have a budget, you know, of the
number of bills they're permitted to file so they'd have to prioritize
this ahead of something else, but it's certainly not impossible.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This would be a simple local act though, so
it doesn't seem like something that would have to go through committee
hearings and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Big deal.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- that sort of thing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: State legislators have no limit on
what they could file --
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If we had effective representation in
Tallahassee, perhaps we could get these through. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or maybe if somebody asked.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It is an important issue to consider. I have
no feeling one way or the other. I'm not pushing anybody to do
anything one way or the other.
What I -- just some simple questions.
What is the advantage for staying as a dependent district?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's mostly how much it costs.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's go back to -- what is the advantage to
staying dependent?
If I lived in these dependent districts, I'd want to know.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Basically, having your administrative
costs paid by other sources.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, no, no.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're looking at light switches here.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the chain of
command is the fire chief reports to you, is that correct, Ms. Flagg?
MS. FLAGG: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you report to Mr. Fernandez?
MS. FLAGG: I report to Mr. Ochs, who reports to Mr. Fernandez.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to leave you out
there.
Is a portion of your salary, Ms. Flagg, paid for by the Isles of
Capri fire budget?
MS. FLAGG: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is a portion of Mr. Ochs' salary or Mr.
Fernandez' salary paid by Isles of Capri? MS. FLAGG: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, so, in fact, there are general tax
dollars being used to administratively support the dependent
districts.
So what is the most obvious advantage, reduce the administrative
costs to residents of Isle of Capri based on a dependent district.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MS. FLAGG: We just outlined a few of the operational benefits.
This is not to say that these programs couldn't happen if they were
independent. We just met with limited success in achieving programs
like this with independent districts. One is that the rescue boat is
staffed by both firefighters and paramedics to handle both fire and
medical emergencies on the water, and the island is accessible only by
boat; that there's joint medical and fire training exercises and
formalized firefighter training schedules through the memorandum of
understanding established by Dr. Toper; that there is joint
utilization from stations there being able to share operations and
maintenance costs thereby reducing the cost to the taxpayer.
In addition, as I stated earlier, throughout the county, EHS
provides fire-ground support, fire department provides medical-ground
support for all the emergency calls in Collier County. Being a single
department, there is consistent procedures and protocols utilized.
In Isles of Capri, there has been a more than 500 percent
increase of trained personnel in the volunteer firefighter program
since we went to a paid staff.
In the Ochopee Fire District, some of the operational benefits,
the big issue that's been an issue for communities throughout our
nation is the concern of the people of multiple emergency vehicles on
a single call. As part of -- we've been able to achieve it with the
two municipalities in Collier County and with the Ochopee Fire
District where it's staffed by three in lieu of sending both a fire
truck and medic unit to a single call. Obviously, that program
doesn't take place unless the staffing exceeds the minimum.
Also, recently and for the first time in the twenty-year history,
the Ochopee Fire Department improved their ISO rating from an eight to
a six in the urban area.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which, in English, is their insurance
rate?
MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Their insurance rates go down?
MS. FLAGG: Yes. The -- because of the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you just explain to me that last
part, you said in the urban area of Ochopee and in the '-
MS. FLAGG: Yeah. ISO, the insurance service offices, separates
out areas where there's a gathering of population, they define that as
urban. Where there is a lot of brush, trees --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Gotcha.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Don't rush out of here thinking we've
extended our -- things happen like that.
MS. FLAGG: Also, as a part of a single department, this came to
us just recently, actually as recent as last month, so we were able to
put our resources together, identify a local resident who agreed. We
got him into fire school and, due to a lack of qualified applicants
locally, the last position, firefighter position, was in July of '97.
The one prior to that was seven years before. Also, at the request of
the firefighters in '96, we revised the policy and had firefighters go
to the call together and, again, they're provided fire-ground support
by the paramedic down there.
So those are just a few of the operational benefits of
maintaining an Emergency Services Department.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I think at this point, one of the
things that I would like to see happen would be to have all of this
information made sure this is available to both dependent districts.
Whatever a time certain can be agreed upon, I think after we've heard
this now, I think the two dependent fire districts, there should be
some type of a public meeting where they are all made aware of this.
And then they need to make a decision that if they wish to become
independent, the procedure for doing so. If they wish to remain
dependent, that there are certain operational policies that have to be
followed and the certain operation is very clearly defined through the
use of an advisory board, through the chain of command, et cetera, et
cetera. But I would like to see this decision put out to the
dependent fire districts and let them come back to us and make the
decision.
We're charged with providing, you know, a level of service to the
residents, and I'm not shirking, and I don't want to shirk that
responsibility. At the same time, I think we need to come to an
understanding in these two dependent districts of this entire
situation.
I think now we've heard this information. What I would like to
see, if the rest of the board agrees, to see this information go out
to the two dependent districts and have it done through a public
meeting and then simply let them make their decision at a time certain
and come back to us as to what their decision is. They either stay as
a dependent district or they come back to us -- that they want to
proceed with becoming independent.
MS. FLAGG: Did you have in mind a format following the town
hall meeting? It's -- my experience has been, just recently that we
spend most of the time bringing out the facts, the letters, the
correspondence --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That is not -- that is not the issue here.
Those are operational problems. Those are discussion items. It's not
operation. What I think they need to know is they need to know what
it's going to cost them if they go and become an independent district
town hall '-
MS. FLAGG: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- this is what it's going to cost them. If
they don't want to go that route and they wish to remain a dependent
district, then here's going to be -- here's the policies, and here's
how we proceed as a dependent district. I don't think that's unfair.
MS. FLAGG: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think everybody has a general knowledge of
what they want to do, what are the benefits if you want to be
dependent, what are the advantages of staying a dependent district as
to becoming an independent district, but I want it presented very
openly.
I don't -- there is -- you know, it doesn't make any difference
one way or the other. And personally, to me, I don't care other than
I want the level of service to the residents provided for. That's
all. But whether they become independent or stay dependent is
immaterial to this commissioner.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think there is one big change in the
dependent category we need to look at, and that is to make sure
they're self-sufficient in a dependent manner. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the key for me. That's what all of
this kind of generated from was I came to the realization that the
Isles of Capri residents were paying a millage rate that really didn't
cover all of the costs of providing the service they were receiving.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We need to know the equity issue.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If they're going to make a decision as a
community, whether it be on provision of service from another district
or whether it be on becoming dependent or independent or whatnot --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Apples to apples.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- need to have the total cost there and
we need to make sure the balance of the county taxpayer is not
subsidizing the fire district in addition to paying their own fire
rates. I mean, I think that's key.
So I just want to see that true cost. And I think this coming
year in the budget, we want to see the true cost of providing the
dependent services so that everyone knows what they're talking about.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I thank you, Diane, for bringing this
information and Mr. Ochs for bringing this information to us today.
I would hope -- Mr. Fernandez, I would look to you as far as
direction on -- you heard, I think, up here our concerns and questions
that we've raised. I would like you to come back with a kind of an
agenda as to how you think we need to proceed or what needs to happen
from here on out, if that's agreeable with the rest of the board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me -- Commissioner Norris --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to keep it -- keep EMS out of it
because I don't want to touch EMS -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: EMS is doing great --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's not the issue.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want it to focus on the provision of
fire service, keep EMS out of it, leave them alone because they're
doing great.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's my point, too. I have a highly
professional run EMS service, but our fire department -- dependent
districts is just not working well, so I, in addition to the
information sessions with the residents of these two dependent
districts, I would -- at the same time, I would like to ask the board
to direct our county administrator to bring us information in a fairly
short time frame of how we can get the county out of the fire service
in these two dependent districts,
whether it's by contract --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Whatever.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- or the problem may cure itself if the
districts want to go independent, but for that interim couple of years
it may take to get that accomplished, if ever, I would like to see
some options to the board to get us out of the fire service in those
two districts.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm happy to see the options are there
because we want to see the options. I just don't want it to be
prejudged that we made the determination that we're going to shirk
that responsibility off to somebody else.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we -- I, for one, made that very
clear. I didn't hear Mr. Norris say that he wants to drop everybody
on their head and say do you want -- aren't going to have the proper
fire protection, it's just we need options. We also need to know, you
know, what direction to go here.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand what Commissioner Norris is
asking because it's obvious if they choose not to go independent, we
cannot choose not -- we are going to provide fire service, period.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We are going to do that. That is an
obligation this board has, but at the same time, we're offering to the
people, you have an option here, folks; it's going to cost you this
much money if you choose to do it, but you have an option. And you
don't have to be under our thumb. And if you choose to do it, you
know, on your own, you can, I suppose, pretty much set your own rules,
I guess. I don't know.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Be under your own thumb.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is this request going to come back to this
board before going out to community meetings, because I think I would
like to at least see the information to make sure that the apples and
apples are there, so to speak, that we're talking fire service versus
fire service as opposed to any mixing of the two. I just -- not that
I don't trust the information, but we have been plagued with questions
and comments, so we may already have an understanding of what those
communities are going to be asking.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we have five people up here saying --
or at least Mr. Constantine hasn't graced us with his thoughts yet --
but at least we have four people up here saying the same thing as to
what we would like to see happen. And I believe that before the
information does go out, I think we should at least know what's going
to be presented.
Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, in view of the fact that we have
scheduled the discussion of the East Naples proposal for next week's
agenda, is it the Board's direction that we proceed with that
presentation or would you like to have that suspended until we're able
to bring you the presentation?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I really think we should wait.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to see '-
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I feel more comfortable with that. There
again, I'll entertain if --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's two for waiting. I'd like to see
all options at once, and I thought that's what we asked for the last
time we talked about it was let's see all options not just the East
Naples option.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not that I want to wait or not wait,
but my concern is that right now, the folks in Isles of Capri don't
even know the real cost of providing for their fire service.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So in order to fairly evaluate the East
Naples proposal, they need to know what it's going to cost next budget
year to provide their own fire service and then they can weigh that
against the East Naples proposal and have apples and apples.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The thing is they have a one-mill millage
cap. They know exactly what it's going to cost them.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If it can't be done for a mill,
then there's a service reduction -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That they need to be able to evaluate as
well.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: They need to know that, too.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But the whole point of the East Naples
contract proposal is to give them far more coverage for the same
money. I mean, it's the whole point of it, recognizing that there's a
one-mill cap it's already at.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, that may be the
intention --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you for your rudeness.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That may be the intention, but I think
the purpose here and our role here is to make sure all that
information is available so that those folks who are clearly unhappy
can know, okay, it's a good idea, it's a bad idea, but have something
to weigh it against. I don't think we have that right now to weigh it
against, whether it turns out to be a good idea or not.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I, for one -- I don't know. Am I hearing
you'd rather wait on the East Naples proposal --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My personal feeling --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- because of lack of information from
everybody --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Believe me, after listening to the tapes,
Commissioner Norris, of the meetings, if I lived in Isles of Capri,
I'm not so sure I'd want to keep the same direction they have right
now either because it's not working.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a mess.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I really think once we look at what the
true cost of that service is that is not being subsidized by the
county general fund or proposal by an adjacent district or proposal in
an independent district, it is probably going to be more attractive
than it may be today but they need to be able to have that in their
hand is my opinion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: They need all that information, then make the
decision, but I think it rests with them. We're not going to not
provide service, but if they want to make the change, then they need
to have all information out there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With that, I guess we should -- we can't
really -- I don't know if it's proper to make a motion because it's
not on the agenda but I think it should be withdrawn from the agenda
until this information is prepared and presented to the communities
and then would be an appropriate time to hear it is my personal
opinion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agreed.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we all four of us agree.
Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, that's fine.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Five of us agree that that should happen.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We'll do that then.
MS. FLAGG: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much.
Okay. We need to take about a five-minute break or seven-minute
break. We'll reconvene in about seven minutes.
(A brief recess was held.)
Item #8D2
STAFF AUTHORIZED TO EXTEND THE PROPOSAL PERIOD FOR RFP 98-2779 TO
3/14/98
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll reconvene the meeting and move on to
Item 8(D)(2), extended proposal period for RFP 98-2779.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just ask you a question?
We had scheduled to come back on both this and the site-specific
numbers, we're coming back on March 10; this one's being delayed to
the 24th. Obviously, we want to have -- full information in two weeks
isn't going to make any difference to the big picture, but it will
still make more sense to have both of those on the same day rather
than go through that hearing twice.
If there is no objection to the board, can you make it a part of
that to hear both of those items on the 24th, Commissioner Norris?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I'll be happy to do that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: My only comment on this whole thing, it sure
has taken a long time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure has. Then we can have -- I have
to correct you guys, you both said apples to apples this morning.
We're in Florida, you have to say oranges to oranges for comparison.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Twenty-one percent of the nation's market.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do I have a motion, then, to extend
this proposal?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the motion is on the floor and the
second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Yes, we do.
Good morning.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero.
Item #8El
FUNDING $25,000 FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA'S GULF COAST COOPERATIVE PROGRAM
WITH LTU AIRLINES, TOURIST DEVLEOPMENT FUNDS, SPECIAL EVENTS CATEGORY -
APPROVED
Moving on to Item 8(E)(1).
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Anyone here to talk us out of it, though?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anyone here?
We have some speakers.
Do you want to talk us out of this?
It's moving pretty fast.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Going once, going --
MS. GANSEL: I'm not trying to talk you out of it, but I do want
to advise the board of some concerns that we had brought up to the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm considering withdrawing the
motion. Go ahead.
MS. GANSEL: This application had been received out of the normal
cycle, however because of the --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What is your name?
MS. GANSEL: Jean Gansel, sorry, Jean Gansel in the budget
office.
It was out of the cycle because of the timing of this to have
cooperative effort. The TDC had reviewed it and approved it
unanimously. Also there was some concern that this was not
appropriate for special event funding but should be funded out of
advertising and promotion. Again, this was brought to the TDC, they
reviewed it unanimously, recommended that it be in the special event
category.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There also may be an error in here. It
says the Florida shoulder vacation, period. Didn't we officially
change that to the other season or something?
MS. GANSEL: Vacation --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Vacation. Thank you.
MS. GANSEL: The ordinance has not been changed, so I tried to
accommodate --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The entire 20 people left who are all
working in the tourism industry said it's the vacation season.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion.
Do we still have the motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, we do.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the second stands.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And the second.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, we have two speakers. I'll call
them and if they want to speak, I guess we could give them an
opportunity.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's fine.
MR. FERNANDEZ: First is Larry Goldthorpe.
MR. GOLDTHORPE: I'll waive that.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. And then next is Mary Dunavan.
MS. DUNAVAN: Good morning, Madam Chairman --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning, ma'am.
MS. DUNAVAN: -- and commissioners. Eco-tourism, I'm not here to
speak against or for this but eco-tourism is mentioned quite broadly
in sustainable South Florida, and it's the way that they wanted to go,
and they even go into the point of where they say that we need to
change the minds of the people that live here to accommodate, and also
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mary, who said that?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mary, does this have to do with --
MS. DUNAVAN: This is from --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Does this have to do with this item?
MS. DUNAVAN: Yes, it does. I have the paper from your agenda.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not sure what sustainable South
Florida has to do with LTU Promotion.
MS. DUNAVAN: It is on eco-tourism.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, it's -- I don't see that. Maybe I missed
it somewhere in here, but I don't see that.
MS. DUNAVAN: On the back side, it says LTU on the other side.
This is out of your agenda.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mary, just because they also use words
that are also used in the sustainable South Florida thing, you know --
I share your concerns about the sustainable South Florida ongoing
activity, but if someone wants to come and see the Everglades and stay
in our hotels and spend their money here, that's a good thing; that's
not necessarily a bad thing.
MS. DUNAVAN: I'm not saying --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When former British Prime Minister,
John Major was in town at the Registry, I happened to see him there,
and he came in a day early, and the one thing he wanted to do was go
see the Everglades. So if people from Germany want to see the
Everglades and spend their money here, that's great. That doesn't
have a darn thing to do with sustainable South Florida. I agree with
you wholeheartedly with the concerns on what they're doing, but I
don't think it relates to this item.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I see what you're -- state gets back to
nature with five new eco-tourism attractions --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We still haven't come up with a new word
yet.
MS. DUNAVAN: South Florida Water Management District has bought
lands and that is our tax monies and then they're turning this land
back over for eco-tourism to private businesses, and this is what I am
trying to get across. Using our tax monies to buy the land and then
turn it over to the Audubon Society or the developed group by Baker,
which is Florida Conservation Foundation, whatever, I don't see
businesses taking over the land after the taxpayers has paid for it.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, before you call the question.
Mr. Agoston, you see that reserved sign next to you there.
That's for you. You can sit there.
MR. AGOSTON: I didn't want to sit there because I was expecting
someone.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Exactly. Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Ready to call the question?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm ready to call the question.
All those in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero.
Item #8E2
COUNTY ATTORNEY DIRECTED TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 92-18 TO INCLUDE ONE
NON-VOTING TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL MEMBER - APPROVED
Next item is to direct the county attorney to amend Ordinance
92-60 to include one non-voting Tourist Development Council member.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to have a discussion on this.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
Ms. Gansel, please.
MS. GANSEL: If I can make one amendment here. It's to amend
Ordinance Number 92-18. We apologize for that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MS. GANSEL: This -- Commissioner Hancock had made a presentation
to the Tourist Development Council at their February 2nd meeting. His
interest in doing so -- or would you prefer to --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The bottom line is, as many of you
remember as we go back through Category C applications, there wasn't
anybody at arm's length to give us a fair assessment of the tourism
and visiting benefits of particular Category C activities. It's come
to my attention we have more than one individual in this community who
made a career doing special events promotion, who's involved or has
been involved in that arena. I didn't want to change the voting
makeup of the TDC because that, by statute, I think is set and to our
voters is set, but I thought a person appointed strictly from the
standpoint of being able to fairly evaluate the impacts of Category C
events was a need when I was the chairman on the TDC and would have
been beneficial. And that's simply what I'm asking we do, is we amend
the ordinance to allow that to happen.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As I read through the executive
summary, it suggested either a non-voting TDC member or an advisory
committee, and I hoped that we wouldn't have an advisory committee to
a committee that's advising --
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: It was the TDC's recommendation to go with
a non-voting member on the TDC, as was mine, but I was trying to
provide options as is the case whenever you're asking for something.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If the board feels strongly, I'm not
going to object to it, but it seems to me we might simply just set a
higher standard of explanation. I don't know how many times we've had
people come before us and say, well, we're not really sure what kind
of impact this will have, this has never been done, but, you know,
maybe, and they never have much in the way of evidence. If somebody
can help us in that process, there is no harm done, but I just hope
that either in addition to or in lieu of this, we would set a higher
standard of --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- information.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- this kind of exposure of someone who
has this knowledge and background may give us that ability, this may
give us that ability, but today we don't have it and this may be the
easiest and best way to get it in the short-term basis than the
long-term result in something that you're --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Volunteer is a -- you know, volunteer
expertise instead of having to add somebody to staff who might be able
to offer that advice.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think kind of in a roundabout way, there
was some discussion at the TDC meeting in regard to -- there is always
a question of how many nights does an event generate and how do you
really track, you know, what the event -- and several people who came
before us on their final reports, we kind of questioned the nights,
you know, how -- what did you do and one of them had kind of after --
they did have a survey, so they had a little bit better handle as I
recall, but we kind of encouraged all of them with different events
that they provide some kind of a survey to the people that were
checking in, registering, or whatever you want to call it, for their
event so we could get a better idea on the number of nights that would
be generated through some of these events. In a roundabout way, I
think this might at least give us a little something to go on, then
perhaps having a person in this particular area might be beneficial.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That is a well-stated intent. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do I have a motion?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I made one.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion and a second.
All in favor?
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries unanimously.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Once Mr. Weigel has prepared that change,
it will come back to the board for approval. I don't know if it's
consent agenda or not, but it's a very minor change, Mr. Weigel, so it
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Surely it's consent.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- shouldn't be too lengthy a process.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can make it very rapid.
MR. WEIGEL: The amendment of an ordinance always requires a
public hearing, a very quick one.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
Item #8E3
BEACH RENOURISHMENT TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX FUNDING FOR POST
CONSTRUCTION MONITORING BEACH RESTORATION PROJECT FOR $333,300;
MONITORING MARCO ISLAND BREAKWATER PROJECT $26,290; AND MONITORING
MARCO ISLAND T-GROIN PROJECT $118,360 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDS, BEACH
RENOURISHHENT CATEGORY - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The next item is approval of the beach
renourishment TDC tax funding as follows. There were three different
projects.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further comments or questions?
I'll call for the question.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries unanimously.
MS. GANSEL: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did you check if we had speakers on that?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh --
MR. FERNANDEZ: We don't have any.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just checking.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I forget that.
Item #8E4
AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND PRIMECO
PERSONAL COHMUNICATIONS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT VINEYARDS COHMUNITY
PARK - APPROVED
Approval and amendment to the lease agreement between Collier
County and Primeco Personal Communications for property located at the
Vineyards.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and second.
Did you want to talk us out of this, Ms. Herritt?
MS. HERRITT: Absolutely not.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, we do have two speakers on this
one; Mark Ciarfella.
MR. CIARFELLA: I'll waive my right.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And the other speaker the Tina Turner.
MS. TURNER: I waive mine also.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll call for the question.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excellent presentation again, Ms. Herritt.
MS. HERRITT: Thank you very much.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 98-42 AUTHORIZING THE HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE
MULTIFAMILY REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS TO REFINANCE AN EXISTING APARTMENT
PROJECT (SAXON MANOR ISLES) - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. County attorney's report, housing
request by the Housing Finance Authority of Collier County for
approval of resolution authorizing the authority to issue multi-family
revenue refunding bonds to refinance an existing apartment project
which was originally financed with bonds of the Authority.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, Mr. Pickworth has been
here for the better part of the morning and I'm sure would love to
have a lengthy presentation, but I'd be happy to move approval of the
site.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and second.
Do we have any speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is an interest-rate driven refunding;
is that correct?
MR. PICKWORTH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You want to let the record indicate --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That was Mr. Pickworth that spoke.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 98-43 REAPPOINTING BILL NEAL, KARL OTTO, EDWARD OTT, JOHN
STOCKTON, BERNARD WEISS AND APPOINTING JULIE FREELAND - ADOPTED
Moving on, then, to Item 10(A), appointment of members to the
County Government Productivity Committee.
The only one that I -- if you all read through the report, Jack
McKenna, who had been the current chairman, was recently, I think,
replaced through their election process.
Jack indicated he would like to stay if we did not have a number
of people -- a number of applicants, and we do. However, I must say
that Jack's been a great asset to that committee, and I know he's
enjoyed being on it, however, we do have two people.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: As much as I'd love to reappoint Jack
again, we have been very consistent, and -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Agreed.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- when additional qualified individuals
applied, that we put them on, but I agree with you, so, I guess, does
anyone have a preference between Ms. Freeland or Mr. Cahners, because
I don't know either one of them individually? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Neither do I.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There is one other problem, too.
Unfortunately, and this is really unfortunate, the General Weiss' --
his application, it says here, was received late, and we've also been
very consistent on that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He was, I believe, out of the country.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He was in South America. I would very
much like to make an exception for General Weiss, frankly. Since I'm
about to go on that committee for my first meeting tomorrow, I hate to
start it without him. I think, you know, his service is so
outstanding that this is one of those times we ought to make a
technical exception. And then I'd like to ask for Julie Freeland to
be the other member who's appointed. I don't know her personally but
have some experience with her reputation and it's outstanding and
certainly the backup material looks very good.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to disagree with you on
General Weiss. I think, again, it's unfortunate that he came in late.
I can't think of a better person for it, but we set parameters and
we've been very careful to stay within those rules, and I think we run
a thin line when we start making exceptions for certain individuals.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Without lengthy discussion, I'm going to
agree with Commissioner Mac'Kie. The circumstances, I believe, are
extenuating, the reasons for it being late, and I don't want to lose
General Weiss. And if it were just simply, gee, I didn't get it in on
time, I'd agree with you 100 percent, Commissioner Constantine, but
understanding some of the circumstances, I would like to see him.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: As I would.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to reappoint everyone except for
Mr. McKenna and replace him with Julie Freeland. That's my motion, if
that's acceptable.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Is there any
further discussion?
I'll call for the question.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero.
Item #10B
NO BCC MEETINGS SCHEDULED FOR JULY 7, JULY 14, AND JULY 21, 1998
Moving on to schedule the Board of County Commissioners'
vacation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, in response to your
memo, I had copied each of the board members with a memo just
suggesting we do similar to last year. We took the first three weeks
of July off, came back for two weeks and then broke for the balance of
August. And that seemed to work out and allows our staff to do what
they need to do in preparation for the final budget hearings. I'd
suggest -- I don't know if you need a motion or --
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Works for me.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Does that work?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Last year, I had no complaints, no issues,
no problems. It seemed to work out real well, so to do the same thing
again this year is fine with me.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris, comment?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think it will be fine. This will allow
me to go out and take a tour of Area 51 this summer.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you don't come back --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Stay with friends.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you
arrive in the country by Area 517 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's how you got here.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. So the schedule that Mr. Constantine
kind of prepared, and I think everyone maybe got a copy of that --
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Which is causing Mr. Smykowski severe
consternation at this moment.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I'm just verifying for reasons, we have to
supply the property appraiser with proposed millage rates by August
4th.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And you are?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Your name, sir --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Hike Smykowski, for the record, OHB director.
Sorry.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We would be back here, I think, the 28th, is
it, Mr. Smykowski --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: July 28th, we would have a meeting, and we
would also have a meeting on August 4th.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. That would work out fine.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is that okay?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Fine.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We should have the budget prior to that time,
correct?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, correct. We are -- by Florida law, we
release a tentative budget by July 15th.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. So we would have that completed --
actually, I think we've got the LDC hearing is scheduled on the 24th
of July -- I'm sorry, June, and I know last year, I think just prior
to that, we had completed all of the budget?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct. The workshop dates last year
were June 18th, 19th and 23rd. I would assume they would fall roughly
in the same time period.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: About the same time frame this year?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And that works okay for you?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. So we have all those kinds of things,
housekeeping things taken care of.
All right, then, do we need a motion on the vacation or --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's -- oh, do we need a motion,
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I think that would be appropriate.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll so move.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And a second.
All those in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero.
Item #10C
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK APPOINTED AS LIAISON FOR BCC TO WORK WITH THE ARMY
CORP OF ENGINEERS REGARDING THE EIS PROCESS
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Third item, Mr. Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We discussed at the joint meeting with Lee
County to ratify the consensus position the board had taken then, and
what I added to that, if I may -- I'll put this in two parts, the
first part is simply to make a motion that the board of commissioners
be involved in the Army Corps of Engineers' proposed E.I.S., or,
excuse me, ongoing E.I.S. by appointing a liaison from this board to
the Corps of Engineers throughout the course of this study. The
second part of that motion is that the board request the Corps of
Engineers consider that one-third of the appointees to the
Alternatives Development Group be reserved for Collier County and
one-third for Lee County and one-third for the Army Corps of Engineers
as a position. That will be my first motion.
The second part of this is to request that the board convey in
writing -- as you know, during the scoping process, they accept
written information through, I believe, the 20th of this month. I
think it's only appropriate that we, as a board, supply a written
position to the Army Corps of Engineers and, in essence, is a
consensus of the discourse and discussion we've had over the last
several months. You may remember that we all pretty much agreed on
the 10 points proposed by the Chamber EDC coalition. I have taken
those 10 points and attached them, in essence, as guiding principles
for the E.I.S. process, then went on to address the scope of the
E.I.S.
I do apologize for you only getting this today, but it didn't
occur to me until mid-point last week that we only had one meeting
before the deadline of conveying these points.
I can go through them quickly, if you would like, or just leave
them to your reading. I think they are fair, and I think they fairly
show what we have agreed upon in the past. And I would ask that
second part of my motion that we authorize a chairman to sign a letter
containing the cover information, the guiding principles and the scope
comments in the exhibit I've handed out to you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you make that motion, I'll second
it. I don't think you need to go through item by item, the scope
items, but I --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- just read through them after you
handed them out, and, frankly, they're excellent. I think they lay
out some of the specific concerns we've had, the E.I.S. should
identify areas that overlap, duplication, and so on.
Before additional lands are targeted for public ownership,
existing public lands should be evaluated and master plans put in
place to make sure they're used appropriately.
Those are all, I think, things that we have verbalized to
everyone. Excellent capsule.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're process oriented, which I think is
where we want to be rather than getting into the environmental
argument at this point because it just is the scoping process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'd like very much to endorse those 10
concepts that came out of all of our discussion at the memorandum of
understanding. I am extremely hesitant to endorse any particular
scope with such a quick review. The one thing that I know is that the
first point is that the E.I.S. study area should be the Estero Bay
Watershed. You guys may know that the City of Naples City Council has
specifically requested, they have corresponded with the Corps to ask
that the outfalls into Naples Bay be included in the E.I.S. study, and
I would hate for us to send contradictory messages, especially without
any real science to back it up.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The only reason that I -- and I understand
what you're saying. The reason I have concern with the outfalls into
Naples Bay is that one of the things that will make this study either
a success or failure is the scope. If the scope is too broad, what
happens is we lose the detail information -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and in the absence of detail
information, general decisions are made that are typically far too
restrictive at the outset due to not having enough info to make a
good, solid decision.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree with that, and I wholly support
that and agree that we should -- you know, that having a narrow scope
supports what I hope is the outcome which is a general permit. I
mean, that's the only really good outcome or the best outcome that
could come out of this, but I'm not going to be able to support the
motion without some more information about the scope questions. I
wish that we would just, at this point, you know, support -- endorse
those guiding principles, but without getting more information on the
scope questions, I wish we'd be a little more careful about those.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to support them
wholeheartedly. It is on the button. It -- I mean, these are the
points. We've had several discussions on this and this just
capsulizes those points in an excellent manner, and I don't see
anything missing. I don't see anything that is too restrictive. I
think it's a very, very good -- I'll endorse it wholeheartedly.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As will I.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, if I can offer
something, I believe the city has a responsibility to look out for its
individual interests and how this study can or cannot affect it, but I
think ours is not greater but broader than that because of the
geographic area we cover. I'm not asking you to oppose what the city
has proposed, but just understand that what they have proposed would
then include the entire Golden Gate canal system and every piece of
property that feeds into it, thus making an entire Collier County
study, which the individual permit holder out in the middle of the
Estates who is trying to build a single-family home is drawn into it.
I don't think that was intended at the outset of the study, so
that the -- just for consideration, I understand your conflict, you
know, with -- either way, but that's what I would offer.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, just for what it's worth, I'm going
to have to vote against the motion, which is ironic since from the
very beginning, I was the one -- gone from being the sole supporter to
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Headline, Commissioner Hac'Kie falls off
the train.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah -- to now being opposed, but I don't
want in any way -- and I have, through my position on the governor's
commission, sustainable South Florida and otherwise, through Crew
Trust information, everything that I have learned is that we need to
be all-inclusive and not to -- not to be narrow focused about the
scope of the study. Frankly, if they would promise us a Phase II
study so that we would know that these Golden Gate canal issues into
Naples Bay could be addressed, that would be the best of both worlds.
But, at this point, they have not been willing to promise us Phase II.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just ask for clarification, when
you say we need to be all-inclusive, are you talking geographically?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would include all of Collier
County?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. I just completely
disagree.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not surprised. I mean, I know that you
disagree.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have to say, in looking over this, I think
they really -- it's kind of bing, bing, bing. You know, they talk
about mitigation, they talk about exotic vegetation, storm water
quality, things that, you know, we've certainly heard about, had
discussion about. I think they're here, you know, and I think these
are the things we need to be looking at, the overlap duplication. As
Commissioner Constantine said, all these are here.
And I would support this. I can understand where the City of
Naples is coming from. Perhaps they would like to have a study done
on that particular area, you know, and can request that study on their
own. You know, I don't know.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I certainly agree. I think we need to
commend Commissioner Hancock for developing this piece on short notice
like this.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Agreed.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think he has done an excellent job and
has quite well represented not only the citizens of all of our county
but especially those in District 2.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, John.
That last point --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This paid political announcement was
brought to you by --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will go ahead and as I stated my motion
previously, just again, that is the content of my motion, to ratify
the action of last week, which is to appointment a liaison from this
board to the Army Corps of Engineers --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've got a speaker.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- for the course of the study, to then
participate at that level, to also provide information to the Corps at
their request regarding information on the study.
The second point is to make a recommendation for the committee
makeup, assuming the study involves just Lee and Collier County, that
one-third of our committee appointments be reserved for Collier
County.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your motion includes all the
information you stated earlier?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and second. I
believe we have some speakers.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have two speakers, Madam Chairman. The first
is Ty Agoston and then Mary Dunavan.
MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My time is Ty
Agoston, and I'm living in that endangered area that was expressed
here by a number of environmentalists as a target for their
acquisition, namely Northern Golden Gate Estates.
I have been amazed when Ms. Hillary Clinton have accused people
of having an expensive right-wing conspiracy because interestingly
enough, after I read sustainable America booklets that amounts to, at
this point, eleven and several thousand pages, and then I read
sustainable South Florida, which is 189 pages, as you all know, I'm
beginning to believe that there was a left-wing conspiracy, and it's
not even all that hidden. It's relatively open. There are the
sustainable America, the sustainable communities program, spells out
pretty well with a heading looking for a global socialist system with
improved women's rights and improved immigrants' rights and
equalization --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you going to tie this --
MR. AGOSTON: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you going to tie this to the E.I.S.
eventually, Ty?
MR. AGOSTON: If you allow me to follow my thought, I am not as
good of a speaker as you are, Ms. Mac'Kie. I also recognize that you
are against everything that I say. I hope that they are teaching you
in sustainable communities how to raise your children, because
apparently there are experts at that.
To tie in -- I was present last Monday at the first so-called
public outreach where there were 40 speakers in the morning session.
37 -- I shouldn't say that, I'm sorry. 32 people were from organized
environmental communities -- environmental groups. Mr. Fran Stone And
his friends, the Audubon Society, what have you, were all there in
full force. There was five speakers from the building -- the various
building communities and there were three of us speaking against it.
Now, in due respect, I don't believe that there is any issue that
would consolidate and bring together that kind of a cohesion without
organization.
Going back to your agreement with the Army Corps' of E.I.S., I'd
like to make one point.
By the way, I agreed with that tank cartoon with the Naples Daily
News cartoonist that they do, in fact, arrive with a tank because
there was a definite open threat here. You know, that gentleman is
using his appointed position, don't Army people get appointed? As I
understand, they are, and he expressed, according to the newspaper
article, doubts about the integrity of the 10 publicly-elected people
with the danger of stacking the deck in one direction or another.
Consequently he retains a veto power over the ADG group makeup, so
when you're asking to have one-third of the membership-appointing
power, he still will retain a veto power.
I don't particularly believe that my opinion has changed or that
the events have changed it. I stood before you a couple of months ago
speaking against you participating in any way, shape or form, and to
this day, I do not see any direct benefit to the county in your
participation.
You were told that the U.S. Army Corps will make the final
decisions. Whatever your opinions are is pretty much immaterial.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Agoston.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Mary Dunavan.
MS. DUNAVAN: I'm Mary Dunavan, and I'm speaking for myself, and
he's already covered quite a bit of what I might have said. So what I
would like to reiterate is that the Army Corps does renege, and they
will lead in their own direction. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Clarification on my motion. Commissioner
Constantine covered it when he said all the previous elements, but I
was also including requesting that Chairman Berry forward a letter to
the Army Corps of Engineers with a position as indicated in the
outlined paper that I provided.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are we going to appoint a member today?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Should we deal with this motion first and
then do that?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I thought we could add it to the motion, if
necessary or if that's the desire of the board to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If Commissioner Hancock is willing to
serve --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If Commissioner Hancock is willing to
serve, we won't need to put it in the motion.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll amend the motion to include myself as
the liaison.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The second amends.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The second amends. Okay. We have a motion
and a second. If there is no further comments or questions, I'll call
for the question.
All in favor?
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Aye. I have to note for the record, only
with regard to the geographic scope.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hac'Kie opposes E.I.S.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four, zero.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, everybody.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Four to one, you are going to count my --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Four to one. Hey, I just figured the one
wasn't going to count.
Item #15
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
Do we have any comments from Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No comments. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just my regular weekly question about
where are we on -- do we have -- I thought today we'd have a list of
budget information to approve.
MR. FERNANDEZ: It was on the consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, it was.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I'm looking forward to seeing you
all for lunch at Palm Cottage.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If you'd all like to come and watch us stuff
a biscuit in our mouth, you're welcome to do so.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have no other comments.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If there is nothing further --
Anything for us, Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: Nothing, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Meeting is 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
AUTHORIZATION FOR RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF FIDDLER'S CREEK PHASE
1B, UNIT THREE - WITH LETTER OF CREDIT, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 98-41, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "LAGUNA ROYALE"
Item #16A3
AUTHORIZATION FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF PELICAN STRAND REPLAT - 4
- WITH LETTER OF CREDIT, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A4
CARNIVAL PERMIT 98-3, AUTHORIZING OUR LADY OF GUADALUP CATHOLIC CHURCH
TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL FROM MARCH 4 THROUGH MARCH 8, 1998, AT 219 SOUTH
9TH STREET IN IHMOKALEE - SURETY BOND WAIVED
Item #16B1
AGREEMENT FOR DELIVERY AND USE OF TREATED WASTEWATER EFFLUENT FOR SPRAY
IRRIGATION BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS, CENTEX HOMES, A
NEVADA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, CENTEX DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P., A
DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND THE AUTUMN WOODS COHMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, INC.
Item #1682
A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE MARCO ISLAND TRANSFER STATION
DECLARED AS SURPLUS; STAFF AUTHORIZED TO ADVERTISE THE PROPERTY FOR
SALE TO THE PUBLIC
Item #1683
BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD AMOUNTS FROM FY 97 FOR ROAD
PROJECTS IN FUNDS 313, 331, 333, 334, 336, 338, 339 AND 340
Item #1684 - Deleted
Item #1685
CONVEYANCES FOR THE FAHKA UNION CANAL - ACCEPTANCE OF QUITCLAIM DEED
FROM AVATAR PROPERTIES, INC.; STATUTORY DEED/QUITCLAIM DEED TO
FAKAHATCHEE RESOURCES; MAINTENANCE EASEMENT AND QUITCLAIM DEED FROM
FAKAHATCHEE RESOURCES, INC.; CHAIRMAN TO ACCEPT FUTURE CONVEYANCE
DOCUMENTS FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WHO
HAY PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE CANAL; AND CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE ANY OTHER
INSTRUMENTS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO OBTAIN
CLEAR TITLE TO THE FAHKA UNION CANAL
Item #1686
CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AND INCREASE OF THE
PROJECT BUDGET FOR THE SOUTH NAPLES COHMUNITY PARK FOR RFP-97-2745,
PROJECT #80037 - AWARDED TO WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC.
Item #16C1 - Moved to Item #8C1
Item #16D1
SATISFACTIONS OF CLAIM OF LIENS FOR WATERAND/OR SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT
FEES
Item #16D2
SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND
PAYMENT OF WATERAND/OR SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
Item #16D3 - Deleted
Item #16D4
CONTRACT FOR THE COUNTY'S PRE-EHPLOYHENT PHYSICAL AND DRUG TESTING
PROGRAM (97-2675) - STAFF TO NEGOTIATE A TWO YEAR CONTRACT WITH
COHMUNITY HEALTH PARTNERS
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENT 98-133
Item #16G1
SATISFACTIONS OF LIENS FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
Item #1662
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the BCC
has been filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated:
Item #16H1
OUTSTANDING INVOICES FOR COURT SERVICES (20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT) - IN
THE AMOUNT OF $121,496.11
Item #1611
NOTICE TO PROCEED TO BE FORWARDED TO THE TAX COLLECTOR FOR TAX DEED
APPLICATIONS FOR ALL OF THE 1995 TAX CERTIFICATES HELD BY THE COUNTY
Item #1612
NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF PAYMENT IN THE LAWSUIT OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF
FLORIDA, V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT, A FLORIDA CORPORATION - IN THE
A_MOUNT OF $5,500.00
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:30 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
BARBARA 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 TRACI L. BRANTNER