BCC Minutes 12/06/1994 RREGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 1994,
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:07 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
Timothy J. Constantine
Bettye J. Hatthews
John C. Norris
Pam Hac'Kie
Timothy Hancock
Neil Dotrill, County Hanager
Ken Cuyler, County Attorney
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning and welcome to the
December 6 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Dotrill, if you'd be so kind as to lead us in the
invocation and in the pledge to the flag.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks this
morning for your grace and your mercy and especially at this, the
start of the holiday season, and the importance that the holidays mean
to a variety of religious faiths.
Father, we give thanks for the people of Collier County
and the wonder and the beauty that this county holds. Father, as
always it is our prayer this morning that you would guide the hand of
this commission as these men and women make very important business
decisions that affect Collier County in its future.
We give thanks for the hard work of the support staff
and the many citizens who choose to participate in this government,
and we would ask that you bless our time here together this morning.
And we pray these things in your Son's holy name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was said.)
Item #2A
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think we just got a couple of
changes to the agenda this morning.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Commissioners. We have just a couple of changes this morning. The
first will be under proclamations and presentations. It will be item
4-C-2, and it is a proclamation that pertains to National Drunk and
Drugged Driving Awareness Month. I have a request for a --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just a quick question. That will
be 4-C-2, not 4-A?
MR. DORRILL: That's my understanding.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's a presentation.
MR. DORRILL: Or it can be 4-A-1. It's your
discretion.
I have a request to continue item 8-H-4 under the
executive office report. My note here, while it's not on the typed
change sheet, is that that will be continued for two meetings until
your meeting of the 20th.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That was 8-A-47
MR. DORRILL: 8-H-4.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: 8-H-47
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: How long are we continuing it?
Two weeks?
MR. DORRILL: Two weeks until the meeting of the 20th.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Miss Filson.
MR. DORRILL: And then I have a request to withdraw two
items. The first is 8-A-6 under community development. That was an
appeal of a code compliance case. That has been resolved and will be
withdrawn.
And also to withdraw an item on the consent agenda today
which is 16-D-3 as it pertained to a lien for certain utility work.
Those two items are both withdrawn.
Now, I have two agenda note requests. The first is that
that item that deals with the cable television franchises, 8-H-2, be
heard as closely to 11:30 a.m. as possible this morning and then also
a request that item -- and I'll have to get it. It's the item
pertaining to the work release center.
MR. CUYLER: It's ll-A.
MR. DORRILL: Which is ll-A be heard as close to noon as
possible. Judge Brousseau is part of that proposal. He is in trial
this morning, but he indicated that he would recess the trial shortly
before noon and could be here shortly before noon.
There may be some communications at the conclusion of
the meeting today, Mr. Chairman. That's all that I have.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, anything?
MR. CUYLER: No, sir, no change.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
Commissioner Norris?
Nothing further.
Commissioner Hancock?
Nothing.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
No.
Commissioner Matthews?
Two things. I had sent a memo
to the manager's office on Saturday, and I guess my fax transmitted
two pages at the same time or something. I don't know. But I wanted
to add to the BCC agenda two items.
One is a discussion of the proposal on the trade of
Marco Island Airport for Jane Scenic Drive.
And the other is an update on the coalition for the
lobbying effort coming forward for the tri-county area. I'd like to
update this board on how that's progressing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'd like to add an item
discussion -- discussing the 800 megahertz system also under BCC
communications.
And with that -- oh, I also want to pull off 16-B-2 from
the consent agenda.
MR. DORRILL: 16-B-2 will become 8-B-1.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Will become what?
MR. DORRILL: 8-B-1 on the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And with that we need approval of
the agenda and consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Mr. Chairman, briefly
under your 800 megahertz, I would like to add a discussion item
regarding a liaison to the Collier County School Board as a fourth
item under 14.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
item or --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
Are we talking a communication
Communication item.
-- item 107 Okay.
And that's all.
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, just for the benefit of the
new members, if you're going to take action, it goes under Board of
County Commissioners.
under communications.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
Chairman --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
If you're just discussing it, then it goes
Okay. Thank you.
And with that we'll --
I'll make a motion, Mr.
Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Woops. In just a minute I'll make
a motion.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. Commissioner
Hancock, what you're proposing for the liaison to the school board,
are you wishing us to take action?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, no. The item's strictly for
discussion to see what the wishes of this board are. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll try a third time.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a
motion that we approve the agenda and the consent agenda with the
changes as noted.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
All those in favor of the motion please state aye.
Motion carries 5-0.
Item #3
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 4, 1994 REGULAR MEETING; OCTOBER 6, 1994
LEE/COLLIER/CHARLOTTE WORKSHOP; OCTOBER 11, 1994 REGULAR MEETING;
OCTOBER 12, 1994 SPECIAL MEETING; AND OCTOBER 12, 1994 WORKSHOP -
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
We need approval of the minutes for October 4, 6, 11,
12, and 12 regular meeting, our workshop, another regular meeting, a
special meeting, and yet another workshop.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion
that we approve all of those minutes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion and a second.
All those in favor of that motion be so kind as to state the word
aye. Motion carries 5-0.
Item #4A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF DECEMBER AS NATIONAL DRUNK AND
DRUGGED DRIVING PREVENTION MONTH - ADOPTED
Proclamations and service awards, 4-A-l, Commissioner
Norris, National Drunk and Drugged Driving Prevention Month.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have
Miss Fitch here to accept this I believe. Miss Fitch, if you'd like
to come up and stand here and face the audience, please. I'll read
this for you.
Whereas, drivers and pedestrians impaired by alcohol and
other drugs account for nearly 17,500 highway deaths annually and 18
Collier County deaths in 1993; and
Whereas, motor vehicle crashes are the number one cause of
death for children, adolescents, and young adults in the United
States, and there were 348 Collier County alcohol-related crashes in
1993; and
Whereas, alcohol is involved in nearly half of all traffic
fatalities; and
Whereas, injury and property damage resulting from
alcohol-impaired driving cause physical, emotional, and economic
hardship for hundreds of thousands of adults and young people; and
Whereas, comprehensive community-based strategies to further
reduce and prevent impaired driving tragedies are known; and
Whereas, healthcare costs resulting from motor vehicle
injuries cost American society over 14 billion a year and save $35,000
in healthcare costs alone for each serious injury that is prevented;
and
Whereas, if we take a stand now, we can prevent impaired
driving;
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of December
1994 be designated as National Drunk and Drugged Driving Prevention
Month in Collier County.
I also call upon all citizens, government agencies, public
and private institutions, business, hospitals, and schools in Collier
County to promote awareness of courses of driver impairment, existing
and proposed laws intended to further reduce and prevent impaired
driving, and opportunities to establish safer and healthier norms
regarding the use of alcohol and other drugs for all citizens,
particularly young people.
Done and ordered this 6th day of December, 1994, by the
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we accept
this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
All those in favor state aye. Motion carries.
MS. FITCH: Thank you. I think the proclamation says it
all, and on behalf of the Collier County Health Planning Council, we
wish to thank you for taking a stand.
Item #4B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Next, Commissioner Matthews, you
look like you got a whole load of service awards here.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, we did a lot of hiring
five years ago.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A whole flurry of activity.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have five service awards for
five years today and two for ten years. Unfortunately one of our
five-year people cannot be with us.
Is -- first with the five years, Margaret Wright from
compliance service, is she with us today? Apparently not.
Raul Leon, is he here today? He's from road and
bridge. Do you want to come forward? We have a certificate and a
five-year pin, and I want to thank you for all your efforts in the
last five years. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Next is Robert Graham from parks
and recreation on Marco Island. Again, he's been with us for five
years. Thank you, Mr. Graham. We have a certificate and a pin.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. GRAHAM: Welcome aboard.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
the purchasing department.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
Thank you, sir.
Is Claire Oss here? She's with
Thank you. A certificate and a pin.
Thank you very much.
Congratulations. Thanks.
Claire, thank you.
And we have two ten-year
employees. Jack Hightower has been with water management for ten
years. Is he here? Ten years' worth of effort. Congratulations.
Thank you.
And Mr. Tim Clemons with waste water, also ten years.
Did somebody miss their ten-year pin? Tim? Mr.
Clemons? Did you get your pin?
MR. CLEMONS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Hightower must have dropped
his then.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Must have got a five-year pin.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'll give you another five, and
that will make ten.
Mr. Dotrill, we can probably save money by just adding
five-year pins every five, couldn't we?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Commissioner
Matthews.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You're quite welcome. My
pleasure.
Item #4C1
GOLDEN GATE RESIDENT/HOMEOWNERS COHMITTEE - CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION
FOR DEDICATED SERVICE AND COHMITHENT TO COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT -
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The next item, 4-C-1, you may
recall a couple of months ago the Board began the practice or approved
the practice of awarding a certificate of appreciation to any
outstanding civic group who has gone above and beyond, and we have the
first recipient of that. We got a few folks with us today. We have
Mr. and Mrs. Dunsmyer and Mr. Wilt. If you all would like to come up,
you all played a large role in making this happen. If you can turn
around so everybody in TV land gets a glimpse at you too.
And we want to recognize the Golden Gate
Resident/Homeowners' Committee. They were formed as a civic response
to area problems in Golden Gate. The membership of the committee
divided up the four square miles of Golden Gate into sections ranging
from three or four roads. And in some cases people took as many as
eight or nine roads in the area and has voluntarily been patrolling
those and just noting code enforcement violations. They do not go to
the door and do not try to implement our codes. However, they do note
those code violations.
And we compile those at the County and have our
inspectors go through. We've had a problem out there because we don't
have enough inspectors to go around and hit everything.
And to give you an idea how many violations had been
occurring, in approximately six weeks, the committee identified and
processed 1,233 code violations in the area. These complaints
resulted in anything from weeds in overgrown lots to litter
violations. We had 15 abandoned vehicle violations and some housing
codes.
The most important or most serious, I guess, of the
violations ended up being some duplexes and triplexes which were
operating as crack houses. We've been successful in closing at least
two of those down at this point.
And probably the most encouraging thing or they always
say the most flattering thing that can happen is imitation. And we've
been contacted by representatives from other local civic organizations
around the County as well as the city of Fort Myers and Cape Coral who
would like to copy what the Golden Gate community has done.
So we want to publicly recognize and commend the ladies
and gentlemen of the Golden Gate Resident/Homeowners' Committee for
the work they've done. And we have a certificate of appreciation for
them. And I'd like to make a motion that we approve them as the first
of our Golden Gate -- of our different civic appreciation groups.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second that motion gladly.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion and a second.
Before we take that, Mr. Clark, you wanted to make a comment. I know
you've been very active here.
MR. CLARK: I would, Mr. Chairman. From the community
standpoint and especially from staff's viewpoint, I'd like to take the
opportunity to express how effective this has been. I assumed it
would be effective because knowing the people involved I assumed it
would be effective. They're very responsible people. I had no idea
it would be as effective as it is.
As a direct result of their involvement and
recommendations and, to be frank, recommendations from you, we formed
a joint task force with the sheriff's department as well and are
looking into other problems that we can work on jointly such as crack
houses and have targeted another one in East Naples, Naples Manor last
week and shut that one down and a couple other places.
Due to your involvement and these people's involvement,
the number of cases, the number of problems, that have been solved of
the 1,233, over 1,200 were valid -- they were valid violations, and
that's remarkable degree of accuracy.
We had a couple training sessions, but the degree of
accuracy was astounding to me. I'm extremely impressed, and the
amount of dedication and devotion that they've -- and activity that
they've performed for this community I believe is well deserved of
this recognition. I'd like to thank them also.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. With that
we have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion
please state aye. And the motion carries 5-0.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Fine job. I wish we could get
more citizens involved the way you've become involved.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just by way of note, we have
seventy some odd -- I don't know -- I think it's 77 or 78 individuals
or couples who are actively participating in that out within that four
square miles doing their patrolling. They have -- with the exception
of I think it's now six streets, they have virtually every single
street in Golden Gate covered, so great job.
MR. DUNSMYER: As chairman of the residents and
homeowners, I would like to thank the county commissioners and Collier
County. It took a lot of doing to get the people interested in
cleaning up Golden Gate. Through the efforts of everybody, thank you
all.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Tom.
Item #5
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 95-46; 95-73; AND 95-83 - ADOPTED
And with that we are onto the budget amendments. Mr.
Smykowski, how are you this morning?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Fine, Mr. Chairman. For the record,
Michael Smykowski, acting budget director. There are three budget
amendments on the budget amendment report this morning that require
the Board's approval.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for our staff on the
budget amendments? Seeing none, we'll entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion
state aye. Anyone opposed? Motion carries 5-0.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks. You can go back down to
that plush second floor office now.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I want to know how you got to
week seven, day eleven.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The budget office, for those of
you not following those comments, they've got about seven or eight
people cramped in what I highly doubt is a legal space. They're very,
very tight right now, but they'll be back in normal space in a couple
of weeks.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You can't expect everyone to be
good with numbers anyway.
Item #SA1
REQUEST BY DONALD G. CHILDS OF SCUDERI 7 CHILDS FOR EXTENSION OF
BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER 92-3519 AND BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER 92-3520 -
PERMIT EXPIRED AND IS NULL AND VOID. 90 DAYS APPROVED FOR PETITIONER
TO REAPPLY FOR PERMIT. ALL APPROPRIATE FEES TO BE PAID
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That brings us on to 8-A-l,
request by Donald Childs for extension of a building permit. Hr.
Smith, good morning.
MR. SMITH: Good morning, Commissioners. Bill Smith
from building, permitting, plan review, and inspection department.
Mr. Childs is here today to request an extension of a --
of two building permits. One would be building permit 92-3520, and
the other one would be 92-3519. As noted in the executive summary,
both these permits date back to 1990. There have been several changes
in the building code since then. There have been several changes in
the impact fees since then.
Staff sent the contractor a letter and informed the
contractor that this project was considered suspended and abandoned as
outlined in ordinance ninety-one fifty-six. Therefore, the permit
becomes null and void in staff's opinion.
There was a -- there's some question in my mind, and I
would like the Board of County Commissioners to clarify that for me.
The letter was sent by myself as the building official. A couple
weeks ago we had another applicant that was in front of the Board, and
it was not clear on whether we had ruled the permit null and void or
whether he was just asking for an extension.
Therefore, the county attorney's office in a letter had
sent the applicant a letter and told him that the Board did not rule
that the permit was null and void, that it was still active.
Therefore, the new fees and the new requirements of the ordinance were
not implemented.
So today what I'm asking is when the Board makes their
finding that they first to clarify matters for staff is determine
whether the permit is null and void and then decide whether we are
going to either issue a new permit or let them extend the existing
permit.
The problem that staff has with this particular instance
is it went -- on 3-12, 1990, they applied for a permit. On 10-31,
1990, they requested their first extension. On 1-14-91 they requested
their second extension. On 4-21-91 they received their third
extension. On 8-22-91 the permit expired.
On 3-90 -- on 3-20-92 they applied for a new permit for
the same project. On 8-14-92 the permit was issued. On 2-20 -- on
2-2-93 a request for extension was granted with a new expiration date
of 5-2-93. And on 5-11-93 a second extension was asked and granted.
And on 10-24-94 the permit expired again.
The problem that we have with the project is the project
not only falls under the criteria as outlined in ninety-one fifty-six
to be suspended or abandoned. But the construction activity that has
commenced on the project has not been forthcoming either and has not
met the criteria of the ordinance. And basically what we have on
site, as you will see in your pictures, is a stairwell and some
pilings.
Some citizens from the Marco Island Civic Association
have been concerned that the project has sat like this for a couple of
years, and they have expressed concern. So that's why we're here
before you today.
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, if I could, let me clarify
something that Bill said. You recall -- and I'm not sure whether it
was this board or the previous -- I guess it was the previous Board
that heard the last item.
What I indicated to the party that was in front of you
at that time was that what the Board said -- they had come in and
asked for a six-month extension. The Board had said, we will give you
a six-month extension but under the conditions that you pay the
difference in the impact fees and bring your plans up to code.
He later contacted me and said, if we want to go forward
tomorrow, do we have the ability to do that, or did the Board rule our
permit null and void? And I indicated to him that since the Board had
granted an extension with conditions, then the Board more or less
recognized that at least as of that day the permit was valid. And I
don't know whether he ultimately went forward the next day or whether
he's going to get a new permit or whatever.
But I think what Bill is asking that you do so that you
not run into that, do one of two things. Either make it clear that
you think that the permit's valid today and you're giving a potential
continuance of the permit based on conditions or not as you see fit or
recognize that the permit is invalid and has expired.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just to clarify, Mr. Smith, it's
your belief the permit is expired and invalid?
MR. SMITH: Yes, sir, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Cuyler, for the last couple of
years, at least while I've been here, on all of these cases if we
grant a permit extension we have required the updating of codes and
the updating of the impact fee to today's schedules?
MR. CUYLER: To my recollection, most if not all, yes,
you have done that; on every one I can remember anyway.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is there an instance where we did
not do that? I can't recall one.
MR. CUYLER: I can't recall one. I can't recall one.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry? Can you say that one
more time, Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In those instances that we've
heard since -- at least since the old commissioners here have been on
the Board is that when we have seen these, if we grant a permit
extension, we did require that they be brought up to today's existing
codes and that they also pay the difference, if any, for today's
impact fee schedule.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So the question then becomes two
distinct questions. Has this one expired? And if it has, obviously
we can't grant an extension to a non-existing permit. But if it has
not expired, do we want to grant an extension? And if so, I think
you're right. If we find ourselves in that circumstance, it should be
at today's code.
MR. CUYLER: Correct. And the only ordinance
requirement is that the Board find for good cause, whatever you
determine that to be.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me clarify one more thing, Mr.
Cuyler. If the -- if a permit is null and void, do we still have the
authority as the Board to extend it if we so choose?
MR. CUYLER: I have always taken the position that if
the permit expires, there is nothing to continue at that point, so
it's an expired permit, and that's it. But you have -- you know,
based on all the facts and circumstances, you need to determine
whether it has expired or not.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Smith, did the petitioner
know what the termination date on their -- their permit was? In other
words, if they wanted to apply for an extension, I believe they should
have come before us prior to the termination of this -- MR. SMITH: Prior to the expiration date, that's
correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we're '-
MR. SMITH: In addition to that, the Board had ruled
previously on the original permit and had extended them -- the Board
of County Commissioners had extended them an expiration date prior to
and even after they had had the second expiration on the original
permit.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we may not even really be
talking about an extension here. If we have a null and void permit,
that reduces our -- if I understand the discussion we just had, if the
permit's null and void, we're not talking about an extension anymore?
MR. CUYLER: That's correct. But I think the difference
is -- and this is the part where it's not really clear and staff and
our office struggles a little bit. The question is, do you just say,
yes, it's null and void because staff said it's null and void, or do
we need to allow the petitioner to make an argument that it's not null
and void, that something -- you know, that there is some good basis
for you to find it's not null and void and thereby give you the
ability to give them an extension if they wish an extension.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's hear from the petitioner
and their side of the -- MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, we have three. We have Mr.
-- is this Delapa?
MR. DELAPA: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My
name is Anthony Delapa. I represent Dela Park Place. I'm sorry I
have a cold, so forgive me. Mr. Childs, we felt, was no need of him
to come in today. It's not a legal issue. It's a dispute of a permit
here. And I have with me Mr. Herb Savage and Joe Lynch from Lynch
Construction Company, and they are going to come in for all your
answer. I'm just here to represent the company. And for the issue I
would like to turn the meeting over to Mr. Herb Savage and then Joe
Lynch who has answers for you. Thank you.
MR. SAVAGE: Good morning, commissioners. First of all,
I'm Herb Savage, architect for this project. I've been an architect
for Mr. Delapa on other projects on Marco Island. He owns a great
number of particles of property on Marco Island, has been a great
contributor to our development in our community tax-wise as well as
development-wise.
And I want to congratulate the new commissioners this
morning because I think it's great to see such magnificent youth, and
I'm serious about that. You know, I've been practicing architecture
for 45 years, and I can't believe that I'm still around.
But anyhow, to be serious about this matter, this
project started in 1990. And we -- and everyone will say, well, you
can't talk about finances. I don't think there's anything but
finances as to the reason why things don't progress. We all don't
have all the money in the world, and we do have to depend on banks.
We have to depend on sales.
And I'm only asking this group to understand that this
Mr. Delapa, the magnificent American who is making his development --
and this is not a political speech. Well, I'm full of that anyhow,
you know, but nevertheless, it's great that an individual like this
who will make an effort to make a success in life financially and
otherwise.
Now, when we started this project in 1990, there were
all kinds of opportunities here to develop a piece of property, and
the sales didn't happen. And there's no question about that. And
that's the reason we asked for the extensions that Bill Smith's
talking about.
Later on in 1992, a permit was asked for through Mr.
Lynch, general contractor, and he attempted to progress -- make
progress in this organization and build it in the time allowed. But
again, various elements came up, and we just weren't able to continue
in the progress. I can remember building the Marriott Hotel, and
years ago we did a floor a week, and you don't do that in every case.
In 1993 -- actually 19 -- October 1993 we submitted a
complete set of new drawings reducing it from 62 units down to 53
units, downzoning it, so that we had a market requirement for
three-bedroom units. Those were the reasons why we stopped then and
started applying for a new permit.
Well, as I see, of course, a new permit number was not
issued. But November '93 we supplied drawings to the building
department and got approval for 53 units instead of 62.
My point to you is, that's a little over a year. And
I'd like to think and perhaps the builder can refer to the extensions
in that instance, but we applied for 53 units for approval in fifty --
'93 October. And I'd like to think that you would consider this not
abandoned, not null and void, but to give us an opportunity to finish
the building.
I'd like to suggest that you give us 18 months. There's
no way in the world this building can be built in 12 months, 6
months. I'd like to ask for 18 months that would start -- and if I
have to bring it up, according to what Mr. Cuyler has said, to new
code requirements, installing a fire sprinkler system, it's going to
take a couple months to get the drawings revised so that we will be
able to meet the new code. And I would hope that after that we would
have 18 months to build the building. Mr. Delapa has said we can get
it finished in that length of time.
I ask you for your consideration in that matter.
Anything else, I'll be able to answer a question.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Smith, Mr. Savage has said
that they submitted new drawings in October of '93, and he says they
applied for a new permit. Is there any reason that a new permit would
not have been issued?
MR. SMITH: Yes, ma'am, several reasons. When they
applied in October of '93, they applied as a revision. So as a
revision, they don't pay any new --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There was not a request then for
a new permit?
MR. SMITH: No, ma'am. So as a revision to the original
plan, they don't have to meet the current code at that time, nor do
they pay new impact fees. All they have done is changed the
construction. And Mr. Savage is right. They did downzone. They did
go to lower units. But it was not a good permit application. It's
strictly a revision to the original one.
The 18 months that he's requesting if they apply for a
new permit today, they will have the 18 months. But he's right. They
will have to put in a fire sprinkler system, and that's an economical
factor.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is the issue here purely
economics? Is it purely that if you apply for a new permit there are
additional costs associated with that because that does seem to me to
be the most logical way, that you're going to have to pay the impact
fees. You're going to have to bring it up to the new code. So what
is the reason? And that does get you 18 months. What's the reason
for not doing that?
MR. SAVAGE: The reason -- to answer the question beyond
my five minutes, the needed extra construction costs for the sprinkler
system, it costs at least $2 a square foot for that as a matter of
cost. And it costs time for the engineers and the architects to
develop the changes in the other requirements based on the hurricane
codes.
I think we're pretty much up to date on all of that, but
it's just a matter of we have to go make sure it meets the new code,
and it will cost money.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if you -- I don't understand.
I'm not willing to entertain at all the possibility of extending
anything that's not brought up to the current code. So if what we're
talking about is that you're going to have to go back, draw new plans,
resubmit, why would you even be benefitted by an extension? I don't
understand the issue. I must be missing something.
MR. SMITH: Commissioner, if he gets an extension, it's
on the original permit number. Therefore, that permit becomes valid.
Therefore, that permit is a '92 permit, so he would fall under the '92
code unless you would stipulate otherwise.
COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: And Iwm suggesting that I
wouldn't even consider it without stipulating otherwise, so I don't --
for my vote anyway I don't see how you can accomplish anything.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The question, I think, that
Commissioner Mac'Kie was asking is, is there a cost difference to the
petitioner --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- between an extension or
reapplying for a new permit, an entirely new permit?
MR. SMITH: If we go by the letter of the ordinance, if
you grant him an extension and don't stipulate, then the answer to
his --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, we will stipulate.
MR. SMITH: Well, then no, there is.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I don't see where we're --
MR. CUYLER: Well, the difference in cost would be his
orig -- he would lose his original building permit fees. If he
applied for a new permit, he'd have to pay all his new permit fees.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And how much would that entail?
MR. CUYLER: No, wait a second. That's a question as
much as it is a statement.
MR. SMITH: That depends on the Board's wishes. The
permit fees can stay with the applicant along with the impact fees,
and he can just pay the difference if that's what the Board's wishes
are.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, in the past we have
consistently required these situations to meet the new code and to pay
any difference in impact fees. I don't think we've required
differences in permit fees, but I certainly don't object to that
either because our costs of inspection have definitely gone up in the
last four years.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And frankly, the staff time --
excuse me, Mr. Chairman. But the staff time expended on this, I think
it would be imprudent of us to just -- you know, to not charge all
applicable fees when this is obviously something that's had intensive
tax money spent on it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's one element that hasn't
been addressed, and that is the folks on Marco Island have been
viewing pilings for a number of years. The potential for a safety
hazard or safety accident on that site is of concern to me. And I've
seen nothing in your track record that shows me that you have any
dedication whatsoever to pursuing this project with all haste.
Therefore, I see no difference in us granting an
extension or declaring your permit null and void. You're going to
have to go through the same steps either way. I believe this Board
will direct you to bring it up to code and to address the impact
fees. So whether you apply for a new permit or whether we extend it,
those conditions I believe are going to be the same at least coming
from me. And the reason for that simply is that I have seen nothing
in your track record to show me that any additional consideration is
due. And I'm sorry, sir, but I just can't ask the folks on Marco
Island to look at an unfinished construction site for another three
years.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One more question. It's my
understanding from what I've read here that there are pilings -- piles
and columns and so forth that are in place. MR. SMITH: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If this project -- we don't have
to talk, do we? If this project is deemed to have been abandoned,
what would we do to take the property or the land back to a appearance
where there are no columns and so forth? MR. SMITH: The Board --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: How do we do that?
MR. SMITH: Code enforcement action through the Code
Enforcement Board, and there was a previous case in Marco Island where
we did -- I don't know if you were on the Board at the time, but the
Board did rule, and the gentleman did have to go back and remove the
piling off an existing grade or verdant soil, and that was ordered, so
that's another option that we have.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's not unlike Embassy Woods
where they had a half-built building, and they had their choice of
clearing the property back to the --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Or finishing it.
MR. SMITH: And it's not the complete foundation. And
the only thing that staff would hope the Board in the null and void,
it makes it easier for the review process and for the permitting
process to receive a new permit number also in addition.
MR. SAVAGE: Hay I just say, Mr. Chairman, perhaps none
of you were on the Board in those days, but early on in Marco there
was an apartment complex that stood there for four years, columns and
tie beams all exposed, and it finally became a building and everyone
forgot about it.
I'm just saying that obviously it is a danger. It is an
unsightly thing for the time being, and I'm sure that if you could
remove any of it -- Bob Graham back here, one of the employees of the
County, was in that area of the time. He would remember. But it
stood there, and we were all unhappy about it. But it did overcome.
And it did become a building, and it's a very fine building in the
community.
It does happen, and I don't think Mr. Delapa has any
intention of abandoning the project. I just hope that you can work
with us. And you have done a great job in the County, by the way, in
cooperating with us.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Lynch, did you want to speak
as well?
MR. LYNCH: Yes, I'd like to.
MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, if I might make a comment in
the interim.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Clark.
MR. CLARK: The staff obviously recommends the
application of new codes be applied particularly in the fire area.
One more recent one I just read this weekend on the east coast, an
assisted living for people who had some handicaps on the east coast,
this home -- and I see Commissioner Hancock shaking his head.
Apparently he read that.
But a very sad situation happened wherein they convinced
the Board over there or the authorities not to require the sprinkler
system, and several lives were lost as a result of that. Had they had
a sprinkler system there, they probably would not have lost those
lives. It's unfortunate that there are added costs, but lives --
protection of lives is obviously quite important too.
MR. LYNCH: Thank you. My name is Joe Lynch. I'm the
general contractor for the project. I do have a comment on the idea
of there only being piling. In previous cases like this, they were
required to cut them down.
We have a situation where we are far beyond piling. We
have not only piling for the main building but piling for the garage
structure which is separate plus all the pile caps, all the grade
beams, and all the columns and all the sheer walls for the first floor
of the main building. Essentially -- you can correct me if I'm wrong
-- the garage structure itself is only lacking the top concrete slab;
is that correct?
MR. SAVAGE: That's correct.
MR. LYNCH: The tennis court.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have pictures.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, okay. They haven't gotten
here yet. I'm sorry.
MR. LYNCH: The garage structure itself only requires a
slab to be poured on top of the sheer walls and columns to complete
the structure under this permit.
The main building, the sheer walls, columns, and stair
structures for the first floor are all in place, so it's more than
just cutting off piling per se. I just wanted to answer that
question.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand, Mr. Lynch. I know
your reputation in the community, and it's a solid one; Mr. Savage
likewise. And this is in no way a reflection of the work that either
of you has done.
The problem is we have a track record from the property
owner of very slowly moving along with the job to keep it active
without any real what I would call aggressive start to complete
construction. It hasn't happened. I have no assurance that's going
to happen. So that is my concern.
So again, I see no -- the only problem I see is if we
declare the permit null and void, we can then require that you go in
and restore the site to the original condition.
So that seems to be the choice this Board may have to
make, whether we impose that or whether we request a new permit, and
I'll leave that to the discussion of the balance of the Board but --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I tend to agree with Commissioner
Hancock. Again, no reflection on Mr. Savage or Mr. Lynch, but I think
we've got a situation here that has gone on and on and on and needs to
stop. I don't know that I have any reason why I would want to renew a
permit with all the conditions that would be required under a new
permit anyway. That seems like we're just getting into semantics.
I guess my preference would be to deny the extension,
and at that point it will become an issue of trying to comply with
local ordinances, and you'll have the option, I guess, of getting new
permits and completing the project or following the law of code
enforcement and removing -- bringing back to original shape. So I
don't think we even need to specify that. I think that's under
existing law. Mr. Smith?
MR. SMITH: Commissioner Constantine, what staff would
like to recommend is that the Board first find that the permit is null
and void, that the Board ask the petitioner that they either have 90
days to apply for a new permit or remove the pilings and the sheer
walls and the structures which would be the structures attached to the
ground and find, first of all, like I've asked, that staff find null
and void, then ask and have them come in to see staff within 90 days
to make application, have permits issued or remove pilings, sheer
walls, stairwells, and elevator pits.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Cuyler, one more point of
refreshment here; refreshing I should say. In the past when we have
done a similar action, it's my recollection that we have allowed the
permit fees to be passed on to a new permit; is that correct or not?
MR. CUYLER: You have that -- the impact fees definitely
pass on. At least those that have been paid run with the land. With
regard to the permit fees themselves, I believe that the Board has
generally looked at whether there has been a portion reviewed and
those review fees have been paid. And you can look at that as having
been something that's already done, and then whatever else needs to be
done is paid for.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, just -- I'm asking these
questions just in the interest of consistency. I want to be
consistent with what we've done in the past.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Excuse me just a minute,
Commissioner. Mr. Dotrill, I don't think -- if we're going to be here
for four or five hours, I don't want to put up with little gunshots at
30-second intervals. Perhaps someone can -- Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That was it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I was going to ask if it was
possible for us to consider granting credits for the unused permit
fees. Obviously they've consumed some of these permit fees in site
review and whatever inspections have been accomplished, and certainly
our staff has already gone to that. But I think I would like to see
new current day permit fees paid with a credit for unused fees.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree with a credit for impact
fees, and, as our attorney advised us, that runs with the land, would
follow anyway. But for heaven sake, this is a project that's gotten
more staff attention than normal. It doesn't seem to me that any
additional credit should be given. So is a motion appropriate at this
time?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to move that we deny the
application.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We want to do that in two parts,
Mr. Smith. You want --
MR. SMITH: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You prefer the first motion is
that we recognize -- first part of the motion is that we recognize
that the permit has expired.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
MR. SMITH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
that my motion.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Discussion on that motion?
And it's null.
It's null and void.
And then --And we'll move from there.
That's fine. I'm willing to make
I'll second the motion.
There is a motion and a second.
Seeing none, all those in favor of the
motion, state aye. Anyone opposed? Hotion carries 5-0.
We need to take a second step to get what you need. You
had indicated 90 days?
MR. SMITH: Yes, sir, I would hope that the Board would
request of the petitioner that they either apply for new permits and
receive new permits and have new permits issued within 90 days or
remove what is on site.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Smith, is that in accordance
with our existing building code? Is that where you're getting the 90
days?
MR. SMITH: If it's a -- no, 90 days is what I feel
would be reasonable for them to go ahead and re -- the whole building
will not have to be redesigned. The engineering foundation will not
have to be redesigned. There will have to be retrofitting done. I
think 90 days is appropriate to get that work done. If the Board
would wish 120 days or whatever the Board would wish, that's up to
them.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the 90 is above and beyond
what the code dictates currently. There is no set time frame within
the code?
MR. SMITH: No, sir, there is not.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd just like to -- I think it
would be appropriate to let the normal process run, let code
enforcement action be taken, if necessary, and not impose additional
burdens on the project. I think just we ought to enforce the
ordinances as they exist.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think this is actually less of
a burden. We're giving them an opportunity rather than immediately
sending it to code enforcement.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If we just declare it null and
void, code enforcement can go out there today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we're giving them a window.
Okay. That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll so move that we have a
90-day window for which the petitioner may come back in, reapply for
the building permit, to do so to move the project ahead. Otherwise at
the termination of that 90 days, it will be subject to the code as
written.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
Further discussion on the motion?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Question on the motion.
MR. LYNCH: Point of information --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: At this point we're not open for
discussion, but if you have something, go ahead, Mr. Lynch.
MR. LYNCH: I wasn't clear on whether the credit for the
existing impact fee would be given.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I was just going to bring that
up as a question on the motion. MR. LYNCH: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The county attorney has advised
us that the impact fees go with the land. But those were impact fees
paid in either 1990 or 1992. Our impact fees have since gone up. I
would like to see any additional fees be paid.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will amend my motion to include
that the difference between the initial fees paid and the current rate
schedule be a part of the building permit application.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Second that?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Certainly.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One other question on the
motion. The building permit fees, we are going to require those to be
paid fully at current rates, no credits; is that correct?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Smith, have we done more
inspection than we were paid for?
MR. SMITH: On the total project the answer to your
question is no. What staff would like to see in fairness to the
petitioner is pay the additional fees that will be costs with the
additional review because we will have to go back and review for
sprinkler. We will have to go back and review for current code.
So if it's the Board's wishes to give the petitioner
credit for what he applied for, I think between what he applied for
for the review and for the additional, there can be a charge that's
worked out that would be fair to the petitioner and also fair to staff
if that's what the commission would wish.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would further amend my motion
to include the credit for the inspections already paid for and that
the difference shall apply to the petitioner upon application for
building permit.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can second, yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a second -- we have an
amendment, and the second has accepted the amendment. Any further
discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, state
aye. Anyone opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
MR. DELAPA: Could I have a question to the Board and
the building department?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Surely.
MR. DELAPA: I have a -- I'd like to know -- I'd like to
have an answer. If you're denying this permit upon the new chapter
that was amended in '91, the law that was amended in '917 MR. SMITH: I'm sorry?
MR. DELAPA: The permit's been denied or been void from
the new law that was act of 1991, that 60 percent of the project was
not completed from the date we started permit to today.
MR. SMITH: No, sir, your permit was considered null and
void as of October. Your last inspection was done in April, and your
permit is null and void, number one, because of inspections and,
number two, because under our ordinance it requires that you meet 60
percent of the construction that is common to the industry and --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What I'm going to suggest is Mr.
Smith and Mr. Clark, if you will get with him now and clarify any
questions he may have.
MR. DELAPA: Could I suggest something for the future?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Certainly.
MR. DELAPA: If -- when the permit was issued to us, if
that was stamped saying that the building department has the right any
time to find this building permit null and void if you don't
accomplish 60 percent we feel that you done, I don't think this
project would even get started right from the beginning because we
went in to do work under the ordinance of the law.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, two comments. The building
department doesn't have the ability to declare it null and void. MR. DELAPA: Yes, it has.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: May I finish? The building
department doesn't have the ability to declare it null and void at any
time. There are clearly written out in the ordinances if you're going
to build in the County what criteria you have to meet. You have not
met that, so your permit has expired.
MR. DELAPA: I'm not disputing that. I just want to try
to avoid some problem in the future for somebody else, and I thank the
-- you know, if we have to pull a new permit, what's the difference?
I mean, I thank you. Then we have all the time. We follow with the
rules and regulation of the County and everything and go forward. No
use of being under the gun or under the -- somebody else ready to pull
the trigger again. And I feel that's the -- if that's going to
happen, that's the way it should be done.
But I have a thing on this chapter -- what was that,
Joe?
MR. LYNCH: Ninety-one fifty-six.
MR. DELAPA: -- ninety-one fifty-six, the ordinance, I
think that should be automatic put on any permit that will be issued
in the future. That should be stamped on there, so it gives people
warning just like you tell their rights, whatever it is.
Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not here -- I sit on both sides
because I serve on Board too, and it's easy to criticize somebody else
when you're on the opposite side.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Mr. Delapa, I understand
your concern.
MR. DELAPA: Thank you. I think I been
listen --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But the point is that there are,
as you know, hundreds or thousands of county building codes, and it's
your burden as the builder and property owner to know which ones are
going to apply to you. I mean, we can't stamp the whole code on a set
of plans. The code book is this thick.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It would be a very big stamp.
MR. DELAPA: And just my thoughts on that. And you have
to look at this project. It's not a basic one-, two-car garage.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Again, thank you.
yOU.
MR. DELAPA: It is a large project. Again, I thank
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Delapa.
Item #8A2
RESOLUTION 94-824 DEFERRING 100e OF THE LIBRARY SYSTEH IHPACT FEES,
PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES, ROAD IMPACT FEES,
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES IMPACT FEES, WATER IMPACT FEES, SEWER IMPACT
FEES, AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES FOR 176 DWELLING UNITS OF
THE 176 UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT TO BE BUILT BY OSPREYS LANDING,
LTD. FOR OSPREYS LANDING APARTMENTS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DAVIS
BOULEVARD - ADOPTED. IMPACT FEE AGREEMENT - APPROVED WITH CHANGE
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 8-A-2, recommendation BCC
consider deferring 100 percent of the impact fees. Hr. Hihalic.
MR. HIHALIC: Good morning, commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good-looking tie.
MR. HIHALIC: I'm Greg Hihalic, affordable housing
director for the County.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What is on that tie?
MR. HIHALIC: Oh, panthers, endangered panthers.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's not a native tie, is it?
MR. HIHALIC: Not a native tie.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You know, if they're black
panthers against yellow grass, it's no wonder they're endangered.
MR. HIHALIC: It could be. It could very well be, but
that's why they're fast, Commissioner. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I got it, Tim.
MR. HIHALIC: Good morning. Basically I'm here before
you this morning to ask that you consider the deferral of library
system impact fees, park and recreational impact fees, road impact
fees, emergency medical service impact fees, water impact fees, sewer
impact fees, and educational facilities impact fees for 176 units of
176-unit rental affordable housing project.
This project, Ospreys Landing Apartments, was granted a
15-year impact deferral on November 9, 1993, by the Board of County
Commissioners. The developer would now like to amend and restate the
original impact fee agreement to substitute a six-year, 100 percent
deferral for his mixed 15-year deferral that he had before.
And let me say that there is an error in my executive
summary as well as in the resolution. The original 176 units were
supposed to have 35 very low income units, not 25 as stated in our
agreements, and 141 low income units.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could you say that one more
time?
MR. HIHALIC: Yes, 35 units for very low income
households. Those are households that are 50 percent median income or
less and 141 units that are for low income households, those
households that have 60 percent of median income or less. So we're
talking about a 10 percent differential here or approximately four --
potentially $4,000 difference in income to the households being
served.
Because the developer was providing both low and very
low income units, he was eligible in 1993 for 100 percent deferral of
impact fees for those units that served very low income households and
a 50 percent deferral of impact fees for those units that served low
income households for a 15-year period. This came out to $504,241.
Now the developer would like to eliminate the 35 very
low income units and is asking for 100 percent deferral of all his
impact fees, $838,203.52, for a six-year period.
An impact fee deferral for a six-year period does not
require any contribution from the Board of County Commissioners as a
reimbursement to the impact fee funds for that deferral.
So essentially by granting this request, you would be
saving the contribution of the $504,241 from general fund reserves
which is what's the original budget allocation for this project.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Mihalic, where would these
funds eventually come from? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. MIHALIC: For the six-year deferral? There would be
no cash reimbursement at all. They would be paid back by the
developer at the end of the six-year period. And, in fact, the
developer in this case is asking for us to subordinate our lien, and
he will give us a stripped treasury bill for this money right now
within a day or two to compensate those impact fee funds to be sure
that the money is there at the end of the six-year period for the
impact fee funds to be reimbursed for this deferral.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We are not required to pony that
up from our end. If it's six years, we are required to for the 15
years; right?
MR. MIHALIC: If it's more than seven, we are required
to come up with some money, some cash money.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, didn't we get an AG
opinion not too long ago that we could use the interest on these
various impact fee accounts to fund these waivers? MR. CUYLER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And the very housing that this
county needs so badly is the very low, and I'm opposed to doing away
with 35 units for the very low income and moving those into low
income, low income housing of which we are getting so many
applications for now and virtually because we have now made available
100 percent deferral for six years we're getting almost no
applications for very low. And we may have to readdress that issue
that we've made it too easy to avoid supplying very low income
housing.
MR. MIHALIC: Commissioner, I think you're right that
because there's some changes at the state level we are now finding
that the necessity of providing the very low income units is not as
heavy on the developer as it was in the last year or two. And I've
found several developers that are now talking about coming back and
eliminating the very low income units that they originally were going
to apply for in their development.
However, I don't want you to think that we have enough
interest on the impact fee funds to compensate for the $504,000
because we don't, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But it's my understanding,
though, that equally while we have to fund it over -- for a 15-year
deferral, we don't have to fund it immediately. We can fund it over a
five- or six-period as well. Is that -- is that not right?
MR. CUYLER: Maximum of six years.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Maximum of six years. So we
don't have to come up with $500,000 right now.
MR. MIHALIC: No.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We can accumulate the interest
over six years.
MR. MIHALIC: We don't have to pay up until the sixth
through the fifteenth year.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's right. So with that in
mind and really this county's desperate need for very low income
housing, I'm going to make a motion that we deny this request to
convert the very low income housing into low income in favor of a
6-year deferral versus 15-year. I think we've got the interest or
will have the interest in the account to eventually fund it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll keep that motion on the
floor without a second, but we'll go to our speakers first.
MR. DORRILL: First speaker that I have is Mr. Keller,
and then following him I have Mr. Slater. Mr. Slater is the
petitioner. We ought to have him first.
MR. KELLER: George Keller, concerned citizen. You
know, it really bothers me. We know we need some low income housing,
but I never figured $50,000 a unit would be low income housing.
Secondly, the rents that we've set up for some of these
low income housing people is much too high, and it looks to me like as
if these developers are coming in and they're making a barrel of money
and not having to put up impact fees where if an individual wants to
build a house in Collier County, it will cost them from six to eight
thousand dollars in impact fees.
And most of these people are young people that are
coming here and working at minimum salaries, and we're discouraging
them from becoming homeowners, and we're letting these big -- big
developers come in here and get away with paying impact fees for 6 to
15 years.
Basically speaking, even if you have a lien on the
property for that, if the outfit goes bankrupt, you're not going to
get the impact fee at all, and we're giving them a tremendous
advantage to build cjuster housing or large units and discouraging
people from becoming individual homeowners.
So I honestly think our whole program stinks really, and
it should be reconsidered so that we encourage people to go and build
them individual housing instead of these massive developments and
giving these big operators a chance to make a lot of money and maybe
walk out. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Mihalic, do you want to
address that?
MR. MIHALIC: Yes. Mr. Keller, we do have a separate
program that provides impact fee waivers and deferrals for first-time
home buyers that qualify at even a higher income level than what we're
providing for rental apartment units. So that program is in place,
and it's reimbursed through the ship program, state documentary tax
stamp monies. So we do indeed encourage home ownership and try to
facilitate home ownership.
MR. KELLER: Can you really tell me and be honest about
it and tell me that somebody building an apartment house and spending
50,000 plus per unit which means that they have to get at least $500 a
month rent and most of them are going higher than that and that you
are providing low income housing and charging people anywhere from 550
to 675 for a unit? Who can afford that? Surely not people that are
on low income. Thank you.
MR. HIHALIC: Mr. Keller --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just wanted to comment for the
benefit of our two newest members that low income housing has a salary
limit of $25,200, not 50,000, and that very low income has a $21,000
salary income. And that's for a family of four, not for the
individual.
MR. KELLER: They couldn't afford the rent.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So these are low income people.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Keller, you've had your five
minutes. Thank you.
MR. KELLER: They couldn't afford to pay $600 in rent.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
MR. DORRILL: We have Mr. Slater, and then I have
additional, Mr. Erlichman.
MR. SLATER: For the record, my name is Jim Slater. I'm
with the law firm of Broad and Cassel. I represent the developer of
the project, Ospreys Landing Limited.
Couple of things ought to be made clear with regard --
for example, with regard to the rents that are charged. All the rents
are established under a formula pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code
and the program administered by the Florida Housing Finance Agency.
And basically you take the -- in order to be low income,
it's gotta -- you can't make more than 60 percent of the median income
of the metropolitan area, and then you can't charge as rents more than
30 percent of that income with an adjustment for how many bedrooms
there are.
So all of the rents under the program, the low income
housing tax credit program, are set by the federal and state
government in order to accommodate the people based on their income
level.
With regard to this request, a number of things have happened
since the original application was made.
First of all, any of these projects has to go through an
underwriting process with the Florida Housing Finance Agency and their
underwriters. Part of that underwriting process is to determine the
feasibility, the economic feasibility, of the project. The reason the
request has been made to eliminate the very low income units is
basically the fact that the project with the very low income units is
not economically feasible anymore.
One of the reasons for that is the fact that over the
past year you will find that construction costs and, in particular,
lumber prices have increased dramatically. So what may have been
feasible in 1993 is no longer feasible.
When we talk about economic feasibility, one of the
problems that is faced with this project if it were built with 35 very
low income units is the fact that when you get to the permanent loan
stage, the amount of money available in your permanent loan is based
upon taking the rents that are available, capitalizing them, and the
money is then forthcoming.
If you take the construction costs of the project, take
the rents with the 34 -- 35 very low income units, we run into about a
$500,000 shortfall.
Basically the situation is we have -- subject to
resolving this issue, we've got a construction loan closed. We've got
a home loan from the State of Florida closed all of which are approved
with low income units, 100 percent, and we cannot afford to build the
35 very low income units.
The ordinance provides that if we meet all the requirements
with the low income that there is to be a 6-year deferral of 100
percent of the impact fees which is what we're requesting.
In this case, as Mr. Mihalic pointed out, we are also
asking for the subordination which was put into the code. I was here
for that. As a matter of fact, I'm the one that proposed adding the
substitute collateral in the nature of a cash equivalent financial
instrument which we are prepared to post immediately which basically
takes the County out at the end of six years guaranteed.
In our situation we're talking about posting a United
States treasury bill in an amount which at the end of a six-year
period will fund the full amount of the impact fees in order to get
the subordination.
From our perspective and the economics for the County,
it appears to be a win-win situation. Number one, you won't have to
fund anything at the end of six years from your impact -- in order to
bring your impact fee situation up to what code requires.
And number two, it's going to be guaranteed with a
financial instrument which is payable to the Board of County
Commissioners which will yield the full amount of the impact fees.
Since we are buying that in your name, even if the
project went bankrupt, you still get your impact fees. It's going to
be yours as soon as we post it. So we feel that we're ready to come
out of the ground as soon as we can get the issued resolved. And we
respectfully request that you grant the 6-year deferral as opposed to
the originally granted 15.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Slater, you mentioned the
treasury bill that you're going to buy that will have a maturity date
in the year 2000, I would assume, six years from now? MR. SLATER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Treasury bills are those
instruments which mature in one year or less. Is this -- are you
talking about a zero coupon government --
MR. SLATER: It's a zero coupon bond.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But it is a treasury --
MR. SLATER: I misspoke.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: A treasury instrument?
MR. SLATER: It is a United States government financial
instrument.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you also telling this Board
that if you don't get this readjustment of your impact fees that the
project will not go forward?
MR. SLATER: No, I believe the project will go forward.
We will simply have to go back to the drawing board and figure out,
you know, how we can deal with the impact fees in some other manner
because I don't think that either the State nor our lenders are going
to let us proceed with 35 very low income units. That's the word that
has been given to us. We will end up with a shortfall at the time of
the permanent loan of $500,000. In our sources and uses there's no
place to come up with the $500,000.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a comment before -- we have
another speaker, but I'll have a comment before we vote.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We got a couple more questions
too. Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Slater, you answered my
question on why we're eliminating 35 very low income, and I echo
Commissioner Matthews' concern that that's one area that we've
continually failed to address or failed to have the opportunity to
address. And I have a feeling this may hinge more on that than on the
financial picture. So I'll just ask that you consider that. And
really that's about it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just having been a petitioner in
front of this Board before, I hate these questions, so I apologize
ahead of time. But when you are coming forward with a subsidized
project, I think it becomes sort of the public's right to know things
like what's the developer's fees, how much are the attorney's fees in
a project like this, what's the profit percentage? When you're
telling us it's not a financially feasible project then -- and you're
asking for tax money to support the project, then your personal
business becomes our business, and I apologize for that.
But I have had experience in these kinds of projects and
generally find that yes, under the proforma that you have in mind and
maybe under a standard proforma for a typical real estate development
deal there's not any extra money to squeeze out of this project.
But I also know that there are typically pretty
significant developer fees and other fees that might be able to be
moved around to provide for some very low income housing in Collier
County.
MR. SLATER: In answer to your question, there are
fairly significant attorney's fees in these projects, and I don't shy
away from the question at all. The reason for that is most of the
attorney's fees come because of the fact the way a low income housing
deal is put together, you have a developer. You have a tax credit
syndicator. You have a limited partnership agreement between that
developer and the tax credit syndicator. The tax credit syndicator
takes the tax credits that are awarded by the federal government, goes
out, sells those to industry, so on and so forth. And by the time you
get through negotiating that, there are fairly significant attorney's
fees. There are also developer's fees.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what I'd like to hear
about.
MR. SLATER: And I don't shy away from that question
either. I mean, my client is in the business of making money. If
they cannot make what they feel to be a reasonable profit, I mean,
this is not a non-profit situation.
The reason the low income housing tax credit program was
put together by the federal government was to be able to provide
effectively rent-controlled housing and make it available for those
who wouldn't have the ability to rent this type of unit without some
sort of incentive from the government.
It all goes back to the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Before
that you didn't have a problem because of the fact that you have
accelerated depreciation and interest deductions and basically the
same types of benefits which held rents down. You didn't have to make
that much money.
But an answer to the question is if a developer in one
of these situations can't make the profit that is commensurate with
the risk that they take, the guarantees that they sign both to the tax
credit syndicator in this case for some four million dollars, the
guarantees that they've had to sign with the construction lender to
the tune of about five million dollars, the guarantees that they
signed to the State of Florida for the home loan which was only a
hundred and seventy-six thousand dollars, they're not going to proceed
to build the units without that type of profit.
So yes, I mean, the whole reason for the credit program
is to make private enterprise incentivized to provide the housing, but
there are profits to be made.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely, and I don't have a
problem with that. My question is, are you willing to share with the
Board the percentage of profits or the amount of the developer's fee
so that --
MR. SLATER: If I knew them off the top of my head and I
had my client's permission, I would have no problem with that. It's
all a matter of public record. All of the developer's fees in a low
income housing tax credit program have to be filed with the Florida
Housing Finance Agency. The percentage of developer's fees that can
be made, the percentage of contractor's profit that can be made are
all governed by the Internal Revenue Code in terms of what those
percentages can be.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So there's a cap.
MR. SLATER: There is a cap.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Surely you have some idea,
ballpark figure, of what we're talking here when you say, gosh, if I
knew off the top of my head. I don't expect an exact number, but I
think you can probably answer Commissioner Mac'Kie's question with a
ballpark figure.
MR. SLATER: Well, first of all, let me defend myself by
saying that I'm presently involved in about 20 low income housing
deals, so this particular one, I would say that there may be a
developer's fee in this somewhere between five hundred and seven
hundred fifty thousand dollars. But as I pointed out, the -- and it
may be more than that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Which comes out to what kind of
percentage when we talk about risk?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, there's percentage on top
of the developer fee, right, a profit percentage on top of the
developer's flat pay? And believe me I --
MR. SLATER: Not for the developer. I mean, the
developer fee is basically what a developer gets in one of these deals
because there's no value on the back end.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. There's nothing left for
them to take at the end which is typically where they get their
money.
MR. SLATER: There is no residual because of the fact
that in this case, for example, this is not a 15-year deal. In order
to get the tax credits, this deal was committed as a low income, 176
low income units in perpetuity.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand.
MR. SLATER: So there is no residual in the back end.
In your normal apartment complex, you can make a developer's fee front
end, and then you make a very substantial profit when the apartment
complex is sold to some institutional investor five years down the
road. There's no market on the back end for these type of projects
because you have a rent-controlled structure for this project in
perpetuity.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Don't get me wrong. Profit isn't
a dirty word. There's nothing wrong with somebody trying to make a
living. But I think Commissioner Hac'Kie's question was simply surely
there's a little room for work there.
MR. SLATER: If -- yeah. Let's assume that the
developer if everything went well -- by the way, some of the
developer's fee comes later on in the project after there's a rent-up
and after it achieved certain things.
But if we assume, for example, there is a $750,000
developer fee front end and, as I've told you, there is a $500,000
shortfall on the permanent loan, the developer is not going to build
this type of project and take this kind of risk for $250,000. That's
not an economically sensible thing to do, not when you're signing
guarantees for up to ten million bucks.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks. I think we have one more
speaker on this point.
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Erlichman.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Good morning, commissioners. My name is
Gilbert Erlichman. I reside in East Naples. I would like to
congratulate the Board on their perception and insightful questioning
of the previous speaker.
I would like to ask for a confirmation as to how many
low -- very low income units there are in this project.
MR. HIHALIC: The way it stands right now, thirty-five
units out of the hundred and seventy-six were cited to be very low
income.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Very low income. And the income of
those people to get those apartments is what?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Twenty-one thousand.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Twenty-one thousand.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For a family of four.
MR. ERLICHHAN: I'm very disappointed in you, Mr. --
well, I shouldn't address you. I'm addressing the chair. I'm very
disappointed in hearing Mr. Hihalic willing to sacrifice those 35
units of very low income housing. I thought that he was an advocate
of low income housing.
And, therefore, as Miss Matthews stated, that's a very,
very -- the very needy in this county that need those 35 units. I
don't know why you're willing to sacrifice that to promote this new
deal with the -- with this builder. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let me make one comment to that.
I think Mr. Mihalic is responding to the request of the petitioner and
is presenting that. So I don't think this thought originated in his
mind by any means.
Just a couple of comments that may be contrary -- may be
contrary to what the Board has said. I don't disagree that we should
be focusing on very low, and I think our current policies apparently
are failing to do that adequately because we've had a limited number.
That is, however, a separate discussion.
I would like -- and perhaps after we end up with a
motion on this we can give staff some direction that in January we can
sit down and review if we have some options on how to be more strong
in encouraging that and perhaps less strong in encouraging -- I know
we're not real strong in encouraging moderate, and maybe we need to
lower the incentives a little on low and increase them on very low.
But I think that's a separate question.
Unfortunately right now we have a formula by which this
petitioner -- that this petitioner appears to be meeting with what
he's asking. I don't happen to like it, but he does appear to be
meeting the letter of the law as we have created it in Collier
County.
And, you know, I wrote myself notes as I read through
this over the weekend that says we want less very low and want more
deferred. But as you look at the deferral, it is true we are not
responsible for putting anything up for that. We're guaranteed
virtually from day one that we'll see that on the sixth -- in the
sixth year or at the end of the sixth year.
And because the developer is meeting the letter of the
law as we have it now, I don't like that, but because they are meeting
the letter of the law that we created, I'm not sure we have a whole
lot of option other than to move forward with this.
This particular request, I would like to -- regardless
of what we do, whether we do that or not today, I would then like us
to go forward and change the letter of the law in Collier County so we
don't end up doing this again. But those are two separate questions.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just I agree with what you're
saying, Commissioner Constantine, that we have to enforce the
ordinances as they exist. And I had made a note to ask that we would
reevaluate to try to find a way to encourage some very low housing,
very low income housing.
I do have a question about the issue that Commissioner
Matthews raised about that we would be entitled to interest on the
impact fees. Do we -- are we losing some interest money that we would
otherwise have made?
MR. CUYLER: No. The thing Commissioner Matthews was
talking about was there was an issue that had come up in front of the
Board as to whether the Board of County Commissioners could use the
interest that was generated on the impact fees that had been paid
rather than using them for -- what purposes could they use them for,
and could they use them for affordable housing. We wrote the attorney
general. He said, yes, you can use it as long as it goes to the
specific fund that the interest was generated out of.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, in this instance, though,
because of the existing agreement where he has a 50 percent deferral
on the low income, he would have to pay 50 percent. Yes, we would be
losing interest on the 50 percent that the developer has to pay.
So we would be using the interest on the 50 percent that
he would pay in order to fund the 50 percent we're deferring. So
yeah, there is a mix here.
MR. MIHALIC: We would not have that money in the impact
fee fund for six or seven years through the fifteenth year. We would
have to pay that in some cash way into those impact fee funds, and
there would be a contribution from the county commission of $504,000
the way it is now between the seventh and the fifteenth year.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And that would come from general
fund.
MR. MIHALIC: From some source, Commissioner.
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, let me also point out just to
make clear so that this doesn't come up as an issue later that the
developer is under an existing contract. He does meet today's
criteria. And if he came in today, he would be entitled to this. But
he is under a contract for the previous arrangement.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, keeping in
mind Commissioner MAtthews has a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, she does. I share the
concerns of everyone that we may not have enough very low income
housing in the County and that if we approve this request that would
be a bit of a negative on the side of this particular issue.
However, there are some more considerations. Going back
to when this was first proposed, this was a quite controversial
project because it was felt by the surrounding neighborhood which is a
fairly upscale neighborhood that the very low income especially
component of the housing project would not be appropriately located,
and that was the controversy back in that time.
So if the very low income is eliminated by approving
this today, that would at least alleviate some of that controversy
that happened back last year when this was discussed.
And the other thing is that the six-year deferral with the
money being put into escrow so that we're guaranteed that we have this
money at the end of six years is certainly a much better deal for the
county taxpayers. This guarantees that we'll have that money. We
don't have to worry about it. It's in an escrow account, and we will
get it.
So although there is some negative in losing this very
low income component, I think the positives in this case outweigh the
negatives. So I tend to favor this proposal.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second for the motion
on the floor right now which is to deny the proposal?
If not, that motion will die for lack of a second.
Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wish we could guarantee these
35 units would come on line, but Mr. Constantine's made a very
persuasive argument that we set policy. And when someone steps in in
line with that policy, for us to turn around and say, well, this week
that's not good enough I think is not a precedent we want to set. If
there's a problem with our policies that are not effecting what we
want, we have the responsibility to change those policies, and I think
we'll need to address that in this case.
Commissioner Matthews, I sincerely appreciate your
concern for trying to make sure those units are built, but I have to
agree that we've made a change in policy. And I'd like to make a
motion to approve the change in the agreement according to staff's
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second for the
motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion and a second.
Further discussion? Commissioner Matthews?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Comment on the motion. I'm not
going to support the motion, and the reason that I'm not going to
support the motion is that there is an existing agreement. This
particular developer agreed to do a specific thing. Two years ago the
numbers were workable.
All of a sudden and very suddenly, I'm told, because we
changed our rules in order to make it easier for ourselves essentially
not having to fund these projects for the 15-year period, this
developer has now come forward, and suddenly the project isn't
financially feasible. Two years ago it was totally feasible, and I
feel that the change we made to benefit ourself is now being taken
advantage of to benefit a developer and not the residents of this
county. Therefore, I will not support the motion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: With that in mind, all those in
favor of the motion, offer a reluctant aye. Anyone opposed?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 4-1, Commissioner
Matthews opposed.
Let's take a ten-minute break.
MR. HIHALIC: Commissioner, this resolution and
agreement is subsequently -- subsequently put into place when the
treasury instrument is received that will allow this to be put in
place.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hihalic, we're no longer in
session. However, I do think there was some consensus among the Board
that we want to review the issue perhaps as soon as January.
MR. HIHALIC: Thank you.
(A short break was held.)
Item #8A4
CARNIVAL PERMIT 94-6 RE PETITION C-94-6, COLLIER COUNTY AGRICULTURAL
FAIR AND EXPOSITION, INC., REQUESTING WAIVERS AND A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A
CARNIVAL FROM JANUARY 14 THROUGH JANUARY 22, 1995, ON THE EAST SIDE OF
C.R. 846 (IHMOKALEE ROAD) - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're back. Hi, we're back.
Item 8-A-4, petition C-94-6, Collier County Agricultural Fair
requesting a permit to conduct a carnival from January 14 through
January 22, 1995.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
Is there anyone speaking on this item, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one question. Just for
future information for my education here, why the heck is this on the
agenda? I mean, why does this have to come in front of the Board?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: They require a permit, and we
have to approve it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, let's look into changing
that ordinance as well.
MR. CUYLER: I think the only reason is that there are a
couple of items. If they ask for a waiver or something, it comes in
front of the Board. If it's a standard item, it doesn't need to.
MR. ARNOLD: Correct. This petition was asking for a
waiver of a surety bond and the application fees for the permit and
the occupational license of which I'd like to note that the
occupational license issue is one I'm not sure that we can address at
that level since the tax collector's office is responsible for that
one. Just thought I'd bring that to your attention.
MR. DORRILL: If you will modify the recommendation to
also allow for an EMS unit, that will prevent another item from having
to come to the Board, and there are several events throughout the year
where we do have a dedicated EMS unit. If you'll incorporate that in
the motion, that will save another --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
care to amend your motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
into the motion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
care to amend the second?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
favor of the motion, please state aye. Anyone opposed?
carries 4-0, Commissioner Matthews unable to be with us.
Commissioner Norris, would you
I will certainly incorporate that
Commissioner Hancock, would you
I will gladly amend my second.
With that in mind, all those in
Motion
Item #8A5
REQUEST FOR DIRECTION CONCERNING THE USE OF THE LOCAL GOVERNHENT
INFRASRUCTURE SURTAX COHMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE LOCAL OPTION ONE CENT
OR ONE-HALF CENT SALES TAX AS A FUNDING SOURCE FOR THE DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECOND GORDON RIVER BRIDGE - STAFF TO PURSUE
ONE-CENT SALES TAX AS IN SEPTEMBER REFERENDUM WITH A SUNSET CLAUSE IN
ORDER TO ALLOW VOTERS TO DECIDE
Item 8-A-5, request for direction concerning the use of
local government infrastructure surtax commonly referred to as the
local option one cent or one half cent sales tax.
MR. PERRY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
My name is Jeff Perry for the record. I'm the chief planner for
transportation in the long range planning department.
The item on your agenda today is a continuation of the
agenda item from November 22 concerning the direction to staff on the
establishment of a deadline or a timeline for a referendum to consider
imposing the local government infrastructure surtax.
This came out as a result of previous actions by the
city council and the Naples HPO which was a recommendation for the
Board of County Commissioners to proceed as quickly as possible to
that end.
Today -- we were at the November 22 meeting. There were
a number of -- a series of questions and issues that the Board members
raised. Your staff has been going after those issues and believes we
have the answers to them. And any other questions that you might have
today we'll also attempt to answer.
I'd first like to have Heidi Ashton, the assistant
county attorney, address the legal questions that were raised. And
then following that, I'll walk you through the other relevant issues
that were raised and also some of the time lines that we've come up
with as far as an election if you choose to go that way.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, just during the
interim, if I could make a comment, just if the Naples Daily News
wants to see good staff work, good information, direct answers to
questions, very well organized presentation --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: They should come here each and
every Tuesday.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I commend you to this one
in particular. This was a wonderful job. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ms. Ashton.
MS. ASHTON: Good afternoon or good morning,
Commissioners.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So far.
MS. ASHTON: I guess it's still morning, couple more
minutes. I'd like to go through the questions that were asked. I'll
respond in -- from the legal perspective, and then Mr. Perry will
respond afterwards from the planning HPO perspective.
The first question was asked why a special election
would be required or if we could proceed with the general election
that is scheduled for March 12, 1996. And the answer is legally
there's no requirement. Jeff will -- Mr. Perry will comment on the
planning from the MPO's perspective on that item.
The next question which was asked was when can the tax
be imposed if we go with the March 12, 1996, election. The Florida
Statutes provides that the tax must begin on January 1. So from the
1996 election it would be January 1, 1997.
The next two questions I'm going to clump into one. The
Board asked whether or not permitting expenses and the general
election could be reimbursed from the sales tax once it's imposed.
With respect to the general election, we've come to the conclusion
that you would not be able to reimburse the expenses for the general
election from the sales tax.
MR. CUYLER: Or any special election that you would
have.
MS. ASHTON: With respect to the permitting issue, we're
less clear. The direction we've been provided is based upon a
attorney general opinion which states that it specifically deals with
bond indebtedness, and you cannot pay off prior bond indebtedness
prior to the date that the referendum decides to go ahead with the
sales tax.
MR. CUYLER: That's the one item out of all the
questions that we looked at that is probably the least clear is the
reimbursement. I know it's a very important issue, and we're going to
have to get you as clear an answer as we possibly can on that.
There's not much out there to look at.
But if you -- if your prior financing has been turned
into debt, it looks like the answer's no. If it looks like you've
just paid it from general fund for permitting, engineering, and those
things that would be associated with the project, our inclination is
yes, that you could reimburse it. But that's not a final answer yet.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just a question. That is the
case in the amount of the $364,000 consulting fee that is just being
paid out of general fund revenues; is that correct?
MR. CUYLER: Correct. As we understand it, the costs --
and Mr. Perry's going to probably talk about this in a little more
detail -- but the costs you will be expending you don't plan to
finance in any way.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So there might be light at
the end of that tunnel.
MR. CUYLER: Yes, we hope so.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just may I?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why is this different, either one
of you, from -- why is permitting a possibility but the ballot
expenses are not a possibility?
MR. CUYLER: Because under the -- there's certain uses
that are listed in the statute for the infrastructure tax. And
permitting, engineering, those that are specifically associated with a
project are clearly allowed. For example, if those were -- if you had
your tax funds today, there would be no doubt that you could pay for
those services tomorrow.
The issue that you have is if we pay for them today and
don't have our ballot until the future, can we pay for them? That's
one issue.
Then with regard to the election itself, the question
then becomes is there a close enough tie between the election and the
tax proceeds, and is that really a use of the infrastructure?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A single issue question? It
seems to me an argument could be made that --
MR. CUYLER: I think an argument can be made, and I'm
not going to tell you that the answer is a definite no, you can't do
it. But we're going to have to, you know, draw a line at some point
as to what we're comfortable with, or the Board as an informed client
is going to have to make a decision. And there's nothing out there
that tells us that that is or is not appropriate. You really just
have to look at it.
And, as a matter of fact, we discussed that with bond
counsel. He said he thought an argument could be made, but the
Board's going to have to determine how good that argument is. Clearly
the other issue we think that you've got some basis to make a good
argument on.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'd like to make a suggestion. I
realize we're going to have a pile of questions. But why don't we try
to let Ms. Ashton do her thing, Mr. Perry do his thing. If we have
questions, note them, and then ask them all toward the end because I
think this is going to be a very long discussion anyway, and that just
might be a more productive way of moving it along.
MR. CUYLER: The only reason that I had brought that up
is that that's going to be the crux of some -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I understand.
MR. DORRILL: You have 15 speakers as well, Mr. --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That 11:30 time certain is
looking less certain all the time.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Would it behoove us after Miss
Ashton finishes if we discuss at that point our feelings or that any
members of the 15 who agree with us might waive their --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Maybe, although talking to them
during the break, I understand we have people on all sides of the
issue.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Well -- okay.
MS. ASHTON: Okay. The next question was what
alternative funding sources are available. Additional funding items
were discussed at the last MPO meeting of November 18. And the MPO,
although not formally, during its discussion rated tolls as its second
alternative and funding through federal or state as a third
alternative.
The next question was whether impact fees could be used. And
the answer is no. Section 2.04 of our road impact fee ordinance is
very clear concerning the uses. This is concerning the use of the
impact fees to pay for the special election and the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know I'm violating the
chairman's rule, but I just want to ask you very quickly, is that
something that's statutory, or could we change the ordinance?
MS. ASHTON: Well, impact fees are to be used for
infrastructure that is growth related.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It would basically have to be
concurrency driven to be able to -- is that the answer?
MS. ASHTON: Yes, it has to be more related to --
typically design and permitting fees are something that's
permissible. The special election is getting a little bit outside of
the intent of the impact fees.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Plus there's not enough money
there.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Never mind.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there a fourth way you'd like
to approach that, Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, thank you.
MS. ASHTON: The next question was concerning a timeline
if we go with the general election of March 12, 1996. November 7 is
the date that the Board would have to make the determination that they
want to go ahead with this. Then by December 31 -- and Mr. Perry has
targeted December 19 as the date for the public hearing of the
ordinance enacting the sales tax and the resolution authorizing a
referendum. Then the election would be March 12 of 1996. And the
tax, if approved, would go into effect on January 1, 1997.
The last question concerns the wetland impact. And I've
reserved that for Jeff Perry to provide you the factual information on
that item. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. PERRY: Some of the other issues that we need to
address today, Miss Ashton's already mentioned the environmental
impacts. That goes along with the right-of-way impacts which are -- I
wanted to stress to you.
Both right-of-way and the environmental issues make our
estimates today as to the cost of this project very preliminary.
Right-of-way costs we have calculated as a range of right-of-way
costs. We have a lot of issues dealing with right-of-way that have to
be addressed over the next several months concerning how much of the
right-of-way will come from airport property and whether or not there
is going to be a cost to acquiring that right-of-way even if it's on
the airport property.
Also damages, as those of you who are experienced with
the costs of acquiring right-of-way, the amount of condemnation and
the damages that may result could be quite extensive depending on the
alignment which, of course, is the overriding issue, which of the five
alignments, because all five alignments have different right-of-way
costs associated with them.
From the environmental standpoint -- let me say one more
thing on the right-of-way. Initially the present estimates we have
range anywhere from 2.2 million dollars to 10.6 million dollars just
to acquire the necessary right-of-way on the variety of the five
different alignments. So you can see that there's quite a bit of
difference involved with choosing those alignments.
From an environmental standpoint, the impact is very
similar on all five alignments. It's between four and five acres of
impacted areas, wetlands. The mitigation, however, varies between 16
and 25 million dollars of mitigation, and that depends on the
mitigation ratios that are finally resolved with the permitting
agencies. Cost of mitigation is estimated anywhere between two and a
half to four million dollars.
So you can see that the actual final cost of these
projects depending on their location and the final results of
right-of-way taking and mitigation could cause a very wide difference
in the amount of total cost to the project.
Another important issue that needs to be kept in mind is that
the next project phases -- the preliminary design, final design,
environmental permitting, and right-of-way acquisition -- must be
implemented and initiated in a timely manner. We have to keep the
project on schedule if we intend on getting it in the ground in
advance of some action by the DOT in delaying the U.S. 41 project.
One of the deadlines we're working with is August '95 which
is a deadline for the MPO to make a decision to request the DOT to
delay the U.S. 41 job. August '95 is a deadline that allows the
reprogramming of those funds that would have otherwise been spent by
the DOT for the job to be reprogrammed to some other projects later in
the work program and advancing them.
If we miss the August '95 deadline, we lose that year of
reprogramming. We don't believe we'll lose any of the funding, but
the opportunity for shifting eligible projects up in the work program
such as a project, perhaps a U.S. 41 phase in North Naples or one of
the East Naples jobs that is presently at the tail end of the
five-year work program, could be advanced if that money were shifted
and actually the two projects swapped.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Within the same year. In other
words, the work could be done --
MR. PERRY: Right. There's a lot of flexibility the
department has, but they need to know about it no later than August so
the gaming cycle of the next two months, they can adjust their
schedules.
If the airport property is to be used for road right-of-way,
it's essential that that road be identified in the airport's new
master plan and layout plan.
The airport has -- as you may know, has just begun the
process of -- the 9- to 12- month process of developing a new layout
plan. But it's very clear that if that roadway is going to be on
airport property it must appear in the layout plan. So we'll be
working with the airport authority and their consultants over the next
nine months to make sure that our plans mesh with their plans.
As the attorney's office has indicated, there is still a lot
of question as to whether or not the costs associated with preliminary
engineering work and design work would be reimbursable if those costs
are incurred prior to the election. And that, of course, weighs on
the decision as to when an election would be held which we'll go
through in just a moment.
But keep in mind as Commissioner Hancock has already
pointed out, we're already committed to spending $365,000 of this
contract. There's about $70,000 that was spent previously. We're
already -- have already spent about $400,000 and that once the PD and
E work is completed and we move forward in the next phase that the
County and city will start incurring additional expenses on a monthly
basis in the design phase.
As has been contemplated already or discussed, the proposed
referendum is a choice between one cent and one half cent for a time
period duration necessary to collect the required revenue and, as has
been discussed already, one cent for six seasonal months would collect
about 15 million dollars which is the recommendation of city council.
One final issue before we talk about the individual schedules
is that there needs to be a back-up plan. We've been looking at the
possibility of the toll financing options. I think it's important for
the Board and city council to decide early in the process, preferably
before August of '95, what the back-up plan is. The back-up plan B
may, in fact, be to pull the plug on the project. If the referendum
fails, that there's -- if there is no support for a toll, if there's
no support for any other source of revenue, then that can be plan B.
We would hope there would be some other plan out there
that we'd develop for you prior to August of '95 so that you know
going into the August '95 gaming cycle of U.S. -- of FDOT that we will
continue with the process even in the event that the referendum
fails.
I think it's perhaps also important for the voters to
know that when they go to the ballot whether or not they are voting
for a project that is going to either live or die based upon their
decision at the polls.
Finally, the referendum options that I provided to you
yesterday, basically we've identified them as three options. The
earliest possible referendum is in the month of June of 1995. We need
to make a decision to move forward to that date basically today or at
the very latest next Tuesday to give the proper timeline for the
preparation of the ordinance and resolutions, a public hearing in mid
January, all of the preclearance requirements of the Justice
Department, and to give Mary Morgan an opportunity to get her ballots
prepared and send off absentee ballot notices and the absentee ballots
for a June 6 election.
There is nothing magical about June 6. It could be some
period after that. So if there were still questions after today's
meeting that the Board wanted another month to consider it, we could
push this entire timeline. But the timeline we're looking at, the
earliest possible date is June 6.
The latest possible date we've calculated would be on
November 1. There's nothing magical about that date as far as
November 1 goes other than that's the absolute last day that you could
have an election for a January '96 collection period to begin. It
could be sometime in October. It could be sometime in August or
September but no later than November 1 for -- to still maintain the
January '96 collection period.
The third option is the next scheduled election which is
March 12 of 1996 as a presidential preferential primary election.
That particular election obviously will not cost us the special
election costs associated with it but keeping in mind that we will
incur -- to keep the project on schedule we will be incurring costs
upwards to $100,000 a month for designing the structure, designing and
permitting and all of the associated costs prior to getting an
election. So the point at which you make a decision on election day
is going to determine how much up-front costs may or may not be
reimbursable to you as far as the -- if the referendum is successful.
The handout I provided to you has a whole list of pros
and cons for all of the different options. I think with that if
there's any other specific questions that I've skipped over, I'll try
to go back and cover them a little more clearly.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm going to try to hit just some
real specific points. Then we'll open it up to complete questions.
You pointed out there are five potential alignments of the bridge, so
we don't know at this point what the alignment will be; correct? MR. PERRY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And depending on the alignment,
the amount we need to spend on land can range anywhere from two to ten
million roughly?
MR. PERRY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We don't know what the mitigation
will be until we know the alignment. And depending on what the
alignment is, we don't know what that will cost, anywhere from two and
a half to four million you've suggested?
MR. PERRY: What we have are estimates only today,
that's correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So in essence, we don't know what
the bridge will cost. It could be 12 million. It could be 17
million. It could be 20 million. We don't know.
MR. PERRY: That's correct. I could tell you that the
range of estimates is somewhere between 14.7 million and 21 million
dollars throwing out the high priced alignment that is too far out
there. That's the range.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So fourteen seven.
MR. PERRY: Fourteen seven to twenty-one million and
that includes the 27.8 million, the high priced option.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right. And you've indicated that
6-month tax would raise about 15 million. MR. PERRY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: When will we know exactly how
much the bridge will cost as far as -- or have a better idea anyway,
we'll know what alignment we're having, we know what the mitigation
will be and so on?
MR. PERRY: The schedule takes us to mid April to select
the alignment. So up until that time, you will always be dealing with
a range of estimates because the alignments are quite different in
their costs.
So if we were to go forward from now until April 15,
let's say, with the four alignments, the costs we have today are
fairly firm for each of those alignments. The mitigation costs are
still being worked on. But within range, that's what we're talking
about. Until the decision is made specifically on which alignment is
chosen, you'll never have any better range of costs.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Once we have chosen that specific
alignment, we'll be able to have more exact numbers as far as what
those mitigation costs will be. We can find out after we choose the
alignment. Obviously we'll know -- have a better idea of what the
costs of any property necessary to purchase for right-of-way would
be.
MR. PERRY: Mitigation costs.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And so on. And we should know --
once we've chosen a preferred alignment, how long thereafter before we
can gather up all that information into some semblance of a fairly
solid number for cost of the bridge?
MR. PERRY: It will -- well, I think you'll have it at
the point of making the decision on the alignment. All that will fall
into place for you to make your decision, for the county commission,
City council, to make the decision on the alignment. There won't be a
whole lot changing after that unless there's some problems that show
up during the design phase.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: When you and I spoke Friday, you
indicated it may be late May, early June before we have all those
numbers tallied.
MR. PERRY: Right. Once the decision is made and April,
May is the period of time we're hoping to have this in front of both
city council and county commission, the decision is made, the
permitting agencies, the mitigation plan is in place, everything
should be there for you to deal with.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: My concern is fairly simple is
that one of the suggestions here is for a June ballot, and we're
asking theoretically for a 6-month 1 percent tax which would raise
about 15 million. We don't know and apparently aren't going to know
until roughly June how much the bridge will cost. And I'd hate to
have that on the ballot for 15 million and find out a week beforehand
that the bridge is actually going to cost 18.5 million.
And so I think if we're going to ask the voter to make a
decision, we should at least allow them to make an educated decision.
I'm not sure June is going to allow us to do that.
So I have two comments or questions there. One, it
appears June -- and you can help me with this, Mr. Perry. But it
appears June may not -- we may not be able to provide the public with
the education they need to make an informed decision by a June
ballot. And second, if it is more than the 15 million, if it's 18
million or you mentioned it could go as high as 21 million, if it's
more than the 15 million, how do we make up the difference between the
15 -- and I'm assuming -- well, I'll let you answer that. You and I
have talked about that some and a couple alternatives with that.
MR. PERRY: I think the -- we share the same concern --
staff shares the same concern that you're expressing over going to the
public with a ballot question that, in fact -- and spending money on a
special election for that ballot question that doesn't raise enough
money to build a facility. Unless there is a -- knowing that and
going into it, if the County and the city develop an alternate funding
source that can be tapped into in the event that there is a difference
in the costs and what gets raised, then I would feel more comfortable
about that.
Those options available to the City and the County would
include using existing gas tax revenues, surpluses that might be
available. The city indicated during their discussions that they
would be willing to commit some of those funds.
In the instance of a -- if the sales tax didn't pass but
they felt that their small share of gas tax revenues, you know, was
not going to go very far but the County also has surplus gas tax
revenues and impact fee revenues from time to time that are carried
forward from year to year. And it would be possible for the County to
look at those to see if there's any available revenue that they could
pledge to make up the difference during this period of time knowing
that it may affect some other projects in the County's work program
down the road.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You had also indicated when we
spoke that an option would be if we found it was 17 million instead of
15 million, an option would be to make the ballot question be for 7
months instead of 6 months or just alter the time frame.
MR. PERRY: That's correct. If you're in a position to
change the ballot question, either you haven't even gone to the
ordinance point so you're looking at a late '95 election, October,
November, you would have the information available to you as far as
costs and where the alignment would be and everything would be
available. You could actually structure the ballot question so that
it would raise the required revenues. If it's a 16 million dollar
bridge at that point, you structure the ballot question to that
amount. So it might be a seven-month collection period instead of a
six-month.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Keeping in mind --
MR. DORRILL: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I think the last
statement was incorrect. It's my understanding that you can only
collect the revenue within the state's fiscal quarter. So you can go
six months or you can go nine. You cannot go seven or eight or then
you can go to twelve. But you've got to stay within the DOR fiscal
quarter.
MR. PERRY: I apologize. That's correct. You'd have to
schedule it in that matter.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Keeping in mind that and also the
August deadline you had talked about, if we had the information in
June, would we be able to still meet our calendar, use that
information and meet our calendar and have a ballot question by
November 1 that would provide the voters with that complete
information and allow if the Board wanted to make it nine months in
this case or if by some Godsend we found out it was going to be
cheaper and we only wanted to run it for three months? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's not likely.
MR. PERRY: The problem with the August deadline is that
if your election is after the August deadline, you're committing in
August to delay the bridge so that we need to have plan B in effect
that has an alternate funding source in case the election fails.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I understand.
MR. PERRY: That is possible. We can go on record in
August, and the HPO can tell the State that we have -- we're going
forward with an election. If that fails, we've got plan B which is a
toll, for instance, and that we want you to shuffle the projects
around.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: My question, though, was sometime
-- assuming we have our information in April, Hay, June, do you feel
that sometime between then and that November 1 drop dead date we could
disburse that information to the public and hold a vote on which they
would be informed?
MR. PERRY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't personally feel -- and
you and I have had the discussion. And I don't know that we can do
that in June, and I don't see the purpose in having a ballot if people
aren't sure what it is they're voting on. But I want to make sure
we're able to do that if we so desire within that time frame. Or is
that still pushing it?
MR. PERRY: No. I think in October -- late October or
any time in October election, if we know all the facts in May or June,
I think that gives us plenty of time to make the decisions we need to
make on the ballot question, how much money, what the structure is,
and then explain it to the voters and give them plenty of opportunity
to respond and ask questions and be comfortable with it before they go
to the polls in October.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Commissioner
Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just -- I just wanted to say up
front that I'm going to -- I'm going to be supportive of maybe an
October vote, that -- that -- that June I agree is probably too soon,
and the worst thing we could do is put questions -- unanswered
questions in front of the public. But an October vote makes a lot of
sense to me. November is a little close because am I right, Mr.
Cuyler? I think there's a two-month lag time before you can -- after
the referendum before you can start collecting. So November makes me
a little nervous. But if we could do it in October, I think that
makes sense.
And -- and I think that it's critical that we do have
plan B, that we do have our second alternative available because I
don't want this to -- in my judgment to generate into a referendum on
the bridge. I want it to be a referendum on the funding source.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The question I have, I guess, is
essentially for Mr. Cuyler, a legal question. And I know that the
description of the ballot question has to be fairly precise. But I'm
wondering if it's possible to make it imprecise enough so that we can
answer these questions of -- of unknowns, that could we have a ballot
question, say, to raise an amount of money to build the bridge but to
sunset in nine months? And then we would cut it off in June if we
have enough, in September if we don't.
MR. CUYLER: Generally the answer is yes. You're saying
that if you reach the -- when you reach the amount of money you need
-- it's going to be collected through the quarter.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Right. It's just a question
that if we have not raised sufficient money by June 30, then the sales
tax will go until September 30. And we may raise some excess dollars
that way. But I'm sure we can find a good use for them.
MR. CUYLER: I'd like a chance to look at that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. I'm just --
MR. CUYLER: But you do have some flexibility, not the
least of which is some of these other questions we've included about
reimbursement. You have the flexibility perhaps to put that in your
ballot question at least as to the prior engineering and so forth. I
thought I'd slip that in.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If our purpose here is to
identify sales tax as the funding source to construct this bridge,
then it seems to me that the question we may want to put to the
electorate is, do we want to use sales tax to fund this bridge? And
yes, we're not quite sure what the final costs are going to be but
that sales tax will be either for six months or for nine months. And
we're not sure yet either which. But we're telling you one cent for
either six or nine months.
At least we've defined the purpose. We have a maximum
sunset which I think we should definitely do. But we've left
ourselves some room there for the additional collection of I believe
from the numbers I saw about 6 million dollars which would bring us up
then to that 20 million dollar tier that we may need.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I was just going to ask Mr.
Perry, if we go with an October ballot, however, we will have definite
enough figures sometime in May or so to get the necessary specific
information. We'll know how much -- within reason we'll know how much
the bridge is going to cost in May. MR. PERRY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if we can get that information
to the voters between May and October, then we don't have to be quite
as nebulous. And I think, you know, that's my goal.
MR. PERRY: That's correct. And I think the concern
that we might have is that because a lot of the right-of-way questions
really are not answered until you get into actually having to buy the
property, there are additional costs that may be incurred when you
start going to the property owners and actually going to court to
condemn land, then --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Regarding the secondary funding
options, if this Board should choose to pursue a referendum in which
tolls are the secondary funding option, wouldn't that change the scope
and design parameters, potentially change the end cost? If we choose
tolls as a secondary funding option, obviously the construction of the
toll booths, the cross-section of the roadway changes to allow for it,
these types of design ideas are going to add to the cost of what's
being anticipated. So our secondary funding option is going to have
an impact on the end cost if I'm not mistaken; is that correct?
MR. PERRY: That's correct. There will be obviously
increased costs, capital costs, in building the facility, additional
right-of-way that will be required, obviously construction of toll
booths and any electronics and things like that that might go along
with them. There will also be long-term maintenance costs and
operating costs associated with --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. And I understand those
costs are not minuscule. They're not in the oversight range.
Secondly, does -- do any of the cost estimates you've
mentioned ranging between 14 and 20 million include eastward
improvements through the industrial area such as along Enterprise
Avenue or so forth to eventually connect to Livingston Road? MR. PERRY: They do not.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They do not. So if we're going
to build a bridge that terminates at Airport Road and terminates at
41, that's the cost that we're being handed?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Goodlette.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Goodlette, excuse me.
MR. PERRY: For the purposes of this particular effort
to get a bridge in place before U.S. 41 is widened, our goal has been
from Airport Road to Goodlette Road, recognizing all well that there
are westward extensions that need to be considered in the process and
eastward considerations. But we're not going to finance anything
beyond the two end points.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I would suggest that it
would be shortsighted of us to put a bridge in any location that
doesn't provide for eastward expansion to Livingston Road and might
ask that as we look at the options in the coming months that that be a
part of that discussion. I don't want to see that drop between the
cracks and we end up building a bridge from one road to another
without the possibility of going eastward from there. That's all I
had right now.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had
listed a lot of questions here, but they've all been answered by now.
I thank Mr. Perry for researching all these answers for us.
I think it's very important that we do allow ourselves
enough time to get the information out to the public so that they can
make the decision when the mail-out ballot, if that's what we choose
to do, does get to them because I just feel very strongly that
although this is a project that would be very beneficial to our
community, if people don't have the information in hand, they're not
going to vote to impose a tax on theirself without knowing what
they're going to get in return.
So I think it's very important for us to move forward
with getting the information gathered, compiled, and out to the
public.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have 15 public speakers.
We'll do our regular tour of a five-limit -- five-minute limit --
five-limit minute -- for each speaker. We will cut you off at five
minutes. We're going to be consistent on that because we have two
other items that will probably be long items today as well. So we ask
that you do stick to the five minutes.
What we'll also ask is that we'll call the speaker, and
then the next person in line, if you'd be so kind as to come up by the
doors it will help us move that along. And also if the Board has some
specific questions for speakers, we're certainly welcome to answer
those, but if we have comments on items that may be raised as opposed
to questions, let's save those till the end.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: While we're getting the speakers
lined up, I have one comment I'd like the Board to consider. At the
MPO meeting we had discussed asking the FDOT to put this bridge in the
work program ten years out so that we would have the ability in 2005
to recover this money from the DOT.
The reason that the MPO did not move forward with that
is because they felt there would be equally important projects in 2005
that needed to be accomplished. And I agree with that, that there may
be equally important projects in 2005 that need to be accomplished
with that 20 million dollars or so.
But I think I'd like this Board to entertain the idea of
maintaining the flexibility to either take that money and do something
else with it or to commit it to what other -- whatever other important
projects are out there. To me it's a method of maintaining
flexibility that we may want to have ten years from now.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The -- I'll make one other
comment before we go to the speakers, and that is those of you that
may be here on the cable item that was advertised at 11:30, we're in
the midst of this item. So as we conclude this, we'll try to get to
that.
Also at 12 noon Judge Brousseau and Ed Putzell will be
here for an item. I understand Judge Brousseau is actually adjourning
court for the purpose of coming here, so we'll try to take him as
close to 12 noon without putting this item to a halt as we can. Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Goodlette; following Mr. Goodlette,
Mr. Cameron.
MR. GOODLETTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is
Dudley Goodlette. I'm here today on behalf of the Bridge Club which
is a coalition of community, business, and civic groups as well as the
neighborhood associations who have been meeting since February of this
year trying to develop some consensus among those groups on this
important issue that you're about today which is the second Gordon
River bridge crossing.
Let me -- I've appeared before you previously or at
least 60 percent of you previously as members of the HPO or in a joint
meeting with the city council. So I will try not to reiterate some of
the important reasons that we believe this -- this is a -- this
transportation corridor is an important part of our transportation
network here in the County.
I would like to mention that the groups that we -- that
are represented in the coalition are the East Naples Civic
Association, the Greater Naples Civic Association, the Naples Area
Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Development Council of Collier
County, the Collier County Building Industry Association, and the
President's Council. Representatives of those groups, one or more of
them, may also have some comments to make to amplify on some of my
brief comments.
First of all, there are, I think, really three issues. One
is, is there a need for the bridge? We focused on that, and we
believe there is a need for some of the reasons that have been stated;
principally but not solely the concern that we have about the gridlock
and the congestion that is going to arise as a result of the FDOT's
widening of U.S. 41 East.
The charts on the wall to your left indicate the time
frame in which that would be done. Currently scheduled to commence
construction on that in August of '96 and complete that in September
of '98. That -- easily you can see that's two seasons, two winter
seasons, that that will be under construction unless we do something
now to avoid that.
If we adopt the pro -- the guidelines that you have
discussed this morning, particularly the mid October, October
referendum on the sales tax, that will enable the construction of the
bridge to be completed in the 1997 time frame, that is, the new
bridge, so that the widening of U.S. 41 on the east can then
thereafter in Hay of 1999 commence; will still be a two-year project.
But this transportation -- this additional transportation or traffic
corridor will be in place. Need I say more about the need for that?
The location and the alignment is very important. We have
studied carefully the fatal flaw study that CH2H Hill prepared for you
and delivered to this Board in Hay of 1993. You know about the five
locations.
We briefly believe that the northerly location is the
preferred location. We think that it's the -- it's the -- the span of
the bridge would be the shortest span if in that area. We think the
environmental mitigation would be the least costly. And we think most
importantly, Commissioner Hancock, that that is the way to create a
transportation corridor that -- beginning at Goodlette Frank Road on
the west and extending all the way to Livingston Road on the east. We
think as an east-west route that is an extremely important issue.
Frankly, neither of the southerly routes permits that to occur.
There are also some FAA concerns that we have about the
interfering with the runway and the air traffic on the airport on a
southerly location. So we're -- frankly, we're hopeful and I think
confident that a northerly alignment is going to be the one that CH2H
Hill's current study, PD and E study will tell you is a preferred
alignment. And so we have been looking at that alignment issue. And
we think that's an important issue.
I said there were three. The need is certain. The
alignment we think is the preferred one that I just alluded to. And
thirdly is funding. That is a very important issue. We have not --
we do not want for it to take as long to decide how to pay for this
bridge as it has taken to decide to build the bridge. And, therefore,
we have contemplated and anticipated this concern. I have made
presentations on behalf of the Bridge Club to the city council and
county commission and of joint session as well as to the HPO.
You know that we have studied various alternatives
including the toll, including some federal funding, including a one
quarter mill on a capital improvement fund and now importantly the
sales tax. We think that the sales tax, one penny or one penny for
six months or a half penny for nine months or whatever it takes,
Commissioner Matthews, as you indicate is the preferred way to go
about it.
We believe that there is momentum for this. We will
commit the Bridge Club and -- and -- and -- and the coalition to the
time that's necessary to assist in -- in persuading your constituents
that this is a good idea. But we do think that it's critically
important that this be, as Commissioner Hac'Kie indicated, a
referendum on the funding, not a referendum on the bridge because we
think we will be more successful in persuading people that this is the
best avenue.
There are some folks who would not like to see this
bridge built. We would like for that not to be the issue in the
referendum.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just have one question. Is it
reasonable to assume that the groups that compose the Bridge Club will
have some financial backing as far as the public information
disbursement?
MR. GOODLETTE: We intend to and have discussed and will
form a PAC, a single purpose political action committee, for the
purpose of promoting and advancing the referendum as being the
preferred method of funding the bridge.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Bernie Young will follow Mr. Cameron's
proxy.
MR. NEURON: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, Scott
Cameron had to leave for another appointment now, so I speak briefly
in his behalf. I'm Bill Neuron, director of government affairs for
the Economic Development Council. We have been a participant in the
Bridge Club since its inception, have been promoting and heavily
involved in this issue.
We're very pleased to see the progress that has been
made in the last several weeks on trying to reach a community
consensus. We encourage the Board to move ahead, and let's get
something decided as a referendum, a funding source.
We have had the opportunity to review the three options
that Mr. Perry presented to you. And while I think a week or two ago
we would have said the March or earlier referendum would have been
preferable, I think with the information presented today, your option
2 that he presented to you I think offers the best opportunity for the
community to be able to reach a consensus on the issue with the most
amount of information available and would urge you to take positive
action to proceed ahead today. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Young and then Mr. Cardillo if I could
please, sir, have you stand by.
MR. YOUNG: Bernie Young, president of the Greater
Naples Civic Association. I wanted to add this morning that one of
the items that we discussed in our Board was that naturally we're not
anxious to be taxed any greater than we are already taxed. So why
isn't gas tax available to solve this problem?
And the research that we did on this simply indicates
that there is such pressing need in Collier County for road
infrastructure that for us to play with our current revenue stream to
build this bridge would cause us to delay or totally defer priorities
that have already been established prior to this date.
So we've finally all of a sudden realized that if this
bridge is going to be a part of the infrastructure package we need to
do it outside of the normal revenue stream because if we want our
people in North Naples to vote for this bridge or Marco Island to vote
for this bridge, we've got to assure them that we are not going to
remove their priorities from the transportation network, and that's
why we concluded that we will work and do our best to help you fund
this bridge with a tax that will sunset. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Dr. Woodruff will follow Mr. Cardillo.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cardillo, welcome.
MR. CARDILLO: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Members of
the commission, I am John Cardillo. I am president of the Naples Area
Chamber of Commerce, and I'm here to add the Chamber of Commerce's
support to the method of funding for the bridge.
The Chamber of Commerce has 1,900 members and represents
over 40,000 employees in this community. And the board of directors
of the Chamber of Commerce have voted unanimously to support the
special sales tax as the most cost efficient, fairest, and equitable
method of supporting a second Gordon River bridge.
The Chamber believes in the need for the bridge, the
location as previously articulated by Mr. Goodlette, and this
particular method of funding, and we urge your adoption of that.
Thank you for allowing me to appear before you. And congratulations
to the two new members of the commission.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Mr. Cardillo.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Dr. Woodruff and then Mr. Stude.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning, Dr. Woodruff.
MR. WOODRUFF: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am
not speaking on behalf of the city council. We have two city council
members here who -- I'm not sure whether they've registered to speak.
I would like to refresh your memory on some data which
we provided to you at a previous meeting where the HPO was present,
but that was not in a session where all of you were present.
The past two years we have -- we have taken the past two
years' actual collection of sales tax and have shown that on a
month-by-month basis. As the law states, a sales tax must begin on
January 1, and it must conclude the last day of a quarter. So just as
a rule of thumb, assuming that we collect no more in the future than
what we collected the average of the past two years, then that data
would show the following: A one cent sales tax collected January
through June will produce right at 15.1 millions dollars. And that
includes -- all of these numbers include that $5,000 cap that you
would pay on any item of value greater than $5,000.
So six months would generate 15.1 million dollars.
January through September 30 will generate just over 20 million
dollars. And January through December 31 would generate 27.3 million
dollars.
Here are some recommendations I would like to make, and
I'm making these as the city manager, not as the representative of the
council. Number one, I would ask you today to vote in favor of the
sales tax as the preferred method of funding the bridge, then have a
second part of the motion to direct the staffs to proceed in setting
up a mail ballot election to occur in October of '95.
And then the items that we as mutual staffs will have to
address between now and that ballot will be the things that several of
you mentioned. For example, what is the actual alignment; the length
of the collection period; will it be 6, 9, or 12 months; and the
actual disposition of the excess funds.
The state law is specific in that the excess funds must
be spent on specific items. I think there is a way that you can
structure the ballot question so that you could direct that any excess
in those funds could go, for example, to ancillary and support roads
leading to the bridge. That would give you as the commission and as
the majority, the HPO, the ability at a future date to decide, does
that excess go to the Livingston Road corridor? Does it go somewhere
on Airport Road? Does it go somewhere on Goodlette Road? But I think
you could structure the question.
I think the important thing today is not whether it is 6
months, 9 months, 12 months. I think the important thing today that I
would ask for you to do is to vote a motion that says that the one
cent sales tax is the preferred method of funding this bridge.
Do you have questions about my comments or other things
we've submitted to you from the city?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Quickly, Dr. Woodruff, thank you
for being here and for the research you've done. Should the overall
project cost appear insurmountable in Hay of next year -- we get a big
number that just surprises all of us -- when could we pull the plug on
a mail ballot so that we don't incur part of that hundred or hundred
fifty thousand dollar cost?
MR. WOODRUFF: This is not a legal opinion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand, but I thought you
might have looked into that.
MR. WOODRUFF: I have looked at that. My administrative
opinion to you is that you -- once you adopt an ordinance calling for
the election, you can repeal that ordinance by a similar ordinance and
void the election. It is not something such as a missile that once
you shoot it you -- you know, so my answer to you, sir, would be that
by adopting an ordinance calling for the election, you could repeal
that at any point prior to the election.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. And actually I
think that question may be more appropriate for Mary Morgan, and
we'll --
MR. WOODRUFF: I think it would be for an attorney and
for Mrs. Morgan.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
MR. WOODRUFF: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Stude and then Mr. Keller.
MR. STUDE: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Joe
Stude, and I'm here speaking for the President's Council and the King
Lake Homeowners' Association.
It's been a long time in coming. Now it's bridge
building time. We're there. We need another east-west corridor.
Money has been spent for studies in engineering. In April or Hay we
will know the best and the most acceptable route either north or south
of the airport. Now we need one more thing. Let the voters have the
say in the funding of the bridge. We urge you to pass the referendum
on one cent sales tax funding option 2 in your packet.
Next and right away, let the government bodies, civic and
business leaders convince the public that this contract between the
government and the taxpayers will definitely sunset. I prefer six
months. You may want nine months or another number.
As you vote, I'd like you to do one more thing. Please
remember dysfunction junction. It hasn't been that far back.
And one more favor. Let's finish this 20-year
marathon. I thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's 25, isn't it?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It's forever.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Keller and then Mr. Erlichman.
MR. KELLER: George Keller, concerned citizen. I've
lived in this county for 26 years. Twenty-six years ago we didn't
have any traffic problems, believe me. We have traffic problems in
the County. And honestly and truly I read the papers every day, and I
think I'm up about as much as any citizen in Collier County on what's
happening in Collier County.
I haven't seen any -- anything that proves that this
particular bridge is going to solve anything really as far as
traffic. We are now a city, and what we should be considering is
public transportation of some sort. That is the more important factor
here than putting another bridge across a little creek.
Secondly, I haven't seen anything in the paper that
shows where this is going to alleviate any problems. When you put the
people -- when you get the people at Goodlette Road and into the city,
what do you do with them?
So honestly and truly, I think you're going to have one
heck of a job trying to sell this to the public. I think this will go
down even worse than the sales tax went down. I think this will be
defeated by 75 percent.
When you sell a -- when you sell a proposition, you have
to have a reason for it, and I haven't seen any reason that this is
going to solve our traffic problems in Collier County. What we need
is a public transportation system to solve our problem. We're now a
city. We're no longer a little rural area. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman and then Mrs. Barsh.
MR. ERLICHHAN: My name is Gilbert Erlichman. I reside
in East Naples. I'm speaking for TAG.
All I've heard so far from Mr. Perry this morning is
conjecture, speculation, if, if this, if that, when this, so forth;
nothing definite.
First of all, I don't know why the -- this is a state
project that has been taken over by local elected officials. The
State has agreed to build this bridge in eight to ten years with state
tax funds.
Each year hundreds of millions of dollars are collected
from the taxpayers in Collier County to pay for bridges, highways, et
cetera. Therefore, this is double taxation if this tax goes through.
The State does not have this on a fast track because
traffic studies done by the state show clearly that this bridge will
not be needed for another eight to ten years. The State has agreed to
repair the existing Gordon River bridges without closing down any of
the six lanes, without closing down any of the six lanes, by extending
the normal construction time by 12 to 18 months.
Engineering reports by consultants which cost us -- which are
going to cost us $400,000 will not be completed until April of next
year, as Mr. Perry so stated. And, of course, I think he said Hay.
The final location of the bridge has not been formally
determined, but citizens whose neighborhoods are in the path of the
two proposed routes are up in arms because they fear the invasion of
60,000 automobiles belching exhaust, honking horns, et cetera.
If and when the route is determined, permits from DEP --
State DEP, the federal EPA, and the Federal Aeronautics Association
have yet to be obtained. In other words, none of these permits have
been filed for or obtained because we don't even know what the route
is.
Now, if they happen to find an indigo snake or a gopher
tortoise or a red-cockaded woodpecker, forget it because they will
delay -- they will delay the construction by months or even years as
what's happened with the new Florida -- the new university up in Lee
County and also Livingston Road.
The northern route which is -- which runs on the northern
border of Naples Airport will run through a 40-year toxic waste dump
and environmentally sensitive mangroves. Just think about that.
Who are the protagonists and propagandists for the
bridge? The Bridge Club, the EDC, the Naples Chamber of Commerce,
realtors, developers, special interest groups, et cetera. These
people stand to see their developing interest become very valuable.
One group who I am surprised to learn that are supporting --
who are supporting the project and the 1 percent added sales tax is
the Greater Naples Civic Association. They were the paragons of
fiscal responsibility and budget watchdogs of the school board and the
county commissioners. Now they are aligned with the tax and spend
interest of Collier County.
I respectfully request the Board of Commissioners not to
pass this bridge tax. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Frances Barsh and then Stan Olds.
MR. BARSH: Good morning. My name is Frances Barsh.
I'm a resident, voter of Collier County. And I am a co-president of
TAG.
The public is being informed that the new bridge over
the Gordon River is not in place. If the -- I'm told that if the new
bridge over the Gordon River is not in place, untold gridlock will
result when the state crews arrive and begin rebuilding and widening
the present Gordon River bridge. The fact is that the State has
agreed if asked to keep all six lanes open for traffic during the
rebuild period.
I have just returned from Connecticut where the state
has been rebuilding and widening the roads and bridges of Route 95.
As many of you know, Route 95 is the main artery through Connecticut
to New England from the densest populated area in the country, New
York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
It serves not tens, not hundreds of thousands but
millions of commuters and vacation travelers per day. The builders
and engineers of the rebuilding and widening of the road and its
bridges have successfully kept all lanes of traffic open during the
work period. This can be done. And it is unfair to bamboozle the
public with a fear of gridlock in Naples.
This summer I visited Auckland with a population of over a
million in New Zealand. They too faced the need to widen the bridge
which traverses the harbor, also a main artery to the city.
The city fathers after diligent research found the cost
of a new bridge would overburden its citizens. So they took the
problem out into a worldwide arena for solution.
Today the people of Auckland are proud -- proudly point
to the Nippon Clip-on, an ingenious addition to the original bridge.
It solved the problem. It cost approximately a quarter of what a new
bridge would have cost. It was the carrying out of fiscal
responsibility of the city fathers to the people.
One questions the fairness of an additional 1 percent sales
tax countywide. The people living out in the County or on Marco
Island have their own infrastructure needs. The bridge lies within
the city of Naples.
This county board of commissioners I believe represents
all the people of Collier County, even those way out in the County and
those on Marco Island.
One questions the idea of imposing a 1 percent sales tax
on the people of Collier County for a new bridge at a time when the
cost of such a bridge is not firmly known, the location is not firmly
determined, costs and consequences are not thoroughly -- the
environmental delays, costs, and consequences are not investigated or
firmly quantified. To proceed with a 1 percent additional sales tax
referendum on this question at this time ignores the fact of double
taxation and is not the kind of fiscal responsibility the people and
voters of Collier County and the citizens of the City of Naples elect
their representatives to practice.
Local intrusion on the state program with funding from
taxation in place for the new Gordon Avenue bridge brings one to an
end question. Is a 1 percent tax increase for the new Gordon Avenue
bridge to -- a practice of fiscal responsibility or local pork
barrel.
We urge you not to subject the citizens of Collier
County to added costs of a special referendum on a 1 percent sales tax
increase. We urge you to turn down the proposal for this referendum
and this tax increase today. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Olds and then Mr. Sommer.
MR. OLDS: The name is Stanley Olds. And my comments
will be short.
I'm very happy that the Naples Daily News has brought
out some of the background and up-to-date facts on the bridge
situation; that is, pro and con. And these are the things, and I read
them very thoroughly.
And after studying these facts, I'm firmly convinced
that a second Gordon River bridge should not be built at this moment
in time. Added consideration of this matter will need or mean more
taxpayers' money for consulting fees and related costs, environmental
fees, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Enough time and money has
already been spent. And I have down here well over 300,000, but I
think it's much more than that.
Vast amounts of our taxpayers' money has already been
sent to Tallahassee. Why not let some of this money be sent back to
Naples and to Collier County to pay for the bridge as the State will
definitely do?
So as you can see, I'm firmly against the bridge for
very good reasons. Thank you very much.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Sommer and Mr. Tarrant.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How many speakers do we have
left?
MR. DORRILL: In addition to Mr. Tarrant, you have only
one additional.
MR. SOHHER: I'll be very brief. I think that we have
overlooked Senator Dudley in all of this and I would like -- oh, my
name is Bob Sommer. I'm sorry. I'm with TAG.
Let me go back just quickly to the time when we were
talking about the five cent gas tax here. I recall the commissioners
sat and were very specific on outlining which roads were going to be
used for the five cent gas tax and which ones were not. You sat with
George Archibald and his people, and it was very -- it was a very firm
commitment to those roads. They all met in concurrency at that time.
Shortly thereafter, one of the commissioners -- I guess
somebody gave them a wake-up call -- decided that the Vanderbilt Beach
extension was a concurrent road and wanted that added to the
concurrency list.
We then saw a -- sort of a revise of the Department of
Transportation budget whereas a ten million dollar deficit turned into
a ten million dollar surplus, and we could afford the Vanderbilt Beach
extension.
All this is not to talk about why that was done or who
did it but more to say that when you get someone who is in a position
of responsibility and let me say power, a lot of things can be done.
Now, Tallahassee has changed. Tallahassee is now
Republican. At least the senate is Republican, and our good Senator
Dudley is a very big man in Tallahassee these days. And it strikes me
that the State has said we have made the analysis. You people need a
bridge. We're willing to do it. The problem is timing.
Many of the folks here want the bridge now. Well, I say
we talk to Mr. Dudley who chairs some very big and very influential
committees and ask him if we wouldn't walk across the street and talk
to the people in the Department of Transportation and suggest that
with the new Tallahassee layout of strong Republican representatives
that they might consider taking our bridge and instead of making it a
seven- or eight- or ten-year span before it's going to be done, push
it up front. Push it up to maybe number one.
And I think he could do it. And no one here has to my
knowledge thought about having someone in Tallahassee push this thing
up. It'd save us anywhere from 13 to 21 million dollars. And you
wouldn't have to go through all this mess of having a vote. I
strongly suggest you get ahold of Senator Dudley. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Tarrant and then Mr. Nelson. We've
got two additional, Mr. Commissioner.
MR. TARRANT: For the record, Fred Tarrant, 175 Third
Street South, Naples, Florida. Thank you, Commissioners, and
congratulations, Pam Hac'Kie and Mr. Hancock.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Fred.
MR. TARRANT: I thought we just got through -- I thought
the voters of this country just got through kicking out a pack of
no-good, tax-and-spend people from the Congress of the United States.
It seems to me that the people have reached a point where they're
recognizing that when government who collects taxes and fees and all
kinds of money from the people at all different levels and all kinds
of ways can't get a project done within their budget that they turn to
this unfortunate habit of busting the budget and coming back and
passing the hat to the voters and say, here, we don't have it in our
budget, so pay up again.
As the previous speakers have indicated, this is a state
project that has been kidnapped, has been hijacked, has been snatched
by overzealous, well-meaning public officials in order to advance the
timeline on getting this bridge finished.
And all that is going to be saved according to all
figures is no more than five to six years because by the time we get
this sales tax passed, accumulate the necessary funds, get the
necessary permits, get the crews out, build the bridge, by the time
the first car goes over that bridge, there will only be about a five-
or six-year difference from what the State would do if we let them do
it with the money that our citizens have already shelled out to the
State to do their job.
We had a meeting at city hall the evening of the 26th of
October, public meeting, and there were a number of citizens there
that expressed very serious concern and alarm that this flood of hot
metal and exhaust and honking horns that are going to come over this
new Gordon River bridge into the city of Naples is going to impact
their neighborhood. And I think these people have a very legitimate
concern. So I'm not opposed to the new Gordon River bridge. I am
opposed to dumping this cost over on people.
Earlier you were discussing affordable housing, and we
need affordable housing for poor people, but they can't get it because
they're too poor. Well, here we are, this inversion of values that's
crushing our society, that's undermining our values in our society
where we find that -- the University of Florida conducts the survey
and finds that over 50 percent of the people that live in Collier
County survive on incomes of around 18 to $20,000.
How can Dr. Woodruff who's a very fine city manager and
does a splendid job, how can he relate to people that live on 16,
$18,000 when he's making $86,000? I don't believe that Mr. Goodlette,
my dear friend Mr. Goodlette, who I appreciate, Mr. Cameron, a hard
working realtor, these people have incomes that they get up here and
they say, what's a penny tax? What's a 1 percent tax?
I'm telling you, we have over 50 percent of the people
that are going to have to pay this tax along with their increased gas
tax and all their other taxes, and they go over to the K-Hart, and
they put cheap plastic shoes on their kids. It's shame. It's shame.
It's wrong. It's wrong to offload this on the poor people of this
county. They can't afford it. It's wrong. You shouldn't do it. And
I think you know it. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Nelson and then Mr. Pennington.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Will Mr. Pennington be the final
speaker?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir, you have one additional.
MR. NELSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Doug Nelson. I'm speaking on behalf of the Collier Building Industry
Association as their president representing about 800 members and
their businesses and families. And welcome to the new commissioners.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Doug.
MR. NELSON: The Collier Building Industry endorsed the
Bridge Club recommendations. We've been active with the Bridge Club.
We think the benefits of this bridge outweigh the tax implications,
and we urge your support for this referendum which we're talking
about. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pennington and then Mr. I believe it's
Weibley or Weakley who will be the final speaker.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Welcome.
MR. PENNINGTON: Well, good morning, Commissioners and
fellow HPO members.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm afraid we're afternoon.
MR. PENNINGTON: Thank you. It is. And to also give
evidence that there's not collision -- or collusion on city council --
collision, yes, collusion, no. Several of the things that have been
said relative to this, there have been some, I think, misconceptions
made. I would take exception with my friend Gil when he said this was
a toxic dump there by the airport. Certainly never identified as a
toxic dump, and, in fact, there have been a lot of examinations of
that, and no toxicity has been found at this point.
Also a comment about the bridge being totally in the
city. Depending upon the route, on the northern route it's quite
possible that none of the bridge would be in the city. It would be
all in the unincorporated area.
Discussion about delaying the bridge until the State would
build it, that sounds good, but like everything else, we do not get
something for nothing. The discussion we had with DOT, if this was
deferred until it's in a later five-year plan, it would replace
something else in the plan that we otherwise would be getting and
which we sorely need. So it's not in addition to. It would just
displace other things that are presently planned to be constructed in
this county, other things that are needed.
Additionally, if the State were to do this, there would be
significant additional costs because of the PD and E that we presently
have underway would not satisfy state requirements. The whole thing
would have to be done over again. The money that we would have
expended would have been for naught if we were to go that route.
There have been statements made that we were taking this
away, that it was a state project. This bridge has never been a state
project. It has always been a local concern.
Other -- it is true. And the factor about the tax that is
paid by the local people, actually on the sales tax and from the study
that we have done of this, because of the amount of tourists that we
have here, commuters to here, it ends up that only 48 percent of the
cost of this bridge would actually be borne by the local residents.
And also to consider with sales tax the -- since it is only
applied to or is not applied to food and the medical costs, so the
greater portion of that then goes -- is paid by the people that spend
the greater portion of the money. So I think then there's a minor --
the relatively minor portion then is borne by those that can less
afford to be paying it.
I would strongly urge as to where we stand at this point that
you move forward today to establish this as the preferred method of
funding and establish the date. I think the October date for this
year would be the preferred date.
Reasons on that, we say prior to 1 November because
there is a 60-day requirement between election and when the tax can be
imposed. It has to be imposed on the 1st of the year whenever. So
backing down from the 1st of January next and I think we recognize
that the sooner we have the cash flow starting in, the sooner it can
be utilized for the planning work. And so it would be advantageous
then to start it as soon as possible which would be January of '96 and
backing down into October.
We certainly do not want to go into an election without
the public being informed as to what it's all about. So I think
October would be a good date. It does give us a bit of the problem on
the MPO about the August date for scheduling with DOT, and obviously
we have to have a back-up method. But that's something we can work
on. But I strongly urge you to move forward. Thank you very much.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Weakley or Weibley.
MR. PERRY: Weakley. My name's Mark Weakley. I'm here
wearing two hats today. Number one, I am a Community Redevelopment
Agency advisory board member. And then number two, I'm a local
businessperson in the downtown area. I own and operate Tails End
Motel three quarters of a block right downtown between 3rd and 4th
Avenue right on U.S. 41.
This bridge issue scares me to death, what it would do
to my business, the constriction of the Gordon River bridge from six
lane to four lane and then the time table that it's going to take the
bridge to be rebuilt.
I have served as an advisory board member to city
council for about two and a half years. I've looked at a lot of the
different data, and I really think this is going to have a harmful
effect to our downtown area, especially the redevelopment area and the
bypassing of traffic around it and then the constriction of the
traffic to it and the constriction of the traffic that I personally
need that's coming down U.S. 41.
If you look at the study that's been provided by the
Metropolitan Planning Agency and the traffic studies to postpone this
bridge to put it on down the road, the traffic problem still happens
even after a new bridge is built.
I also look at the effects that a new bridge is going to
have to our existing downtown redevelopment area, how that is going to
correspond and what's going to happen to the traffic flows into the
downtown area, whether that's going to be a good effect or a bad
effect.
But basically this bridge goes nowhere outside of
getting across the river. There's no concerted plan to link it up
with U.S. 41. There's no concerted plan to take it on past Airport
Road. Therefore, trying to achieve any type of traffic flow for
anybody that works in the downtown area, it's just not going to
happen.
I think the only solution for the bridge is to actually
rebuild the existing Gordon River bridge on U.S. 41, do it at a much
more rapid rate so the local businessperson can stay in business which
would be possibly a six-month period or turn around and not affect our
traffic flow in any way, shape, or form and take the other option and
keep all lanes open.
Outside of that, I will also have to charge my customers
the sales tax. They will receive absolutely no benefit from this tax
in any way, shape, or form. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. Mr.
Dotrill, are there any other public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there anyone else who wishes
to speak on that issue? Thank you. Mr. Cuyler?
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, let me clarify something that
there's been a couple different comments about. The timing of the tax
is that -- and we just confirmed this with the Department of Revenue.
There's been a lot of reference to January 1. It might start on
January 1, but there's another section 212 that requires a January 1
start date. But with regard to the infrastructure tax, it is 60 days
after the approval of the referendum and then the first day of the
next month. So if your referendum were in October, it, in fact, would
start on January 1. But it's not required that it start on January
1. It depends on when your ballot date.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So we could be a little more
flexible in defining -- I'd be curious about what months have the
highest collection historically.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: November. November, December.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like November -- we could
conceivably -- that's an important piece of information that's news to
me.
MR. CUYLER: I would guess that historically January,
February, Hatch, April.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wonder if Dr. Woodruff still
has that information. Or do you have it, Mr. Perry?
MR. PERRY: Again, for the record, Jeff Perry. The
information prepared by the City of Naples indicates, as you might
expect, that the November and December -- November and December and in
addition October months are higher than the July, August, and
September months of the year so that if you were going to restructure
the time period of collection, you would probably start as early as
October in collecting the funds and dropping off the latter or the
early summer months, Hay, June. It's a little bit higher in October
than it is in the other one. So that period of time, as you might
expect, there's a slightly higher revenue forecast for those given
months.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we could choose to adopt the
sales tax for its effective dates to be like October through March.
That's an option available to us.
MR. CUYLER: That is an option available to you if
you're talking about as early as -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: August.
MR. CUYLER: August, September of next year. You're
going to make the policy decision of the information dissemination
versus the amount of collection and the months. Or something else
that hadn't been discussed, but I know that the six-month date has
been promoted to let the taxpayers know it's only a period of time.
But I guess you also have the option of reducing the amount of the tax
and increasing the period of the collection to even it out over the
course of a year. But I don't know to what extent that's been
discussed. I haven't been involved in those discussions.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This Board has sat in the
position of being accused over the past number of years by lack of
planning and more recently by some political candidates. We're
sitting in that same position right now. The same people that have
accused this Board of not planning for the future, of not looking at
what our needs are and addressing them aggressively seem to be the
same people now saying wait and react. Don't wait -- don't treat the
problem before it exists. Wait till it's there and then treat it. I
disagree with that. If we wait for the State Department of
Transportation to fix all of our problems, folks, we're going to have
a lot more than we know how to deal with.
So I think what we need to do as a commission is look at
-- today I believe our decision I believe is whether or not we want
to pursue a referendum on a countywide sales tax, and I believe the
exact parameters of that do not have to be defined today but just that
that is the intent of this Board if that is it. And I'm not trying to
quell discussion, but we, you know, need to move on with some other
things today, and I would encourage moving in that direction.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you want to put something in
the form of a motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm happy to make a motion that
this Board pursues the one penny sales tax referendum as a primary
funding source for the construction of the Gordon River bridge should
we deem that to be feasible at the terminus of the PD and E study and
that the secondary funding option be identified as tolls.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second for the
motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Question on the motion. Are we
merely identifying the sales -- the potential of the sales tax because
the electorate is going to have to say yes or no as the primary
funding source? If they say yes, are we going to sunset that? Or are
we going to today select the approximate date for the referendum?
We've just been told that it doesn't have to take effect January 1,
that it would take effect on the first day of the month 60 days
following the referendum.
So we now have the opportunity to have the referendum in
July and have it take effect October the 1st and have it run for six
months through the highest sales tax collection months.
So I think there are some things that we need to look at
yet. I'm strongly in favor of a sunset of some time.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, clearly, and I will amend the
motion that it will not exist without a sunset. So yes, a specific
sunset in time frame, I will amend the motion to make that a part of
it.
As far as when it starts, I don't feel comfortable
addressing that until I know what the cost of the bridge is. And as
far as I understand, we're not going to get that information until
MAy.
In order for us to adequately get information to the
public for their choice, I don't think that we can do that for a June
start. So that to me may seem a little unrealistic although I
understand --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: For a June referendum -- for a
July referendum.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But the problem is that we have
to have ordinance hearings, and then we have to word the question, and
it has to go through a Supreme Court, Justice Department test to make
sure that we've clearly worded it and it's not ambiguous and all of
that -- all of those things.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you have a suggestion as to
how to amend the motion to address -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, quite frankly, I don't.
Perhaps our attorney could help us.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think Commissioner Hancock's
correct in that I'm not sure we can put a particular date on those
things because until we have information -- and Mr. Perry said it
will be May -- I'm not sure we're going to be able to word the
question because we don't know if the proposal would be for six months
or nine months or how much money we're going to need. So I don't know
that we can set a date until we have that information.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, also Mr. Cuyler had said
earlier when I asked him a question of if we could word the ballot
question in such a way that we were to raise a specific sum of dollars
and then to terminate it at the nearest quarter end after those
dollars had been raised. He wanted time --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think personally the
voters would want that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, he wanted time to research
whether that was available or not.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think the public with their
general distrust of government would vote that down regardless of the
issue. Just if it's vague, they're not going to want it.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I'm just a little bit
concerned about a six-month tax that leaves us four million dollars
short.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As I understand the motion that I
think is appropriate is that the action we would take today would be
to endorse the sales tax as the primary method of funding and to
direct staff to draft an ordinance to bring to us for -- that will
include issues like -- at that point when we adopt the ordinance,
we'll address questions like when does the tax begin, how much is it
going to be? You know, we'll draft the referendum question.
So I think that it's only necessary today to say we
endorse the sales tax as the primary method of funding and direct
staff to answer questions and draft an ordinance.
I have a problem with -- I don't have enough information
yet to identify the secondary source. I'm not ready to say tolls are
it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is it my understanding that we
need to provide a secondary funding source at this point? No? Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: August.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: August, okay. At this stage I'll
be willing to amend my motion to eliminate the secondary funding
option. And also point of clarification, I'm not speaking of this as
an endorsement but merely that we are advocating, you know, the
approach of putting this question to the public in the form of a sales
tax but not an endorsement by the Board. That wording I would not
agree to.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I assume your second is still --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was Mr. Norris's.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I will amend my second to reflect
the amendment of the motion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Further discussion? Mr. Perry?
MR. PERRY: The staff does need direction to know
whether or not you want us to come back immediately looking towards a
June or July referendum because we have to get busy and start
preparing the ordinances and come up with some sort of ballot question
for you to work with.
MR. CUYLER: If you look at page 3 of your agenda
package, you'll see that's a real tight time frame. If you were to
tell us, for example, we want you back in June, we've got to have that
ordinance prepared by the end of this month which is only a few
weeks.
MR. PERRY: If you're favoring the second option which
is a later election in the September, October time frame, then we will
adjust the schedule and be in front of you in sufficient time.
Hopefully at that point we will have all of the answers to the
questions that are still up in the air as far as the costs go. That
will be towards the April, Hay time frame.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would it be appropriate to vote
on the motion and then give direction to staff for the record after
the motion has either succeeded or failed?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah. There's a motion and a
second. I'm just going to make one comment before I call the
question. And that is I will support the motion because I'm not going
to stand in the way of the voters deciding on the issue. I'm not
going to be at the front cheerleading the sales tax by any means, and
I certainly hope if it should pass it does not become a precedent
setting method of the County collecting money for different projects.
That's one of my concerns.
Assuming the vote is -- and I think you clarified that.
Assuming the vote is to allow the voters to decide the issue that
we're committing to go forward and put it on the ballot and allow the
voters, I'll support that if it -- and as long as it is not declaring
this the preferred method I will support that. I think that's what
you said.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. If -- I would agree to
that, yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: With that in mind, all in favor
of the motion please state aye.
Anyone opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: With regard to staff direction --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With regard to staff direction,
are we looking at the -- Commissioner Matthews, is looking at a
September 1 ballot date still within the time frame --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I was just contemplating
Mr. Cuyler's information that the referendum would take effect on the
first day of the month 60 days after the referendum.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A September ballot would give us
a December 1 start date. Anything in August, would that be too early,
Mr. Perry? Would you have difficulty meeting an August time, and
would we have -- Hay, June, July, that's going to be three months from
Hay. Do we feel that's sufficient time to get information to the
public on this?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Will we have all the information
-- when will we have it because when you and I spoke Friday I thought
you said June is when we'd have all those answers? Today I thought
you said Hay.
MR. PERRY: I think the end of April -- end of April,
1st of Hay is when we're targeting the final decisions to be made on
route selection. That's when the cost is finally nailed down really
as best as we can possibly get it prior to design.
So whenever that particular point is, if we understand
that that's the point in which you want to make a decision on what to
do about the ballot question, that you want to have that information
in hand before you set the ballot question, then we'll adjust our
schedules and present it to you within the next week or two to give
you an idea of what that looks like as far as when the ballot would
actually be.
It may be that we can work it out so that we're still
meeting the deadlines for the HPO to direct the staff. If we're
looking at a September election, that may give us a little bit of room
to hedge our bet with FDOT on regaining the work program.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to look toward a
September election.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you want to put that in the
form of a motion to give staff some direction? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just direction to staff.
MR. PERRY: At least to give us -- so that we're --
clearly we're not looking at a June election. We'll work towards
something --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion
that we direct staff to gear towards a September referendum ballot.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, you corrected the
January 1 starting date. Does that also indicate we do not have to
wait till the end of the quarter to stop collecting it?
MR. CUYLER: No, you do have to wait till the end. It
runs in quarter collections.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So this then could theoretically
become an eight -- seven-month or eight-month --
MR. CUYLER: It would be six, nine, or twelve.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not if we start in October.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Can't start in October.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can't start in October.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. But if we start in
November.
MS. ASHTON: The end date is going to be the calendar
quarter, but the commencement date is 60 days after the referendum,
but it has to be the first of the month, so you could start it in
November provided it ended -- right, on the calendar quarter.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That gives us a little more
flexibility.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
Further discussion on that motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, state
aye.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You automatically point to me
when you ask for further discussion. Are you trying to tell me
something?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, it's a habit from when
Commissioner Volpe was on this end. Motion carries 5-0.
Item #11A
RECOHMENDATION REGARDING EXPENDITURES RELATING TO THE DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORK RELEASE/RESTITUTION CENTER - STAFF DIRECTED TO
PURSUE AND BRING BACK PRIVATE FUNDING OPTIONS, POSSIBLE OPERATIONAL
COSTS AND NEGOTIATE CONSTRUCTION ASPECTS
That will conclude that item, and we'll move on to
ll-A. I understand Judge Brousseau is with us, and you have set court
aside to come here, so we'll set some time aside for you as well. We
might just wait about a minute until the room clears. That item will
be recommendation to approve expenditures relating to the design and
construction of the work release restitution center.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: For the media, Commissioner
Constantine will be available to explain that comment immediately
after the meeting.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: For the media who sat here week
after week, it's crystal clear. Mr. Mayor, how are you?
MR. PUTZELL: Fine, thank you. And I want to express
my appreciation for your patience and your willingness to hear us
after this long morning.
By sheer coincidence --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I need you to --
MR. PERRY: Oh, I'm Ned Putzell.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. PUTZELL: Citizen living in the city of Naples, and
I have with me the Honorable Ted Brousseau, well known to all of us,
one of the eminent judges here in this county.
By sheer coincidence, Mr. Chairman, I read an article in
the New York Times, the first paragraph of which says a dollar's worth
of drug treatment is worth $7 spent on the most successful law
enforcement efforts to curb the use of cocaine. That's the result of
a study by the Ran Corporation for the federal government. And it
fits right in with what we're talking about here today.
I'm sure you all know from our previous meetings back in
June that Judge Brousseau, having worked with his fellow judges on
this subject for some five or six years, is now quarterbacking a group
of us to deal with a proposed work release therapy and restitution
center.
This proposal does not compete with the jail, with
juvenile boot camps, and with standard probation. It's but another
element in the mosaic of law enforcement and dealing with crime in our
county. It's designed to prevent non-violent criminals from becoming
repeat offenders or graduating to more severe crimes.
We're told that 65 to 75 percent of all arrests in this
area involve alcohol, drugs, domestic violence, delinquent child or
spouse support. These are misdemeanors and third-degree felonies.
You all, as have we I think, read recently of a man
arrested for innumerable times on DUI charges. Today he either is
sentenced to jail here for 3, 6, 9, or 12 months or probation and he's
back on the street.
With the work release and treatment center, this man
would be found guilty, put on probation, and sent to the work release
center, not to the jail which is needed badly for felony-type
criminals. In the work release center, he would keep his job since
most of the illegal activity occurs after job working hours rather
than during them. And then he would return to the center for therapy
treatment, for counseling, vocational training, if indicated, and for
tutoring, if illiterate or semi-illiterate.
Sheriff Hunter has recommended that the siting of this center
be on the north side of the jail which would furnish food, laundry,
medical help, and that sort of service to this facility. It is
suggested that the first phase have 110 beds, 86 for males and 24 for
females, with scheduled plan for an additional 24 in the future.
The operating costs, as you know, housing a person in
jail costs about $44 a day or $16,000 a year. The work release center
is estimated and based on the experience of many other places where
it's in effect, less than half that cost. And 10 to $11 a day which
would be part of the earnings of an inmate would go for partial
payment of his room and Board costs.
The center could be operated in any appropriate way,
either by the County or privatized, and both types of operation
management have been in effect in other places.
As far as finances go, there's a traditional method of costs,
bond issue and the like, or this issue could be privately funded on a
five-year basis by citizens here in the community. And in either
event we would certainly hope to seek for federal or state grant
funds.
Now, based on the experience of similar activities in
Orlando, Bradenton, Attica, New York, Wisconsin, and elsewhere, this
type of work release treatment center gets the non-violent
misdemeanors off the streets and out of the more costly jail
incarceration. It's more appropriate than jail because treatment and
work is involved here, and it frees the jail space for the felony type
of criminal. It enables the individual to continue to work while
receiving treatment and education. It makes it possible for him to
pay rent and board which helps his own sense of self respect. And it
encourages restitution of child support and other court-ordered
payments.
We believe -- and it's been shown elsewhere -- that it
contributes to the prevention of family break-up with its social
consequences, a very important aspect of this matter, as Judge
Brousseau can tell you. And it also leads to long-term preventive
influence because of the treatment and the schooling that's involved.
Since the Board accepted this concept last June, we would
recommend that it be good enough today to decide on the preferred
method of financing. If public funding would be involved, then we
would hope that the staff would be authorized to negotiate the
construction contract pursuant to the competitive procurement
procedures of the County.
On the other hand, if private financing is the way to go,
staff should be directed to negotiate a construction as well as a
financing arrangement with the nucleus group that are working here
with Judge Brousseau. Thank you very much.
Judge Brousseau's here, and I'm sure he can speak much
more eloquently on this than I since he's carried the torch for so
many years.
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: Thank you. I doubt that last
statement -- for the record, my name is Ted Brousseau. And following
Ned is a tough act to follow.
But really the bottom line why I'm here and urging the
County to go forward with this project is because we've heard over the
last couple years that Florida puts -- I think waives 20 percent of
the juveniles to adult court, and that's more than any other state in
the union, that we have more people per capita in prisons than any
other state in the union, and Hiami somehow comes out number one on
the crime front and that Florida has a high crime rate.
So it occurred to me that just putting people in prison
or locking them up isn't -- isn't working. It obviously while they're
in there deters the people. But once they get out, they come back.
I was out of felony for two years a couple years ago,
and I came back in. And two-thirds of the docket were the same names
that were on there two years earlier with new crimes. And it's just a
cycle.
And so as Ned did say, this is a hope to, one, have them
partly pay their way; two, to get that treatment that will maybe break
the cycle. And then we've got them out of jail or probation or
whatever later on.
I'd be glad to ask questions if you'd like just from a
judge's point of view. It adds -- it's a real tough call. You know,
I sat here and watched you, and I read about you in the newspaper.
And you're making tough calls all the time, and it's the tough ones
that are hard.
And one of the tough ones for a judge is when you've got
somebody that you want to punish that you need to keep off the street
and they're standing there not always physically but they've got
children and they've got a spouse, and you know that they're going to
suffer. And, in fact, we may suffer because the spouse and children
may end up going on Aid to Dependent Children and whatever the
ramifications are if you take this person off the street for a while.
And so you end up having to balance this thing, and too
many times probably we end up putting them on probation whereas we'd
all feel better if they were off the street. This will open up 110
beds to where you can take and say with a clear conscience, look, you
need to be off the street at night. You need to have some
counseling. This isn't going to disrupt your job. This isn't going
to disrupt your family support, and also we'll collect some money for
the victim in the form of a restitution.
So I think -- I hope you all support it. And if you do,
your job is going to be to decide how you want to finance it.
CHAI~ CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I want to thank you gentlemen for
bringing this project forward. If this continues to move forward and
becomes a reality, this is going to be a very valuable asset for our
community. My question is whoever is more appropriate, please explain
to me the private funding that you have arranged for.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's out of your personal
account, isn't it, Ned?
MR. PUTZELL: As long as it's endorsed by some others.
There are a group of individuals here whose names I truly don't know
at the moment --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. I'm not asking for
the names.
MR. PUTZELL: But they have committed to fund it on a
five-year basis on whatever terms are to be negotiated and agreed upon
between the County and that private group. Their reason for doing it
is a conviction that this county needs this type of facility, and
they're willing to do it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just to clarify on your question,
though, that is -- they're not funding. They're providing financing
and expect to be paid back.
MR. PUTZELL: Absolutely. Five -- as I mentioned
earlier, on a five-year basis, a loan really in a sense for five
years. And when you consider the cost of an additional jail facility
to house an equal number of individuals such as we're talking about
here, the figure is so many times greater than what we're talking
about. It's not even in the ballpark.
And secondly, we believe that over a year or two the
saving by being able to establish this facility and put these types
into it will more than justify the cost.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What is the total cost in your
estimate?
MR. PUTZELL: We're estimating somewhere in the area of
three million dollars.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm sorry to have to ask these
questions.
MR. PUTZELL: No, it's perfectly all right. It really
hasn't been finalized. This is the kind of thing we would hope your
staff and our group could work out together. It's obvious it's going
to have to be done on the kind of basis that is appropriate when we're
dealing with the taxpayers' money ultimately.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My understanding is that if we
approve that particular source of funding, it's going to be then this
commission's job over the next five years to come up with $600,000
plus each year to pay back that loan. Is that the process by which
we're talking about?
MR. PUTZELL: That would be one way of doing it.
Another way obviously would be to have a balloon at the end, you
know. And again, I think it's a question of what your finance staff
and the individuals would want to do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In any event, the agreement as
it's negotiated would come back to the Board. We'd have the right to
approve those -- the terms.
MR. PUTZELL: Oh, yeah, absolutely. All of it would
be.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I'd hate to approve it in
concept and say we want to pursue and then down the road, you know,
kiss your sister and say good-bye. I just -- I don't want to do it
that way. I want to make sure it's workable and feasible. MR. PUTZELL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I blended a couple of
things there that I shouldn't have blended, but that's okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I didn't realize you knew Ned's
sister. That's okay. He's new to the system.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's hungry.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's lunch time.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you have questions?
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. I listened to the proposal
made six or eight months ago, and I fully support it. The only
possible stumbling block in my mind at this point is how do we fund
it. And it seems to me whether we ask this group to fund it and build
it and essentially operate a capital or have a capital lease in which
at the end of five years we own it, or do we attack our short-term
financing and accomplish the same thing? To me it matters not as long
as we get it done.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I have a couple of different
problems. One has to do with the financing. We don't know right now
how we're going to pay back not only what method, whether it's year by
year or a balloon or what, but we don't know from where we're going to
get that money. And that's the crux of a point I brought up earlier
in the year is this Board should not be committing to projects until
they know how they're going to pay for it specifically. And that's no
different than you would do in business. We wouldn't make a three
million dollar commitment in my business unless I had some idea how
and when I was going to pay it back. So I'm a little uncomfortable
with that.
Also some of the points -- and there are centers like
this running around the County -- I mean around the state, some very
successfully. But a couple of the points here, the summary, executive
summary, indicates and the word may is used, but the final paragraph
on the first page says the work release restitution center may help
temporarily delay jail expansion. The sheriff's office has indicated
this will not slow down jail expansion. But they have the need, and
they will continue to pursue that on the same timeline regardless.
Also I don't know right now what's contemplated as far
as who would run this, and we spoke a little bit the other day in
regard to this but who would actually operate it, whether that would
be the sheriff or whether that would be us. I know in -- this would
be a hundred bed? Is that what's anticipated? MR. PUTZELL: Hundred and ten.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hundred and ten bed? For 165-,
170-bed unit in Orange County, the operating budget is about 1.6
million. So I'm going to assume we're a million a year to operate
this.
MR. PUTZELL: Well, we were actually projecting
something like a quarter of a million net. We don't have the exact
figures, nor do we have the construction figures. But by the best
estimates we've been able to get, we think it will be in the order of
two fifty to four hundred thousand net because we're expecting
contributions as we said before.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Orange County has, as I say, the
operating budget of 1.6 million. They get about 400,000 of that back
from the people who are staying there contributing as you suggested.
But I feel like maybe we're a step ahead. Maybe this is
a little premature. You talked about some -- perhaps some private
funding, some contributions to help offset that. We've talked about
some federal grants, but there are no specifics on any of those.
And I have not only a problem committing to the capital
cost of three million and not knowing how I'm going to pay it, but
I've got a real problem of an operating budget of probably a million a
year and -- gross and having no idea how we're going to pay that
either.
MR. PUTZELL: I think you'll find if you look into the
Orlando situation, it's a bit different than what we're talking
about. In the first place, all of the law enforcement facilities in
that area are under one head, and they have some very elaborate
different types of buildings and facilities and programs. And how the
cost -- and we've been with the people from Orlando. We've gotten
into great detail with them, as a matter of fact. And some have even
visited it.
I think you'll find that it's not quite a comparable
situation where we're talking here in terms of one effort and one
alone. There they've got -- they've got three or four different
structures and different types of programs, and the allocation of cost
is totally different than we would have here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What do you anticipate for a
gross cost annually to operate this facility?
MR. PUTZELL: I don't know that we've got any final
figures. Have you got any, Ted? Why don't you tell them.
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: Again, these are estimates. You have
to understand. Tom Traxinger who runs a very fine court counseling
for the courts and I sat down, and we had met with the Orlando people
among others and sat down and said, okay. We need -- for 110 people
you're going to probably have a mix of this so many on cocaine, so
many on alcohol from DUI, so many on domestic violence for anger
management, and various aspects. Okay. You need this -- and he's the
expert there, and he decided how many counselors that we'd need on
staff. And we sat down and figured it out that way.
We came up with a $560,000 estimate. That doesn't
include electricity or maintenance at the facility.
To show you how you can play with numbers, the sheriff
came back with about a million dollars; okay?
But the difference was that -- and Ned failed to add one
more incentive or one more reason to have this thing just north of the
jail is that's the incentive effect, see, because if they mess up
here, they're going to jail. And so everybody there should be and
from what I understand in other situations are on the best of behavior
while they're there because this is in lieu of jail.
And so instead of having 5 armed guards on duty for 110
people 24 hours a day which then you're up to a million dollars, we're
talking about all day long there's not going to be anybody there or
one or two. So for eight hours the place is almost empty.
Then for the next so many hours, evening hours, you've
got all these counselors milling around amongst them as well as
whoever you would have as supervisors. And then the next eight hours
they're sleeping or supposed to be sleeping.
So during -- in my mind -- and we've said that, well,
you can have a male and a female security there when they're there and
take care of the situation, and you're 100 yards from the jail or
whatever -- I haven't measured it -- but very close. If you really
got a problem, you can call for reenforcement.
So to come up with these numbers, you're going to get --
depending on who you ask, you're going to be in the position to make
that decision. Who's going to staff this? How are we going to staff
that? Same thing about whether people are going to be coming out of
the jail. You know, are there 10 people or 100 people in jail now
that would go over there? I submit to you it's the judges that make
that decision. The jail holds them, but it's the judges that sentence
them. And so you've got to look to where the numbers are coming from.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So it's unknown at this time who
will operate, whether that would be the sheriff or whether that would
be --
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: Only through his selection. We have
offered it to the sheriff. We don't want to get into a war here. If
he wants to run it, as far as I'm concerned, with your approval he
runs it. If he doesn't, you could contract it out. If you don't want
to do that, you can have a staff, a supervisor to run the thing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just -- I'm a little unclear. I
want to be as supportive as possible of this concept. It has to
happen. It's too good an idea to miss.
But what I'm a little unclear about is exactly what
you're asking from us today. I think what I'm prepared to do today
would be to direct staff to negotiate the best terms they could and
the private funding source --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's what they're asking.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. And then that would be the
first step in our beginning to evaluate how we're going to pay that
money back, how we're going to do the O and H, how we're going to --
all the very valid questions the chairman is raising.
But if that -- unless there's something more that you're
looking for today, what I'd like to do is move that we direct staff to
negotiate the best possible arrangement they can on the private
funding option to bring back before the Board for approval and that
they be investigating the capital repayment and operating and
maintenance cost.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: On the motion, would you
consider amending that to -- for staff to bring back along with
whatever the negotiated agreement is a funding mechanism for how we
are going to pay for this?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pay it back. That's what I
intended to be saying. Exactly.
MR. PUTZELL: Could I also suggest that staff also
negotiate the construction aspects of it? We have to know the capital
costs in order to get at an awful lot of the answers that I'm sure you
all are going to want answers.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It sounds like what you need from
us to keep this moving is direction to staff to keep it moving, to
investigate answers to all of the questions that have been raised
today from funding to operation, who's going to run it.
And I would like to move that we direct staff to
undertake all of those investigations and bring back recommendations
to us both from the private funding opportunities, the repayment of
the private funding, the capital costs, the operating and maintenance,
who's going to run it, what's the construction going to look like,
where's it going to be, all of the questions that we have that we
direct staff to get those answered and get back to us.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that motion. Mr.
Dotrill, how long will that take do you think?
MR. DORRILL: I would think it could probably be done
within two months on a preliminary basis.
The other thing I heard the chairman say was he wants a
little more definitive operating costs. And I think in addition to
looking at the sheriff's numbers, the two leading private companies
that do this type of thing are -- Wackenhut Corporation and
Correctional Corporation of America are the two leading private
correctional alternative companies. And we might want to get some
assistance from them, not a binding number, but some type of per bed
or per diem number as to what it would take to operate this type of
facility.
MR. CUYLER: We obviously will have to report back to
you as you're indicating. Some of these answers may lead to certain
ways to handle it. We obviously will have to come back and put the
policy decision in Judge Brousseau's court and your court.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, do we have any other
public speakers on this item?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir. I'm sorry. Mr. Cardillo was
registered.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It appears we have two speakers
on this.
MR. DORRILL: And this gentleman -- he'll have to remind
me of his name. This is the sheriff's correctional administrator
now.
CHAIRNAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cardillo twice in one day.
We're honored.
MR. CARDILLO: What can I tell you? But what I have to
say is getting briefer. I'm the former president of the Collier
County Bar and presently on the Board of Governors of the Bar, the
state Bar of Florida. And I've been practicing here for 22 years and
have done my fair share of criminal trial work and working in this
particular area with Judge Brousseau and others. And I can't think of
a more important or compelling thing to come before this commission.
This is probably the most positive and enlightened project of this
nature and of this magnitude in the 22 years that I've been in this
community.
And I wholeheartedly urge you as a practicing lawyer and
as a citizen of this community to adopt the program as proposed by
Mayor Putzell and Judge Brousseau. Thank you.
MR. SMITH: For the record, Greg Smith, jail
administrator for the sheriff's office. I'd just like to speak in
front of the commission today and commend Mr. Putzell and Judge
Brousseau on a very fine initiative. It does two things in the
criminal justice world that criminal justice practitioners realize.
First of all, it allows a sanction for the Courts to
impose on those people who have gone out and committed crimes while at
the same time making available a resource of treatment that they might
not enter into voluntarily.
But if imposed by the Courts and coupled with a
residential program such as what's been offered and what's been
designed, I think that you're taking a very positive proactive
stance. And I think that the benefit which may be realized, we're
talking in future terms of years in keeping people out of the criminal
justice system.
Therefore, you know, I don't think that a program of
this nature may have the magnitude of effect or impact on the current
jail population. But I think you've also got to extend that out over
a number of years and see just how many criminals we're going to keep
out of the system all together. I think that's the really important
issue here.
So even if the impact on the local jail situation was
minimal and even though I don't think that it would obviate the need
to pursue the proposed bed expansion in the next coming years, I think
that this definitely has exceeding merit. And I would definitely
recommend to the Board that they move forward with keeping the project
going.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Have you and/or the sheriff's
department looked at the potential of operating this facility and what
your interests may be and what the costs may be?
MR. SMITH: There have been several conversations in
that regard, and the sheriff is very positively motivated towards
running it. I think in Mr. Putzell's presentation you heard him
allude to the fact that one of the reasons why we want it centrally
located close to the facility, the existing jail facility, is our
ability to supply ancillary services such as laundry and medical and
food service. If it was in a stand-alone configuration, that would
greatly escalate the operating costs.
Additionally, if you had a private operating source such
as CCA or Wackenhut, you're not going to really get a good mixed shop
there if they have to depend on the sheriff's office to apply those
ancillary functions. Therefore, that's going to cloud the issue a
little bit, maybe make things difficult.
Therefore, I think you need to -- need to kind of look
at keeping it under the same operational heading unless the financial
benefits are very significant.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. You have a motion on
the floor which Commissioner Norris has seconded, and I believe that's
just to direct our staff to in essence do homework and come back with
the details on this before we make any final commitment.
That would be I assume to include what the likely
building costs, what the likely operational costs or budget would be,
who is interested and who would be best enlightened to operate that.
Mr. Dotrill, perhaps you can compare Wackenhut and some
of the other private costs per bed, per day in a facility like this to
whatever the costs the sheriff has per bed, per day and see what works
out the best.
Perhaps most importantly we have to figure on how we're
going to pay for this. Pretty tough to commit to something if we
don't know how. Also what federal grants may be available or what
private contributions may be available to assist us in the effort.
I don't know if I've left anything out off that list.
But if staff comes up with anything else they think might be of
assistance, that would certainly help.
All those in favor of the motion, please state aye.
Anyone opposed? Motion carries 5-0.
What's the pleasure of the Board? We have only a few
items left. There are only two speakers I understand on cable, and I
think all the other items are very, very minor items. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let's go.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you want to take an hour
break, we can, but I think we can breeze through that in maybe 30
minutes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm all for zipping through.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Keep moving.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll take about a five-minute
break so our stenographer can switch out, and then we'll finish up.
(A short break was held.)
Item #8H2
FORMAL RENEWAL PROCESS FOR THE THREE CABLE OPERATORS (CABLEVISION,
COLONY, AND MARCO) IN COLLIER COUNTY INITIATED AND PUBLIC INPUT
ENCOURAGED CONCERNING CURRENT PERFORMANCE AND FUTURE STANDARDS
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Time exact. 11:30 was the cable
issue. We'll go to that now, and Ms. Edwards, I believe, will be
presenting this.
MS. EDWARDS: Yes, good afternoon. For the record my
name is Jennifer Edwards. I am here today to initiate the cable
franchise renewal process. The item today is an informational item
and does not require a Board decision.
As you know, we have three cable operators. We have
Cablevision, Colony, and Marco Island Cable. Their franchise
agreements will expire in June of 1997. The federal act require --
provides a procedural road map of the renewal process. It's a
three-year process that begins 36 months prior to the termination of
their agreements. And within the first six months of that 36 months,
we're to hold a public meeting, which is why I'm here today.
The public meeting is held to give the public an
opportunity to identify the future cable-related community needs and
interests and to comment on the performance of the current operators.
Examples of community needs include install quality, customer service,
new technology such as interactive television and the number of
channels, and the need for public education and governmental access
television.
Because of the cooperation of the media over the last
few weeks, we have already received some public comment by way of
phone calls to the county manager's office as well as letters. And we
would also like to encourage the public to continue to submit comments
to the county manager's office over the next few months.
The next step in the process is the development of an
RFP, and we have -- as you know, the county manager's franchise --
cable franchise advisory group will be working with us in developing
the RFP, and we will be using the comments that we get from the public
in the development of the RFP.
Unless you have questions of me right now, that's all
the comments that I have. But I do want to introduce to you George
Kunze who is the chairman of the franchise committee's renewal
committee. He'd like to say just a few words to you. George is also
very active with the City's renewal process with Colony.
MR. KUNZE: Good afternoon. I am George Kunze, the
subcommittee chairman for the renewal committee, and last year we had
a meeting like this, and it's always difficult to ask an audience what
they would expect from a cable system if they don't know what it's
going to look like. So recently I was in receipt of a new magazine
called Upside, and it gave us a futuristic scenario, which if you'll
bear with me I'll read a few paragraphs to give you a little idea of
where we might go. I guess I ought to be talking to the audience as
well.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It's all right. You can talk to
us.
MR. KUNZE: All right. It says let's think through a
futuristic scenario. It's 6 a.m. someday in 1999. As I wake up and
step on my bathroom scale, it says back to me, 215, fatty, and locks
the refrigerator but starts the coffee via a local area network at
home. It now starts sending me my overnight E-mail either verbally or
displayed in my mirror. It is also assembling both my customized Good
Morning America and my customized daily newspaper, which prints out if
I want it on my home computer fax printer. At the same time it is
using agent technology to check my airline departures, scanning for
incoming news, managing my portfolio.
When I get home at night one of the kids is going to be
watching the New Trekkies. But here Spock turns to the screen and
says to my kid, Jake, shall we attack or retreat? You decide. And
Jake will be paired against a counterpart halfway across the country.
My other kid is upstairs doing his math homework, but the results are
automatically corrected, and a summation is on the teacher's desk by 8
a.m., and then she'll know that about 45 percent of the class is
having trouble with the whole integers.
And I'll be watching channel 345, which is the
friendship bike race, and if I like the shirt the leader is wearing, I
can call, automatically hit channel 346 and -- that's the Patagonia
channel -- and have it shipped out in my size via Federal Express
where it arrives the next morning. The point here is that what we're
faced with is a technological push rather than a market pull, and it's
going to be up to the providers to offer what capabilities the users
may want to avail themselves of.
And the -- then there's another article I read recently
from the Wall Street Journal which says, swell, you go ahead and do
that, but the users aren't going to pay for it. They want all of this
for nothing.
So the suggested recommendation there is that how it's
going to be paid for will be just like a newspaper. You know, if
there were no advertising, you couldn't afford to pay for it, so they
would be getting it through advertising as well as a new suggestion
here is -- I don't know how new it is -- that the home shopping office
channels would pay the provider a commission on each sale that it
makes, that kind of thing. Also with all the mergers with the
telephone companies and other companies in the cable business getting
together is that the revenues would be coming from other services such
as local telephone, long distance, and whatever.
And another thing about the technology situation is that
right now we have a cable provider. Wireless is just coming into
being, and with the telephone companies getting into video dial tone,
which means that they can carry any number of programmers into the
home video existing telephone wires or upgraded one, so there's going
to be many new choices. So the thing that we need to do in a renewal
process is to try to facilitate this diffusion of innovation by trying
better to understand what's out there so that we make this RFP and
present it to any and all providers, current and any new ones, that we
have an idea what we're looking for.
Continental Cablevision is now -- it's been announced
with Colony. They in their write-up talk about a main street
interactive television service which they're acquiring from GTE, and
that's quite old. That's been around for about seven years, and what
that is is the ability for a user to get video on demand rather than
on schedule -- get any video on demand, and the way they initiated
this some seven years ago was they had -- Ken will appreciate this.
They have people on roller skates running back and forth to VCRs, but
you can do that automatically today with a video server.
So we're hoping that with these acquisitions that are
coming along, and within the next three years we can identify a system
that's going to be more informative, more -- have more selections and
equally important, like the previous speaker, they're talking about
problems with prisoners. Well, here we can have a problem with
helping educate our children and working together with them with
regular channels or public education and government as well. And just
as an item of interest, there are more VCRs out there today than there
are toasters. I'll leave that with you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It was just this year that I got
either one of them.
MS. EDWARDS: We're ready now for public input.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a couple of public
speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. You have four, I believe. Mr.
Clarkson. Following Mr. Clarkson I have Fran Olhs. Mr. Clarkson.
MR. CLARKSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and honorable
members of the Commission. I represent the Barefoot Pelican
Condominium Association which is directly across from the
Ritz-Carlton, has the roofs that come down on a high slant, if I can
identify it for you.
While I'm speaking only for that association as its
secretary, what I have to say I think also has a direct bearing on all
the rest of the condominium associations in Collier County. I'm
empathetic with the fact this Commission has given time for public
hearings having served in the Michigan state legislature, board of
supervisors, and a mayor and a retired district judge. I know how
long it takes for these hearings sometimes to last, so I'll try to be
brief.
Actually I'm going to direct my remarks specifically on
the issue of vault cable contracts and the mandatory provisions that
the Colony has required us to admit to in their contracts with the
association, specifically five-year minimum contracts with right to
renew with just one issue of the monopoly aspect of the application as
it now stands. I would think that the Commission would be interested
in looking at that part of the franchise agreement so that you are not
locked in by these contracts that so many associations have entered
into. And when you come up to determine what -- what cable contract
you want to enter into, because they're going to argue that if they
have these five-year mandatory provisions, that you cannot change that
contractual relationship without being interfering with a valid
contract. So limiting myself to this, I think that in dealing with
cable, which is changing so quickly, the state of the art, that any
long-term franchise would handcuff this commission. And it's with
that in mind that I would request that you read the material and how
arbitrary they treated our association without regard to our desire to
negotiate a contract.
In law they call it an adhesion contract, in other
words, take it or leave it. We have Becket, Poliakoff as our
lawyers. We wrote them and asked them for an opinion, and it's true
that the condominium act here in Florida requires that the term of the
contract be at least two years. And there is no federal legislation
which would outlaw the Colony's practice of determining how long the
minimum contract should be. If you reduce it to its subsurdity (sic),
I assume they can go as far as ten years, and I think this is wrong,
and it's unfair to the condominium associations in this area.
We asked them if we could somehow contest this. And in
one part of the letter that I'm addressing you -- I hope that you have
-- in addition, any litigation in Florida or federal challenge --
federal court challenge would in all likelihood be strenuously
defended by Colony. I would appreciate that the legal fees involved
in such a lawsuit would easily be in tens of thousands of dollars. In
addition, the lawsuit would in all likelihood take several years to
conclude.
So in summation I would only ask that some of the things
like this be addressed as part of your discussion with the people that
are applying for this franchise, which is by definition a monopoly.
So with that I would say thank you very much.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Ohls has waived, and so we'll be on to
Mr. Karpowicz. Mr. Karpowicz, are you still here? MR. KARPOWICZ: Yes, sir.
MR. DORRILL: If you would come forward. And Mr. Boyd,
you'll follow Mr. Karpowicz if you'd stand by.
MR. KARPOWICZ: My name is Ray Karpowicz. I live in
Pelican Bay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't want to interrupt you,
but I'm looking at your tie and I'm looking at my tie, and I kind of
like that. They're matching.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Collusion again.
MR. KARPOWICZ: My comments will be very, very brief,
and they will relate to cable, local programming.
Essentially I just found out last night that in Pelican
Bay our trust -- not our trustee -- the foundation signed what I heard
is a new ten-year contract with Colony. That's fine except, I guess,
that's what I have to watch for the next ten years. And the other hat
that I have worn is I have been and have an interest in Channel 9, a
local low-power station in Naples and also a Channel 7 in Fort Myers.
They carry a ton of local programming. The Cablevision industries of
Golden Gate does carry Channel 9. Jones Cable and Cablevision of Cape
Coral also carry Channel 7. All the cable companies except Colony do
not carry -- or all of them do carry Channel 7 and Channel 9 with the
exception of Colony Cablevision.
My only comment is simply this, I know there's a new
company coming aboard, the Continental Cablevision people. I know
they're a very, very fine company. I would hope that they, like
Cablevision Industries, would fit some good local programming into
their schedule, and essentially it wouldn't be that difficult because
in this day of so-called 500 channels I know there's more channels on
the way, and conceivably there should be room for good local
programming. And I think the next speaker, Hugh Boyd, who is general
manager of WBR and WBS, can tell you a little bit about what we have
attempted to do with local programming. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Boyd, and then Mr. Gaston is the only
other registered speaker.
MR. BOYD: Good afternoon. My name is Hugh Boyd. I'm
the general manager of WBR, WBS. We operate Channel 7 in Fort Myers,
Channel 9 in Naples. Without trying to be too redundant about what
Mr. Karpowicz talked about, we originate 7 days a week, 24 hours a day
over 20 local television shows from our studios in Fort Myers. And
why that's significant is because it's local, and it's different than
what you'll get from Hollywood, Washington, or anywhere else, for that
matter.
And as the new technologies roll forward, one of the
most important differences between a network or an affiliated station
or a superstation or a cable station is going to be the programming.
And we've asked Colony many times to consider carriage of our signal,
and they have written us back and written many others saying if we
provide them with a good signal, they would consider carrying our
programming. And while that's fine, it's a little bit of the problem
of chicken and egg. We can't afford to invest the capital required to
deliver them a good signal until we know that we will actually get
carriage. And we've talked numerous times about it. The folks at
Colony have been very supportive of what we offer, but the bottom line
is nothing has changed.
We enjoy very good rapport with the other cable
companies, as Ray Karpowicz has described. We offer Collier and Lee
County the only Hispanic-American talk shows, the only black American
talk shows, the only local shopping show that's done over the air, a
whole slew -- as I was mentioning, about 19 different shows as
eclectic as Captain Bob's Antique Show and a karaoke show, which is
quite amusing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Amusing, scary.
MR. BOYD: Yes, it's quite amusing. Anyway, we also
carry programming from an outfit -- and this is exclusive that we can
offer to southwest Florida -- NET, National Empowerment Television,
which soon to be chairman or head of the house Newt Gingrich has a
local show on. And as it's in USA Today, it will be the only show
that you can harass the speaker of the house live on television, which
will be very interesting. This is conservative talk interactive
television, along with some other very good shows, including Home
Business and American Family and all sorts of other -- what we like to
say is good TV.
So the only purpose I have here is one of the comments
made by Colony is we don't get enough inquiries from people in Collier
County to carry you. It's a little bit of the chicken and egg thing.
If people knew we existed like the folks in Lee County do, we suppose
that a lot more people in this area would require or request Colony to
carry our signal. So that's really the only purpose I have here today
is to make a few more people aware of WBR, WBS.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you have any idea as to why
other cable companies can carry your signal and Colony cannot? And
Mr. Kunze may have a better answer for that but --
MR. BOYD: Well, yes. In the case of Jones, their head
end is what it's called, which is where you put your plant, and then
you run the wires to the households, is roughly a quarter mile from
our broadcast facility in Fort Myers which is top of the Sheraton.
In the case here in Collier County we broadcast from a
building known as the Solamar building, which is a little bit south of
a big hotel that everybody knows down here, but I can't remember the
name of it at the moment. But anyway, there is technology we can use
to get a adequate signal to their head end at 301 Tower Road, either
microwave or narrow -- what is called narrow band UHF, so the
technology exists to get them a signal, so that's not in question.
Also, the last point I'd like to make, this has to do
with what is local television. We would be a must-carry station,
except for part of the law that was passed in '92 that has to do with
must carry. And that is if there is a full-powered station licensed
in the county, then the cable company is not required to carry a
low-power station.
In the case of Collier County they're two full power
stations, okay, one of which now is really a Lee County station which
is BBH merger with WEVU, what they call an operating agreement.
What's the correct term? Anyway, I can't remember it for the moment,
but anyway their news offices are all up in Lee County, their sales
offices, their administration. So they no longer really can call
themselves a Collier County station even though under the law they
are, okay. In the case of WNPL, they're in bankruptcy, and they can't
afford to originate any programming. So we're really the only Collier
station that is unique that is offering local programming that is a
little diverse, very eclectic, but a good alternative voice in the
community reaching out to thousands of people. Any other questions?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. BOYD: I'll stop, okay. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And Mr. Gaston. Is there anybody
after Mr. Gaston?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
MR. GASTON: Again, in keeping with my previous -- the
previous speakers, I'll be extremely brief. For the record I'm
William R. Gaston. I'm speaking both as a resident of Collier County
and as president of Marco Island Cable. As the cable renewal process
begins in Collier County, I'd like to impress upon the Board of
Commissioners and the County staff the importance of this process.
The renewal process is the only significantly effective means that the
local government has of controlling the cable franchisees.
During the process you must look at the entire past
performance of all holders of the franchises concerned before
determining whether a franchise is eligible to be either transferred
or to be renewed. Areas that must be considered are the
responsiveness to the County staff's request for compliance with the
existing ordinance, full compliance with rate structure rules,
particularly state, federal, antitrust laws regarding anticompetitive
pricing and program dumping, full compliance with the Cable Television
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of '92, particularly as it
relates to restriction of program sources by one cable company over
another. And particularly as it relates to Colony Cablevision, this
franchise has enjoyed a monopoly for its entire existence, review
their monopolistic practices.
In looking for a possible transfer of control of the
cable franchise in this county, please do not permit the concept that
allows a sale of a franchise to release the incoming franchisee from
the performance of a previous holder of that franchise. In other
words, don't blanketly renew a franchise just because it is held by a
new operator.
Now, with this in mind and on a lighter note, as
president of Marco Island Cable I'd like to hereby submit my request
to the County Commissioners per Federal Communication regulations a
formal request to begin the renewal process of our franchise that was
granted a month and a half ago. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Anything else, Ms.
Edwards?
MS. EDWARDS: No, unless you have any questions of me.
I would like to encourage the public to, as I said earlier, contact
the county manager's office by way of phone calls or written comments
that we could add through the RFP development process.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And we hope to conclude that
process -- or you're encouraging those for -- how much time do they
have?
MS. EDWARDS: Three months.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay.
MS. EDWARDS: And we'll close then the receiving of
those comments within three months, and we will begin our development
of the RFP, and we'll be coming back to you at different stages
throughout that process, I would imagine, asking you to make
determinations on different decisions.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question. Before I
moved to Collier County some time ago --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Way back when.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- way back when, the radio and
TV stations in the area that I lived in when they came for license
renewals, franchise renewals, were required to broadcast that renewal
period on their -- within the programming and to notify their
customers that they were undergoing renewal and -- and to identify,
they could call whatever facility they needed to lodge complaints or
-- or changes and so forth. Do our franchises require that? MS. EDWARDS: No.
MR. DORRILL: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It does not?
MS. EDWARDS: No.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Hmm. Perhaps it should.
MS. EDWARDS: We could talk to the local operators and
ask them if they would be willing to perhaps cable cast that on maybe
local -- you know, local origination stations.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MS. EDWARDS: And we could do that too on Channel 54.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think we should try to get the
word out to the cable users as much as possible that we're undergoing
this -- this process so we get as much input as we can. MS. EDWARDS: We'll do that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Miss Edwards.
MS. EDWARDS: Thank you.
Item #8A6
APPEAL OF INVOICE FOR CASE #40502-101; OWNER OF RECORD - NORBERT
CUDNOWSKI TRUST - WITHDRAWN
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll get back on track here,
8-A-6, appeal of invoice for case 40502-101.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, I believe that one was
withdrawn, and we'd be down to 8-B-1.
Item #SB1
SITE-SPECIFIC TRAFFIC IHPACT ANALYSIS AND CORRESPONDING ROAD IHPACT FEE
CREDIT AGREEMENT FOR THE BERKSHIRE PUD SHOPPING CENTER AT RADIO
ROAD/SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, great. 8-B-1 was 16-B-2.
I just need a little help here. We apparently had an impact fee
schedule with some arguments. We did not agree initially, and now you
have acquiesced, and now we think we can reduce and give a credit for
impact fees, and I just need a little help here.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Board members, for the record my name is
George R. Archibald. I'm the transportation services administrator.
Item 8-B-1 involves a two-party agreement to finalize impact fees for
the Berkshire shopping center, a project that was initially started
under a series of permits back in 1990.
The shopping center was granted a reduction in their fee
in 1992 as a result of recognizing that when you consolidated all of
their various permits, it developed or it met the neighborhood
shopping center criteria. What we're doing today is recommending to
the Board a two-party agreement that finalized that credit and reduces
the impact fee $60,924 based upon that very specific item being a
neighborhood shopping center and a traffic impact statement that's
been finalized by both the staff and the representative of the
property owner.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks. So you're comfortable
now?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You're okay? I'll move the
item.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any further
discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion state aye.
Thank you, George.
Item #SF1
AGREEMENT TO FUND AND OPERATE THE IHMOKALEE URGENT CARE CLINIC FROM
OCTOBER 1, 1994 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 - APPROVED
Item 8-F-l, recommendation to execute an agreement to
fund and operate the Immokalee Urgent Care Clinic.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You're waiting for me to start?
Why don't we -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: This is roughly the identical
thing we have done in the past?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Last three, four years, yeah.
MR. DORRILL: We have a speaker.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have one speaker?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Keller.
MR. KELLER: George Keller, concerned citizen. I'd like
to bring up the same thing I brought up before on this. I understand
that there's no particular mandatory charge for people that use this
clinic, and I suggested before that we have a charge for everybody
that goes into that clinic of three to five dollars as a minimum
charge and that I think the answer that I got before was that it would
cost too much to try to collect the money, but you can collect it as
they walk in the door. I actually think when people get something for
nothing, they don't appreciate it, and they abuse it, and I can't
imagine anybody in Immokalee being so poor they couldn't afford to pay
three to five dollars to have some medical service. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Mr. Keller.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is there a motion?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion. There is a
second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of
the motion state aye. Thank you very much for that excellent
presentation. Motion carries, 5-0.
Item #8H3
REQUEST TO WAIVE REQUIREHENTS FOR SEALED BIDS AND TO OBTAIN BOARD
APPROVAL TO ISSUE PURCHASE ORDERS TO LAWYER'S ABSTRACT SERVICE, INC.,
FOR THE PREPARATION OF OWNERSHIP AND EASEMENT SEARCH REPORTS FOR THE
EIGHT MILE LONG LIVINGSTON ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR - FORMAL BID
PROCESS WAIVED AND PURCHASE ORDERS TO BE ISSUED TO LAWYER'S ABSTRACT
SERVICE
Next item is 8-H-3, request of the BCC of CCF. We have
requirements for sealed bids to obtain Board approval.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, this is sort of a companion
item with -- I believe it's ll-A. We ought to take them -- ll-B,
rather. They're similar in that the issues are going to be similar
from the sheriff's perspective.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is the garage facilities?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, why don't we move down to
8-H-5, which I think will end up lending itself to ll-B anyway.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have we done 37
MR. DORRILL: I'm sorry. I skipped -- I've got another
note there. Go ahead and do 3, and then we'll do the other.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I thought that was kind of odd
that that was somehow --
MR. DORRILL: Blood sugar is low.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's what you get for going
through lunch.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what happens.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Conrecode, 8-H-3.
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, Commissioners, for the record, Tom
Conrecode from your capital projects office. 8-H-3, staff finds
itself in a bit of a quandary. We have identified an entire quadrant,
that being Livingston Road, as four separate projects, and we have
quoted to do some preliminary right-of-way work and title work on each
of those projects individually, and we're trying to avoid the
impression that we're trying to go around your bid process. And as a
result, in a abundance of caution, the purchasing director has
recommended that we come to you and advise you we have gone through
the procurement on this and are recommending awarding to the lowest
bidder on the four separate projects, just so you're aware we're not
trying to avoid the process or whatever. We're recommending award to
the low bidder.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So you're not trying to
circumvent the process?
MR. CONRECODE: No, sir, we're not.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And the low bidder in each case
was the same company?
MR. CONRECODE: It was the same firm.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any speakers on this item, Mr.
Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion by Commissioner
Norris seconded by Commissioner Matthews to approve the item. All
those in favor please state aye. Anyone opposed? Motion carries
5-0.
Item #8H5 & lib
STAFF REPORT ON PROPOSED COUNTY MAINTENANCE FACILITY SITING AND
RECOHMENDATION TO PROCEED WITH SELECTED ALTERNATIVE AND REQUEST FOR
AUTHORIZATION FOR REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT STAFF TO OBTAIN AN APPRAISAL
- APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT OF LANDFILL SITE AND STAFF TO WORK WITH
SHERIFF TO COORDINATE EFFORTS
Now we get on to the item that will lend itself to ll-B,
that being 8-H-5, staff report on the proposed county maintenance
facility siting and recommendation to proceed with selective
alternative. Mr. Conrecode.
MR. CONRECODE: Commissioners, we came to you during the
program budget process and during the preliminary capital budget
renewals during the summer and proposed that the County begin the
planning process and consideration of an alternative to expanding it's
current maintenance facilities on County Barn Road. A couple of
reasons for that, just to refresh your memory, we're constrained by
the current site of 10.3 acres and a 10- to 15-year need of
approximately a 40-acre site. In addition to that, there are some
incompatibilities between our current use on County Barn Road and the
way development is occurring in that area. And as a result, the Board
has funded in the amount of $180,000 the preliminary site development
and land acquisition for this fiscal year.
What we have done is some preliminary work and
identified what we think is kind of an ideal area of the County to
pursue because of its proximity to road access along CR-951 and
Interstate 75, that being located within a 2-mile radius of that
particular intersection. We have gone out and surveyed a number of
properties in the area to get an idea on what the land costs are for
40 acres in the area, and the prices ranged on a per-acre basis from
50,000 an acre to 250,000 an acre. Now, there's some advantages and
benefit to that in that a lot of those parcels, a lot of that acreage
is already zoned industrial and would be a compatible use for a
facility like this.
We did, however, pursue or looked at some property that
the County currently owns up there that was at one point acquired for
the expansion of the landfill site. And they found that we can
actually buy that property from ourselves for approximately $4,000 an
acre, go through a conditional use process, and have that 40 acres
roughly come back before the Board and in the form of a conditional
use to allow for a future county maintenance facility.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't understand the part
about buying it from ourselves.
MR. CONRECODE: Well, over the -- in the past 5 years in
order to be compliant with the level of service standard for landfills
in the solid waste portion of the growth management plan we had to
stockpile a certain amount of land for future expansion of the
landfill. The Board, the previous Board, had decided that they're not
going to expand the landfill at that site. So we currently own 347
acres up there that we aren't going to use for a landfill.
that we either sell it or use it for another -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
we'd have to --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
ourselves.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
That is in enterprise funds so
I got it now. Thank you.
We'd have to buy it from
I have it. Thank you.
We propose
HR. CONRECODE: We can benefit from that because the
cost per acre is very reasonable for what we'd like to do. What we've
done for the Board today -- I've prepared an exhibit. You have one in
your executive summary packet. There is also one on the board that
identifies the area under consideration what we think are some of the
most compatible potential sites for that development and looking for
direction from the Board to give us --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I have a plethora of questions.
Let me start with the real simple ones. If we run over 10 acres '-
I'm familiar with the layout. I've spent some time at our existing
facility. It appears that perhaps the layout isn't using that 10
acres to its utmost, but what exactly do we need -- and I have here
the fleet management, 7 acres; transportation, 22 acres, I understand
that. But what -- what will -- for example, transportation
operations, what will they do on 22 acres of land? What will they do
that they cannot be doing right now?
MR. CONRECODE: There will be a number of things they
can do. They can stockpile materials, buy in larger quantities for
their operations. They can also -- it also provides for the parking
of their staff and the fleet vehicles and the rotation of that on a
day-in, day-out basis, as well as their operational garage facility
that they currently have, it would be expanded. And that's
principally what that acreage is used for. Theirs is the largest
acreage due to the fact that it has such a large stockpile area.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And where are they currently?
MR. CONRECODE: They are currently at County Barn Road,
and they have one small stockpile area on Marco Island.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I guess I'm hard-pressed to think
if they are currently -- and I realize you said increasing our amount
of stockpiling, but if they're currently stockpiling at County Barn
where there is 10 acres --
MR. CONRECODE: Or not at all in some cases.
MR. DORRILL: For example, there is no stockpile
material for lime rock or for drain field type gravel. There may be
-- to the extent that there is a stockpile at the County Barn Road
facility, there is some galvanized pipe. There's some scrap aluminum
for signs and things that they hold and sell, but there's no stockpile
materials at County Barn Road.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There are two things I like about
this that I will share with you -- and then I have some more concerns
-- what I like about the specific site. One is I think it will put
some assurance in the people's minds in that area that for sure the
landfill ain't going to happen there. And, secondly, the -- I think
should we put it there. And the number of employees we have and the
activity that would be there, it would certainly benefit the
restaurants and small businesses and so on in the area that we have to
come and go from, but both of those are pluses.
I do have a couple of concerns. You mentioned that the
existing property is -- appears to be inconsistent with the
surrounding uses. Those surrounding uses are --
MR. CONRECODE: Predominantly multifamily residential.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. To the north of that
property is what?
MR. CONRECODE: I don't know the names of all the
specific developments.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm not asking for a specific
development, but is zoned what?
MR. CONRECODE: Condominiums to the north.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Directly to the north of that
property?
MR. DORRILL: Directly to the north, I believe, is the
Sunrise Academy. Directly to the south are a series of -- I think
directly to the south is a vacant parcel contiguous, and the next two
parcels, probably each 10 acres, are developed or under construction
with sort of two-story medium density multifamily.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I just want to make sure if we go
with this option that we maintain -- and I think you've suggested that
here -- but that we maintain an adequate buffer between this and the
neighboring residences. The big concern -- one of the big concerns or
many with the landfill was it would literally have been within a
hundred feet of some people's property and homes.
So I understand we've got -- out of 347 acres we ought
to be able to come up with 35 or 40 that are well away from any of
those homes.
MR. CONRECODE: If the Board likes during the
conditional use process, we could expand the buffering in and around
that area, landscaping, whatever you thought was most appropriate.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The only other question I will
ask at this time is item E under 10, 10-E, adequate area to expand at
future date if necessary. I just want to make sure with this area
we've hung something out over the heads of these residents for a long
time that I think this board has cleared up as far as the landfill. I
don't want to hang something new out there that they don't know that
something may expand on that land at some time. I would even go so
far as to suggest that the Board give staff direction to declare the
majority of this property surplus and that we'd need this to come back
in some form, but declare this surplus and prepare to sell the
majority of that 347 acres once the time -- and I see Mr. Lorenz
standing. I know for the time being it is still in use as part of our
inventory, but as the process unfolds with our siting of the next
location, and when that purchase goes through, I would like to have
this Board on record as indicating that that is surplus, the majority
of that is surplus land, and that we can go on from there, again,
realizing we have to wait until we've purchased that next site, but
hopefully that is not more than 12 or 18 months away.
MR. CONRECODE: If I could just make two additional
points based on your line of questioning. Point number one is we're
considering just a 15- to 20-year time frame for this 40 acres, and
that's why we said, you know, if 25 or 30 years from now the Board
decides they wants to expand a little bit or add another facility
there. The second issue is we propose phasing this over a four-year
period. That is we would vacate some of the facilities currently on
County Barn Road and move them to this new site and allow another user
of County Barn Road to expand into those facilities. We think it's
most prudent to move fleet first because they have the largest
environmental issues to deal with and service and safety issues to
deal with.
Two important points I think the Board needs to
recognize is that it will be phased, you know, gradually over a four-
to five-year time frame and, secondly, that this is specifically
evaluated over a 15 to --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So this is looking long range.
We're looking 20 years out for what the needs are? MR. CONRECODE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good. Commissioner Matthews.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. A couple questions, not
really too many. This 347 acres appears that there's only two access
points to it. One is Garland Road coming from the north, and the
other is the road that goes up the center of the landfill currently.
If we opt in the contract period that we're currently
talking about to close this landfill and convert some portion of it to
a transfer station, I guess I'm a little bit concerned about what the
access road is going to be.
MR. CONRECODE: Okay. We're actually currently
considering three alternatives. You're correct in terms of current
access across readily available roads, that being the one that bisects
the current landfill. That's certainly an option for immediate
access. At the point where the landfill closes there's a berm that
runs completely around the landfill that we would just modify the
security of the landfill and use that existing berm as a road
embankment for access. It wouldn't require any additional land. It
would still serve the berming function for the landfill, so we have
that as an alternative site.
In addition to that while we were discussing land costs
and that -- from some of the other developments in the area, we had
talked with City Gate about potentially building a road through there
in order to provide access. The trade-off there would be the easement
for the benefit of building a road, so we have a number of
alternatives that we're looking at. We think that the site, although
it's somewhat remote, is really reasonably accessible in that area.
MR. DORRILL: If the Board went to build out at the
current landfill beyond ten years, we would need to have an
alternative road because at the tenth year under the privatization
aspect, the roadway would begin to be filled in with solid waste, but
you have at least ten years to pursue the other alignment. The one
that we prefer, which would be straight shot to the west, that would
be across the street from that property that was purchased by the
hospital.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you talking about --
MR. CONRECODE: That would come out of signalized
intersection.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- through the City Gate
development?
MR. DORRILL: Across the northern boundary between there
and the main Golden Gate canal, yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If my memory serves me correct,
there hasn't been much success in negotiating anything firm with the
City Gate development in the past because it's more or less a paper
tiger. It's been out there forever, and we don't really know what's
going to happen with that development.
MR. DORRILL: I don't disagree with that, but to the
extent that we could pursue some discussions about a roadway alignment
that would also benefit and improve the marketability of their
project, I think that --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then go around the RCWs?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir. In fact, that's one of the
benefits of this current site is that we've already done a lot of the
preliminary environmental assessment out there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I think using a roadway
through City Gate as a reason for something may be a very unstable
base.
MR. CONRECODE: Well, that's why we laid out those three
options we're considering right now. We're going to evaluate all
those for the Board.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. CONRECODE: We've identified those three options,
and, you know, if the Board decides that this is a decent site to look
at, then we'll get into the meat of conditional use and design, so on.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My questions have more to do with
what the county manager referred to as a potential companion item when
we have 3 acres here for sheriff's office, and they have a separate
request. I wonder if it would be appropriate to hear from the
sheriff's office.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, one -- one point that we
as -- I was sitting in the budget workshops in, I guess, June prior to
your coming to the Board. We had specifically, I believe, asked the
sheriff to move forward with his facility as a joint effort knowing
that we needed to move ours also. So now we have two facilities that
have come forward, each -- each of which is removed from themselves,
and, quite frankly, I have to -- I have to contend that separate but
equal can be very expensive and -- so --
MR. DORRILL: Well, that's why I said the sheriff's
staff has deviated from the direction that you gave us at the budget
hearing final adoption hearing, and I think you need to understand
what their rationale is for --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Why don't we go ahead and hear
from them. I happen to think one place is going to make more sense
than two. I also think Mr. Conrecode made a good point. We're
looking at long range planning here. He said this can be 20 years out
or more.
Come on up. I'm just making time while you make your
way to the microphone.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Burhans is also registered on that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: My thought being the plan that
we've been presented by the sheriff indicates it may only be good for
5 years as well, so rather than do that, it would seem to make sense
to have --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, it also includes a crime
lab, which seems to me to be important of consideration.
CAPTAIN STORRAR: For the record my name is Tom
Storrar. I'm here as a captain of community services for the
sheriff's office, and I have fleet maintenance under my supervision.
And I applaud Mr. Conrecode's creativity and utilization of the
landfill site.
I would like to point out a couple of issues that --
that we have flushed out, and I think what we're before you all asking
today is in recommendation is an authorization by you folks to have an
appraisal done of the -- what we would term the PBA building site.
A couple things that I would point out, last January the
25th you directed us to go out and seek an appropriate site for our
motor pool facility, of which we have done. And you'll see in
attachment A of your packet that the PBA facility is probably the most
conducive to what we're trying to accomplish here. The thing that
looks at us and from our perspective is it comes down to a matter of
dollars and cents. We're looking at this site. We have an offer that
we would like to further -- the cost of the PBA facility is $26.35 a
square foot has been offered to us for a purchase price of $400,000.
I don't think that you can duplicate a steel building on a concrete
pad for $26.35 a square foot in today's market with the acquisition of
the land as well.
We think that this facility is a ready-made facility for
us with minor modification. We think that it will service our needs
not just for 5 years. When we look at our projections, we're looking
at adding approximately 8 deputies per year over the next 20 years.
And what I would offer to you, the members of the Board, is the PBA
facility would handle us for at least the next 20 years, possibly the
next 25 years as far as our manpower increases due to population
increases in the County. So we as well are looking at some long-range
planning in the accommodation of the facility at the same time.
I think the issue boils down to, is this a good buy at
$26.35 a square foot as it stands today for, I think, what we have
estimated through our office is probably when you look at the building
-- when you look at -- I understand there is an assessment for water
and sewer that is due on that according to the tax roll, and the
improvements that we would suggest, which we have some drawings here
which we can show you, we're still looking at a cost of $41.43 a
square foot. And I would submit to the Board that you can't duplicate
that with that type of facility today.
We feel it would be a good investment. The County would
be purchasing something rather than leasing something. I think to
date since 1983 the County has spent about $319,000 in lease payments
at our current motor pool facility, and basically we own nothing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just a question to clarify
again. I apologize, but are you saying that it's cheaper to use the
PBA site for your purposes because of the existing structure than it
would be to build a structure on a piece of land that the County
already owns?
CAPTAIN STORRAR: Yes, I am.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
CAPTAIN STORRAR: I think our best numbers right now
would indicate that it would cost $65 a square foot to duplicate a
metal frame on a concrete slab.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hmm.
CAPTAIN STORRAR: So it's a matter of economics the way
we see it. We think it's a win-win situation. It provides us with a
facility, and we have some inherent differences in how we treat our
fleet versus how the County treats their fleet. We know that. They
know that. We've discussed that. We're also looking at in the PBA
facility of locating our forensics lab and our bureau of technical
support services, which includes photography, crime scene processing,
and things like that. And all -- you know, we know spaces are premium
in this campus right here. We're looking to be creative as well and
try and incorporate some off-site support facilities.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm anxious to be as efficient as
possible with taxpayer money, of course. And if we already own
property that had seemed to me to be the most economically feasible
alternative. But I came to this meeting with the idea that people
elected the sheriff to make law enforcement kinds of recommendations
and decisions, and if the sheriff's office said that their facility
should be separate from ours, I was certainly willing to listen to
that at least before any decisions were made. But if what we are
saying is that this is a cheaper alternative and it allows the
sheriff's office to further their law enforcement goals and
objectives, then if, in fact, it is economically better, I don't
understand why it's so important for all of us to be in one place.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I would agree if that was the
case. I'm not sure I agree, however, that it's going to be
economically better. I look -- this facility will accommodate the
sheriff's garage need for the future 5 to 10 years. It's a pretty big
investment if it's only 5 years.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He just said 20 to 25.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's not what this says.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, the -- Christy, you'll have
a chance in a minute. But I'm reading off the executive summary that
was provided by the sheriff's department signed by Crystal, signed by
Sandy Taylor, signed by Bob Burns, so I assume there is some accuracy
to that.
And, secondly, I'm going to go out on a limb and say I'm
more familiar with this building than anybody in the room because if
you look at the layout, the corner office in the front on the first
floor was mine for about three years.
CAPTAIN STORRAR: I understand that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I know it real well. I'm not
sure that it is -- it could be used. I'm not sure that it's the ideal
-- and I think that was the word you used -- layout for you all. And
I understand you've got 150,000, 144,000 in retrofits here, but I'm
not sure it is as ideal for the purposes. It may be, but it may be
suggested, but I'm looking long term for 20 years and beyond, as Mr.
Conrecode had talked about on the site. And it seems to me that if
this is as indicated in the executive summary, maybe only 5 years
before you vote your own facility, maybe 10 years, that still means
we're going to --
MS. KINZEL: Excuse me, but maybe I can clear this up.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Maybe you can when I get done.
It just seems like that is not in the best interest. I understand
your point, Commissioner Mac'Kie, and I'm willing to listen to the
sheriff and the sheriff's office. However, it is the decision of the
Board. The money is -- the taxes are levied each year by the Board,
and expenditure of funds are to go through the Board and that if the
process was set up so that the sheriff's facility made those
decisions, we wouldn't be considering this now. So I'm willing to
listen, but at the same time I have some real reservations. One site,
one location, and if you want to have separate buildings on that same
location, that's fine, but -- because I do understand you all have
some unique things, particularly the Ford contract and some of those
things.
CAPTAIN STORRAR: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But I'm not sure this building
fits perfectly your needs, being familiar with the building, and I'm
not sure that maybe only 5 years is spending our money in the most
wise method possible.
MS. KINZEL: Crystal Kinzel, finance director for the
sheriff's office for the record. I did the original executive summary
about a month ago, and the reason I used the 5- to 10-year estimate
was simply to prove out that the current lease payments that we are
making would be returned to us in 10 years. There is a 20-year
car/vehicle growth factor, and what I did is I had also said 5 to 10
years or a 50 percent growth in the automobiles, and I was trying to
make two different points. We would pay back at the current lease
rates within 9 years what we're paying out now in leases. That was
the 5- to 10-year amount. The 50 percent increase in our fleet will
actually carry us out to over 20 years. We are anticipating at the
normal growth factor, and what we're doing right now, adding about 8
patrol deputies annually under the manpower analysis that we do now.
To increase then our fleet to 50 percent or over 600
vehicles would take us 20 years, so the true amount of growth that
would be available in this building is 20 years. And I'm sorry for
the confusion, but that's -- I was trying to make two different
points, and I apologize if that was confusing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Crystal, do you factor in
residual property value if you outgrow this facility and then sell
it? There's a market value there also that the County can recoup.
MS. KINZEL: No, I didn't do that yet, but I do know the
property has appreciated considerably just over the last year. We
contacted the property appraiser's office, and at his value -- that's
why we're coming to you to ask for an appraisal to get a firm number,
firm value in line to prepare the actual purchase proposal.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not that the sheriff's office
wouldn't find another use for the property should they outgrow it in
that sense.
MS. KINZEL: Right, but it would be about 20 years.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's a potential for residual
property value in reducing the overall cost as we look at it today,
though.
CAPTAIN STORRAR: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: A question for the County staff.
I don't know if that's Mr. Conrecode or whom, but is the proposal for
the County's garage a feasible one without inclusion of the sheriff in
the 3 acres that you had allocated to them?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am. We just included them in
the preliminary work that we had done early in 1994 and asked them if
they would be interested in some cohabitation on that site, and they
came up with the 3 acres. That was their estimate, so we just
included it for planning purposes. The site is still practical and
makes a lot of sense to do as a combined site for the rest of the
County uses.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I see. And I just wondered if
you have any opinion about the site that they have selected or that
they've chosen in addition to -- to the feasibility of it if you -- if
you share their opinion that the cost is less to the County to go with
the PBA site.
MR. CONRECODE: Well, we actually generated the cost
numbers for the comparable metal steel -- steel building so --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So you agree that it's cheaper --
it's more cost efficient? I think that's the politically correct way
to say it.
MR. CONRECODE: The replacement cost of the building is
higher. Yes, we agree with that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The replacement cost.
MR. CONRECODE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So you're not making an
indication on the overall project.
MR. CONRECODE: I'm not familiar enough with the site.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, Mr. Conrecode, what do we
plan to do with the existing County Barn when we move?
MR. CONRECODE: Over the long term we think it's
marketable for development of similar types in that area like
multifamily residential or something like that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What do you think the value of
that is at this point? Do we have a value on it?
MR. CONRECODE: I wouldn't want to venture a guess, but
I'd be happy to find out and get back with you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. What is this -- is our
present location that we'll be moving out of, is that unsuitable for
the sheriff's purposes?
MR. CONRECODE: I'd ask you to ask the sheriff that
one. I don't know.
MR. DORRILL: I was going to suggest as a alternative in
the event that the Board feels that a separate repair facility is
somehow more efficient -- and I'd like to have the opportunity to
understand that -- but before you buy something new for a half million
dollars, you might want to contemplate giving them something that you
already own if ultimately what you're going to have is two different
repair facilities. You own the building.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The 5 acres, that facility?
MR. DORRILL: 10 acres.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 10 acres?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If I understand, the request from
the sheriff's office is for appraisal.
CAPTAIN STORRAR: That's correct. Yeah, we're just
asking for the Board to authorize staff to get an appraisal of the
site.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For my opinion, that's an
integral part of the information we'd need to be able to make an
informed decision, so I hope that the Board will support that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are there any speakers on this?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Burhans was -- he's waving no. Mr.
Jenkins. Following him I have Mr. Perkins.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: While Mr. Jenkins is coming up can
I ask the sheriff's office if they have any objection to exploring the
possibility of taking over our existing county facility?
CAPTAIN STORRAR: I think that we are willing to explore
any possibility that we can all come to an agreement to provide an
efficient, economical operation of our fleet maintenance.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Jenkins.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Jenkins, go ahead.
MR. JENKINS: Thank you, Commissioners, Mr. Dorrill. My
name is James Jenkins, and I have just a couple of questions I'd like
to ask about the old landfill expansion site. And one of the thoughts
I had was perhaps if I owned 20 acres in there and the 20 acres --
whenever I sold the land it was under the assumption that either the
landfill would be built around me or the County would take it away for
eminent domain and then I turned around and either it was sold to
another owner or the County took it over and built something else that
wasn't the landfill there, I'd think I'd be kind of upset about it.
And if you did a little bit of quick figuring, if you had 20 acres and
you sold it, it would be worth approximately five million dollars at
$250,000 an acre, so that's just one of the thoughts I had before we
get into another problem here.
And I was just curious on how come the land shouldn't be
offered back to the original owners since it was taken -- since it
came from the owners, some of the owners were not very happy about
it. And I'd also like to know what location the 35 acres would be.
It still hasn't been very clear at all what it would be. And if it's
going to be in that area, if it was right next to the landfill, then
perhaps the smell might go away too because it hasn't in the last few
years. And I'd also really like to pinpoint down the access points
and what would happen to the other -- to the rest of the land. And
I'd also really like to see something done about the odor situation
that's there at the landfill now. It's -- we've talked about it and
talked about it for quite awhile, and I really do appreciate what the
Commissioners have done in the past, and I don't want to sound like
I'm complaining, but I just -- I'm real curious. Since I live right
there, I'd like to know what's going to happen in the future. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Perkins. Is he the final
speaker?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir.
MR. PERKINS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
A1 Perkins, Belle Head Group. Everybody should know that by now.
This possibility of putting the vehicles on the 300 acres adjacent to
the landfill -- at previous meetings you've been told over and over
again that they want to take and get the landfill out of there. We
have established a 7- to 10-year time limit to get it out of there.
In other words, we're not going to start 10 years from now to remove
that landfill.
At the point you have City Gate in the front. Now City
Gate was going to put in a baseball stadium and the whole five (sic)
yards. That land is still valuable to City Gate, and I'm sure that
when the landfill gets out of there that they don't want to look at a
bunch of vehicles that would create another traffic problem on 951.
Now as far as the sheriff's department moving into that
area, there's nothing wrong with that except that they do create a
problem themselves. If you don't believe me, get caught at an
intersection when they're chasing somebody or they're coming around a
corner or with a fire truck. They create a problem too, and you have
to realize it, and I'm sure that they realize that they create
problems.
The point being, the people who -- have voiced an
opinion that they don't want this stuff, any of this stuff. They
don't want the dump. They don't want a landfill. They don't want
recycling, and they don't want the sheriff's department. They don't
want school buses parked in that area. They want it removed out of
there.
Now, speaking on behalf of the Belle Head people, we've
already took and told the Commissioners that we have the place to put
all this stuff that's conveniently located. The price is right, and
the availability is there. Now, all I can say to this is the people
who have voiced an opinion at all of the meetings -- and this place
has been packed with it -- do not want to take -- destroy their homes
and the future development of that area. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Let's take them one
at a time. The first item is 8-H-5, proposed county maintenance
facility siting and recommendation to proceed with the selected
alternative. Thoughts from the Board?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Mr. Chairman, you have
probably had more discussions with your constituents in that area, and
I would certainly defer to you as to what those local residents'
feelings and thoughts are, and I don't know that we've really talked
about that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ideally that would be left in its
pristine current state.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We all would want that for
everything around us but --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: However, as I indicated earlier,
I think there -- from the folks I have spoken to in the last week or
ten days, since this item was due on the agenda, the attitude seems to
be that assuming we did not plan to develop the majority of the three
hundred acres -- 341 acres this way, and the executive summary
indicates 35 acres, if we had adequate buffers and did not have an
intention to develop the rest, that they would take that as, A, some
security that the Board at no point could or would change their mind
on expanding the landfill to the north, and the local businesses and
all were excited to have the prospect of several people coming and
going from the area every day that aren't currently doing that. So I
don't know that there's a strong opposition to this in any way.
Matter of fact, I think some people in the community feel it could be
a benefit, assuming that we are not going to make use of the remaining
300 acres. And that's why I indicated I'd like to see us give staff
some direction that once our inventory has been taken care of, that we
look to liquidate the majority of the remaining property, whether that
go back to the original owners or -- I don't know what our legal
process -- I don't want to get into that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We would have the opportunity at
the conditional use to address buffering requirements, setbacks, and
so forth?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. To ensure compatibility
with the adjacent residents and so forth? Okay. That's really all
the informational questions I had.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I just -- I have a very, very
hard time comprehending -- and I see the numbers here, and I get very
frustrated with the sheriff's department, I'll tell you the truth,
because I can't think of a time when an executive summary has come to
us that there hasn't been something on there where they said, well,
what we really mean is -- and it's very frustrating. And I'm sure
it's not intentional, but it's very frustrating to read one thing and
be told something completely different on Tuesday.
I find it very hard to comprehend that it is going to be
cheaper to have two separate and distinct facilities. It seems to me
-- and I know Commissioner Norris mentioned the County Barn site as
being an alternative, but why -- why would it be advantageous to have
two separate sites? I understand you may want two separate buildings,
but to have all those located in the realm of one area and perhaps be
able to -- I would think that would allow us to share on some of our
vendor contracts and things more easily as far as just basic
maintenance, tools, and oil and -- and basic things that would in the
long run -- not only building facilities together would save money,
but sharing all those things would save money. And I have a real hard
time comprehending how this is cheaper.
CAPTAIN STORRAR: A couple comments I can make,
Commissioner. First of all, we have submitted to you a use drawing of
the PBA facility. And as you'll note on the first floor we have a
crime lab that does require security. We have a concern right now
where that crime lab is located, which is on Marco Island, which is a
barrier island. And if we happen to encounter another hurricane,
which I hope we don't, we're in some serious exposure with that
particular facility, and we're trying our best to relocate it where
it's got a little more protected area. And that's one of the projects
that we would have in there that does require a level of security.
We do an awful lot of exotic repairs because of the
electronic systems that goes on our cars so that the security is an
issue with us. It would be more advantageous as far as transporting
evidence to and from our lab to have it closer into our headquarters
courthouse complex. That certainly is a security issue.
As far as the parts purchase, we in law enforcement are
able to purchase parts probably a little more economical in some areas
than county government is, for example, tires. We enjoy a law
enforcement discount, and we stay on top of that that I don't think
County government can get, which is just for law enforcement
agencies. So I'm not so sure that the mutual purchase -- although I
think we certainly could explore that in the future -- is a beneficial
issue or not. You may or may not enjoy the same type of price
structure that we get on our parts.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to move that we approve
the staff's request to site the county maintenance facility at the
former landfill expansion area and that we ask the staff of the
sheriff's office and the county manager's office to work together to
see if there is some feasible way to share costs, either through
purchasing or perhaps even through sharing the site, perhaps through
the County Barn Road site that the County will be abandoning, but that
at the same time we approve their request to have their property
appraised, the PBA site appraised, so that we can all have good
information to make decisions on.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Conrecode, can I ask you a
question? As I drive around the County and the City and so forth,
most of these repair shops are Butler-type buildings and not concrete
and steel. And if we were to construct a Butler-type building on a
concrete pad on this 35 acres, what would that cost per square foot?
I'm not talking about recreating a concrete and steel.
MR. CONRECODE: Right. It's roughly 65 to 68 dollars a
square foot for an engineered steel building, like a Butler, like a
Dean building.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: 65 dollars a square foot?
MR. CONRECODE: 65 to 68 dollars a square foot.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Still?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is a Butler building?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A metal building.
MR. CONRECODE: It's a brand name of a pre-engineered
steel building.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That seems awfully high.
MR. CONRECODE: We have -- the Golden Gate Community
Center expansion is a recent indicator of that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that's a Butler building, a
Butler-type building?
MR. CONRECODE: It's actually a Dean name brand
building.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. It's what?
MR. CONRECODE: Dean is the manufacturer's of that
building.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But it's the Butler-type
building?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Golden Gate Community Center is
going to be a steel building like a garage? I'm sorry. Maybe I
misunderstood. I thought that's what you said.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nice steel.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Really pretty.
MR. CONRECODE: It's a pre-engineered steel building,
but it also has facial treatments. It's got brick and block, sod on
it. And it's got some enhancements that a garage wouldn't have. You
know, you have exposed steel within the garage. But in this building
you'll have -- the columns will be framed, and you'll have drop
ceilings.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What's the square foot cost of
the community center?
MR. CONRECODE: It's I think $104 a square foot for
finished space.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Tom, maybe you can help me -- Tom
from the sheriff's office -- can help me. The first floor of the
warehouse is actually 4, 5 feet off ground level, maybe like the
staff's.
CAPTAIN STORRAR: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm assuming that is an
additional rampage there. And just explain to me, I guess, how that
would work getting vehicles in and out.
CAPTAIN STORRAR: Yeah. We've -- we've here created an
on ramp.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think we're going to need --
CAPTAIN STORRAR: A microphone, yes.
Okay. We've created here the addition of a concrete up
ramp where this would be the entrance point into the actual mechanic
base. Once you get in there, as you can see, we've got five lifts
slated for getting the cars up to do the service. The traffic flow
would be to come in here and flow out through the exit ramp here, so
these ramps would be constructed. You also have a walkway up into the
bay area here that would come in -- this would be our vehicle
supervisor's office here. Once into the bay area you could access the
first floor through this way, and the stairs would go up, or you can
access the support offices here through the stairways out in the --
which would be the west face of the building or the front of the
building itself, which we feel -- and our radio repair shop would be
in this corner with our radio lift right here so that when we have to
do our remove and installs and our radio and bench checks and stuff
like that, it's also convenient for that which is the way the facility
is right now.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion on the floor.
Is there a second for the motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Point of information in the
motion. I believe Commissioner Hac'Kie has combined two elements or
two different subjects on our agenda into one motion. Is that
appropriate?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler?
MR. CUYLER: You can do that to resolve the two issues,
yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I have one element of
difficulty with the motion. And that is until we look at whether or
not the sheriff's office can utilize the property we'd be vacating, I
hate spending money on an appraisal until I know if there's a way
around it. Unless there's some time line that I'm not aware of that
gets held up dramatically with the time it takes to look at the
vacated facility as to whether or not it would serve your purposes, I
would not be supportive of spending money on an appraisal until at
least I know the answer to that question.
CAPTAIN STORRAR: May I respond to that, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure.
CAPTAIN STORRAR: We were directed, I believe, last
January by this Board to go out and secure the facility, which we've
looked at and you can see there in your attachments. The current
lease runs out in November of '95, if that gives you some kind of
window when we need to be trying to do something. We certainly
wouldn't want to renegotiate another lease at the current site. I
think the Board just did that, and we're good through November -- I
believe November 29, '95, is when the current lease expires. I offer
that up just as a window to help you maybe better frame the issue that
you're dealing --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let me provide a little history
here. The January meeting last year we were in -- the sheriff's
office was in a panic because we were being charged -- had not been a
renewal, I guess, on time or something --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Storage tank was a problem.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Storage tank, gas tank, fuel tank
had been put in and encroached on other lands that was also owned by
the same landlord.
CAPTAIN STORRAR: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Wanted to charge us then double
rental for that property despite the fact you all had already been
storing cars there for years, and he never charged a penny. CAPTAIN STORRAR: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: With that in mind, we had
indicated, gosh, let's find another site because it appears this
landlord is trying to take advantage of the situation. So it was
under that situation that we had said, let's try to find another
location.
It was June of this year during the budget hearings, and
I think Commissioner Matthews mentioned this, that the county manager
indicated we'd be looking for a site for our own maintenance
facilities and transportation and so on and gave direction at that
time to include --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: To do it jointly.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Joint idea. So just for the
benefit of the two members who were not with us during either one of
those, the recommendation to find another location was under duress.
CAPTAIN STORRAR: Yeah, from the owner of the property.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, and that the subsequent
recommendation from the Board was to try to get us all in one
location.
CAPTAIN STORRAR: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I laud your efforts, Captain
Storrar. And as you can see, the situation changed around you, not
within you. You've gone ahead on this, but other things, other
circumstances may be changing to give us a little better opportunity.
And that's my sole intent is to investigate those opportunities before
expending dollars and time on this particular scenario. I think we do
have the window to do that.
CAPTAIN STORRAR: And I would agree that what we're
trying to do obviously is -- I think, we're all in agreement here we
want to put up -- get a facility that's economically suitable to all
concerned, provide the level of service that we currently have with
our fleet, and then, you know, everybody is satisfied in that arena.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, sir, exactly.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I would be happy to
withdraw the second half of my motion then and -- and just move that
we approve the development of the former landfill expansion site for a
county maintenance facility and that we ask our staff to work with the
sheriff's office to -- to coordinate, among all the alternatives that
we've discussed today.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The executive summary indicates
35 acres of that land. The verbal summary indicated 40 acres of that
land.
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir. What we're pursuing is 40
acres. 35 are the specific needs. We're assuming about 5, plus or
minus, for buffering, water management and so on.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And you will before this returns
have a specific location in that 341 or 7 or whatever?
MR. CONRECODE: And we will address the access issues
and all those sorts of things.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You seconded it, Commissioner
Norris?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have another comment too.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure. Any further discussion on
the motion other than Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. Just that it appears to me
from having been, you know, brand new on this Board that there's some
sensitivity and some difficulty in getting items on the agenda from
one constitutional officer to another. And I would like to encourage
strongly that we direct our staff to work as closely and as
cooperatively as possible so that we can try to resolve this issue.
My hesitation in withdrawing the second part of my motion is that I'm
aware that this issue has been dragging and dragging for a long time,
and I don't want it to drag further.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, would you address
that because we've had that discussion, and I don't know that it has
dragged. I think communication has happened. Communication might not
have been the exact communication people had hoped to hear. However,
it has occurred apparently.
MR. DORRILL: I think in this case to the extent that
your staff was guilty, I had some concerns when I first saw the
executive summary because it was -- it was opposite the direction that
we had received. And specifically the first executive summary that I
saw indicated that they wanted the project funded from the sheriffs,
give back to the Commission from unused funds at the end of the prior
year.
Frankly, I did not feel the staff had the direction to
pursue a project that was opposite of the direction that we had
received just two months ago at the end of the adoption process. I
asked Mr. Conrecode if he would convey my concerns to the sheriff's
department. I did that on a Friday. We did not get in touch with the
sheriff's department until that Tuesday morning, the following Tuesday
morning.
The sheriff's staff did show up at the board meeting.
They were told by my staff that the item was going to be continued.
The following day on Wednesday I indicated to the chairman what my
concerns.
We have had a series of phone calls. I spoke with Miss
Kinzel. I spoke with Mr. Burhans and the chairman. I think the
communication has been there. There's -- there's no intent on my part
to block a constitutional officer's access to the Board. In fact,
they will be real quick to in-run me and whine to you if they even
think that's happening.
In this particular case my initial concern was that
executive summary was headed in a direction other than the direction
that we had specifically been told by the Board to pursue. And we
intend to work cooperatively with the sheriff to pursue not only the
motion that's on the floor, but as part of that my understanding would
be an analysis of the facility that you currently own on County Barn
Road.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: With that --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just have a question on that,
Mr. Dotrill. In hindsight I'm questioning would it have not been
better on that Tuesday when the sheriff's representative showed up for
that meeting to have not continued it on the agenda but to -- to take
and -- to have taken a minute or two to have explained what the
problem was and request that this Board continue it?
MR. DORRILL: Well, I think that's policy issue. If you
want to adopt a policy that a constitutional officer's executive
summary will be placed on the Tuesday that they desire, that's fine.
Then I'll just -- if I have objections or if I feel that the executive
summary is contrary to other direction that you'll give us, then we'll
just need to talk about that --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's vote on the motion, and
then we can have a discussion on policy matters after that, because
this doesn't have anything to do with the motion that's on the floor.
All those in favor of the motion which was to give staff direction --
do you just want to run through --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To go forward with the 35 acres.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: 40 acres.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 40 acres. Excuse me, 40.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Please state aye. Anyone
opposed? Motion carries 5-0.
I don't know that we need to try to decide policy right
now as far as that. I happen to think the policy as it exists is
fine. There was some communication that went back and forth between
the two. There were apparently maybe some toes stepped on. I don't
know. But we don't need to have an argument on that. In my mind the
staff made a -- the right choice to have these two items on the same
day's agenda. It wouldn't have made much sense to have them two weeks
apart.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sure the constitutional
officers know from communicating with Commissioner Hac'Kie and I
recently that if they thought they're having problems, we welcome the
whining.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: We welcome the phone call and the
opportunity, so I don't think there's a problem there.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Something productive to add?
MS. KINZEL: I'm sorry. Crystal Kinzel for the record.
I'm the finance director. I only have one clarification. The item
was requested for two consecutive agendas before we ever received a
phone call. I did speak on the second meeting that it was scheduled
for with Tom Conrecode. We then came back, subsequently had some
discussions, requested again that it be put on, and Mr. Dorrill did
speak with me after I telephoned him only. So I think it is important
to kind of clarify that we're looking to communicate with the county
manager's office, but if he does have a problem, we'll be glad to
answer any of his questions immediately. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you for clearing that up.
Item #10A
EXTRA GAIN TIME FOR INMATE NOS. 42769 AND 73180 - DENIED. EXTRA GAIN
TIME FOR INMATE NO. 51052 - APPROVED
10-A, extra gain time. These, unlike our recent ones,
do not have all the information included. We don't know the offense.
We don't know the history.
motion.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
when we --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
MS. FILSON: I have it.
With that in mind, I'll entertain a
I'd like to continue these --
Good idea.
-- to get that information so
I'm not '-
Unless it's available today.
Unless it's available now.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Filson, are you withholding
information from the Board?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: More information.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Two questions. One, why wasn't
it included in the packet and then, two, what is the information?
MS. FILSON: I believe only the first page was included,
and that was an error by our office, which I will correct. Inmate
number 51052, the crime was failure to appear for a suspended driver's
license.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And was summonsed to 60 days? 90
days? A year?
DEPUTY CANADY: I don't see a sentence on here. 90 days
of jail by Judge Wilson; date sentenced, October 24th, 1994.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about the other two?
DEPUTY CANADY: Inmate number 42769, Philip Nickel,
sentenced to one year jail; date sentenced, August 23rd, 1993, by
Judge Wilson.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: For what purpose?
DEPUTY CANADY: Violation of county probation,
contempt.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's 42769 is violation of
probation?
DEPUTY CANADY: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Which one is the failure to
appear?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The last one.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Larry Hollis Christian.
DEPUTY CANADY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And the third, Michael Mini.
DEPUTY CANADY: Inmate number 73180, violation of state
probation for burglary; date sentenced, August 2nd, 1994, by Judge
Hayes for 364 days jail.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Point of information, if I may,
Mr. Chairman. Is the gain time put out for these inmates as a -- in
other words, is it communicated to them that this is a fairly standard
reward for good conduct within the jail system? In other words, are
your corrections officers putting it out in front of them, and then
it's pulled away at some time?
DEPUTY CANADY: I can't tell you what the policy of the
jail is. I think it's generally known that there is time off for good
behavior.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Two things.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Extra gain time.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There is extra gain time.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a difference between
gain time and extra gain time. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Gain time they receive
automatically assuming they do behave properly and so on as a part of
the sheriff's policies. Extra gain time is --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is peeling potatoes above and
beyond the call of duty?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Correct. It comes to us. Mr.
Cuyler's staff has put together now two or three memos now on this
which -- not too long ago, so either they're in my files, or I'm sure
Mr. Cuyler will get you a copy of those.
MR. CUYLER: I'll provide copies to all of you again.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Cuyler.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
move that we -- I lost my tea. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Here.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- the inmate who is requesting
or looking for extra gain time for the suspended driver's license I
move to approve. The other two I move to deny. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion and a second.
All those in favor of the motion state aye. Anyone opposed? Motion
carries 5-0.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 94-825 APPOINTING TIHOTHY FREDEEN TO THE GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
We're not a member of the Golden Gate Parkway
Beautification Advisory Committee. There's one opening, one person;
is that correct?
MS. FILSON: That's right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion -- motion from
Commissioner Norris, second from Commissioner Hancock to approve
Timothy C. Freeden. All those in favor of the motion state aye.
Anyone opposed? Motion carries 5-0.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 94-826 REAPPOINTING DENISE SMITH TO THE IHMOKALEE
BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED
Immokalee Beautification Advisory Committee
appointment.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I move that we
appoint Denise Smith as a resident of Immokalee.
MS. FILSON: That would be a reappointment.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A reappointment?
MS. FILSON: Yeah, and I have been advised that the
other -- Mr. Brickzin does not reside within H.S.T.U., so he does not
qualify.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion and a second.
All those in favor of the motion please state aye. Motion carries
unanimously, which takes us to the Board of County Commissioner's
communications, a mere 30 minutes after we took our brief break.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: After we told our stenographer it
would be 30 minutes.
Item #14 (2)
UPDATE PRESENTED ON PROPOSAL ON MARCO ISLAND AIRPORT FOR JANES SCENIC
DRIVE
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Marco Airport. Commissioner
Matthews?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. I presumed that most of us
read it in the paper this morning.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Did not.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Did not, okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which paper was that,
Commissioner Matthews?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, the paper. Yesterday
afternoon about noontime I had a request under the Public Records Act
to have the letter and information that I had forwarded to Secretary
Wetherell regarding the Marco Island Airport and the Scenic Drive
issue with the Fakahatchee Strand. I had at the same time faxed to
the BCC and requested Miss Filson to forward to each of you copies of
that as well so that you would be as equally informed hopefully when
the newspaper came out this morning.
Because the negotiations are still ongoing, I would
answer your questions if you have any questions based on what you've
read, but to discuss the merits or any other options within the
program at this point, I don't -- I don't think it's appropriate
because negotiations are still ongoing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just one thing I wanted to share
with you between our last conversation in this forum under BCC
communications and now, as you came up to speed on all that had
happened in the past, Fred Dudley was kind enough -- or Senator Fred
Dudley was kind enough to meet with Virginia Wetherell during a trip
to Tallahassee and had a fairly productive meeting making sure that
she understood the urgency and that he was standing with us in that
regard and that he clearly indicated vacation he didn't feel was
either in the County or the State's best interest, and should we ever
get to the point beyond these negotiations where it has to return to
the bill forum, he would be taking the County's -- what currently is
the County's stand on this and -- and so he was very helpful on that,
and I think he'll have some information he may share with you along
the way too as to your point person.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. In fact, as a point, as I
investigated what was going on and the possibility of having to vacate
that road if -- if that's what it -- what it came to, which I am and
have been from the beginning firmly opposed to, in talking with some
people out in the eastern part of the County, they had mentioned to me
that the very people who are performing the violations that the DEP
wishes to stop, mainly poaching, would love to see it vacated, because
then the only -- the only reason anybody would be there with
headlights on in the middle of the night would be the park ranger. So
they -- they would -- they would like to see such a thing happen. So
with that in mind I guess I ask that this Board continue to confirm
that we do not want to vacate.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The memo that we received from you
last week, I guess nothing different since then?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Nothing different since then,
no. Secretary Wetherell was out of town last week, and I wasn't able
to speak with her when I was up there last week. It's my
understanding that she did distribute the information to staff
members, and they -- they were going to meet sometime early this week
to discuss the merits of it, and I'm anticipating when we adjourn
today to give her a call to see where we are.
Item #14 (3)
DISCUSSION RE COALITION OF LOBBYING EFFORTS - INFORMATIONAL ONLY
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Next item you had on was
coalition of southwest Florida.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. This was equally good, and
I've shared with you information this morning. Mr. Dotrill and I
yesterday traveled to Charlotte County and had a very good and
productive meeting with four members of the Charlotte County Board.
And I'm happy to say that they seemed, when we finished the meeting,
to be quite enthusiastic about the project of the 15 county
commissioners between Collier County, Lee, and Charlotte County
sharing a lobbying responsibility to help our legislative delegation
inform other senators and representatives of what the needs in this
area are and hopefully be able to get more issues that positively
affect us passed and defeat those issues that negatively affect us.
In addition to that at the FAC meeting last week
Commissioner Hancock and I attended a meeting involving the SSU
uniform rate, I guess that is, statewide uniform rate. And one of the
questions that I had and got a disturbing answer to was if the PSC
grants SSU uniform statewide rate structures, will that affect Collier
County's ability to recapture control of the utility rates. And I was
told most emphatically, yes.
So we have asked the attorney and the commissioners from
Hernando County who are moving an issue forward before the PSC to
contact the commissioners here in Collier County and inform us of what
it is that we can do, and possibly we may want to intervene in this
rate case. I don't know. We need to get more information on it. But
apparently the way it's looking like with the statewide uniform rate,
some counties will be contributing to the operations of other utility
systems far distant from where you are. And likewise, other utilities
will be receiving a benefit from other -- other rate payers around the
state. So I -- I have brought back information to get the process
started that was handed out by the attorney there which I'll share
with you. You can catch up on it and wait for their phone call.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition to that I also
requested at that same meeting that the counsel for the Florida
Association of Counties advance what information he had and just maybe
give a phone call to you, Mr. Cuyler, and discuss what our legal
options and opportunities are. Again, the right here or the issue is
wanting to preserve our right to have the opportunity to control
rates, not necessarily making a decision for this Board, but just to
have that opportunity. Commissioner MAtthews.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. That was pretty much it.
The FAC meeting last week was very productive, and I'm hoping in the
next week or so in conjunction of preparing FAC policy statements for
Charlotte County, who's asked for a starting point of what we're going
to be working on, I will share with this Board also the policy
statements and small explanations of what they mean to this Board also
so we can -- we can keep ourselves well informed.
Item #14 (4)
DISCUSSION REGARDING 800 HHZ AND FUNDING OF RADIOS FOR FIRE DISTRICTS
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Next item we had on was the 800
megahertz I had asked to be put on. I read what I considered to be a
disturbing article in yesterday's paper. Third, fourth paragraph down
says independent fire districts and the sheriff's office are now
balking at the expense of paying -- sharing in the expense for the
radio system saying they were never told they would be responsible for
part of the bill. This is continued on page 4. Captain William
Graham, who has been involved in this from day one has done a great
job, points out that without universal participation of the 800
megahertz, many of the advantages as well as the cost effectiveness
are lost.
The County has provided the backbone of the VHF system,
and different users, the fire districts the sheriff and everyone, have
bought their own radios and repaired their own radios and all the
backup materials that go with that for years. So I can't fathom why
any of them would assume now that because those radios will be
delivering their message from radio to radio via different technology
than VHF that suddenly the Board of County Commissioners is going to
pay for those radios. I know Mr. Hargett has been working on the
financing choices, and I know as part of that you need to be talking
with the different fire districts and everyone. I hope that
everything works out with that because if suddenly half the fire
districts, because the BCC isn't going to pay for their radios, aren't
interested and the City's not interested and whoever else is
potentially involved, then I'm not sure why we're buying an eight
million dollar radio system.
We had an urgency -- we had a great coalition of the
fire districts and the sheriff's department, everyone, EHS, saying
this was urgently needed, absolutely couldn't do without it. 800
megahertz was where the future was at, and we had to have it. And now
apparently they have to have it unless they have to pony up for some
of the dollars for the radios.
So it seems to me by that February 1st date we should be
clear if they're not in, we need to put the brakes on this eight
million dollar expenditure real fast.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We've already got a contract.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But we can strip that way down
according to what was agreed to, so hopefully we won't have to do
that. But if the fire districts aren't in, I'm not sure why we're
doing it. The urgency that was there has suddenly disappeared, and it
seems to me it should have been clear that those who have provided
their radios always in the past aren't suddenly going to be getting
free radios. Chris.
MR. NIND: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Chris Nine,
communications director for Collier County Sheriff's Office. I think
I'd like to -- to respond, Mr. Chairman. Firstly, as I think you will
recall, the public safety environment, community, which is primarily
the sheriff's office in Collier County, fire, and EMS, with the county
staff have been working obviously in getting the RFP development. The
contract has been let. I think it should be remembered that one of
the major points -- and certainly I can recall Chief Peterson
requesting this information on many previous occasions -- was how the
actual overall system was to be funded. And I can say that really
only until about October have the public safety committee, which
comprises of the sheriff's office and EMS and fire, have actually been
included within the financial planning and how the system is to be
costed. And obviously their input, I think, was important. They
needed to know where the -- what plans were being -- were being made.
With regard to the costing of the present system,
obviously the sheriff does maintain and obviously pays for the
dispatch and the VHF system for fire, EMS, and for the sheriff's
office. But I think it is important that we are now meeting, and I
think it would be obviously inappropriate to try and speculate the
outcome at the moment. But they certainly are now meeting, and I
think that is very important. And, therefore, I'm sure the results
will come out.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. What was the point in
time that you said the districts and others began meeting with regard
to --
MR. NINDS: As far as the funding is concerned, the fire
chiefs having some input into the funding process, and how this was
going to be planned was only really in the beginning of October after
the contract had been let. Now, we may have identified where the
actual overall cost of the system would come from, but actually any
involvement of those individual agencies was only really involved from
about October.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: To tell you the truth,
Commissioner Hac'Kie, I'm not sure our staff had done much before
October 1, which was something I was bothered about when we had this
discussion a month ago was that we had been -- you all had been doing
your end of the bargain -- MR. NIND: Right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- by trying to get the system
together for two years and what we needed and what we could get, and
somewhere along the line -- I say again it never occurred to anybody
that we were going to spend 5 to 15 million dollars and we had to have
a way to do it so --
MR. NIND: But certainly those discussions are now
taking place, Mr. Chairman. And I should also just reiterate that the
public safety community actually does work extremely closely together,
and there are communication links between them, certainly verbally and
in writing, and I know we have with county staff.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hargett, you'll be coming
back to us by the first of February hopefully with good news?
MR. HARGETT: This might be an opportune time to just
give you kind of a brief update since your first meeting in November
in which you asked us to be back to you in 90 days with a permanent
financing plan. We did deliver, hand deliver yesterday and today a
letter to each member of the fire district outlining the actions that
the Board has previously taken and your direction to the county
manager to come back within 90 days and that our time was short. We
have asked for an appointment, first, on an individual basis with each
member of the districts believing that we have a great many common
interests, but there also may be some different interests from
district to district. It's our attempt to learn what those are.
Following that we hope to have a joint meeting with all the districts
and hopefully can come to the Board in a workshop-type setting with
all issues resolved.
I would say to you that our contact thus far has not
been -- it has been more positive than what you might have read in the
newspaper article. We have had a meeting with the City of Naples, and
I would like to say that that meeting was also more positive than what
you read in the newspaper.
What we presented to the fire districts is really three
options, a wide range, one to the far left, one to the far right, and
certainly one in the middle, and asked them really at this point for
their input. Our approach to this is to discuss the issues to where
we can mutually agree. We think that the financing that -- issues
that we've worked on to this point it would -- we believe we've got a
high degree of opportunity to persuade the districts that it will be
in their best financial interest to participate. We're working also
with the sheriff over on the other hand about the operations of the
system and how it would operate and considering a lot of what ifs such
as what if a district does not participate and whether or not the
sheriff would be willing to absorb the operational costs of running an
800 megahertz and also a high-band VHF system and if he would absorb
that in his budget or whether that would be passed on to the
individual users.
We think we have considerable opportunity to reach a
mutually agreeable resolution and hope to be back hopefully in January
to the Board in hopefully a workshop setting with the districts and
certainly within the 90 days with a permanent financing option.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That certainly helps.
MR. NIND: Mr. Chairman, if I may, that's -- that's
extremely encouraging, and I'm sure that that is the way to go. As
far as a public safety provider is concerned, obviously it would be
ideal for all of those public safety providers to come on to that new
system at the same time because basically the benefit is the taxpayer
and their safety that we're talking about. And certainly that is, I
think, an aim that we have shown.
MR. DORRILL: I should say in closing, though, that
we're not naive enough to believe that because of the independent
nature of so many of the groups that we're dealing with that somebody
is going to break ranks in the hope that they can coerce or play king
of the mountain with the County Commission. And while we would like
to think that we can convince all of the agencies that it's to their
advantage financially, operationally, and in times of emergency to
stay with the Commission's project, I don't want you to think that
we're naive enough to think that we may come in here in February and
have everyone holding hands and approaching the Commission with a
single proposal. It's our intent to do that, but we're dealing with
widely diverse groups and professional abilities and elected fire
commissioners, and sometimes best of intentions just can't be met.
But it's our hope that we'll have a compromised proposal to share with
you on that date.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, perhaps since there's some
of the groups that feel they don't want to participate in the program,
they'll probably be more inclined to initiate their own system.
MR. DORRILL: Well, and I've been saying since the end
of last spring and all through the summer that I didn't think that the
County Commission would or could compel anyone to participate in this
project. But that you were moving forward with the intent of funding
it at least for those areas that you control that include the sheriff,
your EHS system, and the dependent fire districts. But I don't think
that it would be your intent to try and continue to maintain a
separate VHF system at your expense if certain independent groups
wanted to stay with the VHF system.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I would assume the sheriff's
department wouldn't be willing to eat that cost either.
MR. NIND: Well, if we're talking about the safety of
certain areas within the County, we would need obviously to look at
that as our discussions go forward. And whether we can cover that I
honestly would not be able to answer. But I think I would just like
to make one point, again, to reiterate. Remember that those
independent fire chiefs have actually been working extremely closely
in a unified effort into getting an excellent public safety system
communication system for Collier County. And if you will remember
they have also assisted in certainly one of the consultancy studies,
and that was covered by the Fire Chiefs' Association, because they
certainly do want to come on to the system, and that is why we need to
look and identify how it is to be funded. But we would obviously like
to see everybody come on together for the benefit of the people of
Collier County.
Item #14 (5)
DISCUSSION REGARDING LIASON TO SCHOOL BOARD - COHMISSIONER HANCOCK TO
LOOK FURTHER INTO THE MATTER
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. Next item,
Commissioner Hancock, school board liaison.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, it seems appropriate that
we're talking about harmony among constitutional officers. What I
want to do before I took it upon myself to ask for Mr. Dorrill's
staff's assistance in forming a resolution, the idea that I'm
proposing is simply that this Board appoint a liaison to the Collier
County School Board whose responsibility it is then to meet on an
individual basis or attend a meeting, school board meetings, on a
regular basis to increase Board presence and communication between the
school board and this board. Obviously I wouldn't be proposing this
if I wasn't ready to step in as the first liaison in that capacity.
I've worked with the school board in the past in individual schools.
It happens to be a pet area of mine, and I guess I wanted to put it on
the table and find out if this Board had any reservations about
looking at a resolution to that effect before I utilized any of
staff's time in preparing that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It's a good idea, but I don't
know that it's necessary other than if you want to attend school board
meetings themselves. But right now the chairman meets with -- and I
know historically this has happened every quarter -- the chairman of
the school board, the chairman of this board, the mayor, and the top
administrators of each of those agencies sit down and go through the
various items we have in common, the various items that we need to
bring to the table and so on, so there is a formal mechanism right now
filling that role.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I could just -- I believe that
that mechanism also is in place with regard to City issues.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yes, the mayor --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And nevertheless, I and my
predecessor have met with -- at least quarterly gone to city council
meetings and met regularly with city council members, and I think it's
a wonderful idea. And I, frankly, have taken that upon myself to do
because that's a part of my district. And I think it would be
appropriate if we were going to have that same kind of undertaking,
you know, since it isn't Tim's district in particular that -- I think
it would be useful. I just think it's a really good tool with the
City.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think certainly the
communication is useful. I just don't know that we need to duplicate
the effort.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I applaud the effort. I
think it's absolutely imperative as -- as Collier County moves forward
and our issues that come before us and the financing of them becomes
more and more complicated, as we have more children in the school,
more people living here, the more liaison and the more effort that we
can get to build a cohesive government of all the various factions, I
think it's absolutely necessary.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, again, I mean I don't have
any objection to communication, but I can tell you it can be more
confusing if you have more than one person doing that. And perhaps
you don't think whoever -- the chairman in upcoming years needs to
communicate with the school board, but that has traditionally been the
chairperson's responsibility to make sure that that communication
actually happens. And to do that on a quarterly basis. I think if
you have -- particularly when we have sunshine laws where
commissioners cannot communicate, you can actually create more
difficult situations if you have two different communications going on
at the same time. So I in no way am criticizing the effort to have
communication. I just think it's happening right now, and I'm
assuming if we continue the way that has been done in the past, I know
at least, myself included, the last three chairmen have done that and
have done it with some level of success. So I'm not sure why you
would want an additional commissioner communicating over and above
that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well -- I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Go ahead.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was just going to say insofar
as meeting with city council members, the mayor, and the city manager,
I am always careful to be sure that I am only speaking for myself and
not for the Board, but it's a useful conduit of information. I'd
really like to encourage it.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it may be that this is
something less formal that I envisioned. But if it rests squarely on
my shoulders to do it as an initiative, then so be it, and I will do
that. I kind of have a feeling of who rests where on this. If I feel
that it's convenient or necessary to -- to identify an area of
communication outside of what the chairman already has, then I will
probably bring a resolution forward. But at this point I think I just
need to look at it a little bit more. I just wanted to put it on the
table and hear what people thought about it because I remain very
involved in our local high schools. And I had a comment from the band
director at Barton Collier. My wife's cheerleading coach there, and
I've been to every single football game. And he came up to me, and he
said, it will be nice to have someone on the commission that likes our
band. I thought who wouldn't. But apparently there is some -- you
know, the follow-through down through the system is that the
Commission is adversarial in some way to the operation of the
schools. And it just was concern for me, so I thought maybe a
constant presence might improve it. But I'll try and frame that in
such a way that it doesn't interfere or create an additional level
that could cause conflict or --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think earlier in the year it
was Commissioner Norris who suggested they disband the BCH band so --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One comment, Commissioner
Hancock. Do you envision if this were to move forward and we have a
formal -- formal resolution with the liaison, that liaison would then
be updating the BCC on a regular basis as to what the duplicative
issues are?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I foresaw was a monthly
report to the Board by the liaison based on meetings, both individual
and school board meetings that the liaison had attended, if you will,
just to keep a constant flow of information coming into this Board.
As you know, so many people will walk up to you and complain about
their tax bill when, in fact, more than half of it does not belong to
the BCC ad valorem; it's school board rates. So I think -- I just
feel like there could be a little more done to bringing more
information to the Board than the quarterly meetings, which I was
unaware of, to be honest. But, again, it's in no way a slam on anyone
sitting on this board, past chairman or future, but just is something
I think deserves a little attention, something I would be willing to
take on for the first year and see if it's beneficial to this board.
If it's not, we can disband it.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
a compatible way.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
I support the effort.
Resolution away.
We'll look at trying to do it in
Okay. Anything else?
No.
Item #14 (1)
DISCUSSION REGARDING EPTAB - TO BE BROUGHT BACK ON NEXT WEEK'S AGENDA
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. We had an EPTAB thing --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I thought you said no.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It was already on the agenda.
It was already on the agenda, and I think it's just merely -- should
we ask for a resignation --
MS. FILSON: Yes. Just to give you a brief history, Mr.
Jack Baxter was appointed to serve a three-year term on EPTAB on June
18 of 1994. He has not attended one EPTAB meeting. He has attended
one workshop, however. The recommendation is to declare the seat
vacant.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I understand he has a personal
situation. However, if he has been unable to attend any of the
meetings, he's certainly welcome to reapply when that personal
situation clears up. But it seems inappropriate if someone can't be
there to just hold the seat.
MS. FILSON: He indicated it would be till the end of
February.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: End of February?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to declare the seat vacant.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, if we decided we want
to do something, can we do it? If we want to take action here --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We want to disband the Baron
Collier High School. Mr. Cuyler, if we want to take action on this
item, is there anything that prohibits from doing that?
MR. CUYLER: You normally don't, and that's the kind of
thing that you should put under a regular agenda item. But if you
want to --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's put it on the regular
agenda item next week.
Second item -- final item. I had inquired to you, and I
don't know that I have anything back in writing yet as far as our
policy for people missing meetings, such as that. MR. CUYLER: You'll have that this week.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great. Just coincidentally, that
person missed again this week.
Thank you, Miss Filson. Hay we be excused?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
***** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Hac'Kie
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent
Agenda be approved and/or adopted *****
Item #16A1
FIRE LINE EXTENSION ACCEPTANCE FOR COVENTRY SQUARE - WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 94-821 APPROVING FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF CAXAMBAS
ESTATES - 2ND REPLAT - WITH STIPULATIONS
See Pages
Item #16A3
APPROVAL FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF SAN HIGUEL - WITH CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
See Pages
Item #16A4
APPROVAL FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF FALCON RIDGE WITH LETTER OF
CREDIT AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
See Pages
Item #16A5
APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF STERLING OAKS - PHASE 2A WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
See Pages
Item #16A6
BUDGET AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING A COST CENTER BUDGET FOR THE EXPENDITURES
AND REVENUES ASSOCIATED WIHT A SPECIAL FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
GRANT PROVIDED TO THE HPO FOR SERVICES RELATED TO THE POST-DISASTER
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $88,087
Item #16A7
WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR FALCON GLEN VILLAS, PHASE TWO
WITH STIPULATIONS
See Pages
Item #16B1
RECOHMENDATION TO TERMINATE FOR CONVENIENCE THE CURRENT CONTRACT BID
NO. 93-2082, MEDIAN AND SELECTED PUBLIC AREA GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FOR
THE IHMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION H.S.T.U. - TO BE RE-BID AFTER LANGUAGE
CHANGE
Item #1682 - Moved to Item #SB1
Item #16C1
PURCHASE OF AUTOMATION EQUIPMENT FOR NEW ESTATES BRANCH LIBRARY -
AUTHORIZED TO DATA RESEARCH ASSOCIATES IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,577
Item #16D1
CARRY FORWARD FUNDS FROM FISCAL YEAR 93-94 IN THE AMOUNT OF $38,489.31
Item #16D2
SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND
PAYMENT OF SEWER IMPACT FEE FINACE AGREEMENTS FOR JOANNA FLASHMAN,
DENNIS AND SUZANNE KINNEY, JEROME AND ERIN LANDGREBE, EMMA L. RAULIN,
RICHARD AND SUSAN SOHMERVILLE, RUSSELL P. STAHLHAN, AND JEFFREY H.
STONE
See Pages
Item #16D3 - Withdrawn
Item #16El
BID #94-2291, "HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS PARTS AND REPAIR SERVICE" WITH
SPECIFIED VENDORS - AWARDED TO D7D HYDRAULICS AND ROY'S MECHANICAL
SERVICE
Item #16F1
CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT FOR MEDICAL EXAMINER SERVICES BETWEEN DISTRICT
TWENTY MEDICAL EXAMINER, A FLORIDA CORPORATION AND THE COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
See Pages
Item #16H1
FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUBLEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN HUEY HOWARD AND TOHMY
CLIFTON AMENDING THAT CERTAIN SUBLEASE AGREEMENT DATED MARCH 22, 1994
See Pages
Item #16H2 - Deleted
Item #16H3
CONSENT TO USE EASEMENT AREA AGREEMENT FOR PARCEL 39 AS PART OF PARCEL
40 LOCATED IN THE PINE RIDGE INDUSTRIAL PARK H.S.T.U.
See Pages
Item #16H4
APPROVAL OF FUNDING SOURCE TO REPLACE THREE WASTEWATER PUMPING STATIONS
ITEM #16J
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence presented to the Board
of County Commissioners was filed and/or referred to the various
departments:
Item #16J1
CERTIFICATES FOR CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1994
REAL PROPERTY
NO. DATE
05
09
11-17
26-31
34-35
39
42-51
59-70
11/01/94
11/01/94
11/01 & 11/02/94
11/02/94
11/03/94
11/04/94
11/10/94
11/17-11/21/94
1994
TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
63-80
82-86
11/04-11/09/94
11/10-11/15/94
Item #16J2
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
See Pages
Item #16L1
RESOLUTION 94-822, RE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
See Pages
Item #16L2
RESOLUTION 94-823/CWS-94-09, APPROVING PARTIAL PAYHENT OF SEWER IHPACT
FEES AND THE SEWER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LIEN ON PROPERTY DESCIRBED AS
UNIT 0-5, TREETOPS OF NAPLES, SECTION I, AS SETTLEMENT OF THE FEDERAL
COURT CASE OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. JOSEPH W. ANDERSON, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 93-289-CIV-FTH-24D
See Pages
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 3:05 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
TIMOTHY J. CONSTANTINE, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY:
Shelly Semmler and Barbara A. Donovan