BCC Minutes 05/19/1998 RTRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, Hay 19, 1998
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRPERSON:
Barbara B. Berry
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Timothy L. Hancock
ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3A
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the
Tuesday, Hay 19th meeting of the Board of Collier County
Commissioners.
If you'd rise, please, for the invocation of the Reverend James
Lake of the United Church of Christ. Remain standing for the pledge
of allegiance.
REVEREND LAKE: Let us pray.
Eternal God, we thank you for the beauty of this day and for the
gift of life itself. You have blessed us in so many ways. And we know
with those blessings comes the privilege to be a blessing to others.
We ask, dear God, that you allow your love to work through us so that
we may make a difference in those whom we encounter.
We pray this morning for wisdom, for a discerning mind and an
open heart, that you will be at work in all that happens. We thank
you for your love, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Reverend Lake, for being with us.
Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes to the agenda, please?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Madam Chairman and commissioners.
Yes, we do.
The first is to add item 8(B)(3), which is to approve an
amendment of section 4 of the construction agreement for contract
number 97-2771, removal of nonspecification material from the Naples
Beach, and authorize suspension of the contract time until the end of
the sea turtle nesting season. Staff request.
The second is to remove -- I'm sorry, to move item B-1 to
16(B)(7). This is recommended speed limit changes for the roadways in
the Gulf Harbor subdivision.
The third is to move item 16(D)(6) to 8(D)(3). That's moving
from consent to regular. Local agreement between Collier County and
independent fire districts for basic medical training for
firefighters. At the request of Commissioner Norris.
The next is to move item 16(E)(2) to 8(E)(1), again, from consent
to regular. Approval to procure grant writing services through a
cooperative purchasing arrangement. Staff's request.
The next is to continue to the June 2nd, 1998 meeting item
16(D)(2). It's the award of a contract to Candito Management Group,
Incorporated for food and beverage concession at the main government
complex, and to terminate the agreement with the State of Florida,
division of blind services. At the request of Commissioner
Constantine.
The next is to add item 10(A), which is discussion regarding
Everglades legislation. And we have received a request to have this
item heard earlier in the sequence of agenda items than normal.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, just to be clear about that, Mr.
Guggenheim, who is going to speak on this, has to be gone by 10:30.
So if we could be sure that we've heard it in time to --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: By the looks of the agenda, we'll be
gone at 10:30, too.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can hope so.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, having made those changes, do I have an
approval?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, I'm sorry.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Weigel has --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Good morning.
I'd like to note, before you take up the agenda, that item
8(D)(2) -- that the agenda index records should reflect actually the
title of the executive summary and not the agenda index title, as
posted there, making reference to section 119.07, public records law.
Secondly, I would appreciate an add-on item under county attorney
for board discussion and direction concerning the application of the
county's policy per resolution 95-632, which is the county's policy
regarding providing legal defense and paying legal expenses of
commissioners, employees and county advisory board members. And this
is in regard to newly initiated legal matters concerning the Isle of
Capri fire and rescue advisory committee.
Please note that on agenda item 8(B)(1) that has -- that is
recommended to be moved to 16(B)(7), that a resolution is required for
the speed limit changes, and the record should reflect a reservation
of a resolution number.
And I also will be providing you a document showing a slight
substitution paragraph on the legal services agreement before you with
the firm of Roetzel and Andtess, which is item 16(1)(1). Included
therewith is a standard conflicts paragraph which we have used
previously with Roetzel and Andtess, whereupon, when they provide
legal services to the county, we recognize that they're -- in regard
to a lawsuit, we also recognize that they have other contractual
relations with the county with the Code Enforcement Board, and also,
not barring them from appearing before the board in other matters,
generally.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So basically we're waiving the conflict?
MR. WEIGEL: We are waiving the conflict as specified. There are
some limitations, but they are provided for in the document. And I
will provide a copy of the document for the record, and I have extra
copies, if anyone wishes to see that. That is 16(1)(1). Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie, do you have any
other changes?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, ma'am, I do. I have a -- just a
really brief item, probably would be under public services, 8(C)(1).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It is what?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It has to do with parking fees at Tiger
Tail and the Marco Sportsfest.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No changes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: None at this end.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. And I have none.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion we
approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And a second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #4
MINUTES OF REGULAR BCC MEETING OF APRIL 21 AND APRIL 21, 1998 -
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I move the minutes of the
April 10 special meeting, the April 21 regular meeting and the April
28 regular meeting, all of 1998.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And a second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF HAY 17-23, 1998 AS EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK - ADOPTED
Moving on then to proclamations this morning. And the first
proclamation I have is emergency medical services week.
If Chief Flagg would come up, please. Face the people at home
with the new camera work here so they'll -- they get all angles and
all that good stuff now.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Great part is now you don't know where to
look.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right.
The proclamation reads as follows:
Whereas, emergency medical services department paramedics and
EMT's provide medical care to victims of sudden life-threatening
injuries and illnesses, often under stressful conditions and in
high-risk situations, to save the lives of others; and
Whereas, emergency medical services professionals must rapidly
assess, manage and effectively provide care in unpredictable
situations requiring life and death judgments; and
Whereas, emergency medical services professionals are often the
first contact many residents and visitors to Naples/Collier County
have with the health care system, and these professionals provide
education, assessment, prevention and referral services in addition to
their emergency activities; and
Whereas, the residents and visitors of Collier County benefit
daily from the efforts of skilled paramedics and emergency medical
technicians; and
Whereas, it is critical that the general public be made aware of,
understand, support and effectively use its local emergency medical
services systems; and
Whereas, recognition is due to all emergency medical services
professionals for their unselfish dedication to Collier County's
residents and visitors.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that May 17th through the
23rd, 1998, be designated as emergency medical services week. Done
and ordered this 19th day of May, 1998, Board of County Commissioners.
Fellow commissioners, I'd like to move this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
(Applause.)
Second.
I have a motion and a second.
Hotion carries five-zero.
MS. FLAGG: Good morning, commissioners, and thank you. On
behalf of the emergency medical services department, I would like to
thank you for the proclamation and your continued support in allowing
us to provide world-class emergency services for our community. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING SATURDAY HAY 23, 1998 AS MIDNIGHT BASKETBALL
DAY - ADOPTED
Next on our agenda is a proclamation proclaiming Saturday, HAy
23rd, 1998 as Midnight Basketball Day. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, from time to time we
have discussions about Leadership Florida and its benefits and so on.
One of the great things is that I've made some good friends from the
Orlando area in my class who at the time told me about a Midnight
Basketball program they had. It started out at one site and ended up
spreading to 11 different sites around the City of Orlando.
Theirs is funded almost 100 percent. They do have -- the City of
Orlando participates, but almost 100 percent of those 11 programs are
paid for by corporate dollars, and the Midnight Basketball program has
been very, very successful.
So two years ago we started that program and we are celebrating
our second anniversary on the night of the 23rd -- is that right --
Saturday night. And if Keith Larson and Janice Elliott would come up,
we've got kind of a two or three-part presentation here. But if the
two of them would come up, we'll read our proclamation.
Whereas, on HAy 2nd, 1996, the Golden Gate Community Center
opened its doors on Saturday evenings from 9:00 p.m. to midnight for
at-risk youths and adults, men and women, ages 13 and up, to watch and
play basketball in a new program known as Midnight Basketball of
Southwest Florida; and
Whereas, Midnight Basketball is a cooperative partnership with
the Collier County Parks and Recreation Department and the Collier
County Sheriff's Department; and
Whereas, the program offers at-risk youth a safe haven and an
alternative to the streets on Saturday nights; and
Whereas, an average of 71 (sic) at-risk youth and adults
faithfully play hoop each week; and
Whereas, the Sheriff's Department recognizes a correlation
between the Midnight Basketball program and the reduction of
youth-related crime and arrests on Saturday evenings in the Golden
Gate area over the last two years; and
Whereas, Midnight Basketball also provides (sic) the partnerships
with the private sector benefit -- the community, as Ford Motor
Company and the Cool Cruisers Club of Naples donated $16,000 towards
the program the last two years -- that's the non-taxpayer part -- and
Whereas, these donations give local at-risk youth an opportunity
to see NBA basketball games, receive rewards earned for outstanding
behavior in the community, and participate in national youth
basketball tournaments; and
Whereas, these donations also paid for a new state-of-the-art
scoreboard utilized each week for the games; and
Whereas, on HAy 23rd, 1998, this Saturday night, the Golden Gate
Community Center invites everyone to celebrate the two-year success of
the Midnight Basketball program with a special evening of planned
festivities.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Saturday, HAy 23rd,
1998 be designated as Midnight Basketball day.
Done and ordered this 19th day of HAy, 1998, Barbara B. Berry,
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners.
Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve this
proclamation and we hold our applause following the approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have with us, I believe -- is this
our all-star team, Keith?
MR. LARSON: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we could introduce these guys.
We've assembled a pretty good team. We've got a traveling team that
plays against Orlando and some of the other guys. I think Keith will
share some of that with us.
MR. LARSON: Actually, I'll let Janet handle the introduction,
because she knows the players much better than I do.
Janice and Charlie Hicks. Charlie, would you come on up, please?
These two people run our Midnight Basketball program for us each
and every Saturday night. And because of their dedication to the
program, it's become the success that it is. So come on up.
I'll let them introduce the players of the traveling team. These
young men had the opportunity to go to Orlando this year and represent
Collier County in the national Midnight Basketball tournament that was
there this past April.
MS. ELLIOTT: I can hold it?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Take it home with you.
MS. ELLIOTT: This group of boys came to Orlando with us. They
became a team because of their great attitudes. They're good
basketball players, too, but we really look for the attitude. Jerry St. Jean?
MR. ST. GEORGE: St. George.
MS. ELLIOTT: St. George. Come on up.
(Applause.)
MS. ELLIOTT: Arthur Turfell.
(Applause.)
MS. ELLIOTT: Larry Perry.
(Applause.)
MS. ELLIOTT: Chris Duffy.
(Applause.)
MS. ELLIOTT: Danny Condamina.
(Applause.)
MS. ELLIOTT: I'm sorry, Boo-Boo, I had to do that. Boo-Boo.
This is Ronnell Davis. (Applause.)
MS. ELLIOTT: Gene Tanilis.
(Applause.)
MS. ELLIOTT: And this is Big Earl. Earl Tanilis.
(Applause.)
MS. ELLIOTT: Would Danny like to say a word? Danny was on the
front page of the newspaper this morning, and now he's going to be on
TV. This is a pretty special day.
MR. CONDAMINA: No, I'd like to say that we had some good
coaches, we had a fun time in Orlando, and I'd like to do it again, if
we could. And I thank all of you for having us, you know, in a
tournament and opening up the community gym that kept us away from
crime and everything. Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we let them go away, I want to
get Matt Seare from Ford Motor Company up here. Ford has been a
supporter of this from day one and has contributed a six thousand
dollar check each year, one of which we have -- actually, yeah, the
good version here. Come on up.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have the one you can cash, but that one
looks nicer.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And Matt, we appreciate all your help
with that.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You have to sign it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's right. It's a blank one right
now.
MR. SEARE: No signature yet. I don't -- I rarely sign checks
this big, so I'll go ahead with this. I'll give it a shot.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Big writing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you can cash this. I learned that in
law school.
MR. SEARE: On behalf of Ford Motor Company and all of our
employees, we are glad that we can support such a program. We feel
that the real strength of our community needs to come from our youth,
and that's the future that we have. And so we present this check to
you guys, and best of luck with it. And you guys have done a great
job.
MR. LARSON: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And Janice kind of undersold, she said
they got great attitudes and they're good players. Matt and I can
tell you from personal experience, they're very good.
MR. SEARE: They're very good players.
MR. LARSON: Yes, they are.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was going to say, I'll come Saturday and
post you up, but I ain't posting them up.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you all very, very much.
(Applause.)
MR. LARSON: Commissioners, my name is Keith Larson and I'm the
lucky guy who gets to supervise this program at the Golden Gate
Community Center. And I just wrote down a couple of people that I
could thank this morning.
And on behalf of the Collier County Parks and Recreation, Golden
Gate Community Center, and its staff, I want to thank Matt Seare of
the Ford Motor Company for this wonderful donation.
Mr. Seare and Ford have been a big part of the Midnight
Basketball program from the very beginning, and we sincerely
appreciate their continued support. This is the third year in a row
that Ford Motor Company has given such a generous donation. And the
donation helps to fund this and other youth programs at the center and
allows the young people of our community to experience new and
exciting activities.
So once again, a big thank you to Mr. Seare and the Ford Motor
Company for helping keeping these wonderful programs alive.
I would be remiss if I didn't take this opportunity to say thank
you to some other people who have been instrumental in making the
Midnight Basketball program a success. The Cool Cruisers of Naples
Car Club, the Collier County Sheriff's Office, the Collier County
Parks and Recreation Department, Golden Gate Community Advisory Board,
and of course the wonderful and talented staff of Golden Gate
Community Center: Janice Elliott and Charlie Hicks who are here this
morning, Cathy Topalsky, Julie Allen, Ellen Shaw, Beulah Parkman and
Irene Johnson.
And I'd also like to thank Commissioner Constantine for the
dedication in getting this program started in Collier County. We were
the first to have Midnight Basketball in Southwest Florida, and it's
because of Commissioner Constantine spent (sic) many hours checking
out the similar program in Orlando, like he mentioned earlier, and
providing the rec. staff with all the information on how to get the
program off the ground. So thank you, Commissioner Constantine. And
thank you, commissioners, for allowing me this opportunity here today
to recognize all these people, for the dedication of the Golden Gate
Community Center and its program. Thank you all very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a final note. Beginning in June,
roughly about the time school gets out, we're ready to start a Friday
night program for the summer months at East Naples Middle School in a
cooperative agreement with the school system. So you can play hoops
Friday and Saturday. You'll have another spot to do it.
MR. LARSON: Thank you all very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
I think we'd be remiss in not saying thank you to the adults who
are involved in this who spend and take time away and provide the
supervision for these programs. We can't say thanks to all of you
enough. And I'm glad to see you kids get out and participate and take
advantage of these facilities, and I'm glad to hear about the Friday
night program, because I think that's -- we have these buildings and
with supervision, this is what they should be used for. So I
certainly applaud that effort and thank you all so very much.
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING HAY 19, 1998 AS ROTARY INTERNATIONAL GROUP
STUDY EXCHANGE TEAM DAY - ADOPTED
Moving on then, we have another proclamation proclaiming May
19th, 1998 as Rotary International group study exchange teen day. And
I notice that we have two Rotarians of long-standing in the community.
We have A1 Bruggemeyer in the back room, and also George Drobinski,
who is Mr. Rotary.
And Commissioner Norris, would you please read the proclamation?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I would. If we could get Mr. Rotary to
bring these people up, we'll introduce them right now. This
proclamation here today is to be accepted by the Philippines group
study exchange team members. Gabriel Evengelista, team leader and
retired mechanical and metallurgical engineer. Which one is Gabriel?
Gabriel, just right over there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Stand over here and turn around so
everyone at home can see you on television.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Marianne Ocsio, team member and medical
doctor, specializing in obstetrics.
Gene Nisperos, team member and medical doctor specializing in
community medicine.
Josette Balonga, team member and training officer and TQH
specialist.
Loreidel Santa, team member and television radio host.
And of course Mr. Rotary, George Drobinski, is here to help these
people walk through this with us. And the proclamation reads:
Whereas, we welcome the Rotary International Group Study Exchange
team from Rotary International District 3870 Philippines to Collier
County, Florida; and
Whereas, the Rotary Foundation of Rotary International Group
Study Exchange Program has sent to us a team of five professionals who
are visiting Collier County to study our institutions and ways of
life; and
Whereas, the team members will also observe the practice of their
own professions and exchange ideas; and
Whereas, the team is able to personally experience family
lifestyles as they are hosted by Rotary Clubs of Collier County and
given accommodations in local homes; and
Whereas, the Rotary Foundation is a nonprofit corporation
supported by Rotarians and others worldwide. Its objective is the
achievement of world understanding and peace through international
humanitarian and educational programs.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Tuesday, March (sic)
19th, 1998 be designated as Rotary International Group Study Exchange
Team Day.
Done and ordered this 19th day of HAy, 1998 by the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. Barbara B. Berry,
Chairman.
And Madam Chairman, I'll move that we accept this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. And all in
favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
(Applause.)
MR. DROBINSKI: For the record, commissioners, I'm George
Drobinski. That's spelled R-O-T-A-R-Y.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Spelled R-O-T-A -- I love that --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was going to say, you have to change all
your business cards.
MR. DROBINSKI: Oh, every one of them. They're in crayon,
though, so it will work out, no problem.
On behalf of our district governor, Leo Pete Cypher and the
Rotarians of district 6960, I wish you all mahgadon, umaga and mabuhi
(phonetic).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Help him out.
MR. DROBINSKI: I'd just like to thank you for welcoming this
group study exchange team. And as part of this presentation, I'd like
to take a moment to introduce our all-star team, of course, from
Collier County who through your generosity and participation you've
helped these young individuals to participate in this wonderful
program.
I'd like to introduce first off, Sam Saadeh from -- assistant to
the county administrator who went to India.
And to his right is Bob Selvaggio, who has also been to the
Philippines as well, so he's quite familiar with these individuals.
Terry Bolle, who works for the Sheriff's Department, went to
Lanka and India as well.
Stephanie Sauser, who works for the TAG office here in Collier
County, had gone to Colombia with Mike Davis, who could not be here
today, but he sends his best wishes for you all.
And Joe Delate, who also with the Department of OCPM, has gone to
Colombia as well.
And these have all participated. And myself, I had the privilege
of leading a team to Italy, which is our next group study exchange,
which is northern Italy next year, Mr. Conrecode. Whoops. Hold off.
If I'm going to get one town, I'm going to get the other, that's how
it's going to work, basically.
But this is a very good program. It's a very good program of the
Rotary Foundation. We thank you for your participation.
I'd like to introduce Mr. Gabriel Evengelista who is the team
leader. He is a retired metallurgical engineer. And after I saw what
Commissioner Constantine did with the basketball, please, no I-beams
being thrown out to the center. Gabriel?
MR. EVENGELISTA: Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning.
MR. EVENGELISTA: I'm very pleased to be here with my team. And
in behalf of my team from the Philippines, the group study exchange,
I'd like to express our thanks and appreciation for this proclamation
claiming this day, May 19, 1998, as Rotary International Group Study
Exchange Day. Thank you very much. And we hope that we can live up
to the expectations of this board. Thank you again.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much for being here.
(Applause.)
MR. DROBINSKI: They will be traveling the government complex
today going to the Sheriff's Department, TAG office and such. We'd
like to take a special moment, though, to state that Mr. Bruggemeyer,
A1 Bruggemeyer, who is Mr. Rotary, Jr. then, actually led the team to
the Philippines.
There is an honorable mention: Fred Reischl, who -- he had a
choice to be here today, but no, he had to go to Japan. So we'll talk
about his priorities. He's on a group study exchange team with them.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Life is tough.
MR. DROBINSKI: It is, it is.
But thank you for your contributions and participation in this
program. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
George, could you just tell -- how long is the group -- how long
is the study?
MR. DROBINSKI: It goes for 30 days. They have arrived in Naples
as of last Thursday. They'll be in this area until this Thursday in
which they'll proceed to Fort Myers. They spend typically around a
week in each of the areas traveling up district 6960, finishing up
their exchange around the Sarasota area, in which some have chosen to
stay for another week or so and enjoy the United States, while others
will be going back to their families and their vocations after that
month.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, very good. Well, I hope they enjoy
their stay and have a wonderful time here, and we're very pleased to
have you with us.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did you and A1 ever serve on the school
board together?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, we did.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's great. Did a lot of good work.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Certainly did.
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Okay, moving on then to service awards. Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Madam Chairman. It's my
pleasure this morning to recognize two individuals, both with five
years of service. First, from the road and bridge department,
celebrating five years, is Mr. Martin Herrera.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're not going to let you just stand in
the back of the room, Martin. We've got to bring you up and duly
embarrass you.
And also with Martin celebrating five years from road and bridge
is Michael Patten.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mike, congratulations. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
Item #SA1
RESOLUTION 98-167 ADOPTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR SUMMARY AGENDA
ITEMS AND PROCEDURES FOR PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE BCC AND THE CCPC -
ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Okay, next item on the agenda, item 8(A)(1), recommendation to
the Board of County Commissioners with respect to the adoption of
policies and procedures for summary agenda items and procedures for
the presentation before the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion we
adopt the policy.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why couldn't we have made this a summary
agenda item?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: ANd whose idea -- this is a great -- did
you bring this with you from somewhere else? This is wonderful. MR. FERNANDEZ: We had it in St. Lucie County.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you for bringing it to us, and also
for the official procedures about how things go. It's just great.
MR. MULHERE: I just have two small corrections.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You can't let it slide, can you?
MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Identify yourself.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Come on. I'm this close, Bob, to
withdrawing my motion.
MR. MULHERE: Actually, I had a call from Mr. Bruce ANderson
yesterday, and he brought to my attention to a couple of very small
items, which I spoke with Attorney David Weigel regarding, and he
agrees that probably those need to be addressed.
And the first is on page seven of your executive summary packet
under 2C, agreement with staff's recommendation. The paragraph
references an evidentiary hearing, and addresses the applicant's right
to waive that, when in actuality the entire process is an evidentiary
hearing. So we need to change it to read that the applicant agrees
with staff's recommendation and wishes to waive his or her right to
present additional evidence.
Small language change, which we will make and then bring the
resolution and packet back for the chairman's signature.
The only other item was -- it was requested that there might be
certain circumstances where 20 minutes allotted for the applicant's
presentation might not be sufficient. Very rarely, I understand.
However, I would just bring to the board's attention that item number
six on executive summary page six provides the chairman with the
discretion to extend the time for any speaker, so I think that that's
sufficiently addressed. Those were the only two items that were
brought to --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll amend my motion
to reflect those changes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second amend.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let the record also reflect that that was Mr.
Bob Mulhere that spoke on that item. MR. MULHERE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have a speaker on this item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: You have one speaker, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Let's --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mary Dunavan.
MS. DUNAVAN: My name is Mary Dunavan, and thank you, members,
commissioners, for allowing me to speak today.
And I'm speaking on A-1. And that you're going -- actually, it's
A, shall be limited to a maximum of five people at the public comment
on general topics. Why? Why are you only going to allow five people
to speak?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, can you tell me which area
you're referencing?
MS. DUNAVAN: A.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a page number?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Four.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MS. DUNAVAN: Page four.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are you looking at item A-2, Mary? Is that
where you're at, on the time limits?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, she's --
MS. DUNAVAN: No, I'm --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The number of --
MS. DUNAVAN: Exhibit A.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
MS. DUNAVAN: And it's A, public comment on general topics, on
page four.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why should there only be five per meeting
MS. DUNAVAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- is her question.
And my answer to that would be that, you know, we schedule a lot
of things. We limit things on the agenda so that we can't -- so we
can have a reasonable amount of time for other items. We've never had
more than five anyway, Mary. We've never had more than two or three.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The chairman has the discretion --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And the chairman -- it goes ahead and says
the chairman has the right, unless the chairman recognizes additional
speakers, so the chair still has the right to recognize more speakers.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume this is just to control if
you had some group or otherwise who was trying to --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Packed room.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- interfere with the process and
signed up with 30 speakers all on the same topic.
MS. DUNAVAN: But this has happened before, and it's been taken
care of pretty easily. A lot of the people that were speaking on the
same deal did say that they would relinquish their time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: They do anyway.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, Mary, absent a written -- absent a
written policy, it really makes the chairman -- it puts the chairman
in a difficult position of in essence playing God for the day. You
know, that -- the chairman has to then decide what is and isn't
appropriate. Is two appropriate or five?
And I think having a written policy like this gives the chairman
the clear authority that if someone comes in here and on a single
topic registers 10 speakers to try and turn this into -- instead of
general comment, turn it into a political platform or a position
statement using 50 minutes of not just this board's time but everyone
else's who is here, that the chairman now has the authority to deem
that inappropriate and has a policy to cite. It's really to deal with
the abuses, not with the day-to-day operation, and I think that's
appropriate.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let the record reflect God or in the
present case, goddess for the day.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Madam God.
MS. DUNAVAN: Doesn't the chairperson have that right already?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If they have it already, Mary, then what's
the problem?
MS. DUNAVAN: Pardon?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If your sanction has it already, then
what's the problem?
MS. DUNAVAN: The problem is that it's in writing that -- a
maximum of five, and what about --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's also in writing that the chairman may
recognize additional speakers.
MS. DUNAVAN: What about constitutional rights of people? You
have constituents that come up here and want to talk, and what we have
is a maximum of five.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Unless -- five unless -- you're leaving out
a very critical part, Mary, when you say that. It's five, unless the
chairman recognizes additional speakers.
MS. DUNAVAN: But this takes freedom away from the other people.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, it doesn't.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, it doesn't.
MS. DUNAVAN: Even you four other members here, if the chairman
decides nobody else speaks, are you going to be able to change that?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, the chairman has that authority. It's
their meeting to run, period. They've always had that authority,
Mary.
MS. DUNAVAN: That's what I figured, that they already had the
authority, so why --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is just codifying it.
MS. DUNAVAN: -- five?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just putting it down --
MS. DUNAVAN: How about 107
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- on paper.
How about 50?
MS. DUNAVAN: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Why not 1,0007
MS. DUNAVAN: That's right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: At some point it becomes ridiculous, right?
You will admit that at some point it becomes ridiculous. How about
50,000 people?
MS. DUNAVAN: I haven't seen it become ridiculous.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that doesn't mean it can't at some
point in time. How about if we allow 50,000 speakers on each item, is
that ridiculous?
MS. DUNAVAN: Well, I suppose it would be --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah.
MS. DUNAVAN: -- but I don't think that's probable.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So let's give the chairman the
authority then in writing to be able to decide when something is going
to be abused and when it's appropriate. That's all we're saying.
And we're not trying to take your constitutional rights away from you.
This is not the United Nations up here, this is the county commission.
MS. DUNAVAN: What about the -- your constituents that -- two of
you are running for office. Can your opponent use this against you
that, you know, there's only going to be five unless a chairman says
so?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They've got so much stuff already, Mary,
it's probably --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mary, you know, we don't make decisions up
here based on political races. I pray to God we don't, and I'm not
going to do one here. This is simply putting in writing the authority
the chairman already has. Period. This is not taking anyone's rights
away, by you making that statement that is not only unfair but untrue.
No one's rights are being taken away. If an individual appears
here and asks to speak and there are seven speakers or seven different
items, the chairman's not going to say no, no, no, we have a policy of
five. This is merely to put a policy in place to avoid potential
abuses. That's all. Period. It's not taking anyone's rights away.
It's not really going to change the way we do things week to week in
normal circumstances. So there's really no net change to the public
on this at all.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, I don't see this as being a big
problem. I truly don't.
As a chairman on another item some time back, we had some
information that came to the Board of County Commissioners, and at
that point in time I said there would be no speaker, because it was
really inappropriate to get into speakers coming to the podium to
address the item. We weren't in a mode where we were going to be
taking any action, we were merely hearing information. That was
inappropriate, in my opinion as the chairman, to have speakers on the
topic.
Now, I did get some criticism from that, and I'll still stand by
what I said, it wasn't the appropriate time to have speakers. And I
think the chair always has that right to do that. And I don't think
that this is going to change anything any.
You know, if I've got 50 people sitting out here, we'll recognize
as many of those people as can come to the podium and bring up, you
know, new information. But for 50 people to stand up and be redundant
and say 50 things over and over and over again makes absolutely no
sense.
And by this merely putting it in writing, it's there, that's all.
I don't look at this as something that's a burden on anyone, be it a
speaker -- you know.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and the important note here is
this is for public comment.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This isn't for an advertised agenda
item. So obviously if there is an advertised item, something that
we're making a decision on, there's no limit. But for public comment,
which is not an agenda item, no action is taken '-
MS. DUNAVAN: Well, that's why I think that it's a little
ridiculous to put five, when this is the only one the public can make
comments, at that -- at the board meeting really at that time.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But we've never had five show up. We've
only had two or three.
MS. DUNAVAN: That's why I'm saying, why do you put it in there
then?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mary, I dealt -- when I was chairman, one
of the first things I did -- and I'll leave the gentleman nameless --
there was a person who loved to use that podium to preach their own
gospel. It had absolutely nothing to do with the business of
operating government in Collier County. Preach gospel and say things
and stand on this soap box about what should be happening in the world
that this board has absolutely no involvement in. That is a waste of
time. It is inconsiderate.
And that microphone is not a political soap box for people to get
up on and preach their beliefs. It is a general topic discussion
element for business relative to this county commission. I've seen it
happen in the past where people would do that. And if that happens
again in the future, and starts to begin happening to excess, the
chairman has a reasonable tool in writing to enforce that, and they
don't have to sit out there on a limb all by themselves, you know,
without any real policy to hang their hat on. That's all it is. It's
not going to change the way you or your husband come in here and talk
to us under general comments. So I don't think it has any way of
taking anyone's rights away unless they themselves are being very
unreasonable and using that time inappropriately. That's all.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And could I just comment, that if we find
that we're wrong in that assumption, you will use the public comment
section to point that out to us, and we will always have the option of
changing this procedure if it turns out that five was the wrong
number.
MS. DUNAVAN: Okay, because Mr. Hancock, the person -- I know who
you're talking about -- isn't coming, so you took care of that without
this.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was not the intent, but that's his
choice.
MS. DUNAVAN: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think the main thing here is just
reasonableness. I think that's where we're trying to get to on it.
And I would hope that any of our constituents -- any one of the
five of us are hopefully constituents of all of us up here -- would
know that they could feel free at any time to pick up a phone or come
and make an appointment to come and see us. I don't know of anybody
that's refusing to see anyone.
So I think people have to remember, what is this commission
meeting? What is this meeting that we do on Tuesday -- what is it all
about? And it is to conduct the business of Collier County. It is not
necessarily in my mind a public forum. It's a time when all five of
us -- it's the only time that the five of us take action.
Any one of us cannot initiate and set forth policy. It's the
only opportunity that we have in a meeting, and it's our meeting to
make sure that we carry out policies. Now, if we take that time up to
let people just come and talk about things of interest to them -- I'm
sorry, I believe that this meeting is a time for us to get together
here and conduct the business of the county. If you want to talk
about general topics with any -- and I even -- I look at this whole
thing, the public comment sector, this was new to me when I came here.
Usually it should be -- in my mind almost, it should be limited to the
items that we're dealing with on commission items. But to just come
and use this forum as something to just talk about things, whatever's
on your mind, I think there's plenty of appropriate times to address
commissioners on those items. We've got, you know, six other days in
the week that any one of us are available to talk to people. And it
seems like many times that this turns into doing it for the audience
on television.
So enough said on this.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We have a motion, don't we?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion. Do we have a second?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, I seconded.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. If there are no further speakers, I'll
call for the question. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #882
REVIEW OF GATEWAY TRIANGLE STORMWATER MASTER PLAN AND REOCHMENDATIONS
TO IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVES - APPROVAL OF ITEMS 1-4 AS INDICATED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY; STAFF TO RETURN WITH COST FEASIBLE PLAN; AND STAFF
TO INVESTIGATE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN HSTU
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This next item, Commissioner
Hac'Kie, is this primarily information update, or are you looking for
some action?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're actually hoping for some action on
this as well. Sort of beginning of the stormwater resolution. So it
does require some action.
And I wonder if you think it might take a long enough discussion
that we want to go ahead and move up the Everglades discussion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think it will take that long.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. I hope it won't. Prompt approval.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Boldt, if you take that map and put it
up there, the people can put it on camera and put it on all these
monitors, I believe.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Right here is fine, just so that camera there can
see it.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, just so that camera can get it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Actually, up there, tack it up on that
board. I don't know if the camera can get it too well.
MR. BOLDT: I have a series of maps we could use, if you chose to
do so.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Is it coming through?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not yet.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: They're not getting anything yet.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: They're trying.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's go ahead with the presentation.
MR. BOLDT: I'm not sure the cameras are working this morning. I
think they were earlier testing them. I'm not sure they're
functioning.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. BOLDT: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, John
Boldt, your stormwater management director. I'll try and make my
presentation brief. If you have questions about details, I'll be glad
to get into them.
We're here to talk this morning about the so-called Gateway
Triangle area. It's bounded on the north by Davis, on the east by
Airport Road and U.S. 41.
Your planning department recently completed a redevelopment study
of the area, and during those discussions and public meetings,
drainage and flooding were identified as a very critical and a major
concern of the property owners in the area.
This Triangle area is served by three different outlets. There's
a strip along the west side of Airport Road that goes north into Rock
Creek. There's a small corner down on the southeast portion that goes
into Haldeman Creek, but the rest of it for the most part goes into
either U.S. 41 or Davis Boulevard storm drains and into what I would
call the boat haven canal that connects into Naples Bay.
The area is rather low-lying, especially in the western portion
of it. There are elevations in that area anywhere from two and a half
to three and a half feet above sea level, which gives you some
indication of the problem.
The drainage areas are -- the whole drainage system is mostly
served by the traditional roadside ditches and culverts and swales.
And several of those outlets are tidally affected. There's some areas
in the storm drain where the tidal water surges back and forth into
the outlets themselves, which leads to the problem of wind-driven
tidal influences, diminishes our outlets.
Water quality is a concern because of where these waters are
outletting into the tidal areas. Particularly Naples Bay. And
there's some commercial operations in the area that are involved with,
say, auto and boat repair areas that causes concern.
So with your permission, we engaged the services of Camp, Dresser
& HcKee to do a conceptual stormwater master plan of the area. And
Richard Hoore of -- the project manager and Harie Hahan, the project
engineer, are here this morning, if you have questions of them.
We asked them to go through and identify the various basins and
sub-basins and inventory the drainage systems to document those
chronic flooding areas, which are mostly along Commercial and Kirkwood
Avenue. They're -- the area is fronting on Davis Boulevard. There's
a problem area down around Linwood and Manorca Avenues, and also at
Pelton and Davis -- or Pelton and U.S. 41. Long-standing areas that
were brought to our attention.
We also asked Camp, Dresser, HcKee to address the issues with the
Florida Department of Transportation six-laning project of U.S. 41.
There was a window of opportunity for us to evaluate the storm drain
system that they're installing at this time, which provides an outlet
for a good share of this triangle area. So we asked them to evaluate
the numerous connections to the storm drain system and give us an
evaluation on that.
So the whole evaluation involved basically three scenarios:
Alternative number one, we asked them what we should be doing right
now with what we have to restore the system to its original design
capacity.
And then take a look at alternate number two, which would be what
kind of capital projects would we have with the existing land use to
upgrade the system and maximize the protection we can give them from
flooding.
And alternate number three, which would be based on a future land
use scenario of major redevelopment in the area. If a developer would
come in and buy a large portion of that and literally, you know, tear
it down and start all over, what could we do in the future providing
modern state-of-the-art system of stormwater retention areas and
control structures to give maybe a ten-year design storm.
So the recommendations we have for you this morning, just very
briefly, involve first of all moving ahead and trying to upgrade the
maintenance that's going on in the area right now. Your road and
bridge section has spent quite a bit of time in the area recently. We
would like to see that taken to a higher level of standard where they
would have more capability of doing more frequent maintenance of those
drainage ditches and culverts, doing some repair work to some of them
that may be damaged and those that are -- might have some
possibilities of being plugged. We would like to have that done to
re-maximize the system that we have.
Alternative number two involves several different
recommendations: First of which is to increase the drainage
connections we have on U.S. 41. We're going to talk about increasing
pipe sizes in several connections from 18 inches to 24, lowering the
inverts on them and installing flap gates. And then also, making some
improvements to those areas that have the chronic flooding problems
around Commercial and Kirkwood, particularly up near Pelton and the
Linwood area. And the summary and report that you were given outlines
in great detail of what we're asking for there.
Alternative number three, which really is not an issue today,
would be based on a future land use scenario. Upon major
redevelopment, this is the alternative we would suggest be used. We're
not asking at this point in time for any authority to move ahead with
that.
CDH took the initiative and provided us with some possible
funding sources that we could get through some grants and loans, both
on the regional, state and federal level. And based on their
recommendations, or at least their guidance, have developed a
preliminary proposal for cost allocation, which is a part of your
executive summary on page four.
Using some of the precedent, we've (sic) had established some
other projects: The Naples Park drainage project, and also the
direction if you were heading on the Lely area stormwater project,
we've come up like with a funding partnership involving both the
county at large, which we're recommending something in the area of 15
percent of all these costs. The City of Naples, we've had some very,
very preliminary discussions with them about their participation in
this, because of the water quality impacts on Naples Bay. We're going
to be talking to some individual property owners about some water
quality, some special structures we're proposing on the Kirkwood
extension area.
And then also, we feel like there's a possibility of getting some
state grants for water quality treatment from the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection. And then long-term under alternative
number three, if you do have some major redevelopment, there are some
block grants that we feel are possible to help improve the flood
protection in the area.
The remainder of the cost, approximately 50 percent, we feel
ought to be placed upon the property owners themselves, either through
a special assessment district or a taxing district.
So the costs you see in this table. I caution you, however, to
note that the -- one of the footnotes says that this does not include
any of the land rights or the environmental remediation costs of this
project. We haven't gone that step to investigate that, if there are
land costs involved.
And also, involving alternate number two, there's a pond area
proposed that may have some environmental concerns. We understand
there might be an old -- some old landfill area in that particular
area.
So what we're asking for today in terms of recommendations is
first of all, that you would accept this in concept, the stormwater
master plan, as prepared by Camp Dresser HcKee; that you would approve
also, just in basic concept, this preliminary cost allocation
proposal; authorize us to proceed with the issuance of a purchase
order to Archer-Western, who is the contractor, in an amount not to
exceed $24,000 to upgrade those connections from that new six-laning
program.
That work, because of our limited time opportunity, is already
underway. They're doing this as they go. We had a very limited time
to do this. And it's within our spending authority. But we wanted you
to be aware of what then is incorporated into this executive summary.
We're also asking for the authority to proceed with the so-called
Kirkwood Avenue extension storm drain, which would run from the area
of Avondale Drive east about 600 feet. This is going to provide some
temporary relief for some severe flooding problems. There's some
commercial properties up front on Davis, particularly near the Naples
Rent-All, that when we get into the rainy season, their back areas are
going to be flooded because of the lack of an outlet. And we're
proposing to install a portion of this alternate number two in
advance.
Our very preliminary cost estimate was around $40,000. We now
have the field surveys done and CDH is in the very preliminary stages
of design, and they're suggesting that forty thousand dollar figure
might be more appropriate around $60,000, because of some special
structures we're proposing to put in there.
And then recommendation number five would be in the upcoming
review process for the next fiscal year which you'll be considering
next month, that you give serious consideration to funding the
alternative number two -- or excuse me, alternative number one and two
in the aforementioned fiscal impact that involves additional funds to
road and bridge, and then proceeding with the remainder of the
alternate number two. And there's an associated budget amendment with
it.
That's about as brief as I can make it without skipping over some
of the essence of it. Do you have any questions? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: First of all, I noticed that when we
talked about the county's amount of $385,000 -- MR. BOLDT: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that's 15 percent of the total project
cost or 15 percent of alternates one, two?
MR. BOLDT: At this point it's alternates one and two. Alternate
three we feel would be more, you know, the major redevelopment where
you get some block grants, and there would be, you know, major
developers involved.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So at this point we're not even really
discussing alternative three --
MR. BOLDT: No, that's just --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it's on paper, but --
MR. BOLDT: Right, that's just long-range.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it's really not what we're dealing
with.
MR. BOLDT: That might be five, ten years from now.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand 15 percent was plus or minus
the number we used at Naples Park, but that number was based on
acreage of drainage. In other words, how much -- what percentage of
the total area was a public right-of-way versus private property.
That was the method that we arrived at 15 percent, because you may
remember, we started off much lower than that.
We're looking for an equitable fairness argument there, and the
fairness argument resulted, as my recollection is, in that being that
the public rights-of-way were public drainage issues and spending
general revenue dollars on that made sense.
However, to spend general revenue dollars on the private drainage
or private property drainage was not something this board wanted to
do, the four members that are still here.
So when I look at 15 percent here, does that correlate to a
public right-of-way or public lands issue, or was that not really
investigated?
MR. BOLDT: It was not thoroughly investigated. There are
similar analogies that could be done. We looked at it more based, I
guess, like on a precedent, Naples Park and also the Lely area
stormwater improvement area. The funding proposal we have recommended
to you had around the 15 percent, which would be county at large.
If we applied this uniformly over the years, you know, it would
even out that everybody would help everybody pay for their new system,
15 percent, and eventually get that same assistance during their
projects.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine, if that's the way the board
wants to approach it. But I don't know whether we should go case by
case, I don't know whether we should adopt a 15 percent rule, but
whatever we do in this is going to set the stage for everything else.
Because Naples Park was not the -- the one we used for Naples Park was
Willoughby. But Willoughby was less than what we did for Naples Park,
the total percentage. And so we used a different methodology for
Naples Park.
So I just wanted to point that out that if we're going to
continue doing this, let's adopt a policy to accomplish it one way or
the other, or let's do it case by case. It's up to the board. But I
do want to point out, there's a little -- there's always a difference
in how we arrived at that 15 percent at Naples Park, and I would hate
for the people in Naples Park to say, well, you know, gee whiz, you
gave us -- you didn't give us the same -- you know, the same
consideration. If they were paying rights-of-way, it would be six
percent.
So I'm just -- again, I want us to be consistent from this point
forward, whether it's percentage-wise or whether it's -- what the
rational nexus is for what our participation is, I don't know the
answer, but we need to come up with that as more of these drainage
projects hit us.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a couple of different concerns.
One is I'm assuming these would go in the order they would be done.
In other words, master plan preparation would be done first and so on
down the list.
My worry is 100 percent of the master plan preparation is paid by
county at large, 100 percent of the engineering is paid by the county
at large, 100 percent of the contract with A&W is paid by the county
at large. Same with engineering. It's not 'til we get to actual
construction that there's anything picked up by the property owners.
What really gives me pause for concern, though, is when you get
down to alternative number two, we are counting on $135,000 in state
grants and $130,000 from the City of Naples. I don't know that either
one of those have been approved.
And I don't -- I don't mind if we go ahead and try to address the
drainage issue in there. I don't want to spend a bunch of money on
the front end, the 50,000, the 24-6, and then find out after the fact,
oh, the city is not going to participate, or gee, we didn't get the
state grant or we only got half the state grant, surprise, now we have
to make it up.
I mean, I can just hear the presentation, well, we've already
spent $89,000, we've already spent $110,000. You're just throwing
that money away if we don't go ahead and pay for the rest of it
ourselves.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Tim, I'll tell you what we've been telling
the property owners in that area, is that if we can get that
participation by the City of Naples and if we can get state or federal
grants, it reduces the amount of the MSTBU payment but does not -- you
know, the county at large would not be expected to make up the deficit
from a grant from either the city or the state or the feds. That
would go into the MSTU pot to be paid for.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point being, if we've already spent
-- I hate to spend that other money up front not knowing on those,
because if -- let's for the worst case scenario say neither one of
those come forward, that's $265,000 that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That goes into --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- special taxing district probably
isn't prepared to make immediately, just because of the size of that
commitment. And so then you have that engineering work and prep work
that's been done and the money spent, and we don't have the ability --
the taxing district doesn't have the ability to go ahead and do it.
So I don't mind doing it. I don't -- if -- we need to figure out
what the appropriate percentage is, agreed, but I'd feel more
comfortable maybe if we decide to go ahead; if we earmarked that money
and then tried to get a commitment out of both of those sources before
actually expending any of that money, go to the City of Naples and say
will you participate, and either they're going to give us a yes or no
or they'll give us some level in between zero and 130. And we'll know
that ahead of time. And we'll apply for the state grants and we'll
know that ahead of time. Not have any surprises.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Those apply to alternate two, both of
those expenditures, you know, that you're concerned about getting the
grants. And that's -- and you're appropriate to be concerned about
that.
Is there anything that would prohibit us from seeking those
approvals while we go ahead? What I want to be sure is that we don't
interfere with the $24,000 worth of pipe to go under the six lane
widening that needs to be done right now or never, and that we don't
slow down the process. But since these are both associated with
alternate two, it seems like that might be possible. Am I right, Mr.
Bolt?
MR. BOLDT: That's correct.
Of course, the problem with what you're suggesting is they're
going to start asking us questions about what are you really planning
to do and what are the impacts on it, what's the benefit to the city
or the state for this. And without getting involved in the
engineering and actually doing some computer modeling and so on, we
wouldn't be able to give them that answer. So --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, then, we don't know ourselves,
which means we're kind of taking a leap to say the city and the state
will be providing money. I mean, if we don't know the answer to those
ourselves, we -- those answers could come back that there isn't a
benefit to the city or that it's limited or that it's considerably
less than the $130,000 value. So these numbers are just plug numbers.
MR. BOLDT: There are -- just preliminary --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't have the information.
MR. BOLDT: -- concept at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess maybe that's a catch-22
situation. But I've got an awful tough time committing a bunch of
general county funds, assuming that we're going to get 265,000, that
we have absolutely no evidence to back up that assumption.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: John, how far down under the county at
large -- because I understand that's your concern -- under the county
at -- and all is your concern, but that in particular. That under --
how much under the county at large column will we spend to find out
the answers to the questions that will give us the information
necessary to apply for grants from the city and the state and the
feds?
MR. BOLDT: We're looking at that $199,000 figure, engineering
under alternate two. That's actually engineering, planning and
permitting. I guess you'd have to get into it at least -- I don't
know --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Halfway?
MR. BOLDT: -- a third or halfway into it in order to be able to
answer those questions. The rest of it is actual plan preparation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because before we go farther, that report
would have to come back to the board; am I right? MR. BOLDT: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You know, we're not authorizing you today,
even if we approved your staff recommendation, to spend all of this
money today.
MR. BOLDT: Absolutely not.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're just looking at the -- what is the
general concept of the program going to be. But before there is a
contract for $199,000 or a third of that or a half of that, that will
come back to us as well.
MR. BOLDT: Correct. We could do this in phases if we wouldn't
-- had a contract with a consultant. And phase one --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's a good idea, Commissioner
Constantine, to do it in phases so that we --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But you're telling me we would have to
spend $100,000 to find out whether or not we could justify getting 130
from the city and 135 from the state?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And 323 from the property owners and 635
-- well, no, 65 from the county. Yeah, you have to do the engineer to
know what the cost of -- of the plan is.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What would be the problem if we're not
sure what or if the city will benefit, we're not sure how or if the
state will benefit, what if the HSTBU paid for those initial costs up
front and found out that information and then could turn around --
it's their project in their area, and then if they find that there is
a benefit to the city or to the state, that's a logical step then is
for them to go and request some assistance. But --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I appreciate that, but --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that way the general fund isn't
picking up the tab for something that may not prove to be beneficial
to anyone but this specific area.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The problem is that this is a proposed
HSTBU that would be created if we go forward. It doesn't exist today.
There's not one that could fund it.
And this -- Mr. Boldt, when we did Naples Park -- just because
that's the most recent and the one that I'm familiar with -- who paid
for the engineering study for Naples Park?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They did 100 percent. The original
engineering study was paid for by the residents of Naples Park. Not
the one that we've used, but they paid the original engineering study
100 percent.
MR. BOLDT: Yeah, there was --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To justify the need.
MR. BOLDT: On 139 was used to fund the preliminary study. When
we got into the engineering design, the county -- the county fronted
those monies, but it was their contribution towards the 15 percent,
which is the same thing we're doing in the Lely area now. We spent in
that area, you know, 4 or $500,000 up front, which will eventually be
credited to the county as their portion of the 15 percent. That's the
way it goes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So this would be credited toward the
county as a part of the 15 percent, and we'd be doing just what we're
already doing in Lely, guys.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that would be true if -- I mean,
you're using the numbers from the city and the state as -- to come up
with that 15 percent number, and we can't justify those city or state
numbers yet. If there's --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let's move those two into the HSTU column.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If there's $265,000 there --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hove that today into the HSTU column. And
if we can get grants, then we will, and if we can't, we won't. But
just move that -- you know, put that into the neighborhood's tax
burden today, and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How high would the tax be, for how
long, in order to pay that off?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what we'll have to find out, and
that's why we're going to try very hard to get the state and federal
and local grants.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I know that's what we're going
to try, but I think that's an important answer. I mean, if that's not
a realistic number, I don't want to just sweep those numbers over into
that column so we can move ahead and spend 100,000 up front.
I don't want to create a fiscally irresponsible situation. And if
we move -- so you now have six or $700,000 in the property owners'
column, and we do the math -- and I don't know the answer, and
apparently neither do you -- that $700,000 comes out to some
outrageous fund per property there and they can't nor will possibly
ever pay it, and you're telling me there is no HSTBU and normally we
let that area decide whether or not they'll have that. And if that
number is so high that it's unrealistic they will not support that,
then we don't have an HSTBU and we don't have state grants and we
don't have money from the City of Naples, yet we've spent money.
And hopefully, that's not the way it turns out, but that's a
possibility. And I would hate to go and spend 100,000 bucks or more
and have no other sources of revenue. I can't just say well, maybe
the HST will pay for that. We gotta have some specific answers here
in order to move forward, in my opinion.
MR. BOLDT: Perhaps what we need to do then is to go ahead and
set into motion creating the HSTBU, the taxing district or assessment
district, which if you were to do it this year, you wouldn't collect
it until the fall of '99.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But at least we'd have the mathematics
MR. BOLDT: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- of okay, it's a $700 picture, how
much does that come out to per property owner, which apparently nobody
can tell me today.
MR. BOLDT: If you were to move ahead, then you could go borrow
against that and anticipate a revenue --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if that's a reasonable amount of
money per property, then I'm comfortable moving ahead with that. But
if that is some outrageous number, I don't want to have already moved
ahead and started an unrealistic scenario.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's already a lot of discussion and
plans for the creation of that HSTU, so starting that today is a great
idea.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two points. One is there's something that
occurred in both Naples Park and East Naples that hasn't occurred
here, and that is some form of a vote.
In Naples Park we took a straw ballot. Every single property
owner received a ballot and had the ability to either mail it back or
to take a vote. And we got a majority of those who responded saying
they wanted something done and were willing to pay for something.
Now, that something was a variable, but we had at least an
estimate out there for them to consider. It was going to be at that
point $500 per property owner, and it didn't end up being much more
than that.
In East Naples we had a vote, and we got almost half the people
that voted saying they were willing to be a part of an HSTBU to pay
for something. So -- and that was based on some rough numbers that
they had. So that's the one thing that isn't -- that hasn't happened
here, and I think that would satisfy Commissioner Constantine's
concern about what is the number these businesses are going to have to
deal with, and are they willing balipark to fund it at that level?
So that's -- I think that's one difference here that we're
talking about, a potential HSTU, and I don't think the property owners
know what the potential costs of that are. I know we're very early in
the process. I think there's some things we can do today that will
help us get there, help us get that information, and we need -- and
that's a respons -- you know, a responsible thing to do.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But they're --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I saw -- if I may.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I saw what drainage did to Naples Park.
First is put the community -- when it was all done I received one
phone call of someone who said this was not a good idea, or that I --
you know, after the assessments went out I got one phone call, because
the project really made a difference.
And I think in this triangle we're talking about the exact same
impact. It will be difficult to get there. People will be upset
about it. They will be angry about the money. But in the end they
will see the benefit. That's what I'm hoping. But in order to get
there, if we're going to follow the Naples Park motto -- when we talk
about 15 percent, John, I just ran the numbers, that 15 percent is
based on the total project cost, not on phases I and II. The county's
portion of phases I and II is 39 percent.
MR. BOLDT: Oh, okay, I see what you're saying.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The property owner is only paying 33
percent of phases I and II. With phase III being a major construction
project on the horizon requiring almost $800,000 in grant funds for a
total project cost of, you know --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Two and a half million dollars.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- of two and a half million dollars, you
know, I hope we get it, but I think that's very aggressive.
My concern is that if we're realistically looking at alternates
one and two, the general fund's share of that is too high. It's 39
percent of the total project cost of one and two, and we would have to
get the state grants for $800,000 and get the property owners to fund
another $800,000 for three to ever occur.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But Tim, that 39 percent is partially a
loan that would be credited back, so that the net effect of the entire
project would be 15 percent. Just like we fronted money for Naples
Park, there will be -- on a time line, there's a period in time when
it's 39, just like at Naples Park, there was a period of time when it
was much, much more than 15.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But actually it's not. None of that will
be credited back. Once we spend $385,000 -- I'm serious, look at the
numbers.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Once we spend $385,000, the only dollars
left to be collected and expended are grants and MSTU funds. No money
-- the total cost, if we do all three that the county puts in, is
$385,000. We spend that at the end of alternate two. So there is no
credit, there is no money coming back. Once we spend the 385, that's
our 15 percent of all three alternates.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: John, how did -- when you and I discussed
it, it was this business that it was the same as fronting money for
Naples Park and that the -- that it was a credit toward the 15
percent. Am I -- does it work that way?
MR. BOLDT: It does. What I did, I took a look at the total
values, like Commissioner Hancock done, took the 15 percent, and then
ran that down the column. When the funds were all expended, which was
on alternate number two, that's where I quit. I didn't prorate it all
the way down for each of the alternatives, which could be done very
easily.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: John's correct. But my point is, every
dollar of ours is front loaded with a third alternate that is in my
opinion very iffy relying on $800,000 of state grants. You see where
I'm going, Pam? It's not --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It doesn't happen we end up with 40
percent of the money.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If that doesn't happen, we've paid 40
percent of the project.
So I think if we're going to pay 15 percent of the total project,
then let's pay 15 percent by stages. We know we can make alternates
one and two happen in partnership with the property owners. So let's
pay 15 percent of the total costs of alternates one and two. Should
alternate three become a reality, then let's pay 15 percent of that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's perfectly acceptable to me.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's good.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's what I'm looking for.
MR. BOLDT: This is very conceptual, very preliminary. We'll
bring it back next month when you consider it during the budget
process, I can have this reworked with these suggestions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because alternate three is extremely
aggressive. You know, it may -- I wish that there would be a way to
solve the flooding problems in that triangle without doing something
so aggressive, because it's -- you know, the numbers here don't even
include land --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Naples Park --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- acquisition.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- was considered aggressive, too.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. But if we just don't slow down the
process on alternates one and two, that's a reasonable approach.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're going to have to form the MSTU to
make up some of those costs --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to cover alternates one and two if
we're not going to pay the full ticket. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Understood.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's no question about it. But let's
don't lose sight of the fact that we need to get those drains
coordinated with the road project now.
MR. BOLDT: Yes. That is ongoing. That is ongoing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I want to make sure that we're not going to
delay any action to the point where we miss that opportunity.
MR. BOLDT: In fact, if Marie's still available, she and I are
going to go out in the field yet this afternoon and triple check that.
We've got the proposal, they're doing the work. We want to make
double sure. We're going to move ahead.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, the other difference, when we
talk about what's appropriate with 15 percent or others, the only
difference I see is that what percentage of this property in the
triangle is on residential, what is zoned commercial or some other
nonresidential use? Because when I look at the Lely area, that is
almost exclusively residential. When I look at Naples Park, that is
almost exclusively residential.
I just don't want to get into a corporate welfare situation here
where we've got 80 percent or something of this property -- maybe you
know what the percentages are, Pam -- is business. Well, maybe
business ought to pick up more of the tab than what homeowners do
generally.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It'd be a surprise to you to find out how
-- it was to me, anyway, to find out how much of the triangle is in
fact residential. I don't know the percentages.
I'll tell you, though, that the way that that avoids corporate
welfare is that the assessment -- the property assessed value on the
corporate is -- sorry, on the commercially zoned property is so
significantly higher.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you're going to go by millage in the
MSTU and not by assessment methodology like we did in Naples Park?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, to be determined.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The millage would answer that
concern because --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Big time.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the per acre valuation is much higher.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But because of the way the triangle's
drainage works, it's more likely, I think, that we'll end up with
assessment -- I'm sorry, with ad valorem tax based assessments instead
of any sort of a frontage assessment. And that will take care of
that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate the alteration. If we're
going to go forward, I appreciate doing just 15 percent on each phase,
because I think that's more appropriate. But again, we don't know --
at this point, we do not know the cost per property owner, what they
can expect to pay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't know if the city will or
should participate, we don't know if state grants are appropriate or
will be granted, and we don't know the Sand Belt (phonetic) federal
grant. So I'm real squeamish about committing money to be spent
without knowing how -- what -- those three things make up a
substantial percentage of the project.
I realize the federal is just in alternate three, but alternate
two, in order to make this thing -- in order to make the expenditures
in alternate -- in the first phases here worthwhile, we need to get
through alternate two. And it will be a waste of money if we do the
early expenditures and don't get to alternate two. And we don't know
if the city or the state will participate.
And you've said well, we can put that in the HSTU. We don't have
the HSTU and we don't know what the impact per property owner is. It
seems like those questions all need to be answered before we go ahead
and spend one dime. We ought to have an idea on how much it's going
to impact general funds, how much it's going to impact the taxpayers,
whether or not there's going to be HSTBU. Like you said, there should
-- we should have some feel for all the groups that are in there;
okay, do you want this, do you not --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I just --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If it comes back that only --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- comment on that one point, too?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- twenty percent do, then --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because I almost interrupted Commissioner
Hancock on that point and now I have interrupted you, so I apologize
to both of you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It was actually my interruption, it just
came late.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah -- it was his.
The comment I wanted to make about that is that there are many
ways to test public sentiment, and certainly the cleanest, most
straightforward way is what they did in Lely and what they did in
Naples Park with a ballot.
I would urge you to look into the level of participation that
we've had from the property owners in all of the Gateway discussions.
We've packed this room more than once, more than twice, with people
who are residential more than commercial, but definitely both, and had
a great deal of interest.
I mean, I cannot express to you the level of their interest in
doing something about the flooding problems in the Triangle and their
willingness to pay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They understand that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no doubt there's interest, but
I can't tell them, you can't tell them, Mr. Boldt can't tell them how
much it's going to cost per household. And like Commissioner Norris'
old statement, you want free ice cream? Oh, by the way, today's flavor
is tuna fish and it's $27 a cone. Do you want to fix your flooding?
Of course I do. Oh, by the way, it's going to cost "X" number of
dollars. We need --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But we've done more than that, Tim.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to be able to do more than that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We've done a lot more than that. We
haven't given -- and we can't give 'em the exact answer to your
question unless we spend some money to find out what --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You can't even give me a balipark,
that's my concern. We ought to have an idea, okay, you can
guesstimate -- I mean, when we've done different projects on either
beautification or drainage or other things, we will do balipark
estimates; we know it's going to be roughly 15 bucks per household or
-- we have some idea, and it will come back. But to just say well, we
don't know --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that scares me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's more information out there than
that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We ought to have some answers. And no
one today has offered it.
MR. BOLDT: No. Nor did we intend to have it available. Quite
honestly, we want to do that more next month when we come back in the
budget process, and it's obvious, I need to give more thought to this
table, make some corrections, try to come up with better estimates for
you to give you the level of comfort.
I would like to have you today, though, authorize us to go ahead
with items, I guess basically one to four, which is upgrade of the 41
system and to proceed with that small storm drainage extension that's
going to deal with the immediate problem we have with those properties
flooding on Davis Boulevard. And then we'll give more work on item
five and so on.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Obviously we have a time constraint here
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, we do.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- for the next item. In the interest of
moving in a direction --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, the direction Mr. Boldt just
suggested was items one through four that I think addresses -- is very
conservative in not doing anything other than immediately the pipes
under 41 and immediately this 40 to 60 thousand dollar expenditure for
an urgent problem. And that the rest of it he would bring back.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's all a part eventually of the
total project costs?
MR. BOLDT: Yes, sir, it would be.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that's a motion to do items one through
four.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the source for those funds would
be?
MR. BOLDT: By capital fund 325 --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is paid for --
MR. BOLDT: -- which I have enough reserves to handle this.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is paid for by?
MR. BOLDT: General fund taxpayers at large.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The items that he's identified are ones
we've discussed in the past on the U.S. 41 widening coordination. I
completely understand your hesitancy as kind of approving a part of a
greater whole when we don't know really what the whole is. I
appreciate that. But I think I had intended on moving ahead with the
pipes under 41, period. The fact that it now becomes part of a
greater whole that we hopefully will, you know, help limit our total
expenditures there, I can support.
I'd like also to add to that motion, if I may, direction to
return with a cost feasible plan, adjusting the numbers so that the
county's role of 15 percent is commensurate by grouping alternates one
and two together, and by alternate number three standing alone, that
we'll pay 15 percent of them, but we can group one and two, in order
to make things happen a little bit better. But along with that, we
have to understand what the fiscal impact is to the community there,
and have some feel as to whether or not the community will support it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, and when we have those numbers
back can we plan to do some straw balloting? Because you're not going
to be able to have the HST -- why would you roll your eyes at that,
Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I wasn't rolling my eyes. I was saying
that I have some hesitation about that. Because, frankly, I'll tell
you real plainly, I'm willing to take the political hit for this. If
it's unpopular, I'm willing to take that political hit. It's my
district. You know, they can't vote to put you out of office, they
can vote to put me out of office. I'm convinced that it's the right
thing to do and I'm convinced that the support is there. I don't mind
any kind of balloting, as long as it doesn't slow down the process.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, what Mr. Boldt has said and what
you've said is that you'll -- you're willing to slide all those things
over into the HSTBU. We can't have that collecting until October 1 of
'99 anyway, so we have until December 31 of this year to vote to
approve that. And if we're going to anyway, then we ought to go ahead
and make sure there really is support.
I don't understand -- if you're confident there's support in that
area, I don't understand why there'd be any objection to doing that.
Once we have the information Mr. Boldt has promised to bring back next
month, we ought to do the exact same thing we've done in every other
area, and that is have a formal go-round to find out how much support
is there and not just say --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If it doesn't slow down the process.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it can be done. We did it in
Naples Park with the first class mailing. And so the point is, we
understand it's your district, Commissioner Hac'Kie, but all other
cases, at least the balance of the board had a gauge as to whether or
not the elements of that community were supportive.
And even in Commissioner Norris' case it wasn't 80 percent, but
it was enough. It was enough to say look, this is not only a need but
there is substantial support out there.
So if you'll think about what is the best vehicle and talk to Mr.
Boldt about that, maybe there's an easy one out there that doesn't
slow things down, but I think Commissioner Constantine's request is
reasonable to at least have a feel for that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll try to get you some -- I will give
some thought to that. I'd like for it not to be a part of the motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It will -- I don't understand how it
can possibly slow it down. If part of this process is to create the
HSTBU, it doesn't matter whether we do that today or whatever the last
Tuesday of 1998 is, you're not going to be able to collect until
October 1 of 1999.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if it makes no difference at what
point we approve that, then it only seems logical we would let those
residents and property owners have a voice, yeah, we want it, no, we
don't, and give that gauge to us to make our decision from.
I can't possibly understand why you wouldn't want the public to
be able to have their say in this process. It is not going to slow it
down one iota.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then what I have said is if it's not going
to slow it down one iota, it's a great idea. If it is going to slow
it down, it's unnecessary.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can anyone in the room offer me any
explanation on how it would slow it down one minute?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: My request for amending the motion
included you talking with Mr. Boldt and determining some type of
public gauge out there so that we understand what the public sentiment
is on this project. That's the extent of the inclusion in my motion.
I think you've heard what Commissioner Constantine is looking
for. I disagree -- I agree that I'd like to have something in my hand
other than you saying I'll take the political hit. I admire that.
But in the past we've wanted something there so that -- because we're
elected county-wide, not just district, so -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of course.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- you know, elected to serve county-wide,
so we want to serve those residents as much as you do.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
got a motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Whose motion are we discussing here? Who's
Commissioner Mac'Kie made a motion --
I do.
-- to adopt --
To approve items one through four. And
Commissioner Hancock has asked that we add to the motion, and I accept
this, that Mr. Boldt give us the math to support 15 percent -- that
the county's expenditure's limited to 15 percent in alternates one and
two, and that was separately evaluate alternate three.
And now you've also asked that we investigate some method of
gauging public support for the MSTU and the cost associated with, and
I accept all those amendments.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then I'll second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second, but we
also have a public speaker.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Public speaker we have is Ronald Fowle.
MR. FOWLE: I'm not going to really to waste -- Ronald Fowle,
Naples Car Wash.
I'm not going to really waste your time, being that you -- sounds
like you will approve one through four for the expenditures.
I think number one, with the drain pipes to that 41 system is
going to get the biggest bang for your buck. I have pictures here of
five foot of water in the front of my place on three separate
occasions, taking 24 hours to drain off.
From the viewpoint of the redevelopment of the Triangle, I think
it's tantamount that this process go through. I don't think you'll
see any redevelopment in the triangle unless the water is gotten rid
of. There's no investor who's going to come in there and have two
foot of water in his house. I saw it on Davis Boulevard the day we
had the 500-year storm. There was 16, 18 inches of water running down
Davis Boulevard. It was running into all the stores on the south
side. And Kings Lake was flooded, everything was flooded.
I don't know if you can make a system that would handle that.
I'm not looking for that. But I -- we certainly should have a system
that will handle a 10-year storm, and it's just going to be a win/win
situation.
As a businessman, I know I will have to pay tax on it. I'll
accept that. I'm sure you'll have some resistance with some of the
homeowners, particularly the people who rent. They're looking at
their bottom line, and if they get taxed more, they're not going to
want it. And personally, they don't really give a heck about the
people who live in those small houses anyhow. It's just dollars to
them.
So I hope you'll go ahead with this, and I know it's going to
take a lot of work. Thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No other speakers? Okay.
We have a motion and a second, and I'll call for the question.
All in favor? Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-one.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's get old -- get Mr. Guggenheim --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, we need to get Mr. Guggenheim --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's get him out of here.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- up here quickly.
Item #10A
BCC TO FORWARD LETTER TO GOVERNOR CHILES URGING OPPOSITION TO HOUSE
BILLS 4141 AND 4071 REGARDING EVERGLADES LEGISLATION
The next item on the agenda is -- we're going to move to item
10(A), the Everglades legislation, for lack of a better terminology, I
guess.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The Saunders sugar bill?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there any backup that goes with
this?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I passed down --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There was a --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- the Conservancy's position paper.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- a thing -- a paper that you should have
received.
MR. GUGGENHEIM: Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bob, can you make that stop? Thank you.
MR. GUGGENHEIM: I want to thank you very much for hearing this
item.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Name?
MR. GUGGENHEIM: For the record, David Guggenheim, president and
CEO of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Thank you.
I want to thank you for hearing this item and accommodating my
schedule. I'm going to be on the radio in a few minutes to talk about
this issue.
Two bills await Governor Chiles' signature. House bill 4141, the
restudy bill, sponsored by Butt Saunders, and house bill 4071. Both
of these bills are very harmful to the historic effort to restore the
Everglades and the related systems of South Florida. They threaten to
slow the process and increase the cost of the process to the
taxpayers.
I would like to respectfully ask the commissioners to consider
sending a letter to Governor Chiles, urging him to veto both of these
bills. The deadline expires May 28th.
Last week the Broward County Commission sent such a letter.
As we better understand these bills and their consequences,
therews a growing wave of opposition to both of them. In a letter
last Thursday by seven members of Congress, including Porter Goss,
Clay Shaw, Peter Deutsch, Stan Miller and others, they state, "We
believe that the restudy bill will impede efforts to restore Floridaws
Everglades, and may directly result in a diminution of federal funding
for the Everglades."
A letter sent last Friday to Governor Chiles by Attorney General
Bob Butterworth and two other members of the cabinet states,
"Individually these bills represent an effective assault on the intent
behind the Everglades Forever Act. Together they would undermine
years of dedication and hard work by countless Floridians and your
administration."
Lieutenant Governor Mackay has also come out against these bills
and urged a veto. And editorials opposing both bills have appeared in
the New York Times, the Naples Daily News, the Miami Herald, the Tampa
Bay Tribune, the Sun Sentinel, Palm Beach Coast and most recently in
the Orlando Sentinel.
COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: What I suggest, Mr. Guggenheim, is that
you stop with saying that Congressman Porter Goss has urged the veto
and stop telling them about Buddy Mackay and those things.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pretty much the Goss statement is all we
really needed to hear.
MR. GUGGENHEIM: I wonwt mention governorws commission today.
COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: No, please donwt say the S word.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Read your audience.
MR. GUGGENHEIM: Why are these bills so problematic? House bill
4141, the restudy bill, was written by and for the sugar industry,
sponsored by Butt Saunders. It puts forth a seemingly benign goal of
getting the legislature involved with spending billions of dollars of
the statews money on restoration.
The problem is that this is an unnecessary impediment. This is
putting the legislature in a micromanagement position and at best
would slow the process down. It is an end run around the
federal/state partnership, agreed to with the Everglades Forever Act.
One of the signatories on the Everglades Forever Act was big sugar.
With the legislature involved in every project cooperative
agreement --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Guggenheim?
MR. GUGGENHEIM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Would it upset you if I made a motion that
the Board of County Commissioners forward a strongly worded letter to
the Governor, requesting that he veto these two bills and suggesting
that we sign as individual commissioners and not simply as the
chairman?
MR. GUGGENHEIM: To add weight to that? I think it would. I
second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would upset you?
MR. GUGGENHEIM: That would certainly not upset me.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That would not upset you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In that case, I'll make that motion.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just out of curiosity, does anybody
know where Representative Saunders stands on the issue this week?
MR. GUGGENHEIM: I spoke with him this morning, and he indicated
that a position was forthcoming. Of course, we urged him to oppose
his own bill, to recommend it be vetoed, but we haven't heard anything
yet.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did I hear someone call this the Saunders
sugar bill?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I think so.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second, I
believe. Do we have any -- I doubt we have any speakers on this item.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, we have no speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, I'll call for the question. All in
favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I want to thank --
MR. GUGGENHEIM: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- Mr. Guggenheim for coming up here --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and also for all the research that your
organization has done to look into what the unintended effects of this
bill could be.
MR. GUGGENHEIM: Thank you very, very much.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Or perhaps they were intended.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's a very local effect to this. We
worked so hard to finally get this state to step up on the South
Golden Gate Estates. And all we said was look, if you're going to buy
it, do it quickly and do it fairly, you know. And this bill would
have the effect of taking all the work we did for the South Golden
Gate Estates folks and just unraveling it, making it go through the
legislature. And, you know, that just -- I can't support that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And those people have hung out there how many
years in limbo?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They've been hung out there by the state.
I don't want the state, you know, intervening again.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. Absolutely. Okay, let's go back
to our --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Break time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, we're done in like ten minutes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, it is time for a break.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're done in ten minutes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're done in ten minutes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we need to give our court reporter a
bit of a break here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll take a break for about seven minutes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Seven minutes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Seven minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
Item #883
AMENDHENT TO SERCTION 4 OF THE CONSTRUCTION AGREEHENT FOR CONTRACT NO.
97-2771, REMOVAL OF NON-SPECIFICATION MATERIAL FROM THE NAPLES BEACH
AND AUTHORIZE SUSPENSION OF THE CONTRACT TIME UNTIL THE END OF THE SEA
TURTLE NESTING SEASON - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll reconvene the meeting, starting with
item 8(B)(3) to approve an amendment of section four of the
construction agreement for contract number 97-2771, which is the
removal of the nonspecification material, commonly referred to as
rocks, from the Naples Beach, and authorize suspension of the contract
time until the end of the sea turtle nesting season, which I believe
is in the fall.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does anybody want to -- I've gotten one
privately, but does anybody want to hear a report of how far we got
before the turtles --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's just a block short of where we
intended it to be, wasn't it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ballpark.
MR. ILSCHNER: Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Please.
MR. ILSCHNER: For the record, Ed Ilschner, public works
administrator.
The contractor has completed the original contract amount of
$99,000 -- in fact, in excess of that -- and basically completed the
first phase, or the original contract, if you want to refer to it that
way. The remaining work that remains to be done is the amount that we
have added --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. ILSCHNER: -- which equates to about $350,000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So none of the $350,000 --
MR. ILSCHNER: A portion of it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. ILSCHNER: About 20,000 to 30,000 has.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So for all that screaming and jumping
around to try to get this moved faster, all we really got done was an
additional $20,000 worth of work?
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, we -- there was a limit of what you could do,
and what amount of equipment you could get on the beach, and the work
you could get accomplished by simply the number of trucks you could
move off the beach and on the beach.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And how many trucks of nonspecification
material did we remove from the beach?
MR. ILSCHNER: I'm going to give you an approximation.
Approximately five out of six trucks involved material that would have
met the specification as specified in the Coastal Engineering
contract.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the total number of trucks of rock
that was removed from the beach?
MR. ILSCHNER: We're in the neighborhood of 600 trucks, I think.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just wanted you to -- I thought that was
an incredible number.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The -- of the total linear feet of the
project --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Six hundred trucks of material?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Six hundred trucks of rock had been hauled
off the beach, and we're only -- we're less than halfway through. MR. ILSCHNER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Of the total linear footage that we
approved to move out and do, what percentage of that did we
accomplish? Because I'm trying to put this in -- I know the dollar
amount is less, but it sounds like we got a lot more done for the
money than we expected. Is that the case?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, there was --
MR. ILSCHNER: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- just more rock than we thought.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. ILSCHNER: I think -- I think we have accomplished -- if we
look at the original contract, we accomplished exactly what we set out
to do in that original contract. We have gone beyond that by about an
additional 10 percent of work to be performed, and of course there was
some rock involvement in that. But you have to also go back and look
at the original specification as we compare that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where is all this rock going?
MR. ILSCHNER: It's being hauled off by Mr. Cadenhead to a
stockpile area.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Being sold for developments to use around
the --
MR. ILSCHNER: Could be. I don't know what he would be using the
rock for.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Riprap, probably, but --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I still think we don't have an answer to the
question. And if I may, Mr. Ilschner, the total amount of linear feet
of the expanded project, of that total, how much did we accomplish?
MR. ILSCHNER: Only about ten percent of that expanded total.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're just shocked by the answer. That's
the answer.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, the report I'd got back from someone
on the beach committee was very different than that, that's why I'm
surprised.
MR. ILSCHNER: Let me make sure I understand the question. The
original contract specified "X" amount of lineal feet. We did
accomplish that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A hundred percent of that.
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the 350,000 --
MR. ILSCHNER: I'm certain that additional -- ten percent,
roughly, of the additional.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And then the turtles decided to lay eggs.
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And really the time frame -- I think
to keep this in perspective, it's too bad we didn't do more, but the
time frame was pretty limited. We only had a couple weeks' time in
which to do that expanded portion.
MR. ILSCHNER: That's correct.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I wish we had started sooner. That's
the bottom line. You know, as we go back -- well, 20/20 hindsight,
but I wish we had started sooner, as I'm sure everybody does.
I had one other substantive question and that was just like we
monitored the beginning of the nesting season and got an extra two
weeks out of the state, is it something worth pursuing to monitor the
end of the season to see if we could start earlier? How long will it
take once we start on the 90 percent of the three hundred fifty
thousand dollar project, how long will it take to complete that?
MR. ILSCHNER: We feel like he will be in a position to resume
work November 1st of this year --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can we monitor to --
MR. ILSCHNER: -- and we will monitor to determine if we can
begin earlier than that. Season usually I think tapers down --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MR. ILSCHNER: -- and hatching occurs in the October time frame.
And if we could monitor and get clearance prior to that, our worst
case scenario is November 1, around that time frame.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the amount of time to complete the job
is?
MR. ILSCHNER: We feel like it will be a comparable amount of
time. He'll be finished probably by the early spring, February time
frame, without fail.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So in other words, you know, we're going
to go through the next season removing rock from the beach. That's why
if we could get an extra two weeks or a month off -- MR. ILSCHNER: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- you know, to start earlier, that's very
meaningful in the height of our tourist season.
MR. ILSCHNER: You have to anticipate weather delays and things
of that nature.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, as frustrating as that is, I
think it's important to keep this in perspective: Miles and miles and
miles of beaches are in great shape.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are beautiful.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're far, far better than we were
before we did the renourishment project. And we have this tiny
percentage that we need to complete. And it certainly will be
inconvenient for those weeks that that takes in the fall in that area,
but I don't want anybody to be under the impression that we have miles
of beaches that we have to clean up and work on, because --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, we have blocks.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the vast majority of this project
is and was done correctly, and it's too bad this part wasn't. But we
certainly appreciate Commissioner Hancock bringing it forward and
getting that done.
MR. ILSCHNER: Commissioner, we did our emphasis on the area
where we felt we had the greatest involvement of nonspecified
material.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think unlike -- it's kind of like how do
you know the foundation under your house is bad? Well, you do when it
sinks. On this problem it took a while to uncover the fact that there
were rocks in areas we didn't expect them it be.
And I started this -- it was about midway through my year as
chairman when we -- when I began sitting down with Mr. Ilschner and a
concerned citizen and we -- so there really wasn't a great lapse
there.
Sure, I think if we had known about the problem earlier, we would
have done something, but I think the key is that for well over a year
now, we've been focusing on this and applying the necessary funds, and
I think, you know, yeah, our hindsight is always better than our
foresight, but there wasn't that much of a lag. I really -- I'd hate
for that to be the mind-set out there, because I don't feel it was
true. As soon as it was brought to my attention, our staff got on it.
But there were a lot of people involved. You got consultants and
contractors, and everybody and their mother had an interest. So it
was a complicated process, but the important thing is that we did the
appropriate thing in deciding to resolve the matter fully as quickly
as possible and that that will be done as soon as possible. I think
that's -- that's what I'd like to leave with this.
MR. ILSCHNER: And I might just interject, Commissioner, that
once the board approved the additional work, we authorized a contract
to move in with a significant amount of additional equipment in an
effort to complete this prior to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's great, because we wouldn't have
gotten as far as we did.
MR. ILSCHNER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we appreciate that.
And two other comments: One is just that the problem -- this is
also Monday morning quarterbacking, but it's evaluating. How did we
come not to know? How did it happen that we didn't know as a board
for so long the seriousness of the problem? And I would ask you, Mr.
Ilschner, to look into that and fix it wherever that --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Obviously commissioners don't spend
enough time on the beach.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go. Or dig in the beach.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, Pam, I've said this to a lot of
people. This is the first time we've ever renourished a beach project
of this size in Collier County. Marco has had some experience. But
there's a real learning curve there. And I don't care whether you're
government or private citizen, there is a learning curve, and there's
things that you -- I mean, we tried to anticipate quality of material
and whatnot, and we felt like we did what we needed to do to make sure
the material was a good material. We even saw it, felt it and touched
it, before we approved it. But things didn't quite work out.
I think our staff has learned more than we have, and when the
time should come that some type of mobilization for renourishment
occurs, that learning curve will come to play and will help us avoid
these types of recurrences. I think that's really the best we can
hope for.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to be sure that's what
happens, that we do learn from our mistakes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm convinced Mr. Ilschner doesn't want to
relive this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
MR. ILSCHNER: We certainly do not. And we will put into place
those provisions --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. ILSCHNER: -- to ensure this does not reoccur.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Mr. Weigel, I've asked this question
before, and I know you preserved our position on suing the contractor,
you know, to make our taxpayers whole. Have we -- do we have -- is
there a statute of limitations problem with any of the potential
defendants in a case that we might need to bring for damages?
MR. WEIGEL: There is a statute of limitations. I don't think
there is a statute of limitations problem. It's just that we, the
county, county staff, will remain cognizant of the time frames and
keep the board advised if we approach a period in time where claims
that have been made have not been addressed appropriately against any
contractor that we're dealing with, so that the board can give the
direction, authorization for litigation or other appropriate legal
means that we might try to follow.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you know what the statute is? What's
our deadline for -- or have we already preserved our right? I know we
preserved the right to sue the contractor. Have we preserved our
right to sue the consultant should that be necessary?
MR. WEIGEL: Is your question have we preserved our right to sue
the consultant?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, we certainly have that right. We have not
made a formal claim against the consultant at this point. The
consultant --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know if we should. I'm just
asking what the statute of limitations is.
MR. WEIGEL: -- is still working with us. The consultant's
contract is not technically over; whereas, there are issues remaining
with the contractor that was working in the large scale beach
renourishment project, and we have made our claim, preserved our
ability there.
Notwithstanding the fact that we've made the written claim,
though, we cannot sit and not pursue it in court beyond a certain
amount of time that passes. But we're not there yet by a long shot.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If memory serves correctly, the case
against the contractor appears, within the confines of the judicial
system, fairly black and white. We appear to have fairly substantial
evidence that there was a problem on their part. But I just hate to
sit here and -- I think we need to be careful saying well, have we
sued or are we going to sue the consultant. I don't know that we have
one shred of evidence that the consultant was acting out on this. I
don't want to in any way indicate that. I don't think that was your
intention --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but I don't want anyone to
misunderstand and think we're making some accusation. I think we have
a contractor who strayed from their field and unfortunately brought
rocks in and is going to have to pay for that. But I don't want
Coastal Engineering to end up being sullied by this discussion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I don't intend to do that, and I
appreciate your saying that.
My reason for asking this question is very simple. It is that we
have the responsibility to decide when and whom to sue, and we can't
lose that window of opportunity by virtue of not raising the question
with our county attorney, and I'm raising it. Because the contractor
has asserted that, you know, he didn't go outside the scope of his --
he's in writing asserting he didn't go outside the scope --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm aware of that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- of the approved area and that in fact
there were rocks within the area. So we can't lose either of the
potential defendants as we go forward.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Once we complete the cleanup, I think then
we have the dollar amount in hand to remedy the situation and then we
need to make a decision as to how to proceed and we'll require the
counsel -- our counsel to help us choose that direction.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we're telling them today, don't let us
miss it by virtue of a statute of limitations problem.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any speakers on this item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, and a second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And a second. All right, I'll call for the
question. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #8C1
PARKING FEES AT TIGERTAIL FOR MARCO SPORTS FESTIVAL - FEES NOT WAIVED;
MARCO ISLAND YHCA AUTHORIZED TO PAY PARKING FEES FOR MARCO SPORTS
FESTIVAL
Hoving on then to item 8(C)(1) parking fees at Tiger Tail
Beach. Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, you'll be pleased to know
that this is an extremely simple one and should be over really quickly
here. The Marco Sportsfest is going to be using Tiger Tail Beach for
some of their activities. They have requested for us to waive the
parking fees for that weekend. The Marco YHCA has graciously stepped
forward and said that they will pay the parking fees in lieu of us
waiving them. And I'll make a motion that we authorize that scenario
and direct Mr. Olliff to coordinate the efforts. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Are there any
questions regarding this? If not, I'll call for the question. All in
favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #8D2
RESOLUTION 98-168 AUTHORIZING ADOPTING A SPECIAL SERVICE CHARGE AS
ALLOWED IN SECTION 119.07, F.S. TO PAY FOR THE PROVISION OF INFORMATION
REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS, FINANCED WATER AND SEWER IMPACT FEES,
AND WATER AND SEWER CHARGES - ADOPTED
Item 8(D)(2), authorization to adopt a special service charge,
as allowed in section 119.07, Florida Statutes, to pay for the
provision of information regarding special assessments, financed water
and sewer impact fees, and water and sewer charges. Mr. Yonkosky?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hay I ask a question of the county
attorney before we start? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You may.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's left of my law practice is real
estate closings. I certainly would never have to pay this fee, but I
would have to administer collection of this fee if it were passed. Is
that a conflict or can I vote?
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, I see. I don't consider that a conflict
whatsoever.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, thanks.
MR. YONKOSKY: Madam Chairman, commissioners, good morning. For
the record, my name is John Yonkosky. Agenda item 8(D)(2) -- and I
would like to reiterate what your counsel said this morning about the
title. The title that was actually in the agenda is different than
the title that's on the executive summary.
This is a recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to
adopt a resolution authorizing an estoppel letter process that's
currently in place and to establish a fee for that process.
Several years ago, when the board directed the Department of
Revenue to consolidate all of the special assessments that the board
was responsible for into one area, we did that; unbeknownst to us that
there were several areas where attorneys, individuals, title
companies, all would call the separate areas to get information. Once
it was consolidated, they all began calling to us provide information
in the form of an estoppel letter.
For example, if there was an outstanding mortgage, they could get
that information from the real property records. If there are
outstanding liens from Collier County, they need to get that
information from the revenue -- Department of Revenue.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Does real property charge for that
information on the mortgage?
MR. YONKOSKY: Pardon, Commissioner?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What you said, that other departments can
give that information out, do they charge for it?
MR. YONKOSKY: No, the only other place that they could get that
information from would have been the clerk's office in the real
property records.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do they charge for that?
MR. YONKOSKY: If they did get it from them and get a copy of it,
they would have to pay for that copy. But they did not pay for it
when it was a service that they could just walk up to the counter.
And they can do that with us. They can walk up to the counter and get
that information right now --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Without paying for it?
MR. YONKOSKY: -- but the fact remains that a two dollar charge
versus sending an assistant -- a clerical assistant down on an hour
trip down to the courthouse to stand around for 15 or 20 minutes or an
hour and then go back, I believe that most people will pay for this
service.
And the reason that we're asking for the board to authorize the
fee is that the volume has grown unbelievably. There are 17,000
approximate real estate transactions that's recorded in the clerk's
office. About four of them -- and through the property appraiser's
office. About 4,000 of those are in the city, in the incorporated
areas.
But we're processing almost 24,000 a year of these, because they
found out that it's real easy to fax to the department; fax with the
folio number on it and get that information faxed back to them. We're
currently in excess of 24,000 a year.
So what we're suggesting is that -- recommending that the board
sanction -- it's a good service for the public -- allow us to charge
two dollars for each one of these, and we can keep track of it and we
can get reimbursed 100 percent plus of the cost of providing this
service.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have just one comment, and then I'm not
going to talk a lot about this, because it might be misinterpreted.
But when we consolidated all of these services into the Department of
Revenue, it was supposed to save the county money. What -- what this
would cause is the services that you used to get for free around the
county now are consolidated and you have to pay for it. I wonder why
a request for information, you should have to pay for. But --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, we charge for copies.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's different.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I don't think it's different,
because when you buy a home, you know, all of the services associated
with making that home a reality are borne by the purchaser. And, you
know, this is something that the general taxpayer is paying for a
service to, you know, the title companies and whatnot.
I mean, I understand your point, but I just -- I think it's a
reasonable fee for -- we made it more convenient, and as a result have
created our own problem. It's now so convenient that the fax machine
is burning, you know, all day long with this stuff as opposed to --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The cost to the county is now less,
though, because it used to be that several departments were answering
these questions, and now it's only being answered in one place.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's why we charge a two dollar fee
instead of $10, because it costs less to do it now. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If someone still wants to send their
assistant down here and waste 90 minutes of their time, they still
have that option; is that correct?
MR. YONKOSKY: That's correct, Commissioner, they can.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, I mean, they can still do that.
And f they want a more convenient time and pay two bucks for it --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's nothing wrong with that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- they ought to pay for it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It just troubles me a little bit. There's
nothing wrong with them paying for it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve the
resolution authorizing an estoppel letter service and establishing a
fee for such service. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #8D3
INTERLOCAL AGREEHENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE DEPENDENT AND
INDEPENDENT FIRE DISTRCITS FOR BASIC MEDICAL TRAINING FOR FIREFIGHTERS
- CONTINUED TO HAY 26, 1998 AND TO BE BROUGHT BACK AS A CONSENT AGENDA
ITEM
The next item is the interlocal agreement between Collier
County and the dependent and independent fire districts for basic
medical training for firefighters.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I pulled this off of the
consent agenda for really a very simple reason. We're having an EMS
workshop on Thursday, two days from now, wherein we may want to look
at the policies and procedures that we use. And I just felt we would
maybe be better served to delay this particular item a week and
discuss it after we have our workshop. So that's really all I brought
it off for is just simply to continue it for one week.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ms. Flagg, this isn't going to change
anything if we do it next week instead of this week, is it?
MS. FLAGG: No, actually, this item doesn't have anything to do
with the workshop. This is a renewal of agreements that the board
have executed over a period of three years.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Will the agreement lapse if we don't talk
-- I mean, is there a problem if Commissioner Norris would not like
for us to talk about it this week but we talk about it next week? I
understand it's not specifically related to the workshop topic, but
there's no harm?
MS. FLAGG: No, just -- the fire districts and the city councils
have already executed this agreement and they're just waiting on the
board's execution of it.
MR. FERNANDEZ: So nothing will lapse if we --
MS. FLAGG: No.
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- don't act on it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, if there's no harm, no foul,
then let's go ahead and --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to continue the item for one
week.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second to
continue this item for one week. If there's no further discussion and
no speakers on the subject --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have one speaker, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We do? Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Pete Kocik.
MR. KOCIK: I'll decline on speaking today, Madam Chairman.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think he waived his right to speak.
MR. KOCIK: Yes, it was regarding the interlocal agreement. I
decline to speak today.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask that this be brought back -- it
wasn't in the motion, but bring it back on the consent agenda in case
-- you know, that way we don't -- if someone wants to pull it, they
can. But it should be brought back on consent agenda initially.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that agreed?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
Not a problem.
Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in
Hotion carries five-zero.
Item #BE1
PROCUREHENT OF GRANT WRITING SERVICES THROUGH A COOPERATIVE PURCHASING
ARRANGEMENT - APPROVED WITH GRIFFIN GRANT WRITING AND CONSULTING, INC.
Next item is to approve -- approval to procure grant writing
services through a cooperating purchasing arrangement. Mr. Smykowski.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Good morning, commissioners. For the record,
Michael Smykowski, OHB director.
Staff is seeking board approval to secure grant writing services
with Griffin Grantwriting and Consulting through a cooperative
purchasing arrangement, as this firm is already under contract with
the City of Naples.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I brought this to the attention of the
county manager just -- this is one of those great deals, you pay if
you win, you don't pay if you don't get money. It's a wonderful
opportunity for us to maybe tap into some of the public and private
grants that are out there at no risk because we don't spend money.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At zero cost to us?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Zero cost. Am I right, Mike?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: No, there is an $80,000 fee which represents
eight percent. He guarantees a million dollars in new grant funds
within --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But if he doesn't come through --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- a two-year contract period. But yes, if he
does not fulfill his obligation, there is a performance bond that
would repay the county for the $80,000.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not comfortable just springing up
and doing this, particularly as an add-on item. I don't know why it's
essential that it has to be added on. I'd rather have -- MR. FERNANDEZ: No --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It was consent.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It was consent.
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- it was originally a consent item, but we moved
it to regular so we could discuss it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not comfortable for a couple of
reasons: One, we don't have any idea what that million dollars in
grants could be for, something -- it could be for fluff items as
supposed to EHS or some other necessity items.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We'll approve them case by case.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I -- can I please finish my
comments uninterrupted once, Commissioner Hac'Kie? The --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You can try.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Obviously not. Like a three year old.
The other concern is we did a long process, Mr. Smykowski, you
may recall with a gentleman -- we did a process with a gentleman from
the East Coast who does a lot of work out of Tallahassee grant writing
-- I see Mr. Olliff nodding -- who actually designed some thoughts on
how we could do it. I think his up-front cost was less than 80,000,
but that's working from memory.
He brought the idea to us, did a number of things, actually got
as far as standing in front of the board one day and the board
declined because they weren't sure we didn't have specific grants on
tap on what grants we'd be going after or not and there was some
discomfort there for a number of different reasons.
And so I'm not comfortable making an $80,000 commitment to
someone else when we went through the whole process before and had
someone with a smaller dollar figure and a fairly successful track
record at the state ready to go and then have this $80,000 going
toward -- we have no idea, we don't have any specific grants in mind,
apparently.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I do.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, we might have some ideas, but, I
mean, we don't -- this gentleman hasn't said okay, I'll guarantee 'em
within the scope of --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Within -- the first thing he does is come in and
meets with staff and conducts between a day or a two-day session to
determine what the priorities are and develops, you know, an eight or
nine priority list of the -- you know, what grants we might be
interested in seeking in law enforcement or public safety or flood
control or economic development. And then they are targeted. He does
not author -- is not authorized to apply for any grant until we have
signed off that yes, that is in fact a grant we are interested in
pursuing.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Does that come to the board first?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, it would be a --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I mean, after you have looked at these or
when a grant is being sought, would that come to the board to say yes,
we want to go for it or no, we don't want to?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Typically yes, I believe grant applications do go
to the board.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do not -- and my point is -- I'm
sorry if I'm not being clear. My point isn't that I object to having
someone trying to write grant applications for us and getting money
the state or federal government wants to give away. That's a wonderful
idea. However, we went through the process, had a gentleman who spent
several months working with our staff, and then said no. And then to
have this pop up on a Tuesday agenda and say yeah, I think we ought to
explore. If we decide yes, we want to do something with a grant
writer, in a level of fairness, we ought to look at what alternatives
are out there, who they are, and what the best deal is, rather than
simply jump into it.
I don't have any objection to exploring someone grant writing for
us, but let's do it in a reasonable manner, instead of just picking
this one at random because the city happens to have it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I need to go back and review the record on
that particular discussion, because I remember having a different set
of concerns.
But when I read this item, my first thought was gee, you know, we
picked this apart previously. You know, I think it's time just to go
ahead and get a grant writer on board. There are projects in the near
wings that can only be made possible with grant funds. I'm referring
to things like beach parking. The risk here is limited, in my
opinion.
In addition, we could ask the county administrator that when the
priority list is established, prior to transmitting it to the grant
writer, that this board have an opportunity to review that priority
list --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and say whether we agree or disagree.
I think that would be a reasonable approach.
So, you know, I don't have enough recollection to argue the
merits or demerits of the last discussion, but I don't have a problem
with this proposal. And I'm -- the last thing I want to do is go
through the whole RFP thing again, because, you know, it can create as
many questions as answers on these types of situations. This seems
like a reasonable approach, and I'm supportive.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What do we know about this gentleman's
background? What's his success rate with grants? Did he work for
state agencies? What do we know?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: They're a California based firm. They've been in
business since 1990. They've worked with a variety of -- primarily
California. They recently branched out operations to Florida.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How recently?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: In the last year or so.
Eighty-eight percent hit rate on all grants submitted.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you say that number again?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Eighty-eight percent success rate.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's factoring in --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: They've raised over 300 million dollars.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's factoring in California,
obviously, not Florida?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have any idea how many dollars
they've raised in California -- in the State of Florida?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. In fact, most of the Florida clients are
relatively new contracts.
The City of Naples signed on with this firm in the last month.
Palm Beach County had signed on in the last three or four months.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, they may be wonderful, but
there are -- and I don't care whether it's the gentleman that was
before us or not. That wasn't my point.
My point is just there are other options out there. I would
prefer to have a Florida based company with a Florida track record.
The state legislature and the way government in Florida works is very
different than California, thank goodness, and I would prefer to have
someone who has an established track record in the State of Florida.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This company does specialize in federal
grants, and that's frankly why a national -- a broader based company
than a Florida company -- we are more likely to get federal grants
using this company.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Using a California company?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They have an 88 percent win record on
these federal grants.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On federal grants.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On all of the grants for which they've
applied. They specialize in federal grants.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Frankly, part of how they structure grant
proposals is relating things to law enforcement needs, things relating
-- need for a GIS system as it relates to enhancing an E9-1-1
capability. And as a result they've leveraged that and are able to
secure grant funds for a GIS system or a new county financial system,
which we would -- there was $500,000 budgeted this year as initial
start-up for the acquisition of a new financial system. A new system
based on bids would be in the neighborhood of two million dollars.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Doesn't the Sheriff's Office already
have their own grant writer? You said law enforcement the very first
One.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: They have some in-house capability. I think they
have a --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A pretty amazing track record,
frankly. They give -- we question half of their grants, making sure
it's not going to charge us something on the back end.
Commissioner Mac'Kie, you said most of the success has been with
federal grants. How much of that three hundred million dollars has
been with federal?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wasn't prepared to answer that question
today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then how do you know most of it was
with federal?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because they specialize in federal grants.
It says it in the staff report that we have in the summary.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Staff must be able to tell me then.
How much of that is federal?
I mean, I can put that on a brochure, specializing in federal
grants. That doesn't mean I've ever gotten one.
My point is we don't know anything about these guys.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have a question. What's the downside to
this?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That there may be a better --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I didn't ask you. What's the downside?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Frankly, given that it is performance based and
he -- you know, if he does not bring in the grants that we are
requesting him to pursue, our $80,000 is paid back.
The downside is I suppose if he were wildly successful, there is
an incentive clause that it's eight percent of the first million --
that's the 80,000 -- and for every additional dollar raised above the
million dollars, he -- the contract would allow him to get eight
percent of -- as an incentive for bringing in those additional funds.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, I'm just looking at --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: So if he were wildly successful --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- this. What do --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- it may cost you more.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- we have to lose by signing this guy on?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Whoever, this company or whatever they are.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would like the opportunity to answer
that. Because the downside could be that there may be someone better
who could raise more and there may be someone who's better who will
charge less.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: In other words, somebody that they'll beat
the eight percent rate?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this an exclusive contract?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But it has a 15-day termination clause.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Fifteen day?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we find a better deal, we can terminate
it in 15 days?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Granted, we have to pay for the time spent
at the rate of 120 an hour, but --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, I think one of the unique
features that we talked about when we discussed this arrangement with
the proposing vendor is the performance bond. I think it's relatively
rare to find a firm in this business that would be willing to offer a
performance bond as part of the package. We found that to give us
something of a sense of security.
I expressed some of the same concerns that Mr. Constantine
mentioned today regarding the California experience, the lack of
Florida experience and so forth. I feel confident that the firm is
very familiar with the federal guidelines and has experience with the
federal granting agencies in the way that we will be successful. But
the performance bond is the thing that really gave me the comfort that
if in fact we were not, the risk would be very low.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But there comes -- there are some things
that I just -- you know, I feel more comfortable deferring to the
professional experience of our staff on. And I know that our county
administrator has dealt with grants and grant writers in the past.
And it's just something that I think the time has come for us to hire
someone.
We have a recommendation from our staff that this is a good
proposal. There may be a marginally better one out there, but at this
point, with really no risk to the county, and our staff supporting
that it's a good proposal, that's good enough for me today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So are there any speakers on this?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask one question. What was the
impetus to bring this before this board? Who did this? Who brought
this proposal before us?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I got the information on who the -- once I
heard about the City of Naples program, I got the information and
provided it to the county administrator. What I found out when I did
that is that he had already asked for it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It came from your office, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, I believe the Board of County
Commissioners addressed this in their budget process last year where
they identified the need to pursue grant writing or a grant function.
It was our recommendation -- it was my recommendation that we do that
through contracting rather than building an in-house capability.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So many grant writers I've met are
one-person shops. I mean, it's an individual who usually works out of
their home doing grant writing. And I like the idea of having a
broader perspective brought to it and more individuals brought to it
from a national firm. I just think the chance of success is a little
better on this. So anyway, we -- you know, I think everyone has their
own feelings about a day. I just feel comfortable with this and
willing to move ahead. I'll move approval of the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Since I said it was me who brought it
forward, what was the reason for asking who brought it forward?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it didn't -- we have policies and
procedures on how we select firms that do work for us. This appeared
-- just happened to appear all of a sudden on our agenda, and I can't
find anything in the background of the material that really determines
how we selected this one firm over any of the others.
I mean, Commissioner Constantine has a valid point: How do we
know, if we haven't looked at other firms, that this is the firm that
we should be going with? And did we do any selection process or how
did we -- how did we come to have today this particular firm on our
agenda? That's all I asked.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just curious.
Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, so we have a motion and a second to
approve the grant writing services through a cooperative arrangement
which this group or this individual, whatever, is going to be working
also with the City of Naples.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Essentially we would be piggybacking on the City
of Naples contract. We're a member of a purchasing consortium. And
that is the arrangement by which we can authorize this work.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mike, when we have looked into these
in the past, has the arrangement been comparable to this, or has it
been a whole different kind of arrangement? Do you recall?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Frankly, there was the one gentleman from Miami,
and other than that, I don't recall any recent solicitations in that
regard, so I really can't comment on that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I guess I feel a little more
comfortable that if things don't work out, you've got 15 days that you
can bow out of this whole thing, and at that point you're still not
out any money; is that correct?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: You're out based on time and materials --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, if they have -- yeah.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- had they done work for you, yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. I understand. But if down the road
if you decide that this isn't the way you want to go, you can get out
of it relatively easy. Mr. Weigel?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: We had also done some reference checks. In
addition, I spoke with Bill Harrison from the City of Naples and the
city had also, as part of their -- prior to their signing on with
Griffin and Associates, they had done some extensive reference
checking of their own prior to their signing the contract as well.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: The question I had was in regard to the executive
summary statement about the Southwest Florida purchasing consortium
and the City of Naples, and I wanted to be clear if in fact the county
will have its own individual contract with this consulting firm.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. I spoke with Mr. Camell. We would -- and
he said, you know, we would have liberty to make, you know, minor
modifications to that as well and still live --
MR. WEIGEL: I didn't understand --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- under the basic piggyback clause.
MR. WEIGEL: I didn't understand the relevance of procuring
services cooperatively through the existing City of Naples contract.
Is the City of Naples contract essentially kind of the form contract,
and we would essentially substitute county for city, but we will have
our own independent contract?
We are not piggybacking into the city. We will have our own
obligation of -- and also the ability to have in our name the eighty
thousand dollar bond, just as the city, apparently, by it's own
contract has an independent eighty thousand dollar bond. Long
question, but --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe the answer to the question is yes, and
the basis for the connection with the City of Naples is to streamline
the procurement process --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's it exactly.
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- but based upon their acquisition, we have
utilized their selection process and adopted this selection process.
It will be an independent contract, as I understand it --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- with the county.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: The issue is exactly as Mr. Fernandez stated.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was their selection process?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: They declared them the sole source, if I'm not
mistaken. Due to the -- the unique --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, did you say they declared
them a sole source? So really there was no selection process, they
were contacted by them and just declared them? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
The unique feature they have been declared sole source in many
cases is due to the fact that they guarantee their work through the
performance bond. That is the distinguishing characteristic of this
firm from an hourly contract or a will do work on a -- you know, on a
fee basis or a contingency basis.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you give me an example of two of
the firms that wouldn't do it that way?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The one we turned down?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point is that nobody knows. I mean,
Mr. Fernandez, is it -- is six percent standard, rather than eight
percent for this type grant?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I think the eight percent fee is probably in the
high range.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And please don't get me wrong, I
understand and appreciate our desire to do grant writing, but the city
didn't look at any other vendor. We haven't looked at any other
vendor. And there are a number of good -- there are some people that
aren't that good. There are a number of people that are very good at
doing this type of activity.
And you can say six percent, eight percent, what difference does
it make, but if you get into several millions of dollars in grants,
that's several hundred thousand dollars over the course of time that
can be savings to the taxpayer instead of into the provider or the
grant writer's pocket.
And so I don't have any opposition to the grant writing, I just
think it's irresponsible for us to go ahead without knowing what else
is out there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And again, I just go back to what
Commissioner Hancock said, and Mr. Fernandez, you should know, for my
vote, I'm putting a great deal of weight on your recommendation that
this is a good deal. And, you know, his experience.
And you may have more experience in this, Commissioner
Constantine, than I do, but I know that Mr. Fernandez has more than I
do, and I'm going to go with his recommendation.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, would you call the
question, please?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I will call the question. All in favor of
approval to procure the grant writing services?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Aye.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Opposed?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-one.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, do we need to make any
sort of declaration as part of that? Is there anything contrary to
our policies or procedures of the county to just pick a vendor?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think the information is that we are
utilizing the city's procurement, so if their process is in place and
utilized, I don't think that we have a particular problem.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
Item #9A
DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO RESOLUTION 95-632 AND ISLE OF CAPRI FIRE AND
RESCUE ADVISORY COMMITTEE - COUNTY TO PROVIDE REIMBURSEMENT, NOT UP
FRONT PAYMENT
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, moving on then to the county
attorney's report. Appropriations for resolution 35-92, legal
expenses.
MR. MANALICH: Good morning, Chairman Berry, commissioners. For
the record, Ramiro Manalich, chief assistant county attorney.
This matter is an add-on today because late Thursday afternoon we
had communication from one of the Isle of Capri Fire Control advisory
board members that a noncriminal infraction type charge had been filed
by the state attorney against at least one or more of these advisory
board members.
And subsequently, at Mr. Weigel's direction, I spoke with the
state attorney, Mr. Provost, and he did confirm. And we were copied
on some pleadings having to do with this matter.
Basically the reason it's an add-on is that the pleading
indicates that one of these people is due to appear in court on May
29th. Given that short of time frame, we did not want to hesitate in
letting them have proper direction as to whether under the applicable
policy the county will either seek to wait and see and reimburse if
they prevail in that action, provided they were acting in the scope of
their employment or duties, or whether the county, as they have
requested, will choose to provide representation, county-paid up
front. And to wait until next Tuesday would have given them very
little time prior to the first court appearance. That's why we're here
today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we find that they have in fact acted
outside of the scope of their charge by violating the Sunshine Law, do
we get our money back?
MR. MANALICH: We have in the policy the right to seek recovery
by request and/or by litigation to do so, and it is required.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How does this differ from the case of
a county employee -- which is an employee instead of just an advisory
board member; I would think we would be more cautious -- but a county
employee who had a suit filed that we opted not to pay anything, and
after the fact, if they were found not guilty or not to have violated
any laws, we said we would reimburse them for their cost? But it
would seem to me in the case of an employee that would be -- we'd want
to be more stringent or more of a participant even so than an advisory
board member. So it just seems --
MR. MANALICH: Well, that's a very good question. The policy
does not distinguish between employees and advisory board members.
What it does distinguish is between civil or civil rights actions and
criminal type actions.
This is labeled a noncriminal infraction, but by its nature, it's
brought by the state attorney, it is essentially criminal. It's got a
punitive fine, no jail applicable.
And where we distinguish is based on the attorney general's
opinions and the applicable case law. The preferred approach that
that case law and attorney general tell us is that -- typically the
board has to make a determination, but typically you prefer to
reimburse if the person has been acquitted or the charge is dismissed
and you find that they were acting within the scope of their duties as
a result of the charges, and that the fees are reasonable.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My recollection is that's how we
proceeded with the employee's case. Are you suggesting we would or
would not do that same thing here?
MR. MANALICH: Well, we've actually -- these are case-by-case
determinations, where the board has to look at the information
provided by the county administrator and county attorney and make a
decision whether it believes up-front representation versus
reimbursement is warranted.
Some of the cases I think you were talking about were civil
actions where the county attorney came forward and said due to
surrounding circumstances of these allegations, we feel that there is
a doubt as to whether the person was acting within their scope or not.
And for that reason, we recommend to you to defer and wait, and then
if they prevail, they would be reimbursed if they were acting within
the scope.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that makes the most sense.
MR. MANALICH: Now, what you're basically balancing here -- and
that's what the cases recognize between the so-called chilling effect
on service to county boards that can be created when people feel
they're not having the support of the board in representation, having
to dig out of their own pocket and go through the hardship of
defending versus especially in criminal matters where you have a state
attorney as opposed to a plaintiff in the community. You have a state
attorney that's reviewing a case and has found apparently probable
cause.
At that point, there is a greater reluctance by the courts and
the attorney general to provide that up-front representation dollars.
But you would have the ability to do so if you believe that the
competing value -- and that is, the chilling effect -- outweighs that
concern. So you could go either way on that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My question was what's the difference
or where's the inconsistency, and you've answered that. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
MR. MANALICH: I will just add -- I'm -- sorry, for your
information that the -- two things: One, that this case would be not
be a precedent, necessarily, for any other case. We'd have to
evaluate them each one by one.
The second thing is that in talking with -- I've been able to
speak with two of the advisory board members involved. They very
strongly, you know, deny these allegations and have conferred that to
me, for whatever it's worth.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Manalich, why don't you just take a
second and tell us what the concern is, the actual charge is. Because
this -- this -- this particular complaint seems to have some special
circumstances that I think may impact on how the board would look at
this matter.
MR. MANALICH: Well, basically to the extent that in short
inquiry I've been able to find out, basically it's a charge of failing
to provide reasonable notice of a public meeting of the Isle of Capri
Fire Department advisory board in violation of Sunshine Law.
And in talking with both staff and the advisory board members,
there appears to be information as to -- the advisory board members
would assert that they believe there was a large amount of people that
showed up at this meeting. And that consequently notice was
effectively given. Obviously there's a complainant in the community
that brought a charge to the state attorney believing that did not
Occur.
Mr. Ochs and Ms. Flagg are here. They know perhaps more history
than I do of the actual event. I mean --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Actually, I attended that meeting myself,
and I can tell you that there were 200 people there, anyway.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the state attorn -- I don't know
anything about criminal law, but the state attorney has done a
preliminary investigation and found that there is probable cause that
the Sunshine Law was violated?
MR. HANALICH: Well, the information I received from the state
attorney is that they intend to pursue these noncriminal infraction
charges against the four advisory board members that were present at
that meeting.
Now, I have in front of me, courtesy of one of the advisory board
members, an information which is a charging document from one of the
advisory board members. I've not yet seen other such pleadings.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Based on just the one that you have, what
is the legal requirement before an information is issued?
MR. HANALICH: Well, as I understand it, basically, for any
charge filed by the state attorney, once they receive an information
from a complainant, you know, and/or police, they make a review of the
information they've got and then -- I don't believe they go forward,
unless they believe there's probable cause. Obviously I'm not a state
attorney, but having practiced criminal law before, that's what I
believe is the standard.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what I guess makes me hesitant to
consider funding a defense for a lawsuit where there has been, you
know, some level of investigation by the state attorney. He's issued
a finding of probable cause by virtue of bringing the charge.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess one of the concerns I have is if
we do it up front, we are in a position that we could be drug into
unnecessary and ridiculous appellant procedures, even if we find that
the individual is pursuing them inappropriately or unadvisedly. We
could be tied in by financially being responsible from the front end.
I am more comfortable with the recommendation that we reimburse,
should there be an acquittal, in the conditions outlined by the county
attorney's office. In this particular instance, I'm comfortable with
that being the proper direction.
MR. HANALICH: Yeah, basically the conditions you've alluded to,
Commissioner Hancock, are the person be acquitted or the charges
dismissed; that the charges arose out of or in connection with the
performance of official duties and while serving a valid public
purpose -- and that would have to be sorted out once these things are
over -- and the legal fees and/or costs charged are a reasonable
amount.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Will the person who is charged in this
case have -- or the people charged in this case have the ability to
seek recourse against -- I mean, I don't know, they're not expending
anything if they're found -- if they're acquitted. Never mind.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve the county attorney's
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Clarify his recommendation for me,
please?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is to pursue reimbursement -- I'm sorry,
you did make a recommendation.
MR. HANALICH: Yeah, I think that the joint recommendation of
county attorney and the administrator was that based on the policy
that you prepared -- and that's specifically on page six of the
attachment regarding criminal charges -- that because criminal are
different in nature, I think as Commissioner Hac'Kie alluded to, than
civil, although you have the flexibility to provide for up-front
representation, our recommendation is that the policy prefers
reimbursement. So based on the policy having that preference, that's
our recommendation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My motion is that the following
recommendation of the county attorney and county administrator be
approved: That the preferred approach be applied, and that is to
provide for reimbursement, instead of up-front payment for
representation of counsel, reimbursement will be provided if the
charges against the county person arose -- against the county person
arose out of or in connection with the performance of official duties
while serving a valid public purpose; if the county person has been
acquitted or the charges dismissed; and the legal fees and/or costs
charged are reasonable in amount.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
And I would like to clarify one number. I don't know where in
the world I got the number that I cited, which is 95-632. But anyway,
note that correction, please, in the minutes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: For the record, there was a second on the
floor and a clarification was by Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Somebody had already seconded the motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just -- a point of clarification for
the Chairman. I'm fine with Commissioner Constantine's second. I just
didn't want there to be a confusion.
MR. HANALICH: One other clarification, Madam Chairman, as you go
to vote on the motion: That is that I want to emphasize again that
this is a case specific consideration based on the nature of the
cases, that nothing in the recommendation of the administrator and/or
the county attorney at this point should be viewed as any kind of
prejudgment of the situation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Agreed.
MR. HANALICH: That would have to be sorted out.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Exactly.
Okay, I'll call for the question.
We don't have any public speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor?
Aye.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four to one.
Item #11B1
DR. FAY BILES INVITED COHMISSIONERS TO HITA HEETING AT HACKLE PARK THIS
EVENING AT 7:30 P.M. RE PUBLIC SAFETY CROSS TRAINING OF FIRE AND POLICE
Okay, moving on then to public comment.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have two speakers under public comment.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank God we don't have five.
MR. FERNANDEZ: First is Dr. Fay Biles and then Mary Dunavan.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or six.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, a good thing we don't have six.
MS. BILES: My name is Fay Biles and I'm president of the Marco
Island Taxpayers' Association, HITA, of almost -- just about 1,000
members.
What I'd like to do is take this opportunity to invite all of you
commissioners and anyone from the viewing audience to attend our HITA
meeting tonight at 7:30 at Hackle Park, because we are going to pursue
an innovative approach that's different from most of the places on the
West Coast. We are having a speaker, his name is Leonard Hatarese,
who is the expert, so I'm told, on public -- cross-training of public
safety department. It is new.
The City of Marco Island has decided -- the City Council last
night approved -- that they want to pursue this innovative type of
public safety. It means the cross-training of fire and police, and
they will be called public safety officers. EHS will stay in place.
And of course they already have some cross-training -- I wouldn't say
cross-training, but a partnership program to reduce the number of fire
trucks that go to medical calls.
And this program was started at Marco Island, we take credit for
that, and it is now spreading to the rest of the county. Naples is now
indulging in this, and also I understand a partnership program for the
rest of the county is being offered.
Mr. Hatarese is, as I said, the expert on this, and he's going to
talk about the pros and the cons. Can it save money? Well, so we
think it can, and so we're going to try it as a new type of program.
The sheriff has listened to all of this and he has said he's
interested in this concept and he probably will most likely be there.
We've talked about it with the City of Naples and they are interested
also.
I must say that the committee, the advisory committee that looked
at this public safety issue, I can't believe the amount of work that
they have done. I mean, those committee members have researched far
and wide. They have visited cities where this public safety concept
is already in place. They've talked with people who have gone into it
and out of it and so forth, and it was their strong recommendation
that we as a new city have the opportunity to pursue a new type of
public safety cross-training.
So all of you are invited. If you'd like to come, 7:30 tonight
at Hackle Park. And I think John Norris, our commissioner, has
already said he's going to try to be there.
And so we have Bill Moss who will be introducing Mr. Hatarese,
because he -- both he and Charles HcCool -- we have two managers, one
interim and one the bona fide city manager -- both of them have come
from places where they started this public safety concept and are very
high on it. And so we're looking forward to hearing the pros and the
cons and to see if we can do that at Marco Island. Yes?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just I can't possibly make it to that, but
I'm so interested in the issue. Are there any written materials or
chance of a videotape?
MS. BILES: Oh, yes. In fact, Mr. Matarese is the author of the
most definitive study on the public safety concept and cross-training
fire and police. It was put out by OG in Hay, I believe. And it's
called MISS (phonetic). I will see that you get a copy of that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you, Fay.
MS. BILES: And he goes into great detail of all the problems.
And it's not always just smooth sailing, there's no doubt about that.
And so we're looking forward to just hearing the information on this.
I thought you might be interested --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Dr. Biles, is that information the same that
you provided to me?
MS. BILES: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have that --
MS. BILES: All right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll copy it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and I'll be happy to share it with
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
MS. BILES: Thank you.
Any other questions?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, I'll be not able to attend, and I don't
think -- Commissioner Constantine tonight has a Golden Gate citizen of
the year award, so we have -- all of us have things to do, I believe.
Item #11B2
MARY DUNIVAN REGARDING EVERGLADES LEGISLATION
HR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Hary Dunavan.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MS. DUNAVAN: I guess it's good afternoon, or good morning?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning.
MS. DUNAVAN: My name is Mary Dunavan and I'm speaking for
myself. And I'm glad I'm not number six today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I would let you speak, Mary.
MS. DUNAVAN: Oh, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: See, Mary, the policy works perfect.
MS. DUNAVAN: Hopefully.
I have not talked to Butt Saunders, but this is on Mr.
Guggenheim's add-on, the Everglades legislation, the Conservancy. And
I did go into Mr. Saunders' office and pick up these papers. Would
you please pass those on up?
And I understand that -- I don't understand all that I should,
because I haven't really studied any of this, but I understand that if
2.5 billion state money, which is our tax money, and we have private
property people that own private property -- thank God I don't own any
out in the Everglades. I'm close enough.
It's our tax money. And so what I understand on some of this is
why can't our state elected officials have input and oversight over
some of the state funding that's going to go into this? And I haven't
read clear through on this from Butt Saunders' office, but I
understand that some of it's on the restudy that the Army Corps is
doing.
And so I think before any of you write letters, maybe you could
read through this a little bit and find out what's so wrong with our
elected officials having oversight and input into spending all this
tax money. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Actually, I did read through that. I
received that last Thursday.
MS. DUNAVAN: Okay, thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As have I.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other public speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other public speakers, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I wasn't clear on what Ms. Dunavan was
suggesting. Just that we read -- or were you speaking in support of
the Saunders sugar bill?
MS. DUNAVAN: I don't think it's a sugar bill. I think that '-
I'm really speaking for the people -- individual persons that own
property out in the Everglades, and that they should be given the
opportunity to sell for the most amount of money that they can get.
And I understand the federal law is separate from the state law on
some of this.
And there's another reason, too. If this goes into --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You never did answer my question. The
question was do you support the bill or not? And we've heard your
explanation, but I just wanted you to answer -- you can answer it with
either a yes or a '-
MS. DUNAVAN: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- or a no. A yes?
MS. DUNAVAN: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. Fernandez, do you have anything
that you'd like to talk about today?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I have nothing, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nope.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
Item #15A
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK REGARDING SUMMER RECREATION ACTIVITIES
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One thing. Last night we had our last
meeting of the school year for the joint advisory committee on youth
activities. It's the second year in the making. We have produced a
summer schedule that will be in print soon. We'll be counting on the
newspaper and other local media sources to help us get the word out as
these events go on. But there's everything from beach parties at
Sugdun Regional Park, skate parties at the Sanctuary, skate parties at
the Edge in the City of Naples, beach parties down at the pier, teen
dances, concerts, fashion shows. We've got all kinds of stuff
throughout the whole summer, trying to plan more activities. So as
soon as that's out, I'll make sure you-all get a copy.
And we'll be formalizing it next year. And the board -- I'll be
asking the board to recognize the members of the joint advisory
committee on youth activities at the beginning of next school year.
But it's been pretty successful. We're not getting much press
coverage out of it, for whatever reason, but a lot of good
participation by kids and a lot of good events being planned.
I thought some of it would dovetail nicely with what you're doing
with Midnight Basketball, too. So we'll get those on the schedule,
too, on those nights, and put it all out.
There will be a teen activity line that's going to be done. The
City of Naples has set it up. And I'm going to try to get a couple of
the local banks to sponsor kitchen magnets that would go out in
mailings that would go on the refrigerator that says, bored, call such
and such, and it will tell you what teen activities are being planned
for that week.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great idea.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So some neat stuff coming out of it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. If there's nothing further, meeting's
adjourned.
***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Mac'Kie
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent
Agenda be approved and/or adopted with changes: *****
Item #16A1
APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDHENT RECOGNIZING POSITIVE CARRY FORWARD
VARIANCE IN THE POLLUTION CONTROL FUND (114) IN THE AMOUNT OF
$108,230.00
Item #16A2
ASSIGNHENT AGREEHENT FOR EASEHENT FOR PELICAN HARSH, UNIT 16
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 98-137 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 70502-091 - RECORD OWNER -
CLAUDE E. LARUE, LOT 9, BLOCK 4, NAPLES MANOR ADDITION
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 98-138 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 71009-072 RECORD OWNER - KELLY
ANN MOHN & JAMES O. MOHN II, LOT 2, BLOCK 8, NAPLES MANOR LAKES
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 98-139 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 80122-060 RECORD OWNER - HARIETA
ALONSO, LOT 8, BLOCK 8, NAPLES MANOR ANNEX
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 98-140 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 70528-053 RECORD OWNER - JORGE &
ANGELA RAMOS, LOT 7, BLOCK 227, MARCO BEACH UNIT SIX
Item #16A7
RESOLUTION 98-141 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 70915-021 RECORD OWNER - FELIX
LERCH FAMILY TRUST, LOT 17, BLOCK 13, NAPLES MANOR ADDITION
Item #16A8
RESOLUTION 98-142 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 70912-011 RECORD OWNER - DORIS
G. HATHAWAY & HARLENE V. YORK, LOT 4, BLOCK 2, UNIT 1, TRAIL ACRES
Item #16A9
RESOLUTION 98-143 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 71015-040 RECORD OWNER - THOMAS
WALSH, LOT 17, BLOCK 105, GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3
Item #16A10
RESOLUTION 98-144 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 70917-004 RECORD OWNER - EHC
HOLDINGS INC., LOT 17, PORT OF THE ISLANDS, PHASE TWO
Item #16All
RESOLUTION 98-145 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 70918-057 RECORD OWNER -
DANIELS, PHLEANY/J BROWN & BROWN, JENNIFER, LOT 5, AVALONE ESTATES,
BLOCK 6, UNIT 1
Item #16A12
RESOLUTION 98-146 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 70919-034 RECORD OWNER - LUIS
VAZQUEZ PEREZ, LOT 10, BLOCK 294 OF MARCO BEACH UNIT EIGHT
Item #16A13
RESOLUTION 98-147 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 70919-038 RECORD OWNER - ETZER
LALANNE, LOT 7, BLOCK 2, SOUTH IHMOKALEE HEIGHTS
Item #16A14
RESOLUTION 98-148 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 70923-010 RECORD OWNER - OVIEDO
SILVAS, SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST
Item #16A15
RESOLUTION 98-149 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 70923-034 RECORD OWNER - FLEET
MORTGAGE CORP., LOT 9, BLOCK 62, GOLDEN GATE UNIT 2, PART 2
Item #16A16
RESOLUTION 98-150 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 71001-084 RECORD OWNER - AYLIN
C. TAivLAYO, LOT12, BLOCK 172, MARCO BEACH UNIT SEVEN
Item #16A17
RESOLUTION 98-151 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 71006-012 RECORD OWNER - CAROL
GRANT, LOT 4, BLOCK 6, NAPLES MANOR ADDITION
Item #16A18
RESOLUTION 98-152 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 71010-024 RECORD OWNER - LLOYD
SHEEHAN, LOT 16, BLOCK 6, NAPLES MANOR ADDITON
Item #16A19
RESOLUTION 98-153 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 71010-028 RECORD OWNER - GUY J.
IARUSSI ET UX, A PORTION OF LINDA PARK, LOT 51, OF NAPLES GROVE AND
TRUCK CO'S LITTLE FARMS NO. 2
Item #16A20
RESOLUTION 98-154 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 71010-068 RECORD OWNER - WILLIAM
D. COLLINS III, LOT 8, BLOCK 10, NAPLES MANOR ANNEX
Item #16A21
RESOLUTION 98-155 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 71014-030 RECORD OWNER - THOMAS
P & LORI HANEY JR, LOT 4, BLOCK 280, OF MARCO BEACH UNIT EIGHT
Item #16A22
RESOLUTION 98-156 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 71016-070 RECORD OWNER - DIHARCO
& DIHARCO INC., LOT 21, BLOCK 279 OF MARCO UNIT EIGHT
Item #16A23
RESOLUTION 98-157 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 71021-215 RECORD OWNER - BORIS &
EHOGENE L. PUKAY, LOT 11, BLOCK 1 OF MARCO BEACH UNIT ONE
Item #16A24
RESOLUTION 98-158 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 71030-123 RECORD OWNER -
SUNBRELLA HOMES, INC., LOT 2, BLOCK 158 OF UNIT 4, PART 1, GOLDEN GATE
Item #16A25
RESOLUTION 98-159 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 71030-159 RECORD OWNER - RAM
VENTURES INC. e FACOONEER TILE & MARBLE, LOT 14, BLOCK 106, GOLDEN GATE
UNIT 3
Item #16A26
RESOLUTION 98-160 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 71103-091 RECORD OWNER - ANNE
LETERHE e JOSEF VAN DE PUTTE, LOT 9, BLOCK 311, MARCO BEACH UNIT NINE
Item #16A27
RESOLUTION 98-161 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 71121-014 RECORD OWNER - MARION
L. JOHNSON, LOT 19, BLOCK 5, MAIN LINE SUBDIVISION
Item #16A28
RESOLUTION 98-162 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 71124-047 RECORD OWNER - BEVERLY
ANN COLEMAN, LOT 33, MOHAWK HEIGHTS
Item #16A29
RESOLUTION 98-163 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 71210-009 RECORD OWNER -
NATHANIEL & CHARLIE MAE GRAY EST, LOT 9, OF BLOCK TWO, MAIN LINE
SUBDIVISION
Item #16A30
RESOLUTION 98-164 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 71215-079 RECORD OWNER - ROBERT
J. & LESLIE K. FREDRICKSON, LOT 40, BLOCK 80, NAPLES PARK UNIT 6
Item #16A31
FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN LAKE RV RESORT, PHASE FOUR" - WITH CONSTRUCTION,
MAINTENANCE AND ESCROW AGREEMENT AND WITH STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A32
FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN LAKE RV RESORT, PHASE THREE" - WITH
CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND ESCROW AGREEMENTS AND STIPULATIONS AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B1
CHAIRMAN AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE A CONSENT ORDER WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER NLA/~AGEHENT DISTRICT (SFWHD) FOR PERMITTED ENCROACHHENTS INTO THE
COCOHATCHEE CANAL
Item #1682 - Deleted
Item #1683 - Deleted
Item #1684
CONTRACT #95-2430 RENEWED WITH KISSINGER, CAMPO AND ASSOCIATES CORP.
FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES, BRIDGE AND STRUCTURE REPAIRS FOR A ONE YEAR
PERIOD
Item #1685
RESOLUTION 98-165 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF ROAD RIGHT OF WAY,
SIDEWALK, SLOPE, UTILITY, DRAINAGE, MAINTENANCE AND TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION INTERESTS BY EASEMENTS AND/OR FEE SIMPLE TITLE FOR THE
NORTH NAPLES ROADWAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT
(LIVINGSTON ROAD) FROM IHMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846) TO THE LEE/COLLLIER
COUNTY LINE, CIE PROJECT NO. 021
Item #1686
PERMANENT DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACCEPTED FROM SONMAR OF NAPLES L.L.C. TO
REPLACE A TEHPROARY DRAINAGE EASEMENT
Item #1687
RESOLUTION 98-166 CHANGING SPEED LIMITS FOR THE ROADWAYS IN GULF HARBOR
SUBDIVISION
Item #16D1
CONVERT EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT TECHNICIAN (PART-TIME) TO FULL TIME
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR POSITION WITH FULL BENEFITS
Item #16D2 - Continued to June 2, 1998
Item #16D3
CHAIRMAN AUTHORIZED TO SIGN A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR A SUHMER
YOUTH PROGRAM WITH WORKFORCE COUNCIL OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
Item #16D4
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT(S) APPROVED TO IDENTIFY REVENUE AND EXPENSES
IN THE RETIRED AND SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM OF COLLIER COUNTY
(116)
Item #16D5
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT(S) TO APPROPRIATE CARRY FORWARD IN THE
RETIRED AND SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM OF COLLIER COUNTY (116)
Item #16D6 - Moved to Item #8D3
Item #16D7
CHAIRMAN AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE ADDENDUH TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES DIVISION OF
FORESTRY AND COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16D8
BUDGET AMENDENT APPROVED FOR EMERGENCY MODIFICATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO
EXISTING MAIN CAMPUS CHILLER PLANT
Item #16El
APPROVED BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 98-221
Item #16E2 - Moved to Item #BE1
Item 16G1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #1611
RETENTION OF OUTSDE COUNSEL AND LEGAL FEES FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEMBERS AND A COUNTY EMPLOYEE IN THE CASE OF JAMES K.
KEISERAND SOUTHERN EXPOSURE OF NAPLES, INC. V. COLLIER COUNTY, ET AL
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:57 a.m..
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BARBARA B. BERRY, CHAIRPERSON
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE,
INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC