BCC Minutes 05/05/1998 R REGULAR MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, May 5, 1998
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Timothy L. Hancock
ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the
May 5th meeting of the Collier County Board of Commissioners. We're
pleased to have with us this morning the Reverend Elwood Kern from the
Naples Church of God.
If you'd rise for the invocation, remain standing for the pledge.
REVEREND KERN: Our God and Father, we approach you this morning
for your guidance and for your direction. I pray that what I do here
is not merely traditional and ceremonial, but that what we do here is
meaningful and sincere.
We thank you for our forefathers, and we thank you for the
founders of this nation, and that today there still continues in
government bodies the recognition of needed help from the Almighty. We
have your assurance and your promise that when we seek your face, that
we will find you and you will give us the help that we need.
It's your divine will that there be government and that there be
law and order and rule among your people, and you have placed in the
hands of this body that responsibility. And I pray, oh God, that they
will appeal to you in those times when they need help outside of
themselves. And that's most of the time.
I pray your blessing upon each and every one of them
individually, and that you will have your guidance in their
deliberations today. And now we commit this county, this beautiful
city, this beautiful area to you and to your keeping, and we believe
that ultimately you rule in the affairs of men, until that great day
when your son comes to take up his title of King of kings and Lord of
lords, and it's in his name that we pray and believe. Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Reverend Kern.
Good morning, Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Before we do get started, I would ask that
all of you remember the Arnold Glass family. As you all may -- many
of you sitting in this room know, Arnold was a former county
commissioner and served his county well, and unfortunately, came to an
untimely death at -- when you're my age, it seems very young.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is young.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At any rate, certainly our sympathies go out
to the family of Arnold, and we'll be thinking about them today.
Also, there is a service tonight at Hodges Funeral Home. I
believe the viewing is from 4:00 to 6:00, with a funeral to follow at
6:00.
Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes to our agenda, please?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, we have four items. The
first is to add item 8(A)(6); this is to approve funding for ASA
Properties, in-line skating competition, $40,000 in tourist
development funds. Staff request.
The second is to add item 10(D), which is the appointment of a
commissioner to the noise compatibility committee. Request of
Commissioner Berry.
Then we have two deletions. The first is the deletion of item
8(A)(3). This is Albert and Germaine Von Steinner, requesting a
waiver of the fee for an administrative variance for a dock at 339
Landmark Street, Marco Island.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wondered how we were going to do
something on Marco Island.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Staff request.
And the last item is to delete 16(A)(2), a request to approve
recording the final plat of Wildcat Cove Two and approve the vacation
of a portion of Sterling Oaks Drive, and portions of the plats of
Sterling Oaks and Wildcat Cove. Petitions AV-97-024 and AV-97-026.
Staff req u est.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie, do you have any
changes?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. Just a note for your
information that a representative from the Republican Executive
Committee who's here to talk about their proposed ordinance has
depositions at 10:00, and I'm hopeful that maybe we could take that
item at 9:30 or sometime so that we could hear from him --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- before the depos.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There will be a discussion item.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one discussion item referencing
surplus land by the landfill.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. This is going to come under Board of
County Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, just a communication item.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just one communication item also.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Do I have a motion then?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move to approve the agenda and consent
agenda as amended, pending the county administrator's comments.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I apologize. We have another item that I
neglected to mention -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- that we're going to try to get the backup for
you. Mr. Cautero can describe it in more detail than I'm able to. It
has to do with the housing project. And he may describe it a little
more.
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, for the record. Madam Chairman,
commissioners, with your indulgence. We received information late
last week -- and we have the backup documentation for you and we're
going to hand it out -- that deals with our ability to receive
entitlement funds from the Community Development Block Grant Program,
the Housing and Urban Development Department.
We are going to ask you to review letters to the elected
officials in the three municipalities and ask if they will join in
this program with us in order to use their population to become an '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's great.
MR. CAUTERO: -- entitlement community to receive funds.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. What item would this come under?
MR. FERNANDEZ: 8(A)(7).
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend my motion to reflect that
change.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second to amend
our previous motion. All in favor?
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, now let's go back to what we've done
here.
Approval of the agenda then?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That has been --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was my motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know. Can't hurt to do it twice.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
Item #4A
MINUTES OF APRIL 14, 1998, REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're at item four, approval of minutes, I
believe.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, let's move on to item four, approval
of the minutes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the minutes of April 14,
1998 regular meeting. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATIONS PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF MAY 3-9, 1998 AS COLLIER COUNTY
WEEK - ADOPTED
Moving on then to proclamations. And this morning, I am
pleased to be able to present a Collier County Tourism Week
proclamation. If Mr. Ayres would come forward from Visit Naples, we
will read the proclamation. Do you want to come on up here, John, and
face the camera or do you want to stay there? MR. AYRES: I'm fine right back here.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Whereas, the travel and tourism industry
supports the vital interests of Collier County, contributing to our
employment, economic prosperity, peace, understanding and goodwill;
and
Whereas, travel and tourism ranks as one of Collier County's
largest industries in terms of revenues generated; and
Whereas, approximately 3,000,000 travelers visiting Collier
County contributed 27.53% of the annual taxable sales to the economy
in 1997; and
Whereas, those travelers provided jobs for approximately 22,000
citizens in Collier County; and
Whereas, travel and tourism provides employment for more people
than any other industry; and
Whereas, given these laudable contributions to the economic,
social and cultural well-being of the citizens of Collier County, it
is fitting that we recognize the importance of travel and tourism.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the week of May 3rd
through the 9th, 1998 be designated as Collier County Tourism Week.
Done and ordered this 5th day of May, 1998, Board of County
Commissioners, Barbara B. Berry, Chairman.
Commissioners, I would like to move acceptance of this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
(Applause.)
If you'd like to say a few words, Mr. Ayres, we'd appreciate
that.
MR. AYRES: Thank you very much. On behalf of the 22,000 odd
people that either directly or indirectly are represented by Visit
Naples, Inc. -- I was going to bring them all with us this morning,
but we couldn't get a bus big enough to get them in and so that
resolved the problem of fitting them in the room. But again, thank
you very much. We appreciate the cooperation that we've had over the
years, and we enjoy helping tourism along in this community and
working with you. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. And also, I believe
there's another young lady sitting out there that's involved with
Visit Naples. Tammy, would you stand up, please? Tammy Matthews.
MS. MATTHEWS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you for being here this morning as
well.
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING SATURDAY, MAY 9, 1998 AS NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF LETTER CARRIERS' NATIONAL FOOD DRIVE DAY - ADOPTED
Moving on then. A proclamation. Mr. Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I believe
we have Linda Kelley, who is the food drive coordinator for our postal
food drive. Linda, if you'd come up. And unlike John, we're going to
try to get you over here in front of the camera where everybody can
see you.
And we have the following proclamation:
Whereas, the National Association of Letter Carriers has
identified a need in their communities and are acting to help through
a national food drive; and
Whereas, postal employees in Naples and Marco are participating
in this food drive for the sixth consecutive year; and
Whereas, the food given in this food drive will be donated to
Collier Harvest to meet the needs of the county by supplying the many
local food pantries which serve the hungry and homeless; and
Whereas, last year our area ranked with the top 200 branches
nationwide in collecting over 80,000 pounds of food from postal
customers in Naples and Marco; and
Whereas, Collier County is proud to thank all those who donate
food and the postal employees who put in the extra effort that makes
each year a success.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Saturday, May 9, 1998
be designated as National Association of Letter Carriers' National
Food Drive Day. Done and ordered this 5th day of May, 1998. BCC,
Barbara B. chairman -- Barbara B. Berry, Chairman.
Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
(Applause.)
MS. KELLEY: On behalf of postal employees from Naples and Marco,
I'd like to thank the Commissioners for recognizing this important
event.
In 1997, the efforts of Collier County residents and postal
employees collected over 40 tons of food. All of this food stayed
here in Collier County.
Collier Harvest, our partner in this effort, is -- was able to
supply over 30 agencies with food for over four months. And again,
all of that stayed right here in Collier County.
It's so easy for everybody to help in this effort. All it takes
is walking to your mailbox, placing unopened, nonperishable food at or
on your mailbox on Saturday, May 9th. Your letter carrier, as they
make their regular deliveries that day, will pick up the food for you.
It's that easy.
We'd like to encourage everybody to participate. Tell your
friends, your neighbors to help us out. This is such a great
worthwhile effort. Unfortunately, hunger is a terrible problem here
in this country. And this has become the largest single day effort
against that problem with over 75 million pounds of food nationally
collected. So please, help us out. It's easy, and we thank you for
recognizing us.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Appreciate your being here.
(Applause.)
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris, I believe you have
some service awards this morning.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I do indeed. I
have four. Our first one goes to Armando Lago from road and bridge
for five years of service. (Applause.)
Our next one is to Sandra Garrett for five years from our
department of revenue. (Applause.)
Next we have Eric Cline for 10 years from our water department.
(Applause.)
We have John Katzenberger from EMS with also 10 years of service.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you get time and a half at EMS for
years of service?
Item #5C1
PRESENTATION COMMEMORATING THE 75TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CREATION OF
COLLIER COUNTY- PRESENTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And our next item on the agenda is
commemorating 75 years of Collier County. If we could have Mr. Jamro
come forward, our museum director.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know the old saying, big events
bring the stars out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have the stars with us today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're here.
MR. JAMRO: Good morning, Commissioners. Ron Jamro, your museum
director.
Three days from today, on May 8th, 1923, 75 years ago, Florida
Governor Carey A. Hardee in Tallahassee formally signed senate bill
number 149, chapter 9362, an act that created Collier County as
Florida's 62nd county.
Sixty days later, on the afternoon of July 7th, 1923, the first
Board of County Commissioners met at the Rod and Gun Club in
Everglades to begin governing a county larger than the State of
Delaware but with less than 1,200 citizens.
This founding board, George Washington Storter, Jr., of
Everglades, for district one; Jack T. Taylor from Deep Lake, for
district two; James Madison Barfield of Caxambas, representing
district three; William D. Collier, from Marco Island for district
four; and Adolphes Carson of Immokalee, for district five.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And nobody from North Naples?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What North Naples?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nobody from Golden Gate?
MR. JAMRO: They put in motion the 75-year tradition of dedicated
leadership, outstanding community service and good government that
carries on to the present day through you, our current Board of County
Commissioners.
To commemorate this landmark occasion, the Collier County Museum
and friends of the museum are represented here today by Ron Mangold,
the friends' president, are pleased and honored to present you with a
photograph of that historic moment, showing Governor Hardee and the
county's namesake, Barron Gift Collier, bringing the county into
being.
Ron, if you would present the photo. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much. We will display this in a
very prominent place. This is a piece of history, so thank you so
much.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you forthat.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. It's wonderful.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So will we be.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not about prominent --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's really nice.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: --just history.
MR. JAMRO: We would also like to present you with this framed
historic reproduction of the act that created Collier County 75 years
ago. Signatures. (Applause.)
MR. JAMRO: And even though we're celebrating three days early, a
75th birthday celebration certainly deserves a cake, as presented to
you from the friends of the museum as well today, and get my lovely
assistant to wheel in the cake.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's Vannah.
MR. JAMRO: Deborah Gardner, from the museum.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can we adjourn the meeting?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think it's probably fitting that we do
that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't that great?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a good day to be here, folks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Look at that, guys. It has the seal.
MR. JAMRO: And no birthday is complete without guests. And today
we've invited some very special people, your colleagues and former
county commissioners to join us for today's celebration. We have Sam
Saadeh from the county administrator's office who will present them to
you. Sam, if you would.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Why don't we turn the cake around so they can
-- maybe hold it up.
MR. SAADEH: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, just tilt it up a little bit and maybe
that way they can see it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm seeing America's Funniest Video about
to happen.
MR. SAADEH: I'd like to recognize in no particular order to you
this morning the following commissioners that were able to join us for
this special occasion: Commissioner Mary Francis Kruse, Commissioner
Burt Saunders, Commissioner Lorenzo Walker, Commissioner Fred Voss,
Commissioner John Pistor, Commissioner Russ Weimer, Commissioner
Richard Shanahan, and Commissioner Michael Volpe. Thank you for being
here this morning. (Applause.)
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I believe also not joining us,
maybe not on the list, Commissioner Betty Matthews. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Here she is, Betty.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Someone is going to have to blow out the
candles, you realize.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Lorenzo, if you'd do the favors of
extinguishing the candles, we would appreciate that.
MR. SAADEH: I'd like to add Commissioner Betty Matthews. I
apologize. I didn't add that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Lorenzo, that's correct, you were the only
one that served while the commission was in --
MR. WALKER: Let me give you just a little bit of history.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You-all stay up here and --
MR. WALKER: I can't be up here and not say anything.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Once in office, always in office.
MR. WALKER: I'm proud to have been a resident of Collier County
from the moment it was formed until the present. Having been born on
Marco Island, Lee County, Florida, three years before Collier County
was formed, I served as county commissioner from November, 1950 to
November, 1956 when the courthouse was in Everglades, with a
tremendous salary. We got $6 a month meeting and $7.20 a month travel
allowance, so I got $13.20 to drive to Everglades to meet one day.
Then in November, 1956, I went to the Florida legislature where I
stayed 'til November, 1974. You know, for the first ten years that
was a tremendous salary. I got $100 a month. It had gotten up to
$5,000 the last two years that I was there. But I have enjoyed being
a part of this county from its rounding until today. And I was
honored to be able to blow out the candles. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
(Applause.)
I thank all of you that are here this morning to be able to
witness a piece of history and to also thank the former commissioners
that are here and legislators. I think that this is a real honor and
it's certainly an important occasion for Collier County. We
appreciate your being here and taking the time to come out and be with
us this morning in this celebration. MR. WALKER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you all very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we get the cake now?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I think they're going to take the cake in
and make it available.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Follow the cake.
MR. SAADEH: We'd like to invite all the commissioners for cake
and coffee in your conference quarters.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hopefully that's only the first of two
75th birthdays I'll celebrate.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't that cool?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just turn it around and let's keep it up
here. Wonderful. I'm wondering, though, if we shouldn't display it
over in the museum. We're pleased to have it. I just don't want
anything to happen. Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Enough of these banal sentimentalities.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm just thinking what a thrill.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I was just kind of thinking about where I'd
be the next 75th birthday, and '-
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, it's funny, because each
time when we do an anniversary, like -- or if someone's been with us
20 years, Tim and I look and go okay, let's see, I was in sixth grade.
We looked at each other and said, all right, 75 years, my dad was '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And to have Lorenzo Walker here who met in
Everglades City, I mean, that's just --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I agree. In the beginning of the county.
You know?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He was here before it was formed.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's kind of a neat experience, I think.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Awesome.
Item #10B
DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AND DRAFT ORDINANCE ON
ETHICS ADOPTED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ON
APRIL 6, 1998 - ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE BCC DIRECTED TO
ADVERTISE FOR AN ETHICS ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE CONSISTING OF 5
MEMBERS, ONE FROM EACH DISTRICT
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Moving on then to report to
the County -- Board of County Commissioners regarding current and
proposed procedures applicable to requests for waiver of established
development review and building permit fees. Mr. Mulhere.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask maybe after this item -- I'm
getting signals from the back of the room that we've got those
depositions before the -- if we might be able to move it up on the
agenda to get to the ethics issue so that we can have that presented
by the drafter? It's actually 10(B). So if we go in order, I doubt
we'll get to it in time for Mr. Rankin to speak.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What's the desire of the commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I have a concern on the other end,
which is it being late in the agenda, I wonder how many people may not
have decided to be here at 9:30 to discuss the item. I don't want to
exclude anyone either, but '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's such a shod agenda. It seems like
if anybody thought they were going to speak they'd be here, it seems
to me.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What's the desire of the commission?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't have strong feelings either way.
It doesn't matter to me whether -- leave it to the Chairman. That's
why you get the big bucks.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's why I get the big bucks, that's right.
Mr. Mulhere, we'll ask you to have a seat for a few minutes to
accommodate '-
MR. MULHERE: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- if this is all right with you.
Mr. Rankin, get up here and plead your case.
MR. RANKIN: Yes, Commissioners and Chairman. I apologize. Fred
just told me last night that he had trial today, so I'm trying to
squeeze this in between depositions that have been scheduled for a
long time.
Basically '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You need to identify yourself for the
record.
MR. RANKIN: Basically, Commissioners, we're just trying to put
forth something that will '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Doug, you need to --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Identify yourself.
MR. RANKIN: I'm sorry, Douglas Rankin. I'm the chairman of the
campaign activities committee of the Collier County Executive
Committee, and I am also here on behalf of Fred Hart, the chairman of
the Republican Executive Committee.
We proposed an ethics ordinance for two reasons: One, for public
confidence, and two, for the benefit of you commissioners. Because
there's no question that the current system that was created when '-
by a certain other party, of which I'm not a member, in Tallahassee,
when they used to control this state, has got some really serious
problems. Quite frankly, the current system is a joke and it takes
too long.
The kind of proposal we're proposing has some real teeth in it
and it -- also, importantly for you-all's benefit, you'll very quickly
know if somebody files a complaint whether it's going to go anywhere
or not.
The state attorney in this area I have been dealing with for a
long time; 15 years I've been here. In fact, several members of our
committee and our board of our committee are former state attorneys.
And I will tell you, they take very seriously that situation where
when they have to stand up in front of a notary and swear out an
information on somebody, that they have the stuff to do it. And they
also are very quickly to take those nonsensical foundless complaints
that may be filed and send them where they need to be sent.
And that is the reason why we wanted to go with this type of
ordinance. All I have seen that Commissioner Constantine's prepared
is the memorandum that's out there for public view.
I do have a few problems with it. And let me tell you, we're not
really married to our current draft, but there are some points that I
think need to be brought up. Basically I will admit, and so will the
entire committee, admit to plagiarism on our current draft. We got
things to Representative Saunders and some others, because, see,
everything has to be filed at the Secretary of State's Office. We had
him pull them from all over the state. We plagiarized the best of all
of them and put it together.
The only thing we did, unlike what's been proposed at the city --
and I would comment on that -- we just stuck to the one item of
ethics. We left out all the other stuff about revolving door and all
that, another day, another dollar. We wanted to keep it simple. We
remember the KISS principle here.
But I think that any ordinance must prohibit gifts, number one.
Number two, it must be a crime to violate it. Because -- and I'm not
meaning to pick on Commissioner Constantine here, because he's just
the one that made the other proposal. The -- on the second page of
his proposal here, the state attorney will either -- like I said,
either do something or not.
And the other wonderful thing about criminal situations is any
violation of your ordinance is a misdemeanor. And in this state we
have a speedy trial rule. The minute that state attorney stands up
and swears out an information on the person and they get -- they pick
him up and fingerprint him or do whatever they do with him, they have
90 days, unless the subject's counsel waives it, to bring that matter
to trial in this state. And that's it.
The problem with this three judge panel is -- and this is no
criticism on our local judges, it's just a problem of living in the
fastest growing community in the nation. This is just one civil
judge. I picked up the phone yesterday for a 10-minute hearing July
10th. And you try and get three of them together and you're going to
have a real problem.
The other problem you're liable to run into in that kind of
situation is that if necessarily some of these ethical breaches could
involve criminal matters. So what you would be doing is you'd be
disqualifying three of our judges -- and we don't have that many
judges -- from hearing that criminal matter, which would be a
potential problem.
The other thing is this thing still involves the state system.
And the state system really doesn't have any teeth in it. It takes
forever. I think basically any proposed ordinance needs to A,
prohibit gifts, except for the commonsense things, you know, and we've
tried to deal with them. And we need a couple more commonsense
things, like $25 or something like that.
Number two, it needs to involve a crime. That way we don't have
a board in Tallahassee -- which, by the way, can't even do anything,
you know. If murders were prosecuted the way this current system
works, I could walk up here and shoot this nice lady and unless
somebody filed a complaint, they couldn't do anything about it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, her husband would shoot you back.
MR. RANKIN: Well, I'm joking. But that is technically the way
the current system works. And if I happen to pick somebody that
nobody particularly liked, oh, well, you know. You know, that's not
right. This way we're going to have all the police officers of all --
and a sheriff, whatever, and the state attorney's office out there as
the watchdogs on this thing, and all the citizens who could file a
complaint with them. But we're still going to have that filter.
We're going to have the filter in that that's what we have the state
attorney for. He either finds evidence or he doesn't. He either
prosecutes or he dumps it. And that happens fairly quickly.
And then we have the speedy trial rule. That's the other thing
that I think would be very helpful. You know, of any of the matters
that would then come up, we're a part of an ordinance like this, they
would have been long disposed of long ago.
And, you know, the gift -- you know, I think the gift, the way
we've ordered it, takes into account the business interests. Now, the
problem with some of the business -- and, you know, you've got -- and
you've got to be careful with the business interests, because I just
saw the other day some very good comments in an ordinance that's being
considered at the city where -- because your zoning department
inspects theoretically every dwelling and business in the community.
So if you prohibited all business interests that had anything to do
with the county, you'd be prohibiting them all, basically.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Occupational licenses.
MR. RANKIN: Yeah, so occupational licenses.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Literally.
MR. RANKIN: You've got to be careful of that kind of thing. And
that kind of tweaking.
But I think you're basically -- you know, we tried to keep it --
and as I said at the meeting where Commissioner Hancock was there, and
he got up and spoke for this ordinance, is that we've tried to keep it
very simple, very to the point and very straightforward. And we've
tried to put in as many commonsense exceptions and as many safeguards
as we can so that the public out here is going to know and have
confidence in their government, even more than they do now, and that
you commissioners and the other persons that are affected by this
ordinance are going to know that if somebody files a complaint, it's
going to be dealt with, it's going to be dealt with quickly, fairly
and decisively. And that's all I have to say. If anybody has any
questions -- I apologize for this, but I can't move the world.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine, and then Pare.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Doug, I appreciate that, and I
appreciate the party doing what they can. While I may disagree with
some of the specific points, I think everybody has the same intent
here, and that is to make sure we've got as streamlined a process and
as clean a process as we possibly can.
I do -- I'm glad you mentioned the one point there with -- the
wording the way it appears currently does say anybody that's governed
by the county, which would literally be anyone who does any business
in Collier County because of occupational licenses.
And that's really where in my suggestion, when I got to the
business end, I said anybody who you could reasonably foresee coming
to the board for something. Because if somebody needs to go fill out
a slip at Horseshoe Drive, that's not our concern. But if you're
dealing with a land developer or dealing with attorneys who are likely
to come here or dealing with anyone who is -- one could rationally
assume has a reason to come before the board, plain and simple, we
just ought not be doing that.
And so if we can craft the appropriate legal wording to meet that
criteria, then that's something we probably ought to pursue.
And I think regardless of whether either commissioners who have
questions raised have done anything wrong or not, the perception both
stems from business outside the county with entities that then somehow
were connected to the county. And so maybe we can stop those
questions from ever even being raised in a process like that.
Couple other problems I have with the specific suggestion that
was made. One, it encompasses, if I've read this correctly, all
employees. And when we talk about gifts and all employees, I'm
thinking of that $8.50 an hour 22-year-old utility worker who somebody
wants to take out on a date, and she has to go Dutch and she can't
accept flowers when he sends them the next day because it's worth more
than 25 bucks.
MR. RANKIN: I agree with you, Commissioner. In fact, I might
want to share with you something that I just got last night, which was
the city manager's comments to the proposed ordinance over there at
City Hall. And even though it contains a lot more than the one we
presented, some of the base problems are the same.
And one of the suggestions he made -- since I'm plagiarizing, I
want to give credit where credit's due -- is he said managerial only,
and elected only. And I think that's a very good point. And that's
the kind of tweaking that I think -- but I think the points we want to
stick to is it's got to be a crime and it's got to cover gifts, too.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well-- and I guess I disagree. While
I agree with you, you're very first statement was that the current
system is flawed. And it absolutely is. But I disagree somewhat on
the gifts, and I'll tell you why, is because any gift from anybody who
does anything with the county or falls into that lobbyist category,
over $25 is regulated anyway. And I don't think it's a problem.
I was talking with Corben Lyon at the newspaper about this a
couple of months ago, and I said if my college roommate from 15 years
ago sends me a Christmas wreath every year worth 50 bucks, that
doesn't have anything to do with the county. Or if Commissioner
Mac'Kie gets married this coming year, and should she be prohibited
from getting wedding gifts? Or when Commissioner Hancock had a baby a
year ago, should his wife have been prohibited from having a bridal
shower?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My daughter's two. Is there something I
don't know?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Whoa, two years ago.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait, wait. And we hope it was a baby
shower, not a bridal shower.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: A baby shower, not a bridal shower.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's all right, the girls in the room
notice those things.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The point was made, the verbiage
wasn't.
But the point being, I think we can take that to a level of
absurdity. I was just reading in the newspaper, and it was on the
national news a couple nights ago, there was a girl up in the Midwest,
an eight-year-old, ten-year-old girl got in trouble for helping out
one of her roommates -- classmates. On the bus driving home, one girl
had an asthma attack. This girl also had asthma and had a little
prescription inhaler and gave her friend the inhaler so she could
breathe.
And now on her school records for the next three years has a
notation that she was dealing in contraband because of the regulation.
And the quote from the school administrator was it's too bad, but it
will appear there because that's what the regulations require.
And obviously that's absurd. That crosses commonsense. A little
kid helps another little kid, and it crosses some commonsense
regulation.
MR. RANKIN: Which is, by the way --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I think what we need to be careful
of here is when I get that Christmas wreath from my buddy in Portland,
Maine, that doesn't have a darn thing to do with the commission. So I
think we need to be very careful not to go to the level of absurdity
here.
And I see -- I don't see a problem having arisen here or with any
of those folks who were in the front row this morning from getting an
eight dollar sandwich or a twenty-five dollar item or a fifty dollar
wreath from somebody. I see -- whether they're valid or not, I see
complaints that have arisen from business. And we -- maybe we need to
deal with that side.
But it just seems to me if we have a commissioner who's opinion
can be swayed by a six dollar sandwich, we've got a bigger problem
than a gift law. And so that's why I tried to stick to the two areas,
one being the business side and two being the time frame that it takes
to get an answer back from the state.
I've been working with Judge Baker on that, and we're actually
going to meet I think this coming Friday with Judge Starnes on some of
the intricacies, where you said we don't want a judge to disqualify
themselves as part of the process. And we're trying to make sure
that's workable and doable. The only intent there being neither the
commissioner nor the public should have to wait 12 to 18 months. If
we've got somebody who didn't do anything wrong, they're getting
dragged through the mud for no reason. If we've got someone who did
do something wrong, the public shouldn't be stuck with him for 18
months. And so by having the judges render some sort of advisory
recommendation, at least we can get through that process sooner. And
maybe the State Attorney's Office is the way to do that. I don't
know.
But I would like us to focus on those two issues. Business, where
there's actually some sort of revenue being derived by a commissioner,
and the time it takes to solve the problem when a complaint is made.
I really don't see where it has been or where it is likely to be
a problem when we're talking about twenty-five dollar trinkets.
MR. RANKIN: I agree with you. And that's maybe a tweak. What
you might want to do is up it to 50 or 100, or put in exceptions for
the kind of normal things that you set forth there.
The problem I had, though, is again with this three judge panel.
And essentially the way this memorandum at least appears in this -- I
just got it this morning, so I know -- is that it appears -- it still
throws it back on this ethics commission. And also, it talks about
the only thing you can really do -- this group suggests that the
commissioner voluntarily resign. Well, I've run into a lot of
politicians -- luckily not in this county but in other counties and
other places in this world -- where they tell you well, that's nice,
I'm not going to, have a nice day, and you're stuck with me, and
there's nothing you can do about it, go away. And then you'll be
stuck with the 18 months. And that's why I think you need to stick to
the state attorney and move this ahead and make it a crime.
The other thing is a recommendation. You know, we can say a lot
about recommendations. Heck, the Republican Executive Committee made
a recommendation in the last election. Shows you what good it did,
you know. But I don't think any of them really carried through on
that. And I'm not -- I'm not criticizing, but I'm just saying -- but
on the other hand, everybody understands the conviction of a crime.
You know, it's like a certain little problem going on in Washington
right now with a certain high elected official from another party.
You know, when you got into all this mishmash, the government and land
deals, nobody understood that. But when you got into perjury or
alleged suborning perjury, everybody understands that, they understand
crimes, they understand that. And that in and of itself gives the
governor the tools he makes to take away the voluntary question.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a final thought, and that is on
one of the points you said. This is -- we haven't had to deal with
some of these things in our community they have in other communities.
And you look at the East Coast right now and some of the nonsense that
went on in Miami at the ballot box and all, and it's kind of scary.
But I think what's worth saying is we don't want to wait until
there is a problem, but we're very fortunate. When you look at --
when we had that 75th anniversary this morning, and you look at the
people who have been here and served in Collier County, we've been
very lucky and we've had very, very good people who have served the
public, and we haven't had some of the problems that some of the other
communities have. And that's not to say we shouldn't go ahead and do
something to make sure we don't ever, but credit where credit's due,
we've got some pretty good folks over the years that have done a lot
of hard work for our community.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just to start out, that I'm thrilled that
we're here and we're having this discussion. It's -- the great news
is that we're finally facing the reality of needing to do something
about this, and I'm thrilled that we are.
What I hope that we're doing today or that the outcome of today's
discussion will be is that we'll direct the county attorney to review
this ordinance, to review other ordinances, to come back to us with
recommendations. I don't think the committee intended to do much more
than get this on the front burner, and I thank you for that.
MR. RANKIN: That is correct, and in fact -- and thank you for
reminding me, a comment I failed to make: You have very fine legal
counsel here. I think the world of your county attorney here, and I
would suggest that he maybe do the same thing we did, which is ask
Burt Saunders or whoever to give 'era them all. Every ordinance in the
whole state must be filed with the Secretary of State's Office. Get
'em over there, get 'em delivered, you know, and have 'em go through
with them.
But the main thing is we need to cover these points and we need
to make it a crime. And that way we're going to ent -- we're going to
put in a very quick situation in terms of whether it's a problem or
not, and we're going to have a quick trial on it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Doug, let me just finish by saying
that what I hope we're going to do is give some general guidelines to
our county attorney about the elements that we'd like to see covered
in an ordinance.
And I would like to see both the business conflicts and the gift
issue covered. I would very much -- I am committed to seeing that it
is in fact a crime that would be prosecuted by the state attorney
because of the speedy trial rule, and frankly, because I wish so much
that I could have had a quick review and it would accomplish what I
know and greatly appreciate and respect Commissioner Constantine's
goal here of trying to move the process along more quickly. And I
have to admit that from my perspective it's that side of wishing we
could hurry up and get a resolution to the question.
I'll tell you, though, that on the question of whether or not we
need to look at the business conflicts and gifts, in my particular
case, the business conflicts complaint was dismissed at the earliest
-- you remember how they talked about there are several levels? That
was dismissed at the earliest level. So that was quickly dealt with
and gone. And so all that remains for me is the gift issue.
But I think that we need to deal with both of those, and if a
majority of the board agrees, then we can direct the county attorney.
What I hope he's going to be doing is looking at making it a crime,
being more specific about what gifts have to be disclosed. I
personally think that everybody's -- frankly, it's easy enough for me
to just fill out a form that says I got a Christmas wreath from this
guy, you know, from college. It's easier to me, and simpler, and
makes the comfort level of the public increased if they know that
we're just going to disclose everything we get. Like, for example,
what you did with your wedding gifts. You don't have to go and ask
somebody how much was it, but you don't have anything to hide because
you disclosed them all. And that gives a great deal of comfort.
Let's just disclose every gift. There may be some that are completely
appropriate.
And then the other point that's real important to me and that is
on the business conflicts issue, that we ask our county attorney to
draft an ordinance that avoids the corporate shell game. And what I
mean by that, I've tried to think of how to articulate that clearly.
And I guess the best way I can say it is if, for example, I
represented an affiliate of Naples Community Hospital. They're an
example in this community of a corporation that has a zillion
subsidiaries. But we think of the NCH system as a system. We know
that -- who they are.
I know that if I represented some little subset of NCH, I'm not
voting on any NCH issues. For me that is a conflict. If I did
anything else, I would be playing a corporate shell game with -- you
know, is it exactly this entity, are the shareholders exactly the
same, are 51 percent of the partners the same? I'm not playing that
game, and I wish that our ordinance would make that point clear as
well.
So just to wrap up, I wish that we would be clear that it's a
crime, that state attorney's going to prosecute it, that all gifts are
disclosed by elected officials maybe over $25. Maybe 10 -- I don't
care what it is. And --
MP,. RANKIN: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, Doug.
(Mr. Rankin leaves boardroom.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that we avoid the -- in the business
conflicts section we draft it so that you can't avoid a violation by
the excuse of the corporate shell game. Those are my points.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris, and then Commissioner
Hancock.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. Well, I want to -- too bad Doug
left. I was going to thank the executive committee for bringing this
forward.
A couple of comments. One of them, I think a lot of people are
focusing on speeding up the process by going to the state attorney. I
will remind everyone that maybe someone out there that doesn't know
that I've had a complaint filed against me with the State Ethics
Commission and the state attorney and neither one of them have been
resolved yet. So I don't know that you're gaining a lot by going to
the state attorney, maybe you will, under certain circumstances.
Especially if we ask them to go on a timely basis and they understand
the concern for going for a timely basis.
We do finally have an interview scheduled. So it looks like the
process is finally coming to --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Four months later.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- a resolution.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, a year later.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's not quite a year, but it's getting
close.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's frustrating, though.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, it is kind of frustrating that it
goes this long. But my point is that the State Attorney's Office
hasn't moved any faster than this Ethics Commission. Because we're
having a joint interview, by the way, so --
That said, the other thing is, you want to -- most of the things
that are in here are valid points and should be probably worked into a
local ethics ordinance, if that's the way we're going to head.
I think what I would caution is to watch out for unintended
consequences. As this is drafted here, I think it says, as I read it,
if you have any business transaction or professional activity --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- whose (sic) conflicts with the proper
discharge of your duties in the public interest, then that would be a
crime. But what you're really saying when you say that is, we don't
want anybody in elected office that has any ties to the community. I
mean, is that really what you want to do?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's too broad.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I mean, is that really what you want to do?
I don't think that's what you want to do. If you say that, then
you're saying we only want people who -- well, perhaps retired people
who have no connections to the community. Or what else, homeless
people? I don't know.
But, you know, the unintended consequences is what you have to
watch out for. And Commissioner Constantine very eloquently pointed
out the -- some of the unintended consequences having to do with the
employees and gifts and things like that. So sure, all of this is
fine in principle. We need to go forward with this. But you just
need to be cautious about what you do.
There's a couple of other points here, too. On the Republican
Executive Committee's proposal here it says this code applies to
County Commissioners and county employees. Well, is that -- I mean,
why are we picking on one group? I mean, aren't all elected officials
to be held to the same standard?
And that's a question I need to ask Mr. Weigel. If we pass a
county-wide ordinance, do then the respective city councils in Collier
County also fall under this ordinance?
MR. WEIGEL: There's the possibility that they would. And, of
course, we -- don't forget that under the statutory powers
municipalities, a municipality can effectuate an ordinance which would
preempt the county's authority over the municipality. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They could basically opt in or out and do
something more stringent if they chose.
MR. WEIGEL: They can opt out. They don't necessarily --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They can opt out by enacting their own, but
they -- and it has to be at least an stringent as ours?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
MR. WEIGEL: I beg your pardon?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It would have to be at least as stringent
as the one that we have?
MR. WEIGEL: No, that's not correct. It's --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: -- just the mere exercise of adopting one would
preempt the county over that area of jurisdiction, the municipality.
However, by mere non-action, nothing occurs and the county ostensibly
has the authority to bind municipalities.
And also, if a municipality were to attempt to pass a measure
that merely stated the non-application of the county measure to the
municipality, that would fail. They have to actually have put
something in place which preempts and substitutes for the county
measure.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. All right, that explains that.
Number six here says that no County Commissioner or county
employee may engage in outside employment or outside activity. Well,
there again, you know, is that really what we want to do is to exclude
people from having ties to the community?
I think there's already very clear ways to handle conflicts, and
it's not unusual to see a commissioner have to abstain because of some
business type conflict. That's not unusual at all. And if you want
to try to exclude people from having business relationships in the
community, I don't know if that's what you want to do.
6(B) says something about outside employment which tends to
impair his or her mental or physical capacity to perform the duties.
Well, what in the world does that mean?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No bartending on Monday nights?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a strange one.
And 6(C) says something about no activities which may bring
discredit upon the county. Well, who decides what discredit means?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Because I go out and parade up and down the
beach in a bikini, could that discredit the county?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that certainly --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It would certainly discredit me, I'll tell
you that, but, you know.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or you listen to the wrong kind of
music.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I -- yeah. I mean --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Who's going to be the arbiter of discredit
is the point. I mean, we may vote in something by a three to two or a
four to one or a unanimous vote and someone says well, that is the
most discreditable action I've ever seen. Well, then what, have we
all committed a crime? I mean, you know, you've got to think about
the unintended consequence --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- because this is serious business.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just since Doug's not here, I think what
he would say is what he said before he left and that is this is a
proposal on the table that they encourage us to, you know, rewrite,
send it to the county attorney, ask him to draft us something from
scratch, if we don't like that, but just --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You know what we're trying to do? We are
trying to legislate in a broad sense that says everybody will be good.
All right, now, what's good mean to Pam and to John and to Tim and to
the other Tim? What's good?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think it's hard --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's all up for interpretation. I'm sorry.
This goes back -- I'm not going to quote Bible up here, but I'll tell
you, you can go back in Biblical history, and you -- they tried to do
it in the Third to the Seventh Century. It doesn't work.
And here we are in 1998 thinking we are so smart, we're going to
solve the problems. You know, I just have a problem. And I was
warned. They said Barbara, you speak out against ethics, and you're
going to have the wrath. And I will. Tomorrow morning I'll read
about it in the newspaper. God knows '-
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a solution for you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- it will happen, as sure as I sit here.
But I have to tell you something '-
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Don't read the paper.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- you don't -- you don't legislate morals,
you can't legislate morals, and I'm not sure you can legislate ethics.
We can sit up here and we can write reams of paper. We can pass
one today, we can pass one tomorrow. Every week from now on until the
end of the year and on into eternity. And I'm going to tell you
something, if I'm hell bent to break it, I'm going to find a way. If
that's my nature to get around it, I'm going to do it, folks.
You know, look at the individuals involved. I just -- this is so
frustrating to me. And I'll tell you what it's going to cause public
officials to do, and it's going to cause this public official to do, I
will draw right square back into a shell. You won't see me but at
commission meetings on Tuesday morning. And don't expect me to be out
anywhere doing anything or -- because I'm going to tell you, if you go
to something where you're going to have local somebody looking,
there's going to be complaint filed after complaint. You know what,
we saw Barbara Berry out having a drink with somebody. Well, who
paid?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's why if we disclosed everything --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Who paid? Okay, I go out and have a drink
with somebody, I paid five dollars -- well, I may have more than one
-- and maybe after this today, it may be a lot. But I'm going to tell
you something --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm glad to hear that, Barb.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- this -- it's just gotten ridiculous. And
then -- but the penalty for all this, folks -- this is ludicrous --
$500. If I'm going to stand to make millions, do you think a five
hundred dollar penalty is going to be a deterrent to me? I'll tell
you what I'll do, I'll pay the five hundred dollar penalty, I'll walk
away with several million dollars, at the same time, I write my letter
of resignation with my Mont Blanc pen.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Give it to 'era, Barb.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay? I mean, this is utterly ridiculous.
If you're going to penalize somebody, let's make it worthwhile, folks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's talk about that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's talk about it. Let's make it big
bucks. Hey, we're in Collier County, we've got big bucks down here.
Let's make it ten grand.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's make it jail.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, yeah? Well, I don't know anybody that's
ever served jail time, Pam, on something like this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me either, but we can raise the bar.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, hey, I think we ought to do it. And then
we'll have to build a bigger prison. We'll have to build a bigger
jail because we're going to have all these elected officials in jail.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, we're not, because we're not going to
violate the rules.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Of course -- well, wait a minute. We're going
to have allegations after allegations. I saw Pare Mac'Kie out, you
know. Yeah, I don't know what she was doing, but it doesn't look good
to me. Uh-huh, I can see it now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's why '-
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I talked about
the absurdity of going too far with this and I used the example of the
kids. You then when you said well, we'll just report every gift, and
-- stop and think about the last week of your life.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When you said that, I started
thinking, a friend of my dad's, 76 years old, retired, gave me some
novelty tees from a famous golf course, probably valued at 89 cents.
But under your scenario, I would have to report those. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I said $20.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, you didn't, you said every gift.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Every gift.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Somebody says, "Hey, Tim, you want a
soda," when they're at the soda machine. Wait, I've got to carry a
pad of paper with me and write it down?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I followed that up with 20, $25.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The level of trying to live --like
how many -- you have a fiance now, you've been steady for a year or
more. But prior to that, you were single for a number of years. How
many dates did you have that perhaps spent more than $20? If you buy
popcorn at the movies --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A lot of them, thank God.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- you're spending more than 20 bucks.
Are we going to chronicle a single commissioner's personal life?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand the intent is very good
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but I think you are raising to the
level of absurdity. You're making -- we complain and the newspaper
complains that gee, we just can't get quality people to run for
office. Well, we need to make sure we have a high moral and ethical
bar, but you don't want to put it to such an absurd level that nobody
wants to run for office.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You make a good point. And maybe -- I'll
tell you what I've been trying to avoid and that is the distinction --
well, I might as well just go ahead and say it. What's missing in this
county is a clear definition of what's a lobbyist. Because the rules
are good enough, if we know who a lobbyist is. A lobbyist by state
law is anybody who appears for pay before the County Commission in the
previous 12 months or can reasonably be expected to appear for pay
before the County Commission or seek to influence the County
Commission on an issue in the next 12 months.
In my mind, that definition therefore includes a real estate
broker who might earn a commission on a deal that comes on a real
estate transaction that involves a rezone.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not if they haven't appeared before the
board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But see, I think that does -- it doesn't
say appear before the board, it says -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You did.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- seeks to -- I'm sorry, I clarified that
also that it says appear before the board, and the state law also says
or seeks to influence a decision by the board.
And in this county -- here's the point, guys. If what we had to
do was disclose gifts that are received from people who seek to
influence the County Commission for personal gain -- not for somebody
whose property taxes they hope don't go up; I'm not suggesting
something that absurd -- but if we could define more clearly --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can't come to your Christmas party
anymore, Ty.
MR. AGOSTON: That's terrible.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, you can, if you disclose it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, please.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But you --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Why do it? If you think --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So I have to keep a diary --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- I'm going to tell everybody in the world
when I go to the bathroom? I mean, it's getting to that point. This
is ridiculous.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But here's what I'm saying. Let me just
say it and then I'm going to stop, because obviously I can count. But
here's what I'm saying, just so you can be clear what I'm saying
before you tell me how stupid it is.
I am not suggesting that you can't -- that you would have to
disclose going to Ty Agoston's Christmas party.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You just did --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me just finish.
I'm not suggesting that you would have to disclose your
attendance at Ty Agoston's Christmas party, because Ty does not appear
before the Commission or seek to influence decisions of the board for
pay. Ty doesn't make money as a result of his seeking to influence
our decisions. If he did, what would be wrong with letting the
community know that you drank 50 bucks worth of beer at his party?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me just say something --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, but you got me confused with the
other Commissioner Tim.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a lot of beer. Sorry.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock had asked --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just because you can't hold your beer,
Mister.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it's those who seek to influence
decisions of the board that, I'll be honest with you, what I think is,
that if you get a free game of golf with a real estate developer, the
public ought to know.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's fine, and everybody knows
those rules and we all abide by them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know if we do. I don't know if--
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Don't speak for me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, here --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't know if we're abiding by the
rules --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, no, no, no. He said everybody
knows those rules. My point is, I'm not sure that it's clear in this
county -- I think that some -- we might disagree who meets the
definition of a lobbyist, because anybody who seeks for pay to
influence a decision of the County Commission -- that includes every
land use lawyer, every land planner, every engineer, every -- all
those people. And I don't know if everybody has disclosed every
twenty-five dollar lunch that they had with every land planner.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're eating better lunches than I
am.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They're eating better lunches than I did.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I never had a twenty-five dollar lunch.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, dinner.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the point is the current law
requires exactly that. You do have to -- if it's worth more than 25
bucks and somebody does business with the county, it's going to get
reported. And if you don't report it, you're breaking the law. And
so either the commissioners are going to follow the law or they're
not.
Now, you can make that $20 or $15 or $12, but still, they're
either -- they're gonna follow the law or they're not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, but I have to say this, what
does a round of golf cost in Collier County? More that $25?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It depends on where you play, it depends
on what time of the year, and it depends on whether you pay for that
round yourself.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now, what I hear here -- and Pam, and I've
read it in the paper twice now -- is aspersions being cast that there
are commissioners that are not reporting gifts. And I've heard it
cast from you. And not only do I resent it, but you're wrong, period.
You don't know what occurs between me and another person over lunch.
You don't know what occurs between me and someone on the golf course
when I pay the guest fees to play a round. You don't know that. And
for you to sit here and say that we need to raise that bar because
your colleagues are not reporting things sends a message that is both
incorrect and unfair and makes assumptions that are not yours to make.
Now, I'd like to get back to what we have before us today, which
is consideration of an ordinance.
What you have proposed, Pam, is less clear, more clouded and more
open for complete monkeying by political wanna-be's. It's ridiculous.
I do not have to, nor should I be expected to, define friendship in
order to receive a birthday present. That a person -- this has us
proving who and who is not a personal relationship versus who is and
is not trying to influence the board.
I have adopted personally a standard that is stricter than the
state law that I go by. It keeps me out of trouble. If you don't
accept anything over 100 bucks, you don't have to report anything over
100 bucks. If-- I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Never mind. I didn't want to interrupt
you. Since I have, it's 25.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a lobbyist.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: From a lobbyist.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Define a lobbyist. That's the point.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Someone who appears before this board --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Seeks to influence.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- for pay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Seeks to influence a decision.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Look, you have your definition,
okay? We have heard from the county attorney. And I'm going to use
his definition --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I borrow your book?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- since he seems to be our legal counsel,
not you.
And under his definition, I comply with the law, period. If you
want to cast aspersions, then you need to go sit with the editorial
board and continue to do that, but don't do it here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tim, you say what you want to say, I'll
say what I want to say.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, mine's factual and we'll leave it at
that.
In looking at an ethics ordinance, you're not going to, by
putting it on paper, either make someone ethical or not. What you are
going to do hopefully is adopt a very clear and concise set of
regulations that the public understands and that this board
understands.
I understand the state law, and I follow the state law, period.
If we adopt a local ordinance, I want it to be in such a way that it's
easier for the public to understand the laws that we are governed by.
And when you start talking about -- you know, I've heard, you know,
jail time.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's in there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's in the proposal.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, at $26 --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ty, don't even send me an invitation
this year. I'm not going to jail.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's a heck of a party, but I'm not
going to jail for it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I really think that's the message. I'm
sorry, I really think that's the message. And many people in the
public, when I have talked to them about this very thing -- excuse me,
Commissioner, for interrupting you -- they think this whole thing --
many of them think that this whole thing is ludicrous on what we're
trying to do. And many of them don't -- they look at this and say,
you know, what is the problem? What is it that you have done in
county government to warrant this kind of activity? In other words,
what decisions have the five of us sat up here and made that we have
been influenced by this that this has made a difference?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If l could finish --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm hearing from a different --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know what, Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- group of people. Because what I'm
hearing -- I don't think that there is a big crisis that we have to
quickly adopt an ordinance to stop some action that's about to be
taken. What I think is that the public confidence in the ethics of
our board has eroded. And that in order to --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, produce facts. I want them to come to
me. I don't want innuendo. I want them to come to me and say the
action that you took on this date was obviously influenced by ethical
behavior.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which quite --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Produce it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- frankly, that innuendo has been
spread by one commissioner on this board, as much as by the public,
and like Commissioner Hancock, I don't appreciate that either.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I could -- if I could at least finish
to a point.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sorry, yes, go ahead. I did interrupt
you, and lapologize.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My intent, as I reviewed this ordinance
and reviewed what Commissioner Constantine had prepared today, was
that first of all, if we are going to move in the direction of an
ordinance, I think the five of us giving the county attorney direction
to start from scratch is simply going to be perceived by the public as
the fox guarding the hen house. Why don't we then all just march
downstairs, if we're as unethical as some people would say -- why
don't we march downstairs individually and tell him what we want in
the ordinance to protect our own little piece of whatever it is that
we're trying to protect. That would be the accusation. I mean, heck,
why don't I go ahead and write the editorial now and I'll just send it
over to the paper? Because that's what we'll be accused of.
This is an issue that was created, in all honesty, through
campaign rhetoric in the City of Naples' election. There was -- there
were charges filed -- or complaints filed against two commissioners.
Those were being dealt with in an extremely slow manner, not
effectively, and allowed to fester out there. Allowed people to read
what was in the paper and that be their only source of information on
these events. So the paper had control of the quote, unquote ethics
issue. And they chose to deal with it in a certain manner that I
disagree with.
Then as an election occurred in February within the city, I don't
remember ethical violations in the city. I don't remember the city
being embroiled in ethical conflict time after time after time. Yet
all we heard at the election in the city was ethics. And it created
the perception that there's an absence of ethical behavior in Collier
County.
And, you know, if I were a City Council person, you know, that --
that would offend me. And I think it did. And I think it harmed some
people that were in my opinion innocent. But the perception was out
there. And it was further -- it was acted on, it was used as a
campaign schtick.
And now here we sit with another election coming up for two
people on this board, and I am trying as hard as I can to take that
and set it aside and try and deal with the real issues that face us in
the official performance of our duties so that we can perform them not
only with confidence in ourselves, but so that the public can measure
their confidence in us.
And I think the wrong way to do that is to make a convoluted,
clouded -- try to make an all-encompassing ordinance that says no
matter what you get, the public has a right to know what it is; that
when I get a Christmas present from my mother-in-law, that I have to
report it. And I get 'em occasionally, though not every year, but --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Another misguided soul.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, I think you can swing the pendulum
so far that what you're going to do is ultimately discourage people
from ever going into public service. You know, I think it's a rude
awakening when you first do it anyway. You know, you don't understand
fully the criticism you're going to receive for trying to do what you
think is the right thing. But that's part of the job. I can live
with that. But I'm not going to invite every resident of Collier
County into the part of my life that quite frankly is none of their
business.
So I am concerned, as we look at this today, that we do two
things: One is that if we move forward with anything, that the three
key words are clear, concise and enforceable. Anything we do has to
be those three things or we're spinning our wheels. The less clear we
make something or the more ambiguous we make something, the less
enforceable it is. So we've got to start off defining what the issues
are and what needs to be said and done to address them.
The second thing is that I don't think the five of us sitting up
here are really the ones that should do that. I think it should come
from the community. If our concern is public confidence in our
actions and our performance as commissioners, then it's the public
that should help form and shape an ordinance that governs our actions,
not us.
So it would be my hope that rather than directing the county
attorney to go draft an ordinance that we're going to review and we're
going to adopt after a few people get to speak on it, I think we
should send it out to a committee of individuals that measure a non --
or represent a nonpartisan group, and let's not make this a Republican
effort or a Democrat effort or a commission effort, let's make it a
citizen effort, that they can tell us where they think the
shortcomings are and what parts of the ordinance would address those
shortcomings. And then it's up to the county attorney to wordsmith
that in such a way that it is clear, concise and enforceable.
But that middle step, some will say it's been done by the
Republican party. I think parts of it have. But as I talk to people
who are familiar with this ordinance that were not part of drafting
it, as much as you have heard the reaction, that, you know, they're
not sure that this really does anything, because it sounds like -- you
know, I mean, how do you define an other personal relationship? You
know? I mean, find the definition of that in the Florida Statutes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You check into solitary confinement
except Tuesday morning. You come here --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, we get out on Tuesday morning.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So whatever direction we take, if we're so
concerned about the community's perception of what we're doing, then
let's ask the community's help in forming the necessary elements of
the ordinance. And with that, we can be assured that we're addressing
the real issue here. Because I don't think the issue is any one of us
or members of the City Council being on the take. And anyone who
wants to further that perception is doing so strictly for political
purposes and does not have the interest of this community at heart.
And I'm not going to play a part of that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it's tremendous, although belated,
that we are now at the point that I begged you to be at a year ago.
Let's form a committee --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: A year?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Six months ago. When did we -- when did
the -- when did we have this discussion last and that was voted down?
But that's -- never mind.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, again, your
recollection is incorrect. You were supporting an ethics committee at
that time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't that what you just proposed?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What did you propose?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I proposed, and I'll say it again, is
that we form a committee of five individuals that will be responsible
for choosing the elements of an ordinance that will be drafted by the
county attorney.
The ethics committee proposal a year ago was to have a committee
of individuals that would review actions by elected officials --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and pass judgments.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It certainly was not.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was the proposal before us from the
Republican --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It wasn't my proposal.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Executive Committee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was not my proposal. My proposal is
what you just proposed. But never mind. That's fine, as long as we
do it, that's what counts.
I want to read one thing --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: After you --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- Florida Statute 112.3148(B)(1 ).
Lobbyist means any natural person who for compensation seeks or sought
during the preceding 12 months to influence the governmental
decision-making of a reporting individual. That was--
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ever since third grade I've been able to
read.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Those are the people from whom I would
like for us to disclose gifts.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I don't think we have a clear
agreement in this county on who that includes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why are -- maybe you're unclear on it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's clearto me.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm very clear on it. I have discussed
with the county attorney this issue several times.
I'll give you a perfect example. A friend of mine who falls into
that category and our wives are very good friends. When we go out to
dinner, I have to keep tabs on if they invite us and they pay for
dinner; I have to make sure we go out to the same cost of dinner the
next time and we pick up the tab, or else I've received a gift, you
know, or I've got to try and force splitting the bill and all this
kind of stuff. And, you know, it's a pain, but it's something I have
to do because of the state law, and I'm willing to do that. So I
don't think I have a problem understanding that law or applying it.
MS. MATTHEWS: Madam Chairman, could I interject something? I'm
Betty Matthews and I served on the campaign --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, do we have public speakers?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Wait a minute. Are you speaking as a public
speaker, or--
MS. MATTHEWS: No, I'm not. I'm following Doug Rankin, who had
to leave to take care of his law business. And I served on the
campaign and affairs committee for the party that brought this
ordinance for you.
There are some small issues really that I think I need to make
clear for you. First, we have sent a copy of this also to the City of
Everglades, the City of Marco Island, the City of Naples, and we have
sent a similar rule to the school board for them to also address. So
we are asking all five of the jurisdictions within the county to
address this.
The other issue that I would like to --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews, can I ask you
what kind of a response you've got from each of them? Have they
slated it for public hearings, or --
MS. MATTHEWS: As far as I know, Commissioner Constantine, those
notices went out less than a couple of weeks ago, so I really don't
know '-
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
MS. MATTHEWS: --what the response is.
Now, this -- this ordinance that we have asked you to address, we
have not asked you to specifically pass and endorse this ordinance,
we've asked you to take a look at it and change it in whatever way
suits you.
Now, the other point that I'd like to make is that this ordinance
almost mirrors the state law as it existed I believe in the early
Eighties. The state law was quite firm, ethical -- unethical actions
were a misdemeanor punishable by fines and jail time. And there were
some members of the legislature from another party who had gotten
caught up in some of these problems, and subsequent to their
difficulties, the law was changed.
So pretty much this takes us back to where we were before that.
And it is truly only a local law for only Collier County at this
point. But I do want to say that several other counties and several
other cities have also embraced similar laws.
Now, I invite you to make any changes to this that you would
choose to. Our purpose was to open the discussion. And it certainly
appears that we've done that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Ms. Matthews.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have any other speakers from the
public?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have other speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: You have one other registered speaker, Madam
Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Kathleen Slebodnik.
MS. SLEBODNIK: I'm Kathleen Slebodnik from the League of Women
Voters, and I currently chair our government committee.
Since this discussion opened, the League has taken a look at the
various codes of ethics, and we have met with government officials to
discuss them.
But before I -- well, just to say that the League supports a
local ordinance of some type. This is -- the type, the actual type,
we haven't made our decision on.
Sitting back there and listening, I would like to comment that
anyone who doesn't think the Florida sunshine laws are effective have
missed today's Board of County Commission meeting. The people here in
the room or the people who are listening at home have had a wonderful
example of what the Florida sunshine laws are supposed to do, which is
to encourage discussion among public officials. Thank you for this
example.
Writing a code of ethics is not easy. You do not want to make it
so restrictive that people will not want to work for government or
seek public office. On the other hand, you don't want it so loose
that nobody pays attention to it and it is ineffective. It's going to
take indeed a very wise person to come up with something that is as --
that we can all buy into. I don't know -- exactly know what that
final form is going to take yet.
The League stands in favor of it, and as I listened in the back
today, it just came to me, that we are all -- or I should say public
officials are bound by the state code of ethics. That doesn't seem to
be the problem, as I listen today. The problem seems to be the time
element --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely.
MS. SLEBODNIK: -- and enforcement element.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
MS. SLEBODNIK: And if that is the problem, the standards are
there already, and the ordinances are already there. Let's -- maybe
we should just take a look at addressing the enforcement and the time
element rather than trying to write a whole new code of ethics for
Collier County.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ms. Slebodnik, you raised a very interesting
point and the crux, in my opinion, of this entire problem.
The question rises -- and I don't know how the rest of the
commissioners feel, but I find this very ironic that our state
legislators didn't address this issue with the legislature this
session. They knew the current problem. They knew what was going on
locally. Why was it not addressed? And why did not the public in
Collier County come out to our legislative group and make it a point
and request them to fix the problem? Okay?
We're going to get accused of being -- of the fox guarding the
hen house, okay? This is what's going to happen. No matter what we
do here, we're going to have that accusation made against us. But you
had an opportunity, not only -- I say you collectively as a community.
We had an opportunity to have this fixed in Tallahassee. Did anybody
attempt to do it? I didn't hear anything.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess that's the irony is our state
representative wants --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to participate locally, but he
didn't bring the topic up up there.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I can go back, and anyone who's been a
long-time resident of Collier County can go back, and you want to look
at conflicts of interest? And all of a sudden this issue is over two
people in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And there may or may not even be an issue.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. But why in the world was this
not an issue a few years back?
MS. SLEBODNIK: I can't answer that. But I'm sure there was an
issue in other cities and other counties or they wouldn't have other
cities and other counties which had their local --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But why aren't they addressing it at the
state level? And even the League of Women Voters, which is
represented on -- a state-wide organization, have they addressed this
state-wide? Have they taken a position that says Tallahassee, fix it? MS. SLEBODNIK: Not to my knowledge.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll tell you, Tallahassee was handing out
dollars up there this year, you know, very prolifically. I mean,
thank goodness we've had -- things are great, everybody's pocketbook's
in pretty good shape, and they can't fix this?
MS. SLEBODNIK: I think part of the problem is that the -- I
don't know how much the public is aware of it, but the state code of
ethics board are appointed and they serve without pay. So they are --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Since when did that make any difference?
MS. SLEBODNIK: Well, when you're on a volunteer basis, time is
not exactly a major concern.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But they could fix that, too.
MS. SLEBODNIK: They could. They--
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: They could change that.
MS. SLEBODNIK: -- could and they have not, that's true.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I think Ms. Slebodnik's
point is probably the most rational one --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- of all, is that really, if you look at
the state statutes, the basis that -- the skeleton of it, the -- all
the elements really are in the state law. It's the time that's
causing us problems here locally.
If we end up with something different, it will probably be best
serving the public to have embodiment of the state statutes generally,
with perhaps some embellishments to that, but to have a process that
can be done in a reasonable time period. That's the problem. Because
all of this has gone now for nine months, or whatever it's been, with
no resolution. That's what's causing the problem.
So I think perhaps Commissioner Hancock's suggestion of some
further study of this with an unbiased panel will probably lead us in
the direction we need to go. So I'll make a motion --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let me say one more, too --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You don't want me to make a motion yet?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- Commissioner Norris. No, but -- I don't
care whether you make a motion or not, but --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Make your stinking motion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Or a commotion? Make a commotion?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We don't want no stinking motions.
I'm only kidding.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a joke, it's a joke.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A sense of humor is a terrible thing in
this job, Barb.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a required --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not allowed, it's prohibited.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If you had a sense of humor, you'd be out --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm ready to make a motion on this
commotion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, right. Now I've lost my train of
thought. That's what comes with age, I --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioners --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- before making a motion, what Ms.
Slebodnik has said, and I look at the League of Women Voters as a very
representative group. And I had the pleasure of meeting with them on
Friday and we had a very what could have been an easily three-hour
discussion that day. And it was so unbelievable that here are people
that in my opinion are some of the best informed people in the
community, that watch what's going on with a very keen eye, and yet
things that I know to be true and facts of what has occurred on this
board -- because the predominant conduit for that information is the
media and by the time it gets filtered once or twice, whether it be
through television or print or whatnot -- what I was hearing from
these well-informed individuals I have a tremendous amount of respect
for wasn't reflective of the situation, as I understood it. And so
that's where the clarity to me comes in. And that's why what Ms.
Slebodnik has said today is so important to me, and that is that
maybe, you know, we can go to a committee -- and I don't think there's
any harm, and I brought it up because I think it's a good idea --
because we now have something to start with. We now have a framework
within which a committee can look at and say good, bad, yes, no. But
maybe it's even simpler than that. Maybe it's taking the state
guidelines and adopting them as a local ordinance with the state
attorney recourse as the provision for enforcement.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, but once again, your point that if we
do that --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- it doesn't look good. I would prefer to
have a panel of citizens make a determination. If that's what they
think, I think that's probably the way we should go.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My concern being I don't agree that
this is the appropriate framework to start from for all the reasons
we've gone through. I don't need to revisit them. But it's well
intended, and I think their intentions are the same as what we're
talking about, but it gets to that point where it's absurd. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a healthy start.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quite simply, our social transactions,
unrelated to county business, do not need to be documented. If my
wife and I are in Maine and I see a high school friend to do
something, and it doesn't have anything to do with this -- but under
what I hear Commissioner Mac'Kie saying, that would have to be
documented. And I just -- I don't think that's necessary.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's not what I said.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not what you last said.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- I mean, plain and simple,
either someone's honest or they're not. Either someone's going to be
honorable or they're not. Either they're going to follow the law or
they're not. And you can make that law a little tighter, but if they
weren't following it to start with, what makes you think they're going
to follow a tighter law?
So I think -- I mean, you can make your decision on how you
interpret that. I think it's pretty crystal clear how that is. If
someone is doing business with the county, then anything over $25 is
under consideration. And you have to be aware of that and make sure
you respond accordingly.
So I think Ms. Slebodnik's point is well taken, that the problem
isn't the law, the way the state law is written, the problem is how
it's enforced or the process you go through to do that. And what I
would ask is I think it's a good idea if we take five unbiased people
and give them this assignment. But I would like the framework of
their assignment be looking at our options on how they can improve
that time line. If we have a process that in and of itself isn't
necessarily bad, but I know the newspaper has said the ethics
committee isn't always as aggressive as they could be or doesn't have
the teeth that they could, or -- and also has complained, we've all
complained, about the time line. And if those really are the two
areas of concern, let's make that the framework. How do we fix that?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's the focus of the committee, yes, of
course.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we ask -- and I'll say this that will
get in the form of a -- as an element of a motion -- is that I think
the starting point should be existing state law adopted as a local
ordinance. I think if we're going to say -- there's a point we should
start. I don't want to throw away everything the Republican Executive
Committee did. I think we should include this as a review document.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, there's some good things in here.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I think the starting point is the
existing state law adopted by local ordinance, because that then
provides a more -- I guess a shorter time line vehicle to resolve any
potential complaints, and it also requires a higher burden of proof on
the complainant. And if we're going to make this thing such that it
cannot be a political football for people '-
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Very good point.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- then I think that's key. Because we've
seen what happens when a complaint is just filed. And you guys know
better than anybody what it does. I mean, all of a sudden every --
everywhere you go you're getting peppered with questions about pieces
of information that have been out there. And it's not fair that that
process drags on.
So if we could kind of have that as an overview, as a starting
point with this as a review document associated with it, I'd like to
see -- as I hear it -- I guess I'm coming back that I feel it is the
best way to go.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said a five-member board. I
assume then somebody from each district or --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or an appointment from each member of this
commission. And whether it's a district appointment or not I don't
think is as important as that it's someone who brings something to the
table. I assume that being district appointments, but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- you might be surprised to hearthat I
think that's a wonderful idea, because what it would do -- I'm not
sure that I agree that we need to talk about it. I think that we
could give our county attorney the instruction to convert -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Could.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to take the state rules and make them
enforceable by the state attorney and, therefore, they're a crime,
and, therefore, we have addressed both the gift and the business
conflict issues.
If -- and I see your point, that there might be more confidence
in the decision by having that study by a committee before it comes up
for a vote. So I would support that. It does exactly what we need to
do and that is enforce the rules as they exist, but with a more local
and more --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Timely.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- timely -- thank you -- enforcement
mechanism. I hope that as we -- well, I'll stop there, because
there'll be more opportunity.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Hancock just raised a very good point
though, too, as to what standard are we going to hold the complainant.
Because you may not know, but the complaint that was filed against me
was by a citizen of another county who only read what he read in the
newspaper and had no firsthand knowledge whatsoever of what he was
complaining about.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And stated publicly --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And didn't -- and stated publicly --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- when you see an opportunity to get rid
of someone you don't agree with, you should take it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like mine, though, she was going to hold
herself out as the queen of ethics where we're going to have to hold
her to it. That was the quote of my complainant.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But in any case, there should be some
standard to file a complaint, too. There should be some -- at least
some legal basis for that.
So I'm going to make a motion that we direct our Ms. Filson to
advertise for members of an ethics ordinance review committee; that
that committee be charged with -- starting with the state statutes
concerning ethics as a basis; determining if the bar could and should
be raised in a local ordinance; that especially focusing on some
process that would speed up the time within which a complaint could be
handled; providing some penalties on a local basis that may be in
addition to state statutes existing; and to put some at least minimal
burden of proof -- or I'm not sure how to phrase that, not being a
legal --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Credibility.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- some burden of proof on the complainant,
that there must be at least some basis to file a complaint, so that we
avoid what Commissioner Berry and some of the other commissioners have
voiced, the ability to create monstrous frivolous political mischief
with this, which has been a concern all along. And I believe that
gets us where we're trying to go.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it will, and I'll second the
motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second.
One thing I would like to add. The question's come up on --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, excuse me.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I left out of the motion and I'd like to
add it, is that we -- this committee would consist of five members
which would be one from each commission district, and the people have
to send in their resumes like any other commission.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we should advertise to make sure one
has the opportunity --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, he started with direct Ms. Filson to
advertise.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The second amends to include --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So each commissioner will get to appoint
one from their district from those people who write in and apply.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I would like to add one thing, not to
your motion, but just as a general statement.
I know, Pare, you made the comment about why didn't we do this
sooner. And as speaking only for myself -- I wouldn't begin to speak
for the other four of you, that's not what I'm up here for, but from
my standpoint -- the reason I didn't feel it was necessary is because
we had a process in place, okay? We can all sit back and say now it
didn't work, or it doesn't work, okay? I hadn't had any experience
with it, okay?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: None of us had.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right? So to sit back and to prejudge
and say we should have done this and that and the other thing, because
the process didn't work, we didn't know at that time whether it worked
or didn't work.
And there was a process in place and a way to deal with the
concerns that we've had before us, and that was -- that were made. And
for anybody to stay and -- stand up here and say that the
commissioners should have jumped out -- and what they really wanted us
to do and what we were tried -- and all of us were tried to be goaded
by the newspaper into doing was to stand up here and to chastise both
of you publicly. That's what the attempt was. And I'll tell you why.
Because it--
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, I think they just wanted to us
chastise John.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- would have created a story from now until
the end of time about how the Collier County Commission is fighting
with two commissioners on there because they're not doing what they're
supposed to be doing.
We didn't do that, and you've still provided a lot of
entertainment for the readers in Collier County. I thank you all very
much for that --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- because while they're talking about you,
they're not talking about me.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They will tomorrow. They'll get you
tomorrow.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But they'll get me tomorrow. So I know that
I'll be headlines tomorrow. I'm going to be disappointed if I'm not
headlines tomorrow, because I'm really looking forward to it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm glad you brought that up, because I
had the very -- I had a direct question from someone with the League
on Friday that says on Tuesday, they told me, you need to come out and
say what you do agree with and don't agree with and take a position.
And what I told them, and I'll say again here, is what anyone on
this commission does in their individual or private business life is
between them and the people that elected them and the laws of this
state. For me to stand up here and condemn Pam because a complaint
was filed against her -- and whether I agree or disagree with what she
did or didn't do, or for me to take a stand publicly against John
because a complaint was filed against him, whether I agree or disagree
with what he has done is nothing more than piling on before the facts
are made evident. And I refuse to do it. I won't pander to the
paper's desire for me to do it, and I will not sacrifice the character
of anyone on this board until I've had an opportunity to see every
piece of information that comes in. And until that time, I have no
opinion.
And it's not my job as an elected representative of district two
to condemn or praise you for what you do outside of your job as county
commissioner.
As far as I'm concerned, to the credit of particularly the two of
you, during all of this, for the vast majority of what is going on
with those complaints, it has not sacrificed your ability to do the
job. So more than anything, I ought to be commending you for that.
And when all the facts are in, the information's in, I will finally
form an opinion for myself, and I still may then not wish to even make
it public. Because it has no bearing on you doing your job and
shouldn't. So I won't do it and I'd appreciate the same consideration
should the shoe be on the other foot. I think that's how we all
should conduct ourselves.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I have every confidence between the
State Ethics Commission and the State Attorney's Office that the
process will serve itself well and end up with the facts on the table. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's just the time element that's really
the problem here in this case.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, it's been an unfortunate period of time
I think for everybody, both all of us and certainly for the two of you
that have had these things, the allegations made.
And, you know, I've tried to look back, I've tried to look at
things that -- you know, issues that we have dealt with on this
commission, and I think in spite of all of -- everything that we've
done, government has continued to function in Collier County, and I
think it's functioned at a rather high level, in spite --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, since Bob hasn't --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- in spite of all of these different things
that have been before us.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We haven't made Bob still have a meeting
yet either, so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. Anyway, I will call forthe question.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
At this time we're going to take a break for about 10 minutes.
(Brief recess.)
Item #8A1
REPORT TO THE BCC REGARDING CURRENT AND PROPOSED PROCEDURES APPLICABLE
TO REQUESTS FOR WAIVER OF ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND BUILDING
PERMIT FEES - STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Mulhere, we're going to get back to
you now. We will get back to conducting county government.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere, planning
services director.
This item is a report that the board requested several weeks ago
regarding requests for fee waivers.
At the outset I just want to note that the report deals with fee
waiver requests for development review and permitting fees. It
doesn't deal with impact fee waivers or other fee waiver requests that
might come from other divisions or departments of the county.
The report outlines the history of the last few years in terms of
fiscal impact of fee waivers, which I think is not very significant.
It's about $2,200 a year total, although we have had sort of an influx
recently in the last few weeks of fee waiver requests. As a matter of
fact, there are two on the agenda following this item.
We did identify that there were some procedures occurring that at
least in my opinion are not authorized. It's the opinion of staff
that the board is the only entity, at least with respect to building
review and development review fees, authorized to waive those fees.
And in fact, the term waiver's a little bit of a misnomer because the
fees are actually paid. There is a fund transfer that occurs from the
general reserves fund.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Mulhere, I'm terribly sorry to
interrupt you. You've put together a great executive summary that
goes into great detail.
I'm going to make a motion we approve staff--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- recommendation.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Do we
have any public speakers on this issue? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have none.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any comments or questions from the other
commissioners? We have none. I'll call for the question. All in
favO r?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Thank you, Mr. Mulhere.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. My pleasure.
Item #8A2
JERRY F. KIMBRELL, REPRESENTING THE IMMOKALEE MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION,
REQUESTING A WAIVER OF THE FEE FOR A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT FOR AN EVENT
IN IMMOKALEE - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The next item on your agenda '-
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve the
right-of-way permit for an event in Immokalee. Any speakers on this item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, Steve DeLisle. One speaker.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you want to talk us out of this, Mr.
DeLisle?
MR. DeLISLE: No, I was going to try to talk you into it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Since it's moving rather quickly, I don't
think this appears to be a problem. I'll call for the question. All
in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Carried unanimously, five-zero.
We have kind of a little thing up here, we don't say no to God.
Item #8A4
VICTOR A. VALDES, REPRESENTING BENITA GARIBAY, REQUESTING A WAIVER OF
THE FEE FOR A REZONE PElTION FOR PROPERTY IN IMMOKALEE - DENIED
Okay, moving on then to item 8(4), Victor Valdes representing
Benita Garibay, requesting a waiver of the fezone petition for
property in Immokalee, Florida. Mr. Mulhere.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, ma'am. This is a result of several -- several
-- actually, there was a code enforcement case on this property.
There's an unpermitted nonconforming structure located on the
property.
We've met with -- the county attorney's office and planning
department and code enforcement department over time have met with Mr.
Valdes, who's representing the property owner, and we -- in analyzing
the situation, we came to the conclusion that probably the only
resolution to the problem there would be for the property to be
rezoned to a district that would allow a mobile home -- apparently the
property owner's son lives -- or wishes to live on the property in a
mobile home.
And the fezone technically is feasible because they're a VR,
village residential, zoning which allows mobile homes located
immediately adjacent to the subject property. However, again, staff
is not authorized to waive the fees for such a fezone.
I do want to emphasize that the board, in waiving fees in the
past has been -- there have been very few fee waivers for items such
as fezones or variance petitions, land development petitions. Now,
certainly for special events, the board has -- for nonprofit
organizations. I just want to bring that up.
Of course, the staff, not having any criteria to evaluate such a
fee waiver, it's our position that we would recommend denial in any
case.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A question.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine, and then --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question for--
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Mr. Mulhere, or perhaps Mr. Weigel.
And you've partially answered that. Is there a hurdle that must be
met here? Is there some standard? With some of our other waivers or
alterations, we have to have some sort of hardship other than
financial, but some sort of hardship. Or is there a hurdle that must
be met in order to approve this? What's the case for the person
filing?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, I think it's -- looking at this on an
individual basis, I think it's important for the board to accept some
facts or make a finding of hardship, and it's in the public interest
to go forward with this kind of waiver.
We've -- staff and the board have wrestled with the question of
coming up with and implementing a policy that put in a standard so we
didn't have to get into the intricacies of individual requests like
this. If there is a standard in place, staff I'm sure would make its
best estimate and perhaps look historically to tell you what kind of
number of these kinds of requests you may get. But if you were to
adopt a formal policy, you may suddenly get a lot more requests than
you ever had in the past. So it may behoove you to look at these
things on an individual basis. But in any event --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: By hardship, you don't mean financial
hardship. You mean is there some unusual use of the land hardship; is
that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: Clearly I mean that hardship. If you have -- if you
were to entertain the other kind of hardship, a fiscal hardship, that
makes it I think more problematical.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Let's hear from --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What are the criteria for -- and would the
payment of this fee be eligible for payment under the same fees that
we pay, impact fee waivers, for example, for Habitat houses and those
kinds of things? What is the criteria question there? Maybe a Greg
Mihalic question as opposed to you. I don't know if Greg -- he did?
Seems to me that -- and you don't have to answer right now. It
just seems to me that that is something we ought to be evaluating. It
might be something similar to if you qualify for a waiver of impact
fees as affordable housing, you know, some criteria like that, so that
you'd just be looking at that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Certainly I want to hear from the
petitioner, but it seems to me what's incumbent upon us is to
determine whether or not this is a hardship created by the county. If
it's a hardship that was voluntarily created by the property owner for
us to use tax dollars to pay for application fees, it isn't
appropriate.
So, Mr. Mulhere, is this rezone a requirement based on action
from Collier County, or is this something the property owner did at a
given time that they are now trying to correct?
MR. MULHERE: This is not a request in any way due to action on
the part of county, other than the fact that Code Enforcement cited
the property owner for having an illegal structure. The remedy to
make that structure -- and exactly that structure would not be
permittable (sic), but to replace that structure with a structure
that would be permittable is the rezone, so the action is completely
on the part of the property owner in order to authorize placement of a
mobile home on the property.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So when the property owner originally
placed the trailer here, it was placed incorrectly?
MR. MULHERE: Yes. Actually, that trailer -- yes, it was placed
-- it was not permitted and could not be permitted because it does not
meet building -- minimum building code.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I want to say -- I see Greg's in the
room, so I want to ask him that question. But no matter what we do
today, nobody is talking about allowing a substandard housing unit to
be utilized out there. We can't have -- you know, it's tough to take
that step, but we have to do it.
Greg, my question was just, is there -- similar to when we waive
impact fees for low impact -- you know what I'm trying to say -- MR. MIHALIC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- is there SHIP money, is there grant
money? Is there anything that's available for paying these fees other
than just the general tax fund, if somebody should qualify for a --
MR. MIHALIC: I don't know the parameters of this particular
case, but if they meet the income requirements of the SHIP guidelines,
we do have some special need cases where we could waive or defer their
impact fees, depending on what their income is. If they're --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If this is a building permit -- this is a
rezone application fee. Can we --
MR. MIHALIC: No. I'm afraid --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing?
MR. MIHALIC: -- we do not have the strategy within our SHIP
program that would pay for that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, just wanted to know.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any speakers, Mr. --
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, you have none.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No speakers?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Valdes --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, Mr. Valdes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- the petitioner.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, Mr. Valdes?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How much is this fee?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Eighteen hundred bucks.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Eighteen hundred dollars.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Plus 25 a day.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah.
MR. VALDES: Good morning, Chairman and commissioners. For the
record, my name is Victor A. Valdes, representing the family, Garibay,
I am an attorney, and on Leah Consin (phonetic) I am a community
speaker, or whatever you want to call me, but not an attorney.
The trailer of the family Gadbay is in place, and we are -- we
bring the papers here, but we are willing to prove that if -- from
1983 we have witness, we have paper, we have a picture, an aerial
picture of the place. The family bought a few years ago and is
unjustice that they need to ride away the trailer.
They agree to fix and to take the trailer up to the code, to put
the trailer in a living condition. They agree with this. But they
don't have money to pay the fee and also then pay for the fix of the
trailer. We are request that they let -- have the American dream to
have someplace to live. We request the waive of the fee. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a staff question, if I may.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What Mr. Valdes is saying is that the
trailer should be grandfathered in because it predates the code; is
that correct?
MR. MULHERE: Not from our viewpoint. There was a Code
Enforcement case; that Code Enforcement case is still pending.
However, it's currently held in abeyance pending the outcome of the
rezone petition. The Code Enforcement investigation, there's some
question as to when the trailer actually appeared there. But in any
case, it was not ever permitted.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. So even if it was there early, Mr.
Valdes, it was not permitted.
MR. VALDES: Yes, but we have a case that we can give as example.
In area 16, six L's a few years ago, was the same situation with 37,
trailer, mobile home, and we was in front of the commission and the
attorney know that was accepted and granted. Those trailer that was in
this place was granted to stay in place.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I remember that. How is this
different than that situation, Mr. Mulhere?
MR. MULHERE: We did look at that situation, and the difference
is number one, the zoning at the time that those trailers were placed
in the six L's agricultural zoned property, the agricultural zoning
district may allow trailers via a mobile home overlay. And in fact,
many of those properties had a mobile home overlay, which was
subsequently removed. And, of course, the action that we took
identified those and placed the mobile home overlay back on that
agricultural property.
In this case, this property is zoned RMF 6, doesn't allow mobile
homes, never has allowed mobile homes, and didn't allow mobile homes
when the trailer was placed on the property in the first place.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, that's completely different, Mr.
Valdes. I wish -- you know, but it is.
MR. VALDES: I don't think it's different. The situation is they
are a mobile home or trailer in the property since 1983. They said no,
we can prove that they are in this place since 1983. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But not legally.
MR. VALDES: Yes, but is more than 15 years. Now '-
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's not the issue -- the time isn't the
issue, okay?
MR. MULHERE: I think he in part might be a little bit confused,
because I thought that we had gotten over this and that the action to
remedy this was a fezone, and the question is whether or not the
property owner is required to pay the rezone fee. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We had this discussion last time about
whether, you know, they were there and in essence it was a form of
grandlathering and that the county should take a position to remedy
the situation. And our decision at that time was that the evidence
did not indicate that they were grandfathered, but that the code had
changed and that the county through some action had created a problem.
What happened is somebody located a trailer there illegally, they then
sold it to someone who didn't check to find out whether it was there
legally or not, and they bought it -- the Gadbays bought it two years
ago, I guess, thinking they had it in a properly zoned area, and now
they find out they didn't.
You know, what I'm concerned about is does this mean if we say
that someone -- and let's take the -- Looneyville, out in the eastern
part of the county. Just because you build it without a permit '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, we can't.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- or build it illegally, doesn't mean
that the county has a responsibility to use tax dollars to waive your
permits down the road.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just can't.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we do have another case where we're
treating these people exactly like we treated the folks out at
Looneyville, which is to say just because you did it illegally doesn't
make it right, and it's not the taxpayers' responsibility to correct
that, it is the property owners' responsibility.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And they don't have any extra money laying
around out there either.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, we can't use financial criteria as a
reason for subsidizing people with tax dollars.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unless there were some SHIP program or
something otherwise available, and we know that there's not, so '-
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I think the more appropriate case is
what happened on the Looney property, not what happened at six L's.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Valdes, with all due respect, you
mentioned letting these -- allowing these people the ability to live
the American dream. Well, again, with all due respect, the American
dream is the freedom to be able to do any kind of gainful employment
that you so choose and that you're able to do and to earn your own way
in the world and to excel and to better yourself as you go along.
I don't think the American dream is to depend upon the government
for sustenance.
MR. VALDES: The American dream is to have a piece of property
that they gain with his job. They bought this property and now, 15
years later, the government tried to take out of this property.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was illegal in the first place.
MR. VALDES: And allow the -- Commissioner Constantine, you said
that the board take an action in last meeting that we had the list. I
have the transcription of this meeting. The unique action that the
board took was recommend -- recommended the staff to handle and work
with us. Was no took any action to. Said no, take the property out
or something. Here it is. What you said -- what the five of you
told, was not what you said.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did I say then that we should use tax
money to subsidize -- don't bring that here, I know what I said. Did
I say that we would use tax money to subsidize your clients' request?
Is that anywhere in there? MR. VALDES: No.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because what I'm saying today is that it's
inappropriate to do that. So there is no conflict, Mr. Valdes.
The bottom line is that Collier County did not create the problem
on the property. The Gadbays bought this two years ago, you said? MR. VALDES: Four years.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Four years ago. So 13 or 15 years ago,
the Gadbays weren't in the picture.
MR. VALDES: But the property was in the picture.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood. But they owned -- they have
owned it for four years and they have owned it as a nonconforming use,
more or less. It's illegally placed there.
The only remedy available to this board within county and state
law is to change the zoning or require the removal of the property.
Those are the options available. Don't interrupt me, Mr. Valdes.
Those are the options available.
So you're asking this board to take tax money and pay for the
rezone because these people can't afford it. That's the crux of this
request. If we do that for these people, we have to begin paying for
rezones for every indigent property owner or every property owner who
says they can't afford to rezone the property. And I -- that's just a
slippery slope that I don't think is in the best interest of this
county.
So, you know, the county didn't create this problem. Code
Enforcement reacted to a situation that was bad, that needed to be
fixed, and it was the responsibility of the property owner to keep
that property up to code compliance. They didn't do it.
So it wasn't a county initiated action here by the Board of
County Commissioners. It was simply complying with the law. And this
property hasn't complied with the law from day one, and I don't think
we should subsidize that with tax dollars. MR. VALDES: Can I answer you?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Go ahead. I didn't ask a question.
MR. VALDES: Okay. The county make a code enforcement -- a code,
1990, amended '91, and the trailer was first done to code. Why is
illegal if the code came after the trailer?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're missing the point. The point is
the trailer is there illegally. It never should have been put there.
It was placed there illegally. That's what we're being asked to fix
today. By changing the zoning, the trailer would be there legally.
However-- and Mr. Weigel, maybe you can answer this better than
I can, but the laws are the laws. When you change the speed limit on
a road, that doesn't mean you can still drive at the old speed limit.
Everyone has to comply with the laws as they are amended. These laws
are amended for the protection of the public health, safety and
welfare. And we are required to enforce those laws, period.
Just because a trailer was there before the code -- before the
laws were changed requiring living conditions to meet a minimum
standard, Mr. Weigel, does that exempt this property from meeting
those codes?
MR. WEIGEL: No, it does not.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have the legal authority to exempt
them from meeting those codes?
MR. WEIGEL: I would suggest that you do not.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Valdes, again, we don't have the
option to do what you're asking to do legally.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: May I say to the rest of the commissioners,
this isn't something that is just coming before us right now. There
has been a lot of work done on this.
Our attorney, Mr. Manalich, has been involved with Mr. Valdes and
the Gadbay family, trying to work out and tried to come to some kind
of understanding about this whole situation. And so this isn't
something that's just, you know, kind of out of the blue. And I know
they've tried to explain, you know, what has taken place, why it's
taken place. But of course that still doesn't preclude and stop
anyone from coming before the Board of County Commissioners. So
that's the situation at this time.
Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Victor, I understand this is a tough
spot to be in, and it's not the Gadbays' fault necessarily that
they're in the situation for something that happened before they owned
the land. However, they are responsible when they purchase land, you
have some responsibility to know what it is you're purchasing. And so
it's unfortunate they're stuck here, but it is not the responsibility
of every other taxpayer in the county to pick up the tab because they
weren't aware that it wasn't on there legally. That's -- ultimately
the responsibility lays with whomever the owner of the property is,
and in this case that's them.
So I understand what you're trying to achieve here, and I
understand they're in a tough spot, but it's not something I think the
rest of the county and the rest of the taxpayers can be responsible
for. Ultimately we're all responsible for ourselves.
MR. VALDES: I understand that always -- almost always the Board
of County Commissioners sit the poor on the hot chair. And we cannot
do nothing until we have all people going to vote and change like all
place, change the commission and have minorities and poor people sit
down in those chairs willing to work in those way.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you suggesting then that if you had
minorities and poor people on the board that they would vote against
-- vote in a manner that would be against the public interest?
MR. VALDES: I don't know. I finish my participation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Victor, I guess I've got to take a
little exception. I tried to be reasonable and rational with you, and
now you're telling me that A, I'm rich, which I'm not, and that I'm
not concerned about minorities or poor people, and neither one of
those are true. What I'm telling you is I'm concerned about all
taxpayers. And it's not every other taxpayer's responsibility to pay
for someone who didn't know what they were buying when they bought
their own land. That doesn't have anything to do with classes or with
race or with anything else.
MR. VALDES: Well, I respect your opinion, but I have my own
opinion.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a classic case, when you don't get
what you want, blame it on something such as whether it be race or
class warfare or whatnot. I've heard it a million times. It simply
doesn't hold water here, Victor. And I think it's offensive. But
you're right, you're entitled to it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I make a motion we not
-- that we decline the request for the waiver.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Do we
have any other public speakers on --
MR. FERNANDEZ: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- this issue?
Okay, I'll call forthe question. If there are no more
commissioner questions, all in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #8A5
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT EXTENSION BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF
MARCO ISLAND FOR THE COUNTY PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT STAFF TO
PROVIDE PLANNING SERVICES TO THE MARCO ISLAND PLANNING BOARD AND MARCO
ISLAND CITY COUNCIL - APPROVED
The next item is item 8(A)(5), extension of interlocal
agreement between Collier County and the City of Marco Island for the
County Planning Services Department staff to provide planning services
to the Marco Island Planning Board and Marco Island City Council. Mr. Cautero.
MR. CAUTERO: Good morning, Madam Chairman, commissioners. Vince
Cautero for the record.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
Are you okay with that, Vince?
MR. CAUTERO: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Everything's hunky-dory? Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And this is forthe period of time ending
when?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just fiscal year.
MR. CAUTERO: Balance of the fiscal year.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Balance of the fiscal year.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If they get too outrageous during the
budget discussions, can we just pull this right out? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Forthe record, I believe that was a joke.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Leave that ambiguous.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, there -- everything has proceeded
MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- in a kind manner to our staff?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes, we're doing fine.
We have been doing something that I did add to the agreement,
just for the record, on page three of your executive summary. In
covenant number one, the last sentence is new. We are sending copies
of staff reports for quasi judicial legislative items to the city's
community development director for his review. That office is in a
state of flux now, but we'll continue to work with them. Something
we're already doing, but we wanted to codify from this agreement.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are there fees associated with that? Do
they pay for that service?
MR. CAUTERO: They are paying us in accordance with the first two
agreements $30 per hour for staff time at the public hearings plus
mileage reimbursement.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, if there are no further questions or
speakers, I'll call for the question. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #8A6
FUNDING A.S.A. PROPERTIES IN-LINE SKATING COMPETITION FOR $40,000 IN
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDS - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
Next item, TDC funds, has to do with the ASA skating '-
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, considering how wildly
successful this was in our track record with events, we ought to take
advantage of those few that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No kidding.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- are successful. I'll make a motion
we go ahead --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and approve the recommendation.
MR. MIHALIC: Thank you, commissioners. Mrs. Ramsey would like
to make a statement before you approve it. And Mr. Bratman's here to
answer any questions. He's the president of ASA.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You'd hate to travel here, Rick, for
absolutely nothing, wouldn't you?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just out of curiosity, do we know who
the two TDC members who voted against this were? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't.
MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Mrs. Buysse and Mr. Doherty.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Buysse.
MR. MIHALIC: Buysse and Doherty voted against it.
MS. RAMSEY: For the record, my name is Maria Ramsey, director of
parks and recreation. I'm requesting some additional funds to help
with the overtime expenses related to staffing for this event in the
amount of $3,788.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that's very fair, that if you're
-- you know, it shouldn't come out of your general budget if it's
directly related to this particular event.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. I'll amend my motion to
reflect that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Was I the second? So I amend.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Any further questions? Any speakers,
Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers.
MR. BRATMAN: Actually, commissioners, I'd like to address a
point as well.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Identify yourself, please.
MR. BRATMAN: Rick Bratman, president of ASA Properties.
We had originally requested $59,000 from the TDC for this event
and submitted the budgets and the -- all the materials that were
required of us for the TDC contract. And during the TDC meeting,
$40,000 was approved.
What I'd like to do is to respectfully request the additional
$19,000 and explain to you why it is that we feel it's important.
One of the things that was so successful about this event last
year was the media exposure that we were able to grant Collier County
as part of the television programming. Last year we did five hours of
programming. Generated approximately 1.4 million dollars' worth of
media exposure in print and television for the park, for the city and
for the county.
By eliminating -- by reducing the budget from what we requested,
from 59,000 down to 40,000, the TDC asked us to resubmit what we would
use the funds for, and what unfortunately had to come out of that
budget was the money for us to do features production and
post-production work, which is really where Collier County gets most
of its value is us doing the types of features; things like, you know,
interviewing county employees to have them talk about the park, things
like having skaters out there and talking about the park. Those are
the little extras that cost more money to do but are worth it in the
long run in terms of the exposure for the county.
And so I'd like to request if we could relook at the additional
$19,000. I feel like for that $19,000, you would receive 20 times the
value in the media exposure out of that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry, at the TDC
meeting, what was the -- what was the discussion that -- I assume
there was some discussion that caused the cutting of that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There was. In fact, many of-- we had
several items that night that came before the TDC, and I'm not sure,
there may have been one item that was fully funded. A track -- what
was that, a run -- one of the -- it was like a $3,500 amount, as I
recall. It was the very first item. MR. MIHALIC: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And then from that point on, we decided that
we would hear all of the items before we would make a decision. We
were dealing with a limited amount of funds. We wanted to stay within
that amount and not tap into the disaster funds, as was told.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You can't.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So there were a lot of groups that night. As
I said, the only one that I recall that got the full funding that they
requested was that run -- whatever it was, the typical name. The rest
of the groups that had requested funds did not receive the full amount
that they had requested, because we did want to stay within that
budgeted amount and not tap into the disaster funds. So that was our
reason -- at least that was my reasoning for not wanting to do it.
The skating was approved for 40,000, the jazz festival for the
county, they had requested 24, we allocated 10 to them. The
basketball foundation, Naples Girls' Basketball Foundation, I believe
they were another one that got five.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think the point's well made.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are there any other funds available?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Budgetary restrictions.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's see, I'm not sure what that added up to
be.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You ended up using up the budget; is that
correct?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Mihalic, were there any other funds
available?
MR. MIHALIC: No, there were $27,000 left --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is that what we ended up with?
MR. MIHALIC: -- out of the 99,000 that were available for
allocation. So there were $27,000 that were left over.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we could grant this and still have
13,000 left over?
MR. MIHALIC: Yes, commissioners.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you run through -- you just said
some of the post-production work. Run through what you will be
spending it on. You said post will be cut.
MR. BRATMAN: Yeah, it's approximately about $19,000 in features
and post-production. We were going to do things like --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tell me what -- don't tell me what
will be cut now, tell me what's left. Out of the 40,000, that will go
to what?
MR. BRATMAN: That would go towards some print advertising, some
basic television production fees that would revolve around just
shooting the event itself, not shooting any ancillary or additional
items. Things like dubs, radio advertising and promotion, print
advertising and promotion, the creative design and execution of our
posters and fliers and things of that nature.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It will air where afterwards?
MR. BRATMAN: It will air -- there will be eight broadcasts on
ESPN and ESPN 2, and they'll all be 30-minute shows. They'll run
throughout -- not only in the United States, but also ESPN's
international footprint, which includes Canada and Latin America.
In addition to that, we've signed a multi-year agreement with a
network in Europe called Eurosport, which is sort of the ESPN
equivalent to. In Europe -- it's 77 million homes throughout Europe
that this show will run four times in Europe. Every European nation.
It will run in Japan, it will run all throughout Latin America,
Australia, South Africa. Basically 170 countries around the world
this event will --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Primarily what you're talking about is
the quality of what we put together then, if you're talking about some
of the on-site production and then post-production work. I'm just
wondering, because I'm trying to figure out $19,000 worth of camera
guys interviewing our staff and post is a lot. And I'm -- help me
with an understanding exactly what we're missing and the number of
hours that are going to be spent doing that, because studio time
adding up to 19,000 is still a lot of studio time, if you're going to
be there anyway, and then just editing these, and it doesn't seem like
-- I understand the on-site costs will be additional. I'm not
following you on what post costs would have to be cut.
MR. BRATMAN: Sure. I mean, it requires additional camera people
and things like that coming in early to do features. I'll give you an
example, Commissioner: We had planned on flying in six of the top
skaters from around the world. We had planned on flying them in on
Friday, the day prior to the event, and filming the segment which we
use called the tricktionary (phonetic) which is designed to describe
and educate the general consumer as to what the tricks are. We use
that feature throughout the year on our broadcast. And so we have to
bring in extra people, extra talent and spend a lot of time in post in
creating this tricktionary feature that was going to be shot at
Sanctuary Skate Park that would, you know, give the parkers a little
exposure throughout the year.
That's over and above what we would do at the event itself. We
would film additional features; we would go into post.
It's basically -- it's a budget that will allow us to do the
little extra things that will help generate a significant amount of
additional exposure for--
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What do you shoot on?
MR. BRATMAN: Usually Beta SP. Sometimes -- we do a little bit
on film, but the majority is Beta SP.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would the -- those trick-sharing (sic)
that you would use throughout the year, would those just happen to be
at Sanctuary, or would there be some Naples, Florida, Collier County,
Florida -- or at Sanctuary -- would there be some reiteration every
time that showed the rest of the year?
MR. BRATMAN: In terms of branding of it with Collier County, I
can't say that it would. I think that there would be some
familiarity, certainly, with the park and the course.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I can't say that it's worth
19,000 bucks to pay for something you're going to use on every other
broadcast other than this one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unless it's going to be Collier County
specific.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. If-- other than -- if you
happen to be tuned in and know -- you know, I know what the Forum
looks like at a Laker basketball (sic), and so if something happens at
the Forum, I know it's there. But I don't see the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I don't.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- value.
Frankly, for Beta SP to get somebody to shoot for a day, there's
some very good local shooters that you could pick up for 800 bucks,
1,000 bucks or less, and I understand there would be some additional
post time. But I just can't imagine $18,000 worth of studio time to
do the additional post, what you've said, unless it is for every show
for the rest of the year, and I don't know that we can justify paying
your costs for that.
MR. BRATMAN: Okay. I mean, there -- we can certainly look at a
branding issue, if that becomes important to the commissioners for
that.
I'll also say that, you know, the event has generated a lot of
shod-term and long-term economic impact for the park. I mean, I know
that we received a call from a family in Brazil who had seen the show.
And it's kind of funny, but I think it's something that's worthy of
mentioning here. They were really excited because they were coming to
the United States for the first time, and they were telling us that
they were going to New York, Los Angeles and Naples. And --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All the major spots.
MR. BRATMAN: Yeah, exactly, all the major cities in the United
States.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't like that company we're keeping.
MR. BRATMAN: And I know that for instance, you know, last year
-- or recently during spring break I was told by Linda Rice, who runs
the park, that she had groups from 14 different states attending
there. And these are -- you know, there's no way that somebody from
Michigan could have known about this park unless they saw it through
our television programming.
And we -- what we'd like to do is to put ourselves in the
position to give the park that kind of exposure again. Last year we
had larger television budgets because it was the world championships
event. This year, as you know, it's not the world championships.
However, because we do such a small number of events throughout the
year, it's still a big, big production.
So I guess again my point is that for the $19,000 that you'd
spend, you'd make that back twentyfold in the amount of media exposure
that you'll get. I can look at branding issues for the tricktionary,
but I think even within the confines of your own shows, the eight
broadcasts on ESPN itself, you're looking at -- I can very easily
justify the $19,000 additional expense at the end of the year when I
can do an analysis for you saying okay, you spent this, Commissioner,
and because of that you received an extra $136,000 of media coverage
in the show.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many times a year will
trick-sharing cost and where (sic). I mean, how many times will that
show? And where?
MR. BRATMAN: The tricktionary will show about every other
broadcast that we do. We're doing a combined total of 88 hours of
programming this year. We're not going to shoot our entire
tricktionary series here. We're going to shoot six of them, out of
maybe about 20 or so that we'll shoot during the year.
We also plan on doing a number of other features here. Since
we're incurring the expense of bringing these guys in a day early,
we'd hoped to really maximize using the park. We've asked our staging
people to be set up by Thursday night so we could spend the whole day
on Friday really shooting different types of television features.
I mean, our goal is to shoot as much footage as we can so that at
the end of the year we do have a collection of things that we can use
and make decisions as to what's the best stuff to actually put onto
the programming itself.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want to make one minor amendment to
my motion and that is that all footage from here should carry some
sort of labeling or logo from Naples or Collier County, Florida. And
I'm going to leave the amounts the same.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What's the amount?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Forty thousand.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have to agree. Because it's -- because
of the tricktionary and what you want to do. I understand its
function overall, but because it isn't a dollar spent directly
promoting or advertising Naples and Collier County, then I think it's
an inappropriate expenditure. I think I can make that direct
correlation on just about everything else on the sheet, but on that
one piece, I can't. So I'm going to agree with the motion.
Has there been a second on the motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I amend.
MR. BRATMAN: I also -- I'd like to add, though, that -- I mean,
I brought up the tricktionary as sort of an addendum to some of the
things we were going to be doing that -- really, the focus of that
money was supposed to be in the actual programming itself, to promote
the park, to do the extra things. And if you don't feel that, you
know, we can justify $19,000. I mean, I'm happy to try to break it
down for you even further, but my point is that I believe that Collier
County's exposure in the broadcast will suffer as a result of not
having the additional $19,000.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate that. And again, I'm
thinking in terms you get an extra shooter for a day, you get 1,000
bucks, but when you spend your time in post, you still are only going
to edit a total show of "X" number of minutes, whether it includes
that or not. So whatever footage you have, whether that's on eight
tapes or you have a ninth tape from the extra day, you're still
sitting in the same studio for the same number of hours editing
together the same amount of total program. So there really shouldn't
be any additional post costs, if that is your intent.
MR. BRATMAN: But we do edit features separately. We do all of
our features in blocks of post time throughout the year, and then we
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You understand my point.
MR. BRATMAN: Yeah, of course.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your programming is going to have 28
minutes and --
MR. BRATMAN: Of course I do.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- 50 seconds, or whatever it has --
MR. BRATMAN: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and it takes a certain amount of
time to edit that much programming together. MR. BRATMAN: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you may have some different source
material, but that's hard to justify an extra $18,000 because it may
be different material.
If you're looking to come up with an extra day of shooting, maybe
I can live with that, if we know what that's going to be. Ifthat's
1,000 bucks for a shooter and, you know, we know that's going to be
"X" minutes of -- or "X" percentage of each program, and we'll carry
-- my motion is going to have all of the programming carry the
branding anyway, but carry the branding, then I can live with that.
But I can't justify $18,000 more than that in post-production that I
-- I just can't see. I can't see it happening.
MR. BRATMAN: There were other things on the -- that had to be
cut as well. There were some things cut from the print budget, as
well as some things cut from the radio budget as well. I just sort of
used the post-production as a sort of a lump sum.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Bratman,
that the TDC looked at these in total, and had to make judgments and
cutbacks everywhere. We just can't provide everything to everyone.
Had a few of these been provided in their entirety, others may not
have been provided for at all.
So I think I'm going to -- you know, the TDC looking at that big
picture as opposed to us looking at one application today, I'm going
to have to trust their judgment. And then the overall picture -- you
know, $40,000 isn't chump change. I think it shows a commitment on
Collier County's part to have the ASA tour event here. I doubt you
get that type of commitment from every community you go to.
So, you know, I'd say, you know, if the event was so successful,
capitalize it on the air, your sponsorships, and make up that 19 grand
and off we go. But I think today it sounds to me like about 40,000 is
all we're going to get to.
MR. BRATMAN: Fair enough. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Call the question?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And again, just to repeat my motion,
my motion now includes the branding issue for all programming
broadcast -- or taped out of Collier.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. And this is within the forty thousand
dollar --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- allocation.
Okay, do we have any other speakers on this item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll call forthe question. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #8A7
RESOLUTION 98-119 AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A TECHNICAL LETTER
OF NOTIFICATION TO ALL UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADVISING THEM OF
COLLIER COUNTY'S INTENT TO APPLY TO THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF HUD FOR
THE PURPOSE OF BEING QUALIFIED AS AN URBAN COUNTY AND BEING ABLE TO
RECEIVE ENTITLEMENT GRANTS - ADOPTED
Next item was added on, item 8(A)(7).
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Mihalic, by printing the term urban
county, you have just spawned --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, but --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- difficulties.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- it's a -- this is such a good program.
MR. MIHALIC: It's one of those items we can't wordsmith.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, motion to approve --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- staff recommendation.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. We have a motion and a second.
Do we have any speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, any questions by any commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we change it to county within urban
area?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Urban county. Oh, that's going to be
wonderful.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: County with a nonexpanding --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was my favorite movie, urban
county.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Urban county.
Okay, I'll call for the question. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
MR. MIHALIC: Thank you, commissioners.
Item #8D2
STAFF DIRECTED TO ADVERTISE FOR AMENDMENTS TO SOLID WASTE MANDATORY
COLLECTION ORDINANCE 90-30 AND INCORPORATE SAID AMENDMENTS INTO THE
EXISTING FRANCHISEE SERVICE AGREEMENTS WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. AND
IMMOKALEE DISPOSAL
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Next item is item 8(D)(2), approval to
amend solid waste mandatory collection ordinance 90-30, as amended,
and incorporate said amendment into existing franchisee service
agreements with Waste Management, Inc. and Immokalee Disposal. Mr. Yonkosky.
MR. YONKOSKY: Madam Chairman, commissioners, good morning. My
name's John Yonkosky, I'm your director of revenue.
This agenda item 8(D)(2) is a request for the board to consider
and direct staff to make two changes to your existing solid waste
mandatory ordinance. The -- and if you do provide that direction, we
would like you to also direct those to amend the two contracts that
carry out that ordinance. That's with Waste Management, Inc. and
Immokalee Disposal.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Yonkosky, you're just looking for
us to approve the concept and then you have to advertise it for actual
ordinance; is that correct?
MR. YONKOSKY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve staff
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, we have a motion and a second. Do
we have any speakers on this issue? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll call forthe question. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Thank you.
Next item, Mr. Fernandez.
Item #14A
STATUS REGARDING REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL AND REQUEST OF PRODUCTIVITY
COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS SAME AT THEIR MAY 20 MEETING - TO BE PRESENTED TO
THE PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, the only item that I need to
present to you is just to inform you of the status of the
reorganization proposal that I made to the board. The board directed
us to develop cost figures specifically affecting that proposal and
bring it back to the board. You're probably curious why it hasn't
come back by this time. The answer is we have received a request from
the productivity committee to have the proposal discussed at that
committee -- the next committee meeting. I believe that meeting is May
the 20th. And it is my intent to bring it back to the board after
that meeting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One thing that the productivity committee
did want to be sure is that they are pursuing an avenue that has the
board's support, that you would like to have productivity committee
look at this question. They have others on a list that I'll be
bringing to you to be sure that you're satisfied with the areas that
they're investigating that -- is that generally a good idea, that the
productivity committee look at this reorganization chart and how it
can be financed, whether or not it should be approved? Are you guys
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is it the time frame? Pam, they've got a
pretty full plate, don't they? I mean, they are working on a ton of
items.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They are, but you know what? They're --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I mean, not that they're not capable, I'm not
suggesting that. But to give every item their full consideration, I
mean, have you brought this up to them?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. And if l had realized this was going
to be discussed today, I would have brought for you the work matrix
that's been prepared that they very carefully plotted out who's
working on what and on how they can handle all of the many, many
assignments that they have. So they would like --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At the risk of uniting a discussion,
are we individually giving assignments to productivity committee now?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, that's why -- I assume that's why this
is being discussed right now is to be sure that it is something that
you want them to be doing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think it's -- you know, unlike
most of the projects they look at that are time-consuming and lengthy,
you know, this one's not that time-consuming. So if it's something
that could be done in short order that -- I'm fine directing and
asking for their input on it, but I would like that time frame to be
condensed, because this has obvious budget implications.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
MR. FERNANDEZ: It's my understanding that what has been
requested is not a thorough examination or an investigation of the
proposal, but rather a discussion. I think the productivity committee
would appreciate hearing some of the logic behind the recommendation
that's been made, what are -- what we anticipate happening as a result
of the reorganization, and maybe ask some questions. I expect the
discussion to be completed in that singular meeting and had hoped to
bring the item before the board at the next scheduled agenda.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, I just didn't want to get the -- it
just gets to everything that we discussed that they have to -- you
know, that we're asking them to pass judgment on it. I think we've
got some sizeable projects that they certainly, you know, can get
involved in that are very time-consuming. I just don't want them to
get buried under a lot of other little things -- you know, I say
little. I don't mean to minimize this particular discussion and what
you're talking about. But I don't want them to be buried under those
kinds of things.
So if it's something that you can go and present this to them and
they can talk about it and think about it and maybe give some feedback
in very short order, I think that probably is appropriate.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just for update purposes, Sue, if you
could get a copy of the matrix of work items that the productivity
committee has on its plate right now, I'd like to put that in next
week's agenda packet so that everybody can agree or disagree that this
is the direction we'd like for them to be taking, and maybe help them
prioritize some of the really important things they're trying to
tackle.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Yes.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I just want to add that I -- I'd like to
apologize for not alerting Commissioner Mac'Kie that I was going to
bring this up.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: It was really just a status report as we were
preparing for the agenda. We thought that the board was entitled to
some kind of status report, because it has been some time since the
board had directed me to come back to you with that reorganization
plan, so --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a motion we give direction to
look at the staffing issue on as short a time frame as possible and
just respond to the board with a level of appropriateness from the
productivity committee.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, that includes also looking at
the funding issue which was outlined by Mr. Fernandez.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in
favor? Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four to one.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mostly just because it's been five-oh
all day.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: One in every crowd.
Item #14B
UPDATE REGARDING RQUEST AND DISCUSSION CONCERNING THIRD PARTY
BENEFICIARY ASPECTS OF THE 1996 PGA INTELLINET CONTRACT
Okay, Mr. Weigel, do you have any kind of a report for us
today?
MR. WEIGEL: I don't have a particular report. As you've seen,
I've passed out a memorandum as a follow-up regarding discussion and
the request concerning third-party beneficiary aspects with the old
PGA Intellinet contract, 1996 version. I'm able to respond to any
questions you should have.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, can I see you in my office
after the meeting?
MR. WEIGEL: Of course.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Ifthere's nothing further, we'll
move on then to the --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Any questions on that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I haven't read it yet. I'm trying to read
it now. I'm on the second page -- third page.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Speed reading.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Well, let's move on.
Item #10A
OUTSTANDING ISSUE RGARDING MARCO ISLAND COAST GUARD STATION RESOLVED
This is the discussion regarding Marco Island Coast Guard
Station. Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This issue has been resolved. We're
building a new little coast guard station down at Caxambas boat ramp,
and there was some discussion on the Marco Island City Council whether
they might want to chip in some money to upgrade the appearance of the
building. But after looking at our plans, they officially took a vote
last night and said that our plans are just fine, thank you, and
they'll --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pretty enough.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- leave 'em alone, so that issue has
dissolved.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 98-118 EXTENDING THE LAKE TRAFFORD RESTORATION AD HOC TASK
FORCE THROUGH MAY 7, 1999, AND APPOINTING AND REAPPOINTING MEMBERS -
ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Moving on then to item 10(C).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the recommendation to
extend the task force.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. This is the extension of the Lake
Trafford restoration ad hoc task force to be reappointed through 1999.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is -- and I'm sorry, it's not something
I'm intimately familiar with. Is there a -- are we going somewhere
with this?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They just want to stay alive long enough
to try to get some federal funding is what I understand.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that's the indication.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: All right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we're just reappointing the same
folks? We're just reconfirm --
MR. WEIGEL: Added a person. I think there was one --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That is what I was trying to
understand.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One dropped off, one new.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. They're all reappointed except the very
last one. I think her name is Pam something.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The one that says new appointment?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was the clue.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, was there a motion on this?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve this
item. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #10D
COMMISSIONER BERRY APPOINTED TO THE NOISE COMPATIBILITY COMMITTEE
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before she has a chance to get out of it,
I'm going to move approval --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- of Barb Berry to the noise
compatibility committee.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And quiet down overthere.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: By the way, thank you for serving on this.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're welcome. I'm sure there's a lot of
people that wish I would quiet down.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Public comment. Anyone from the public wish to speak to us
today?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have nobody --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any registered speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- registered.
No, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No one wants to hear -- wants to talk to us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wish we were hearing from our Scout.
-- looks like you're probably here working on a badge? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, he is.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just want to recognize that you're here
and thank you for being here.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This has got to be the toughest badge
you've ever worked on.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just be glad it wasn't a land use
meeting.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This is Joel and he's working today on his
citizenship badge. So he is here -- he's a student at East Naples
Middle School.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So he's visiting us today. And not only
that, eventually he's going to pursue to be an Eagle Scout. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go Joel.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So this is early in the process and he knows
he's got a long way to go toward that, but this is the early step, so
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's worth it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- we're pleased to have him here viewing
government in action today.
Moving on then to Board of County Commissioners'
communications.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing.
Item #15A
DISCUSSION REGARADING PGA CONTRACT AND CLERK'S AUDIT
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris, we know there are some
wise words over here.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I just -- I hope that this memo here
will help put to rest the controversy that we've seen in the newspaper
in recent days concerning the funding of the 1996 golf tournament.
There's been some questions by a commissioner on this board of
whether everything was done appropriately or not. I think this memo
clearly shows from the county's perspective that we contracted with
certain parties and got exactly what we contracted for.
I know there's been some discussion about the appropriateness of
amending the contract later. We did that. We waived the requirement
for an audit from the clerk's department and amended the contract at
the request of the clerk's office on January the 2nd. The contract
that was January 2nd, 1996, we made that amendment per the clerk's
request on January 14th, 1997.
And that action in no way relieved the clerk of the ability to
conduct any kind of auditory examination that he wished to proceed
with. And he is doing so.
But from the County Commission's perspective, I think this memo
shows that we got what we paid for, we received exactly what we
contracted for, we received exactly what we made an agreement for,
plus more, and I think it's time to stop hashing this out over and
over and over in the media, and I don't think it's appropriate at all
for any commissioner to use their position to conduct a personal
vendetta against a private citizen, period.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I assume that you're directing that at
me.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I certainly am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, let me just respond by saying that I
disagree with you, you won't be surprised to know, about whether or
not this settles the question of did the county get what it paid for
in its sponsoring the --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What does it take to convince you?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, I think probably the resolution
of the clerk's audit. I think once the clerk has completed his audit
and we have followed every dollar to see where it went and what it was
spent for and how it was addressed, then, you know, at the completion
of an audit -- and I'm grateful to the clerk that he was willing to do
it anyway, even though it wasn't required. At the completion of that
audit, then we'll have the answers to these questions, and until then,
we won't, in my judgment.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can you even formulate the question?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not going to do that right at this
minute with you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can you do it? Can you do it at any point
in time? Do you know what you're looking for? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What would be helpful -- seriously,
what would be helpful, if you could enunciate to me what it is that is
not clear, or what it is that you fear we did not get. Because
throughout -- we've had this discussion for almost two years.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I can't believe you guys want to have
it again.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But that has never been clearly
enunciated. And maybe you can tell me now. And it doesn't have to be
a long drawn out, but a 60-second or less picture. What is it we're
missing? What is it that's in question?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's two things. But before I go
there, I don't want to lose sight of the second remark about personal
attack, because I want to be very careful to respond to that and then
we can come back and talk about what I think is a problem with the
golf tournament sponsorship.
I was thrilled to get a letter from someone who I don't know
telling me that she has information about my ethics complaints and how
they were filed and why they were filed. And I certainly can't be --
well, anybody can criticize anybody, but I don't think I can be fairly
criticized for sharing that information when it does confirm what was
my suspicion about what was the basis for the reason why somebody got
excited about my particular tickets and wanted to file a complaint
about them.
I have absolutely no personal ax to grind with Bill Rasmussen.
He is entitled to his opinion of my ethics and I am entitled to my
opinion of his ethics. I will not and have not used my position in
any way inappropriately. I have shared the information that was
provided to me, and I'm entitled to do that.
I do disagree with the representation that Mr. Rasmussen made to
this board that he would provide Intellinet -- would spend $500,000 to
be a total dollar sponsor when they didn't. That I object to. He
objects to my accepting tickets to go to that tournament, and he's
entitled to.
But let me be clear about this: I hope that we get a golf
stadium. I think it would be great for Collier County. I hope that
we continue to have the senior tournament. If there's anything I can
do to help support that, short of public funds, I want to do that. I
don't have anything against Mr. Rasmussen individually. I just
appreciate your bringing that up, because I frankly had wanted to get
to say that, but figured you guys would yell at me --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Too busy saying other things.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- figured you guys would yell at me for
dragging out the meeting too long.
One more time, what my issue is about the tournament is whether
or not when you -- when we as stewards of the tax dollars invested in
an event that had a value that included a five hundred thousand dollar
contribution from a private company, the value of that event, if you
analogize it to investing in a real estate deal or a business or any
other kind of investment, when you spend $500,000 to buy something
that is going to have a value of at least a million dollars, because
somebody else is putting their half million dollars in, then that has
one -- that has one benefit. If you buy something that you think has
a million dollar value but it turns out only to be worth a half a
million dollars because your partner did not put in his investment,
then that has a different benefit, and that needs to be looked into.
And it is. And once we have the answers to those questions, then, you
know, we'll go from there.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you know, you're fond of saying that
and making that remark, but the fact of the matter is that neither the
contract with the PGA and Collier County, or the agreement with PGA --
or excuse me, Collier County and Intellinet ever contemplated
Intellinet paying a penny, and you voted for it. If you didn't like it
at that time, why did you vote for it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My mistake was -- apparently it was a
mistake -- to believe -- well, it was a mistake to believe Mr.
Rasmussen when he said that his company was going to be investing a
half million dollars. Because I'll show you that in a minute where he
said it. He did say that and make that representation, and I believed
him. And frankly, if I had some criticism, I think that our contract
could have been more artfully drafted. It would have included some
more '-
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and we all--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- of those things.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- reviewed that, though, and had an
opportunity to make --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that criticism at the time it came
across our desk. So to come back two or three years later and say,
well, I didn't like it is -- I mean, you're blaming yourself and us,
SO--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My bottom line is, look, if you want to
fight with Mr. Rasmussen, please do that, but leave this County
Commission out of it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't have any fight with Mr. Rasmussen.
I do want an audit of the Intellinet expenditures. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the clerk's going to do that. Whether
I say it or not, John, the clerk's doing it. Whether I had talked --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- about it or not.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But all of that information has been
provided to you in the past.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we'll see what happens. There's a
lot of-- you'll see what happens when the clerk's audit comes out.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Pam, due to the fact we can't talk about this
than at this board table --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, sunshine.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and some of this I wasn't here for. Some
of it transpired before I ever got here. But I'm trying to
understand. Are you saying that in your mind you believe that Collier
County did not get what they thought they were getting? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Or that the money was misused? Tell me which
-- what, what -- which --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that we did not get what we
bargained for, because the value of what we invested in was diminished
by $500,000.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You've been shown to be incorrect in that
assumption on several occasions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's true, if you assume that the
amended contract -- that the second contract actually reflects the
board's intention. The first contract said we're going to monitor
every nickel that comes in and every nickel that goes out, and if the
event makes a profit, the $500,000 comes back to the county. All of
that was in the initial contract. My point is invalid in the amended
contract and is valid in the original contract.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That you voted by.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I voted for the original contract, and I
still think if you would enforce the original contract, I'd be happy.
It's the amended contract that I did not vote for that I don't agree
with.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I disagree with your analogy
when you say it's like if you go into a business deal, and -- which
essentially this was -- and you have two or three investors and you
end up with less than what you intended. I mean, if I buy a
commercial building with you and with the other commissioners -- which
we're not doing, by the way --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and I'm happy with what I have and
I'm happy with that building going in and I'm happy when I own 20
percent of that building, and all of a sudden I find out you didn't
put in, you got some friend of yours to put your money up. But I still
own 20 percent of the building, and the building is still worth that.
It really doesn't make any difference. And that's how I see the
analogy, rather than the other.
And in my mind, what was laid out very specifically for us, both
in the presentation -- though he did say they'd be looking at that
money as well. But what was laid out very specifically for us was --
both there and in the contract -- was what we could expect in the way
of television advertisements, television coverage, what we could
expect from the PGA and so on. And each of those things we received.
So just as I would be happy with my 20 percent of the building,
because that's what I bargained for at the beginning -- regardless of
whether it was you that put the money up or you borrowed it from Mr.
Weigel or you convinced somebody else to put it up, we got those
television advertisements and the ESPN coverage and all the things
that were laid out, regardless of who else.
So I'm a little unsure how after the fact we can then say well,
okay, we got exactly what we said we were going to get for the amount
of money we said we were going to give, but we're not sure Mr.
Rasmussen did something else. And that's where I'm confused.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, Tim, if -- if it's shown that this
event made a profit, are you expecting the county's grant to be
reimbursed? The contract says that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would expect the contract to be
honored.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. Then that's one of the things that
I'm asking be looked at.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The amended contract.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know if we took that out -- if
you-all took that out of the contract or not.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We took it out of all category C events.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's one thing that seems to be lost
here is that this was not an isolated case. This was treated in
category C and we amended the repayment clause. And we had that
discussion about two or three times.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We amended the repayment clause, provided
the contract was with a not for profit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like the PGA?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: God.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 501C6.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The PGA --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you know --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- of America is a not for profit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you know what the president of PGA's
salary is?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It doesn't matter.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do I know -- it doesn't make any
difference.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you know what the president of
United Way's salary is? Do you know what the president of Red Cross'
salary is? Does that somehow diminish the value of what they do?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That doesn't mean that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- that they don't earn a -- that's not what
it means.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's why they don't make a profit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's why they don't make a profit,
that's right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's just a joke, folks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it's true.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The PGA of America --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I'm not going to be dissuaded, so
if you-all are trying to --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not trying to dissuade you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- talk me out of it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, Commissioner Mac'Kie, I'm -- what I'm
shooting for is equal time --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because some comments were made that I
absolutely disagree with, that I believe are factually challenged. I
need to say what I think, or only one side gets out there, okay?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My side of this is very simple. The PGA
of America is a not for profit corporation. They are actually the --
I believe the number one not for profit organization as far as dollars
given over a track record of time, be it five or ten years in this
country. So we're not talking about some fly-by-night pad the wall
that's kind of an organization here. We're talking about an honored
respectable not for profit that does millions and millions and
millions of dollars every year for charity. We are also talking about
an event that resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars going to
local kids for the purposes of scholarships. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 660,000.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So when I look at two things, what the
county was to get out of this and what the actual result of the
tournament was, whether Bill Rasmussen and Intellinet or Cadillac or
the hundreds of other sponsors that were never mentioned nor a pad of
our contract, just as Intellinet was not pad of our contract, what
their relationship with PGA was is immaterial to me. The one
relationship I'm concerned with is the one this board had with PGA
through a contract.
And when you talk about the intent of the board, that's where I
think things get caught up, Pam, because your intent at a given moment
is at odds with the majority of the board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's why I lost on that vote, and I
understand that. And --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But that means --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- the good news is, the clerk doesn't
have to do his work by consensus, and he can decide to audit, and he
has. And so you'll get the answer to the question.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It doesn't change what the intent of this
-- majority of this board was in executing that contract. Period. So
there will be -- in my opinion, unless PGA reneged on an element of
that contract, unless a majority of this board feels that to be the
case, it's a moot point.
So whatever the -- you know, if the clerk wants to go out there
and chase ghosts with tax dollars, that's his issue. But I think we
have spent enough staff time, enough time in the county attorney's
office on this, you know, and produced enough paper on this to choke a
horse. I'm sick of it. It's getting very tiring. And every time it
gets drug up, the same 'ol stuff gets drug up.
And it's already been said here, but it deserves repeating. We
had a single contract with the PGA. That contract said for ten bucks
you get ten apples. Well, we got 12 apples for ten bucks. I see no
reason to audit the PGA or want to audit the PGA, a not for profit
corporation, when what we were told we would receive for our
investment was precisely what we received. We were not shod-changed
or shod shrifted by the PGA or by the tournament in any way.
What Mr. Rasmussen's individual contract with the PGA was, and
the fact that the PGA later let him out of it, is between him and the
PGA. Whether I agree or disagree with it, I don't have standing in
that argument.
And Mr. Weigel has told us that legally we as a county do not
have standing in that contract between Rasmussen or Intellinet and the
PGA, so I'm just -- I'm not apt to waste time in an area where I don't
even have legal standing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let the record reflect, I'm not the one
who brought it up, so I'm not stretching out the conversation here
today.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You brought it up last week in the
newspaper.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The point is --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I got a letter I delivered to the
newspaper.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The point is, every time it is brought up,
what you say is a little juicier than what we're saying. And --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can't help it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it gets a lot more ink than what we're
saying. And I -- again, when I met with the League of Women Voters on
Friday, I talked to them about this issue, and they said well, when
you wrote the check to Intellinet. I said, look, time out, there was
never a check written to Intellinet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Heavens no.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So please explain to me, if all the facts
are out there and they're all being weighed evenly, how anyone out
there can think that Intellinet was the beneficiary? It's because of
the underlying tone of what is being printed, which is that the board
is letting Intellinet get away with something.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you guys '-
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You may not have created that, but your
comments certainly lead to that perception.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I'm going to have to tell the truth.
I mean, would you guys have had me not give that letter to the
newspaper when I got it?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't care what you do with that letter.
It's the '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, that's all I did.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Explain to us how it makes any difference
who filed the complaint.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It does make a difference.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Explain it. How does it make a difference?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Here's how it makes a difference. If an ax
murderer accuses me of doing -- if someone who's a known liar accuses
me of '-
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Headline, Rasmussen is ax murderer.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, known liar.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Known liar.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You asked the question. You brought up
the subject. I'm not saying this about Bill Rasmussen.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you think you're going to exonerate
yourself by doing this?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to -- no, but I am going to
answer your question, if you'd like me to, and that is how does it
make a difference who filed the complaint? If a liar can accuse me
for lying, people that are judging me over this long extended time it
takes to get a determination will be able to make their own judgment
about whether or not they believe the complaint.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But you're going to be judged on the
legalities of the matter, not on the veracity of the complainant.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If the veracity of the complainant was all
that mattered, mine would be gone a long time ago.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right, John, but you don't hesitate to
bring up that your complainant is from Lee County and that he was
trying to take you out. I mean, you don't hesitate to bring that up.
You must think it has some relevance. It does.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not in the end, though.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not in the end. But it has some relevance
in the court of public opinion.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have an issue with you bringing up
a letter you received or whatnot. My concern is that it then starts
the whole '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can't help that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- volume of garbage -- you can help it by
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not going to hide what I think is the
truth.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- understanding -- but you have a role as
a county commissioner that in my opinion is on a different level than
what you personally feel you should do as Pare Mac'Kie, the individual.
And if this board votes, and I'm on the losing end of a vote, for
me to continue to try to revisit that issue time and time again is to
show a disrespect for the majority of the commission's decision. I
personally won't do that.
I feel like the reason we keep talking about this is that every
time there's a crack in the door -- and I'm not talking about today,
I'm going back to when we've had the clerk discussions. You know,
every time there's -- you know, there's something in the paper that's
falsely and patently wrong, we've got to talk about it here or else
there's no way to get the truth and the facts out. So we continue to
revisit. And that's what we're doing today, you know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's fine with me. I wasn't going
to take up the time. But I'm glad to get the opportunity,
particularly to get to say, and I'm going to say again, I have nothing
-- no ax to grind with Bill Rasmussen.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The ax murderer?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hope --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You mean the known liar, ax murderer?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You guys are saying that. I have been
very clear, I'm not saying that. I repeat again, I am not saying that
Bill Rasmussen is a liar. I am saying that I have no personal ax to
grind with Bill Rasmussen.
I hope that the stadium for golf comes to Collier County. I think
it would be great for us. I hope that the senior PGA tournament
continues. And, you know, the fact that we disagree, some of you --
some of you genuinely respect my ability and my right to have an
opinion different from yours, and some of you --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Name one. Who is that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, I'm guilty.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, Hancock I think does respect my
ability to have a different opinion.
You brought this up. I mean, I'll talk about it all day long.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You'd be wrong and embarrass yourself in
public all day long.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think the end result will show who's
embarrassed.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I would like to separate the
official actions of this board from what you personally feel about a
decision. And I want that to be a clear line of separation. And any
opportunity you have in the media to make this clear line of
separation, I for one would appreciate it, just because it would help
separate the two feelings, one being, you know, I as a commissioner,
and a part of this decision, whether I like it or not, but I
personally feel "X," I would like that line of separation to be clear.
That would be helpful.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I could try to state that more clearly.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Example being the last two years when
we do the budget process, and we go through the sheriffs budget, I
have disagreed with the sheriffs budget at the conclusion of his
thing. I've been in the minority both those times. When it comes
time to vote for our overall budget, for the 360 million or 400
million dollar budget, I support that, despite the fact I have the
problem with that one element.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And my point just being, I'm not happy
with that element, but I'm in the minority and I respect the rest of
the board. And I think that's all Tim is saying is --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But Tim --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- you know, when the issue is passed,
the issue is passed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But throughout the rest of the year when
opportunities come up to say I don't like the way the sheriffs
spending money, I can't help it if the sheriff's doing this with the
money, you say those to make the point that you disagree with the
sheriff's budget. And you're entitled to say that. I respect your
ability to do it. Welcome to America.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Not a good analogy.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is a perfect analogy.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's his analogy --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- he brought it up. Well, tell him it's
not a good one.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wouldn't it be nice to do this over lunch?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're talking about one issue, one
instance that happened a long time ago, and you keep bringing up the
same one over and over and over.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Moving right along.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The sheriff has a -- the sheriff's budget
is a new issue every day when he tries to spend different money.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You know, I guess from a dummy standpoint
here, I guess what -- the public gets confused, because they don't
work with all of these entities on a daily basis. When you start
talking about the golf tournament, they lump the PGA, Intellinet,
people in properties, all of that. It doesn't make any difference
whatever it is, it all comes lumped into one big ball. And people
don't know and don't understand who the county contracted with, what
the obligation was on all parties involved in it.
You know, and I said right from the beginning, from the little
bit that I know of it, whatever we contracted for, whatever dollars
that we contributed, did we get what we paid for? And I think the
answer, as I have been told, is yes, we did. We did get paid what we
bought. We got in return, whether it was the advertising or whatever
the issue was, and all the components thereof, we -- for the $500,000,
we got what we paid for.
Now, if there is something in addition to this, then that's where
the confusion lies. And other than that -- but to continually -- and
I'm not sure this is all done by commissioners, but it certainly has
been fodder for a lot of news articles. There's no question about it.
If any time a cloud comes up in the sky regarding the County
Commission, this is an item that they push F4 on the computer and it
just spits it out again. And it's just like this robotic kind of
information that flies out in the paper again. And then we go and the
sun rises and sets and on the tenth day we have another little F4 push
and out it comes again, and we just go through this time after time
after time, ad nauseam.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Isn't it F67
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And frankly, I don't even know if I ever want
to pick up a golf club again. I'm getting a little sick of golf. I'm
tired of hearing about it. You know, I'm just getting a little sick
about this whole golf business.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, you're not a good golfer.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You know? First off, I'm a lousy golfer to
begin with, and, you know, it wouldn't make any difference one way or
the other.
Having said that, this meeting is adjourned.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Wait, wait --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm done.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I actually have a comment separate
from this.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sorry, I adjourned the meeting.
Is it really important?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll reopen the meeting.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Say it.
Item #15B
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE SURPLUS PROPERTY FOR LANDFILL USE
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you're all familiar with the
surplus property that once was slated for landfill use, we actually
have three different groups expressing interest in very different ways
for that. You remember we put it out for bid before for our golf
course use and the respondents couldn't come through with the
financing and all.
Interest on three fronts: One that conforms pretty closely with
our prior request, and that was for recreational use for a public golf
course; one that wants a high density, affordable housing project; and
one group is talking about alternative recreational uses, such as a
BMX park, Frisbee golf, ATV's, all kinds of different things, paint
ball.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Paint ball?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's fun.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's a great sport.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me count the ways to be injured in
that list.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's a great sport, yeah. The doctor
-- the local doctor groups are behind that alternative.
That one unfortunately would require some assistance from our
recreation dollars and so on, but we're working with all of those
groups to see what's most viable. But we're also of course waiting on
-- before we bring anything forward, to have our agreement with Waste
Management shipping iced before we want to go and have this set up for
such specifics. When we have such specific dates in mind, I think all
of them will be more comfortable that they won't be operating next to
an operational landfill. But I wanted to kind of bring you up to date
on all three of those, and some interest out there, so see where we
go.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll get you a copy of the Boca Raton
municipal golf course. Because I had written off municipal golf
courses because they lose money. Boca Raton returns money to the
general fund every year. So when I was talking about using that as a
golf course -- people always ask me why we don't have a municipal golf
course. They think, you know, certainly we could make money.
I'll get you the pro forma on Boca Raton's so the folks you're
talking to about golf -- because that's where I'd like to see us go
with a portion of the property, because it's big enough that it could
do a couple of things. But it's just an idea.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that is all.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, I want --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you for reopening.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I want to hear more.
Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, I've said my piece more than once.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, I'm sure we'll all know exactly what we
didn't say tomorrow.
Meeting is 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: .....
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 98-117 DEFERRING 100% OF THE IMPACT FEES FOR 101 UNITS OF A
168 UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT KNOWN AS ARBOR VIEW APARTMENTS
AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS
Item #16A2 - Deleted
Item #16A3
FINAL PLAT OF VANDERBILT PINES WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A4
FINAL PLAT OF HUNTINGTON LAKES UNIT FOUR - WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A5
ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT FOR EASEMENT FOR PELICAN MARSH, UNIT 13
Item #16A6
ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT FOR EASEMENT FOR PELICAN MARSH, UNIT 15
Item #16B1
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 WITH MID-CONTINENT ELECTRIC, INC. FOR ADDITIONAL
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR SUGDEN PARK, BID NO. 97-2731 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$76,072
Item #16B2
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO WORK ORDER #CDM-FT-98-3 FOR ODOR MONITORING AND
MODELING STUDY OF THE NAPLES LANDFILL AND THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT WITH CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$26,820
Item #16B3
ACCEPTANCE OF A UTILITY EASEMENT AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
FOR UTILITY AND MAINTENANCE OF SEWER AND WATER LINES TO SUGDEN REGIONAL
PARK
Item #16B4
APPROVAL OF A UTILITY FACILITIES REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH NTC
DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Item #16B5
PROPOSAL BY KYLE CONSTRUCTION, INC. TO CONSTRUCT THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT AND CITY OF NAPLES WATER SYSTEM INTERCONNECT,
PROJECT NO. 70040 - IN THE AMOUNT OF $53,434.91
Item #16D1
THIRD AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY AGRICULTURAL
FAIR AND EXPOSITION, INC. (COLLIER COUNTY FAIR BOARD)
Item #16E1
BUDGET AMENDMENT 98-208
Item #1661
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
Item #1611
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT ACQUISITION ON
PARCEL NOS. 904A, 704B, 904B, 704C AND 904C, RICHARD L. JAEGER, TRUSTEE
IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. WILLIAM A. KINSLEY, (NORTH
COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 8-MGD WELLFIELD EXPANSION
PROJECT)
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:25 p.m..
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
BARBARA B. BERRY, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on ,
as presented or as corrected__
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING
SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC