BCC Minutes 06/16/1998 R REGULAR MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, June 16, 1998
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRPERSON:
Barbara B. Berry
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Timothy L. Hancock
ALSO PRESENT:
Robert Fernandez, County Administrator
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the
Board of County Commissioners' meeting for June 16th, 1998.
We're pleased to have with us this morning Father Joseph Spinelli
from St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church.
If you'd rise for the invocation, remain standing for the Pledge
of Allegiance.
FATHER SPINELLI: In the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit, Amen.
Lord, may everything we do begin with your inspiration and
continue with your help so that all our prayers and works may begin in
you and by you be happily ended.
We stand before you, Lord, Holy Spirit, conscious of our
sinfulness, but aware that we gather in your name. Come to us, remain
with us, and enlighten our minds and hearts. Give us the light and
strength to know your will, to make it our own, and to live it in our
lives. Guide us by your wisdom, support us by your power, for you are
God, sharing the glory of Father and Son.
You desire justice for all. Enable us to uphold the rights of
others. Do not allow us to be misled by ignorance or corrupted by
fear or favor. Unite us to yourself in the bond of love, and keep us
faithful to all that is true.
As we gather in your name, may we temper justice with love so
that all our decisions may be pleasing to you, and earn the reward
promised to good and faithful servants.
You live and reign with the Father and the Son, one God, forever
and ever, Amen. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Father Spinelli, for being here
with us.
Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes to the agenda this morning?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Madam Chairman. Yes, we have
two changes. The first is to add item 10(E), county attorney's
employment agreement, requested by Commissioner Berry. And also to
move item 16(B) (8) to 8(B) (3). It's from consent to regular. Approve
an alternate road impact fee computation for the Marco Island Winn
Dixie supermarket. Staff request.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie, any changes?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I may have a brief comment under
communications, but I --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You can do that.
Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nor do I.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the agenda and consent
agenda as amended.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
Norris, thank you.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
We have a motion --
Second.
-- and a second to approve the agenda. Mr.
Motion carries five-zero.
Item #4
MINUTES OF MAY 21, 1998 WORKSHOP AND MAY 26, 1998 REGULAR MEETING -
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I move approval of the May
21, 1998 workshop and May 26, 1998 regular --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- meeting minutes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to the approval
of the workshop and regular meeting minutes.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS PRESENTED
Moving on then to item 5(B) (1) would be the service awards
this morning, of which I am pleased to present service awards to two
of our fine employees. The first one would be Louis Salvatore in
facilities management for 10 years. Louis?
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And our next award is to Brian Sansone, in
the water department, for 15 years.
(Applause.)
Item #7B
GEORGE FOGG REGARDING ACTION SPORTS PARK-COUNTY LANDFILL SITE - STAFF
TO WORK WITH PETITIONER REGARDING THIS TYPE OF PARK (CONSENSUS)
CH3tIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on to item 7(A), we have a public
petition this morning. George Fogg, regarding the Action Sports Park,
county landfill site.
Mr. Fogg.
MR. FOGG: Good morning. My name is George Fogg, 628 Woodshire
Lane, in North Naples.
I have previously put in front of you a copy of our proposal, and
I would like to take this time today to go over it in very brief --
with you.
I'd like first to thank you for the opportunity to present this
exciting and innovative idea for the use of Collier County's landfill
site and adjacent unused county lands.
With me today are some of the people who would be involved in the
first of its kind action sports park. The concept evolved from a
problem of unsafe use of Golden Gate Estates' road system by off-road
vehicles.
With me today is Deputy Sarah Lanius from the Collier County
Sheriff's Department, and she'll make a very brief presentation on
that part of the problem. Sarah?
MS. LANIUS: Good morning, commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning.
MS. LANIUS: My name is Sarah Lanius and I'm a community police
deputy from the Collier County Sheriff's Office.
Recently the Sheriff's Office has received several complaints of
illegal riding by ATV and off-road motorcycle enthusiasts. The
complaints range from careless driving on both county roadways and
county right-of-ways, trespassing on private property, to young kids
unsupervised.
January of 1997, the deputies attempted to stop the illegal
riding by first educating the riders and then issued warnings and
citations after the education process. During the educational
process, the deputies learned from the riders that for years the
riders have ridden for miles without causing a disturbance in most of
the rural areas of Collier County.
Due to the increase of population, the available riding areas
have become scarce. Local citizens and the Southwest Florida Trail
Riders, with the support of the Sheriff's Office, joined together and
formed a support -- a citizen support group. The group designed a
survey which was placed in the Golden Gate and North Naples area in
order to get an idea of how many people rode off-road vehicles. The
survey was placed into the community on December 1st, 1997 and on
February 1st, 1998 the surveys were tabulated.
In just the two months, the group collected 237 surveys; 217
surveys were families, 165 were ages four through 14, 175 were ages 15
through 25, 259 were ages 26 through 54, and 21 were ages 55 and
older. Total number of people were 765.
Due to the large amount of kids riding and the amount of families
who ride together as a sport, the citizen support group and the
Sheriff's Office are in the process of organizing a police athletic
van for the younger riders. The kids will receive supervised rides,
insurance and educational programs. However, the program will not be
a success or prevent future illegal riding if both the enthusiasts and
the Police Athletic League members have no place to ride. In other
words, the kids need a safe and legal place to ride in order for them
to enjoy their sport. And let's not forget about the adults.
I would to like now introduce Joe Wilson who represents the
National Police Athletic League. Thank you.
MR. WILSON: Thank you, Sarah, thank you commissioners. I come
from Palm Beach County, so don't hold it against me. That's where our
national headquarters is.
My name is Joe Wilson. I'm the national executive director with
the Police Athletic League. And it's my honor to be involved in this
particular innovative program and idea, because it's something that
works in other parts of the country.
We are very concerned with young people who after 2:00, 3:00 in
the afternoon who are put out from the school out onto the streets to
create mischief, havoc and all sorts of things. It's become a
national epidemic, as you well know. We have the highest crime rate
between those hours of 2:00 and 8:00 of young people, as we leave 17
million of them out onto the streets from school.
Ideas like the program that is put forth to you today on handling
one phase of a problem, along with the other projects and activities
they want to put into this particular action sports park, is an answer
to the solution for young people, and also for the community.
We're an organization of 1.5 million kids. We have similar
projects to this in California, in New Jersey, and a heavily populated
area of New Jersey, where they had similar problems, where the young
people had no place to go and ride their vehicles.
Rather than filling prisons, we'd like to fill playgrounds. And
that's part of our motto in doing things. We think it's better to
build boys and girls than to mend men and women.
So we're in favor of this project and we look forward to
supporting the Sheriff's Office, the Naples Police Department, who is
already a PAL member, has joined up with the Sheriff's Department in
investigating this area.
The funding for a program like this is all community based
funding. It's supported as a nonprofit organization, and they've been
very, very successful in raising funds to make these programs work.
This is a problem that is not just a problem of the
commissioners' court, it's a problem with the community. And I'm
impressed with what the Sheriff's Department did in conducting a
survey and finding out what the citizens want and what their needs
would be.
It's also a situation that's got an easy solution, and the
solution is the plan that these people have put together. And I'm
very, very impressed with their grassroots effort and involving many,
many sports. So thank you very much for the opportunity to be here
this morning.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FOGG: Thank you, Sarah and Joe.
The next person who will speak very briefly is Jack Terrell from
the Florida Trail Riders' Association. Jack?
MR. TERRELL: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Jack
Terrell, I'm from Palm Harbor, Florida.
I really come here this morning wearing a couple of hats. I'm a
member of the board of directors of the National Off-Highway Vehicle
Conservation Council. We work in 48 states with local organizations,
government agencies, land users, to promote responsible use of
off-highway ATV's and motorcycles.
We have worked with the 4-H, the National PAL programs, the
Highway Patrol, the Sheriffs' Departments, setting up and assisting
them to set up programs similar to this.
One of our major programs in NOVCC is an outreach program to
youth and to get youth involved in our programs. We believe that
starting with the kids develops an ethic of responsibility and that
carries through to adulthood.
I'm also here today representing the Florida Trail Riders. I'm
the vice president of that group. We are a family-based state-wide
organization of approximately 2,500 enthusiasts throughout the State
of Florida off-highway motorcycles and ATV's. Florida Trail Riders is
very involved in grant programs and working on volunteer programs such
as this. We've done a lot of work with Division of Forestry and the
state agencies, and one of our local clubs, the Southwest Florida
Trail Riders, is the local club that has spearheaded this. And
primarily I'm here to support their effort and to let you know that
both of our organizations support their effort and will do so both
through volunteer contributions and through grants and assistance
programs. Thank you.
MR. FOGG: Finally, I have a local resident from the Trail
Riders' Association, Steve Pate, who will speak very briefly. MR. PATE: Thank you, George. Good morning, the board.
I'm here as a resident of Collier County. My address is 4269
First Avenue Northwest. I'm also chairman of the Florida Trail
Riders' Motorcross Committee.
As Jack mentioned, Florida Trail Riders represents over 2,500
members throughout the State of Florida and very active in safety and
education with regard to off-highway vehicle use.
Obviously there's a very strong local need for controlling what
is a growth sport in our area, in particular, Southwest Florida. And
as a member of the community and also as a member of the Florida Trail
Riders, I would like to ask the commission to have the staff work on a
review of this, hopefully to get back to you by the end of the summer
with their recommendations. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much.
MR. FOGG: There were several other groups which also
participated in the formulation of the ideas contained in the report
that you have before you. This included such groups in addition to
the motorcyclists and off-road vehicle uses, off-road bicycles, remote
control cars, remote control planes, paint ball sports, as we've
already seen, the Police Department, the Police Athletic League, to
name a few.
In addition, we propose traditional park uses such as picnicking,
walking for pleasure, walking for exercise, running, rollerblading,
mountain climbing, perhaps a mountain climbing wall, a challenge rope
course, and of course children's play areas. I'm not a --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Child?
MR. FOGG: I'm not a child, nor am I a motor vehicle operator or
a bicyclist. I like to walk. I like to get my exercise that way. I
enjoy being outside, so I'm going to represent that other group of
people.
Simply put, we would request that the commission take this
proposal under advisement and have staff work with the group to
develop a comprehensive approach to this identified problem and to the
possibility and hopefully the probability of use of the county's
landfill site, and we would hope that perhaps this could be completed
by the end of the summer.
Again, thank you for your consideration, and we appreciate this
opportunity to present our unique and innovative ideas to you today.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
What's the pleasure of the commission?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a quick question for George.
MR. FOGG: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When we've talked about this, we've
talked about the problem of which part of government owns that
property out there. We've also talked about other properties around
the county. But one thing, just to make sure the rest of the board
clearly understands, virtually every group that has talked about an
activity here, whether that's ATV's or paint ball or BMX, has talked
about doing the actual work on the land and set-up themselves. And
it's just something for us to take into consideration as we can think
about it is the actual construction part. I think we'll have an awful
lot of labor, an awful lot of work from those people who actually
participate in those activities, so --
MR. FOGG: That has been promised by every group that we've
talked to, without exception. And a number of them are willing to
try, in addition, to provide funds to assist in this.
We are proposing not only the unused land, but to utilize the
existing solid waste disposal site for the various activities. We
think it's a very compatible type of use. In some cases, pieces of it
have been done in other areas, and we think that we can carry this
idea that it's been done in other areas further on our site.
We understand, obviously, that there are other competing uses,
such as a golf course or other things that people want to use the
currently unutilized portion of the site, and we feel that what we've
proposed can be worked in conjunction with other uses. And that's one
of the reasons that we feel that it's important for the staff to be
involved to look at this and to see how we might come up with a
comprehensive proposal that just doesn't serve the needs of the group
that we represent.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to ask our staff to proceed
in working with the group, to take a look at this. But I think there
are some considerations we need to recognize out of the chute. One is
that there are residences nearby. I mean, that's why this area is
declared surplus, because we decided as a board not to move the
landfill closer to existing homes. So I think we need to recognize
there is a noise issue here that has to be addressed.
A problem with a lot of the trail riders -- and not trail riders,
per se, but the ATV-ers in this county -- is that Mom or Dad go out
and buy the ATV and bring it home and put it in the driveway, no
trailer, no way to get it to an appropriate park. And George, we
talked about this, about people that may be able to go out and
actually, you know, kind of a ride share program, where they'll come
pick you up and --
MR. FOGG: That was one of the concepts and one of the reasons
that the idea the Police Athletic League and -- was developed, and we
think this will partially solve that question.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just want to make sure there's a plan
there, because we don't have a problem with the responsible riders, we
have a problem with those who really have nowhere to ride end up in
the rights-of-way and conflicting with traffic and whatnot, so again,
just wanted to make sure that's --
MR. FOGG: That has been addressed. And likewise, we are fully
aware of the problem of noise, and would, I think through creative
placement of the various trails, i.e., the non-motorized trails
perhaps being at the perimeter of the site and then the noisier
activities being towards the center.
And we would clearly -- since one of our team members who wasn't
able to be here today, since he's on vacation with his motorcycle
riding children, is an environmentalist and will -- in fact, we will
conduct sound studies to make sure that anything that is done does not
increase the noise levels that are currently there on the site.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The two last things I want to mention is
-- one is, I'm glad to see -- because this is something I've been
thinking about a little over a year now -- is landfills, all over the
country, when they're closed, are sitting there idle, when there are
residual land plans that can be adopted. Actually, that's usable
space that just sits idle. And this is one of the first attempts I've
seen locally to do that. And hats off to you, because, you know, in
essence, the ratepayers paid for that land. And they're paying for its
maintenance for a ~eriod of time. And to be able to use it is
something that's wise.
My personal feeling about this land was I was working toward a
municipal golf course, getting -- gathering information at this point
to accomplish that in this area. I think it also is something we
think we hear a lot of cry for in the community.
What I'd like to see go forward is -- the trail riders have a
problem here in that it's going to take a fair amount of money to
purchase the acre cost of the land from the solid waste trust fund.
You've got to raise a fair amount of money to do that. However,
there's some golf courses, and one of them is Boca Raton, that
actually turns a profit every year back to the tax base, back to the
taxpayers.
There's an option here, a possibility of combining the two in
some way that the revenues generated from the golf course can go
towards paying for the land for the balance of the park, so to speak.
It's a -- it would have to require some creativity, but I think it
could be done. And provides an option where the two can not only
co-exist, but financially be rewarding for both.
So I would like to see us look at, when we look at the funding
options, look at the mix of seeing if there's enough acreage for the
trail riding and a golf course with -- you know, really, all you need
to do is separate them by a berm. I mean, I've played at municipal
golf courses next to six lanes of traffic, so it's not exactly -- you
know, this is better than that by far.
But I would like to see if we can put the two uses out there and
maybe eliminate some of the -- you know, the peripheral uses. You
know, a paint ball park sounds like a great idea, but it's 40 acres of
land, it's not going to generate any real revenues, and just to pay
for the land itself would be almost impossible. So I'd like to look
at that mix to see if we could accomplish something out there that
hits most of what everyone's looking for.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'd like staff to look at the
different uses. Ironically, paint ball makes a pretty good piece of
change up in Lee County. They have a lease agreement and they take a
percentage of the gentleman's profit, I believe. And you'd be amazed
how much activity they have out there. They do generate some revenue.
Get that aggression out --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'd probably get a weekly one of just the
board out there.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Depends on who the targets are.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now we're talking.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You'd get a lot of spectators to pay
for that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's a fund-raising event right there.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: As long as we're not the targets.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've got to be the target.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'll challenge the editorial board, how's
that?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Now that's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But the golf -- if you go up to
Bonita, they've got a little course at the recreation center and park
there, and you'd get a kick out of this, if you don't play Frisbee
golf. They have -- much like a golf bag, they have different frisbees
for different shots. They'll walk around with 10 frisbees in a bag.
Again, if you shared a clubhouse facility with a municipal golf
course, that type of activity, you could probably generate some pretty
good revenue off that, too.
I'd like to have staff take a look at it, and if it's feasible,
it's something we can explore, but there's only one way for us to find
that out.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris, comment?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, that's fine, if we could take a look at
it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm interested in exploring it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, I think that's --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have a speaker, apparently.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have one speaker.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
petitions?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
and --
Ail right. Do we need speakers on public
No.
I don't think so.
No.
It's a 10-minute shot to present their case
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If that person would like, they can speak
under general topics.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, absolutely.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks for bringing that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think you've heard a pretty favorable
response from the board as far as directing staff to take a further
approach to this, so we'll see what we can come up with next.
Thank you-all for coming in this morning.
Item #8Al
AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR CONSULTANT
SERVICES TO DEVELOP A BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN -
APPROVED AND STAFF DIRECTED TO BRING INFORMATION ON CRA
Next we have a request or a recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners authorize staff to issue an RFP for consultant
services to develop a Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Payment source would be?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The funding source for this is already
budgeted money for neighborhood planning. It's exactly what we
anticipated, I think last year when we budgeted $50,000 for this
purpose and it hasn't been spent yet.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve this
request.
Any further comment? Do we have any public speakers on this
item?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we probably do.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are they wishing to talk us out of this?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we do. Bill Neal.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And as he's coming up --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My support is waning as he's coming
forward.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, let me tell you probably why Bill's
coming. Because Bill's on the committee for the MSTU. And tomorrow
at City Council for the City of Naples they're discussing the
Keewaydin PD, which involves some uses. What they call the alternate
shore station is located on Bayshore Drive. And there's some concern
about whether or not that -- forgive me, Bill, if I'm taking the words
-- why don't you speak for yourself. MR. NEAL: No, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which one of you is registered?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter.
There's some concern about whether or not the uses proposed at
the alternate shore station on Bayshore Drive comply with county
zoning and are a positive or a negative toward the potential
redevelopment of that area.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But that doesn't have anything to do with
the proposal in front of us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can we stick to that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I think they were hoping that there
would be some representation from the county at City Council to talk
about what can be done on that piece of property.
MR. NEAL: I'm Bill Neal, and good morning, commissioners.
Frankly, that was an aside that I might have mentioned. But the
main point that I would like to present to you this morning, if I
could, as you know, you were kind enough to grant the MSTU for the
Bayshore beautification area some months ago, and we certainly
appreciate that. And we were operating a little bit independently at
that time away from the Gateway.
At this point, the Planning Department has encouraged the
Bayshore group to join with the Gateway Triangle and get a joint study
about the overall image and vision we're going to have there.
At the same time that we were petitioning you to give us MSTU, we
were encouraging you to follow up the MSTU with a CR3~. And so what I
would ask you this morning, if you would consider, is encouraging or
directing the staff to also make their study objective towards whether
a CRA is feasible or practical as far as the Bayshore beautification
area's concerned.
So the other thing that Commissioner Mac'Kie was mentioning is an
aside, and I think that we'll probably have to face that issue a
little bit later. But this morning I was just going to try to
encourage you to include the CRA as a part of the study from the
Planning Department. That's basically what I was going to ask. Thank
you very much.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Bill, that's a pretty significant -- it's
not a simple task. We only allocated $50,000. Are we going to
sacrifice part of one to accomplish the other in doing that?
MR. NEAL: Well, you've allocated $50,000, Tim. And please
remember that the Bayshore citizens have contributed or will
contribute nearly $12,000 to this study. And so we're talking about
putting our funds in with your planning study.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just saying that for this one nut,
though, we're not going to have the funds from the Bayshore taxing
district by the completion of this, are we?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I think we probably will have
collected money by then.
But maybe more importantly, as I read the proposal, Barb, there's
already some entry level kinds of information gathering for a CRA in
the proposal that you have in front of us today.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you're comfortable and sacrifice the
main objective, great, let's throw it in there. That was the purpose
of my question. I want to make sure we didn't lose the planning
perspective.
MR. NEAL: Tim, I agree with you. I don't want to lose the main
focus. I just want that as a part -- maybe a paragraph long in the
study or something, the practicality of your consideration for the
CRA.
MS. CACCHIONE: Commissioner Hancock, we would look at that as a
staff level project.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good enough. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So would you include that in your motion,
Mr. Norris, that we have the CRA investigated by staff at the same
time as we're going forward with the --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think the establishment of a CRA is
going to be a separate matter, so why don't I include in the motion
that we direct staff to bring us back information relative to a CRA
establishment at some point in the future?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's second --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you amend your --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- amends.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- second?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, I do.
MR. NEAL: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. We have a motion and a second.
Any further questions?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Any others speakers?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #8A2
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION
TO FACILITATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FINANCING THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF
ENTERPRISE BONDS - APPROVED
Next item is 8(A) (2). Recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners approve an interlocal agreement with the Florida
Development Finance Corporation to facilitate economic development
financing through the issuance of enterprise bonds.
MS. CASELTINE: For the record, my name is Haelene Caseltine,
with housing and urban improvement.
And what you have before you is I guess just another tool we can
use in the economic development field for financing of new ventures,
either new companies or expanding companies. It kind of fills a niche
for those companies that may not be large enough to go through the
normal IDA process. Typically those -- those would need capital
improvement projects of about two and a half to three million dollars.
What this would do is to work with companies that might only need
about $500,000 in capital improvements. It goes from a half a million
to two million dollars. What they will do is pool these projects on a
state level.
They did their first bond issuance last week. They've got
another one coming up in July. It's usually about a six-week
turnaround period for these projects.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand the county's not going to be
responsible for any indebtedness or liabilities created by the bonds?
MS. CASELTINE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
MS. CASELTINE: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
No full faith in credit pledge?
Motion to approve.
No pledge of any kind, actually.
Gee, sounds like a no-brainer.
Motion to approve.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any speakers on this item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No speakers. Okay, we --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- have a motion and a second to approve this
item.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
MS. CASELTINE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much.
Item ~8B1
ACQUISITION OF THE WASTEWATER SERVICE TERRITORY OF ROOKERY BAY
SERVICES, INC. BY THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER/SEWER DISTRICT - APPROVED
WITH AN ADDED RECOMMENDATION
Item 8(B) (1), request to consider acquisition of the
wastewater service territory of Rookery Bay Services, Inc. by the
Collier County Water/Sewer District.
MR. FINN: Good morning, Madam Chairman, board. Edward Finn,
operations director and interim water director for the public works
division.
I'm here to do a brief presentation on -- see if the board will
consider the acquisition of the wastewater service territory of
Rookery Bay Services.
Our objectives here are to review the information provided and
consider the acquisition, and to give direction to board to sched --
to staff to schedule a public hearing, to make findings and approve a
purchase agreement for the utility.
In the early Eighties the board adopted a regional water and
wastewater utility strategy to provide wastewater and water services
to the entire urban area. Acquisition of the franchise area we're
looking at on our screens has been a component of the formal sewer
master plan since 1986.
Over the last 12 years, the water/sewer district has planned,
designed, financed and constructed facilities to serve the area. And
on the map you see on your screens, the facilities that have been
constructed are shown in purple, and these dots represent master pump
stations. The sum cost of those facilities are approximately 3.5
million dollars.
In recent years, Rookery Bay Utilities has had some regulatory
ups and downs. I -- without casting aspersions, their environmental
regulatory compliance has been somewhat suspect right along, which has
led to some of those concerns.
Recently an entity called Rookery Bay Services acquired the
territory of Rookery Bay Utilities. That transfer of the certificated
area was approved by the utility authority and the Board of County
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE:
the public on this item?
MR. FINN: I do not know.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE:
particular item?
Mr. Finn, do we have anyone here from
Is there anybody here on this
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have no speakers.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm assuming all five --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Have we all heard --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- of us have heard the presentation
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- in detail.
It seems like it makes
perfect sense and is the only logical approach -- MR. FINN: Very good.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Mr. Finn.
MR. FINN: If you'd like, I'll tick off the recommendations.
Recommendations: Direct staff to pursue the acquisition of the
service territory; direct staff to schedule a public hearing to review
and approve formal findings of fact regarding the public benefit of
acquisition, and at the same time approve a proposed purchase
agreement and a proposed resolution of findings of facts.
And I'm going to add on one at this point to authorize staff
effort to perform video and other inspection services of the
facilities down there to give us a little clearer picture of the
facilities we're going to be acquiring.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I move staff's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one -- just one question just for
public clarification. There's no extension of water and sewer here
outside the urban boundary. There is one -- the Six L's Farm I think
is where there's currently service provided, but we're not proposing
any extension, merely to continue to provide that service.
MR. FINN: Yes, ma'am, and I'm pointing to that right now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to be clear about that.
MR. FINN: That area is presently served with water service. The
connection point is inside the water/sewer district. The water/sewer
district boundaries are indicated by the yellow or gold overlay over
this entire area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further questions? We have a motion and
a second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-zero.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Five-zero.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Five-zero.
Item #8B2
AGREEMENTS FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY CONTRACTING SERVICES ON AN AS NEEDED
BASIS (RFP-98-2783) - AWARDED TO MITCHELL & STARK CONSTRUCTION CO.,
INC.; DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS, INC.; AND KYLE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Next item, 8(B) (2), approval to award agreements for
underground utility contracting services on an as-needed basis. That's
RFP 98-2783.
MR. CARNELL: Good morning, Madam Chairman, members of the board.
Steve Carnell, purchasing/general services director.
The item before you, as Commissioner Berry has read to you, is an
award of an underground utilities contract. This is an annual
agreement in which we have preselected and recommended the
preselection of four firms who will enter into an umbrella contract
for a period of at least one year.
And as jobs arise in the underground utility realm, and these
would be jobs of $200,000 or less, we will take bids from these four
firms who have been preselected and who we're already under contract
with.
Jobs over $200,000 would go through the regular formal bid
process and be open to the entire bidding community.
Just a couple of the things that I need to advise the board of
this morning. The recommendation from the staff is the product of a
protest decision issued by my office. Originally the staff
recommendation from the selection committee was to select three firms
for this process. And one of the firms that was not recommended for
selection but had tendered a proposal filed a protest and raised three
basic issues; one of which had to do with the scoring of the selection
committee versus the RFP. Another issue had involved some information
provided by one of the competing proposers, one of the ones that had
been recommended for selection, which they contend it was not
accurate.
And in reviewing the protest submitted by the protester, my
office ultimately determined that there were some valid issues raised
by the protester.
And with regard to the selection process, we asked the selection
committee to go back and rescore the proposals, or particularly two of
the five members who had not -- as I found out, had not followed the
instructions of the RFP precisely.
So those people were asked -- those members were asked to rescore
the proposals, which they did. That did not have a significant effect
on the rankings, other than the fact that the protester, who was in
sort of a three-way tie for fifth place became a clear number four
when we did the rescoring. Now, we still have the same three who were
first.
However, in discussing this with Mr. Ilschner and Mr. Clemons in
the public works division, I think the three of us agreed that the
county would benefit by having four contractors rather than three
competing in the process each time we took bids, and for that reason,
we -- as a protest decision, we decided to deal with this issue by
extending the field of bidders who were under contract from three to
four.
Now, we issued that decision, and I received an objection from
the legal counsel on behalf of the protester who was not prepared to
accept that decision at the time I issued it.
However, we got a -- we had a meeting yesterday at the
protester's request; he called and wanted to talk to me and to legal
counsel from the attorney's office, and at that time after discussing
some of the issues in more detail, the protester notified us this
morning that he was withdrawing his objection to the staff
recommendation, with the assurance that each and every job would be
bid among all four of the contractors, which it says that in the RFP.
So we intend to follow the provisions of the RFP. And the only
exception to that would be emergency situations with public health,
safety type of issues where we had to get somebody on site
immediately.
Now, having said that, we don't have an issue with the protester
this morning, but there is one other item I need to advise the board
of, and it actually goes back to the protest -- it's a continuation of
it, though -- and it's an issue that sits with concern with the staff,
and me in particular, and that goes to the firm who -- one of the
firms that had been recommended for award, Kamphius Construction, one
of the issues raised by Kyle, who was the protester, was that Kamphius
had incorrectly made a statement in their RFP.
One of the questions we ask in the proposal process is are you
involved in any pending litigation in which you are seeking action as
a plaintiff or a defendant? And Kamphius had said no. And in the
protest, Kyle had brought forth evidence that Kamphius was involved in
litigation, and so we asked Kamphius formally about that. And in
essence, to paraphrase the response, we got a detailed explanation of
the cases and basically a mea culpa, we should have told you and we
didn't. Now, the staff --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why?
MR. CARNELL: -- was prepared -- well, they said they just failed
to do it. I think the best explanation, Commissioner, for that is
that the -- the litigation was occurring out of state. It was the
business -- this enterprise is headquartered in Michigan, and Michigan
is where these cases had arisen. The person who prepared the proposal
is from Naples and operates the Naples office and did not -- claimed
to not know that that had happened.
We didn't necessarily think that was a totally clean explanation
in the sense that they either should have known or had should have
some way of knowing what was happening in the corporate office.
But nonetheless, we recommended initially in the protest decision
that Kamphius remain in the process, because we feel that the public
and the staff is better served again to have four competent
contractors rather than three in this process.
Now, it's come to our attention in the last 24 hours that there
were two other -- three other cases that Kamphius has had that were
not disclosed to us by Kamphius in the RFP or in their second
submittal. And frankly, that's a point of real frustration to us.
And what we'd like to do --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's more than frustration, Mr.
Carnell.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sounds more like --
MR. CARNELL: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's more than frustration. I
think it's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Appropriate distrust?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have other issues with them. They list
no work, no past experience in renovations or retrofits, no local
references, yet they scored well in experience. I have a problem with
the scoring system. I can't believe that with them listing none of
that they scored well in previous performance on similar jobs. That
just completely befuddles me.
MR. CARNELL: But let me explain that. That's an important
point.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It may be irrelevant, because it sounds
like what you're saying, I don't think we should have an interest in
keeping somebody on a list that has misled us on an RFP on three
separate court cases that they oops, didn't recall?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Darn, that one, too.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I haven't any reason to keep them on that
list is my personal feeling.
MR. CARNELL: If I could make one more statement before the board
considers this, and that is the -- we were going to ask the board to
consider action again Kamphius, but rather than outright rejecting
them, what we were going to propose that the board do is suspend
Kamphius for the first two jobs. We were anticipating about five to
10 jobs being solicited in the first year of the contract.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why would we want to do that?
MR. CARNELL: Because if you suspend them, they will suffer the
consequence of not being able to bid on those jobs, so there will be a
real punishment for them for failing to disclose this information.
But we believe that we will benefit by having them in the process in
the long term. Because Kamphius as an entity is new to this area.
The people who work for Kamphius are not new to this entity or this
area, and they have quite a bit of experience working for Collier
County with other firms. And we believe they are a good contractor,
and we believe that they will keep the competitive process more honest
and competitive if we have four rather than three. I mean, that's our
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
MR. CARNELL: -- recommendation, but we'll defer to the board at
this point.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess it's a little ironic to me
that we think four is going to be more competitive than three, since
the RFP really asks for three to begin with.
MR. CARNELL: Well, it's a minimum of three.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- I don't agree with you at all,
Larry, and I appreciate what you're trying to do and where we're
trying to go with the competitive nature. But either we were
purposely misled or there was some incompetence there, and neither one
is the kind of situation that I want to be dealing with, so I've got
to disagree with you. And I think the appropriate response isn't just
to penalize them for a couple of bids, but not to include them in the
process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree with that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris, thoughts?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The -- Mr. Weigel, the board has latitude
to select any of these firms we want to, is that correct, and delete
any that we want?
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. Obviously, it's to the board's
favor if they have reasons or findings in that regard. And I think
you have had a --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: -- criteria and establishment before you this
morning upon which to make a determination.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, we can certainly establish a
criterion here.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think there are certainly --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No lying on the application.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- compelling reasons here to not include
this one particular firm. I don't like the idea that someone, an
out-of-state firm, comes down here and has had difficulty perhaps in
other areas and then comes into Florida and decides that they're going
to conduct business down here and not tell us of previous problems. I
don't think that that's fair to us and I don't think that speaks very
well for that particular company.
All due respect to the individuals who may be Florida based and
have a good reputation, I'm sorry about that, but I have to agree with
Commissioner Constantine that I'm not sure that I want Collier County
to do business with these people. At least for this year or whatever
time we go on for the next cycle in this. But I'm interested in this
particular company.
Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair -- I'm sorry, are there
speakers on this item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers -- I'm sorry, we have one, but I
understand he's left the room. Let me just make sure that that's the
case.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. DeJonge? Russell DeJonge?
He has left.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to make a motion that we approve
staff's recommendation with the removal of Kamphius, is that correct,
for the statement -- for the reasons stated here.
In addition, I'd like to get a written response, Mr. Carnell, on
why Kamphius scored so well in previous performance, yet cited no
experience. I'd like to get a written response on that. That just is
beyond me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is troubling about the process. And the
process is so critical. I mean, we rely on it so --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the answer is going to be
something to the effect of the people for Kamphius have experience --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but the company doesn't. But -- and
that may be the case. But we're not hiring just the people, we're
hiring both the people and the company. We don't know whether the
people locally will be there next week or not. So, you know, I'd like
a written response on that, because I'm just a little confused by
that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second to
include Mitchell and Stark Construction Company, Inc., Douglas N.
Higgins, Inc. and Kyle Construction, Inc. Is that everyone's
understanding?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yep.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #8B3
ALTERNATE ROAD IMPACT FEE COMPUTATION FOR THE MARCO ISLAND WINN DIXIE
SUPERMARKET - STAFF TO RECALCULATE COMPUTATION WITH INTERSTATE MILEAGE
REDUCTION REMOVED WHICH WOULD BE ESTIMATED AT APPROXIMATELY $64,000;
STAFF TO RELOOK AT SAID ORDINANCE COMPUTATIONS
The next item is item 16(B) (8), which was pulled from the
consent agenda and moved to this part of the agenda on alternate road
impact fees for the Winn Dixie located on Marco Island. Mr. Kant?
MR. KANT: Good morning, commissioners, Edward Kant,
transportation services director.
This is an item that is dealt with in the road impact fee
ordinance, ordinance 92-22 as amended, which provides for an alternate
road impact fee computation for a use wherein the owner believes that
he or it is providing less of an impact than that which is set forth
in the ordinance.
If I may just give me -- let me give you a brief history of this
particular incident. Sometime in late 1996, when the Winn Dixie under
site development plan 96-70 picked up their building permit, they paid
a road impact fee of about $85,000, $84,942. That was based on a rate
of a retail store for 48,400 square feet.
Subsequent to that, and as a consequence of the clerk's audit
process, it was found that that should have been charged as a
supermarket, which is another category within the ordinance, and that
would have been a $136,730 fee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, it was charged as what instead
of -- MR. KANT: It was charged as retail, ma'am, instead of as a
freestanding supermarket.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. KANT: Upon -- immediately upon discovering that error on
November 6th of 1997, Mr. Cook, Tom Cook, who was the engineering
review services manager, wrote to the Winn Dixie folks and notified
them of the error and requested that they pay the additional fee of
51,788, or if they wished at that time, they could provide an
alternative road impact fee.
There is then some correspondence between Winn Dixie, their
engineer, Wilson-Miller, the transportation services department, and
finally, on (sic) February of '97, we agreed on the various protocols
necessary for them to provide data for an alternative road impact fee.
They conducted their trip counts and did their origin destination
survey during the peak season of 1997. They did their analysis and
for whatever reason did not submit their calculations until earlier
this year. We reviewed the calculations and agreed on a final fee
based on the data they submitted of $88,916, which would indicate that
they would still owe approximately 4,000 -- $3,974 and change, almost
$4,000.
Based on that, staff is asking that if the board approves this
alternate fee, that they would then pay the additional 3,974.16.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE:
MR. KANT: I'm sorry, sir,
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE:
are figured flawed?
MR. KANT: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE:
Are our formulas flawed?
I couldn't hear you.
Are our formulas for how impact fees
It just seems like a huge
differential. And I understand if there's an alternative and it's 10
percent or 12 percent difference, but this -- maybe you can help me
understand how the formula we regularly use comes up with a number
that's 38 percent higher.
MR. KANT: In this particular case, it's not a matter of the
formula being flawed or different or having a great deal of latitude.
In this particular case, when they applied for their building permit,
as I understand it, since I'm not in the development services
division. But as I understand the process, the determination was made
on a particular category, as I mentioned earlier, the retail category.
There is in that rate table a supermarket category. Had they been
charged under that category, they would have been charged the roughly
$136,000 fee.
So the difference was not because of a flawed formula, the
difference was because of the fact that they were erroneously charged
in the wrong category. When that was caught, they were asked to pay
the difference.
In subsequent conversations with both the Winn Dixie
representatives and their engineer, their immediate reaction to me, at
least, was well, if we'd have been caught -- if we'd have been charged
136 up front, we would have still asked for the alternative, because
we believe that the Marco Island Winn Dixie has some certain unique
characteristics. For example, it's on an island. The trip --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And before you go on, let me clarify
my question, which is still the same. I understand that we charged
for the wrong use -- MR. KANT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to start with. However, what I
think I've heard you say twice now is that we asked to correct that
error by getting the full amount for supermarket, they came back with
an alternative. That alternative was, I think it says, 38 percent
lower. And that goes right back to my first question. So the
difference still ms in them doing their alternative figures versus
what would be standard figures of 130 something thousand. Instead of
paying 51,000 extra, they're paying 3,900 extra. And I'm wondering
how our formula and the alternative formula can be so dramatically
different.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I
MR. KANT: That's based, if I can -- if I may answer that
question, sir. That's based on the three parameters that feed into
the formula that have some variation for an individual use. Those
parameters were the trip rate, the trip length and the percentage of
new trips generated.
In this particular case, they found that their trip rate was
about 106 trips per 1,000 square feet, as opposed to 125, which is,
quote, the standard, if you will, or the number that is the average
that we use in our ordinance. The trip length was somewhat shorter.
I believe it was 1.4 miles as opposed to 2.1 miles, again, based on
their origin destination study, which came up with that particular
number which is unique to this supermarket location. It would be
different in a different location.
Also, the percentage of new trips is based on how many new trips
would be generated at that location. In the -- in our ordinance,
again, as an average, we're using 38 percent for supermarkets. Based
on the data presented, their data showed 45 percent. So theirs was a
little higher in that case.
When those numbers are plugged into the worksheet, as any of the
numbers in our existing ordinance, we used the same exact worksheet,
that number of 89,000, roughly, is what falls out at the bottom. If
we use the standard or average rates that are in the ordinance, then
the 136 falls out of the bottom.
As I said, if I took a different freestanding supermarket in a
different location, I would submit to you we would come up with yet
another number.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you took a different engineering
firm and we paid them, would we come up with -- using this same Winn
Dixie -- come up with possibly a different number? MR. KANT: I would certainly hope not, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The question that I had, a few weeks
ago we had one of these where someone had brought in an alternative,
and the concern I had is obviously if I am a consumer and I come in, I
want to get it as low as I possibly can. If I hire an engineering
firm, that engineering firm probably wants to make their customers
happy as they can, and they're going to be straightforward and do what
they need to do, but if there's any leeway one way or the other, it's
going to lean toward the customer.
And I asked at that time if we just take those numbers straight
or if we do any review on our own. And I think all we've done, and it
appears all we've done here is take the numbers provided by
Wilson-Miller.
MR. KANT: Well, that's not true, sir, if I may. When
Wilson-Miller -- since we're using names, when Wilson-Miller first
provided their analysis, they had come up with a $75,000 fee, which
would have showed that we owed them a refund. That was based on their
interpretation of those parameters.
I took their data and I examined every one of their trips, and I
examined all of the data that they provided to us, and I personally
came up with the $89,000 showing the additional 4,000. That's why I
would submit to you that if that data were provided to any other
engineer and he did the same analysis, he would come up with the same
number I did. I would hope we would.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's what I'm looking for is
obviously we want to treat anyone who comes in fair, and that's why we
have the option for an alternative, but one of the prior occasions we
hadn't done that, and so I appreciate you taking the time to go
through and plug numbers in --
MR. KANT: In my lifetime, I've become more cynical about some of
the data presented.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A couple questions that Commissioner
Constantine -- I appreciate he answered -- asked and you answered most
of mine.
I'm confused about the human error element at this -- at the very
beginning. Was the applicant Winn Dixie or was the applicant
something that one might could reasonably have thought was a retail
center instead of a supermarket?
MR. CAUTERO: The appli -- Vince Cautero, for the record.
The applicant was Winn Dixie. However, what usually happens, and
Mr. Kant will correct me if I'm wrong, hopefully the -- and I would
have choosed (sic) some different words, perhaps, with all due respect
to Mr. Kant's excellent presentation. Shopping center supermarkets are
assessed the retail rate. MR. KANT: Yeah.
MR. CAUTERO: So retail store, I don't -- I would have used a
little bit different twist. I would have said the error was made
because the staff member assessed the fee at the rate for a shopping
center -- a rate for a supermarket in a shopping center when it's a
freestanding building.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, that's a lot more understandable.
MR. KANT: I might point out, this is probably the only
freestanding supermarket in all of Collier County.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a whole lot more understandable to
me. I appreciate that, Mr. Cautero, because it --
MR. KANT: And I apologize for not making that clearer.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, that's a whole lot more
understandable that mistake could be made.
And then I guess the question about the time of whether or not
they're entitled to an alternate impact fee consideration is sort of
moot, since we made the mistake and reopened the timing period.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Somebody confirm that. Everybody nodded.
MR. KANT: In the letter that Mr. Cook wrote to them, as I say --
I'm just reading from the letters -- is you have the option of paying
the balance or submitting the alternative fee. The alternative would
require approval by the Board of County Commissioners, and that's why
we're here today.
MR. CAUTERO: The reason that was done, commissioners, the
ordinance does state that a developer can pay under protest and
commence with building permit fee application -- building permit
application and then commence construction, or satisfy all the
requirements prior to the building permit being pulled. MR. KANT: That's correct.
MR. CAUTERO: However, in this case, based on what Mr. Kant said
earlier, this developer believed that they should have paid a lower
fee. And the statement that was made to the staff was well, we would
have challenged it anyway. Even if you didn't make the error, we felt
that they were going to have their day in court, so to speak, with you
anyway, so we allowed them a little bit of latitude. And Mr. Kant
took in the alternative calculation analysis.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But that's a critical point. I mean, Mr.
Weigel maybe can give us a little help on this.
If the deadline is -- to apply for an alternative impact fees
rate is at the time you pull a building permit, did these people do it
or did they not do it is a very pertinent question.
MR. WEIGEL: I agree, that's a pertinent question, but I think
part of the answer is, had they known that they were to have requested
or demanded of them a fee that was significantly higher, they would
have arguably exercised an option to at least consider and respond
with an alternative impact fee response.
As it turned out, since the fee that was requested by the county
was significantly lower, call it a palatable fee, they did not opt to
kick into that extra effort and expense to attempt to contest the fee
at that time.
Upon them being informed of a mistake and therefore a higher fee
applying by the appropriate application of the ordinance and the
criteria, it's my understanding at this point that they, in a
relatively timely manner, expressed their desire to administratively
contest that fee by means of submitting an alternative impact fee
report.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That seems to be an exception to the
language of the ordinance though, so where you can say arguably they
would have, but there's no proof that they would have -- MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- submitted at that point had they known
the disparity and the back fees that they were going to be charged. I
mean, that's speculation, but the language of the ordinance provides
that they have to do that before they pull a building permit; is that
not correct?
MR. WEIGEL: That is the language of the ordinance, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But commissioners, as much as I'd like
them pay the full freight, you know, I don't think it's fair. And I'm
willing -- for my vote, anyway, reluctantly willing to look at the
alternate calculation. And I -- and others may join with you, but I
have some questions about the methodology of the alternate
calculation, if I could ask Mr. Kant.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I think ultimately the object of
the game is to collect a fair assessment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A fair fee.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if Mr. Kant convinces me this is
fair, then I'm okay with that.
I understand you want to make sure the process is done
appropriately --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- not only for this case, so -- but
so that every case is done appropriately. But I think we need -- this
is a tight rope we need to walk through.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question about the -- I'm sorry, did
you want to comment on the process, Mr. Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's up to the Chair.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I was still --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead and finish.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
The difference is here that the -- it seems to me the most
significant one is that the trip rate is 125 and a half per 1,000
square feet versus 106.10 per 1,000 square feet. Translate that for
me in English. That means how many people are going to be going to
this grocery store?
MR. KANT: Well, it's -- there's 48,000 and change, so if we look
at that, that's somewhere in the neighborhood of 4,800 to 5,000 trips
a day.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, tell me the difference between -- what
does the trip rate tell me about the volume of traffic generated by
this grocery store? Trip rate.
MR. KANT: The way it's measured, that tells you how many trips
or cars, vehicles, if you will, comes through the driveways. And in
this case, it's related to the number of square feet. We could do it
on a number of different parameters, but the square footage is the
most common parameter.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me just stick on my point here to try
to get -- so the point that they're making in their alternative
calculation proposal is that for some reason this Winn Dixie is going
to have 20 fewer trips per 1,000 square feet than a typical Winn
Dixie?
MR. KANT:
measured.
No, ma'am. Than other supermarkets that were
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. KANT: They don't --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Than average.
MR. KANT: -- have to be Winn Dixie's, they don't have to be this
size. The --COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, I get the point. I just don't want
you to go on too much, Mr. Kant, without me being able to -- I
understand. What I should have said was than an average instead of a
typical Winn Dixie.
MR. KANT: That would be correct, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why would that be, that there are 20 fewer
trips?
MR. KANT: Because that 125, if you will, is just what it is.
It's an average. The range is much greater. The range drops from
below 100 to over 150.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question is what distinguishes this
project from the average? And maybe that's a question for the
proponents of the alternate calculation. What distinguishes this from
the typical?
MR. KANT: For one thing, the typical, as I said, is based on
many hundreds of measurements that are taken, and so it's difficult to
find out just exactly where one would depart from the average. If Mr.
Trebilcock, who's coming to the other microphone, wishes to discuss
the specifics of this one. As I said, I found that the idea that it's
on Marco Island, it has a relatively limited market area, may have
something to do with it. Unfortunately, I'm not a marketing expert, so
I don't really want to address that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I may be able to offer some
clarification --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- there, Commissioner Mac'Kie.
Mr. Kant, one of those elements is trip length. The --
MR. KANT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- average trip length is higher than
actually could be achieved on Marco Island, due to the fact that it's
an island.
MR. KANT: That's correct, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So where if the average trip length is 2.8
miles, if the furthest point from this Winn Dixie on Marco Island is
two miles or 1.9 miles, then that's one of the factors that causes
this to be different. Whereas, if you plop this Winn Dixie down in
the middle of Naples, people from 2.8 miles all the way around could
access it.
MR. KANT: There might be a larger population base and,
therefore, a larger number of trips per thousand feet. There are a
number of factors that enter into it, and unfortunately it's sometimes
difficult to be concise in discussing engineering specifics.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's one factor. And as we look at
these, many times these are numerically based, but there's another
consideration here that I think our transportation staff almost has to
render an opinion on, but I don't know has occurred yet, and that is
that Marco Island has -- what, John, 40 percent of the lots are still
vacant?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Forty-five.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Forty-five percent of the lots are still
vacant.
If you look at their growth management plan, how many remaining
unbuilt large commercial centers exist? Zero. None. How many more
50,000 square foot shopping centers or groceries stores could be built
on Marco without changing their growth management plan? None.
So my concern is that, although, the current conditions on Marco
Island, both number of vehicles, you know, per lane, maximum
capacities, trip length and so forth, all present a certain number.
My question is, how does the long-term land use plan on Marco
Island help or hurt this calculation? Because from a layman's
perspective, when I look at it, if no more grocery stores can be built
on that island, those 45 percent lots and those condominium units and
whatnot that are yet to be built have two choices, a Publix and a Winn
Dixie, or whatever they may be, and will be offered no more.
So those numbers are going to change dramatically in the future
as we look at number of vehicles per day, using those two stores. And
since our road impact fees are not based just on today but the future
needs of the community, that's a non-quantitative factor, but one I
think in land use terms we have to recognize in some way.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've got to say, again, I find myself
thinking this often and saying to you privately, Commissioner, that
it's wonderful that we have an AICP planner on the board who can give
us these insights, and I very much appreciate that.
I am troubled, however, that we don't kind of get that kind of
input from our staff. I don't know why I wouldn't have gotten that
from our staff. That makes perfect sense to me.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
Our ordinance --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
Mr. Kant's limited --
Not his department.
He's limited to the numbers.
I understand that.
Our ordinance only recognizes the numbers.
Well, we need more information.
-- doesn't say use your best discretion in
determining what the plan and long-term impacts of -- you know, I
mean, that's not in there. And so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we need that information.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree, but I want to put that on the
table, because I think it is for Marco Island a consideration, because
it is an island, because they do have a land use plan, and because
they can't build any more shopping centers, you know, near the island.
It's several miles up the way before the next one can occur. So I
think long-term for Marco Island that's a consideration. It's
something I'm sure can be addressed, but I'd like to hear it.
MR. TREBILCOCK: For the record, my name is Norman Trebilcock,
I'm a transportation engineer with Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek.
And to address some of the various issues that have come up in
the trip generation analysis we conducted, the variables, the three
variables, you've hit them right on the head as a trip generation, the
trip length and the percent new trips.
First with trip generation. That's a good point about the Marco
Island build now. One of the conservative elements we put in our
study is we only did one count and we did it in the peak season during
the peak week. Normally for trip generation for a site of this for
impact fees, it should be done throughout the year so you get an
averaging.
So I submit to you that our trip generation rate well represents
what will happen in the future, because we're using the peak season
and not averaging over the course of a year.
Also, in terms of the flaw, there isn't a flaw in the county's
formulas. What it is is ITE has a series of numbers and we use the
trip generation manual. This is our Bible right here for
transportation engineers. And one of the key elements -- and this is
the most up-to-date one. The one when this study was actually done,
they used an average rate of 125. The most current average rate is
111, is the average trip rate. And they also show in the sample
sides, it's clear in the graphic that cautions you, it says use
carefully small sample size. So what that does, it adds credence to
doing individual studies for that very reason. And that's what was
done and that's why we had worked out that trip rate with county staff
for that reason.
The other area is in the trip length itself. The compactness of
the island really lends to this. I have a graphic that shows the
differences of 2.1 and the 1.4 miles, and it shows very really clearly
that 2.1, you get a lot of blue water when you evaluate that in terms
of your trip length.
And the percent of new trips, that was a factor that was added on
by county staff's review. Our fee, based on the revised trip
generation and trip length, based on the origin destination study --
and when we did conduct this study, we included every single
interview. We had trip lengths 23 miles. People don't go typically
23 miles to the grocery store, but we did not throw out a single
interview in our evaluation. That's a conservative result.
We also used some roads that aren't CIE roadways, such as
Winterberry and Barfield. We're very conservative in our trip
assignment and assessment and our study to be fair for both parties.
And in the end we came up with a trip fee of 74 -- $75,000. Mr.
Kant had reviewed the percent new trips and felt that it should be
higher, and that's how he calculated the $88,000. And we submitted to
that and agreed that that would be a fair impact fee calculation for
the project.
In addition, the Winn Dixie -- on top of these things, they have
done some off-site improvements that they haven't received impact fee
credits for, such as intersection improvements at Elkcam and 951, and
also planning to construct a signal, a master arm signal system, and
this is at a cost of nearly $170,000 that they are not going to be
reimbursed for.
Yes, as a business they do benefit from these improvements, sure,
but so do others. As you look on Marco Island, there's a lot of other
residences and commercial developments in the area that will benefit
from these improvements and they are not receiving one impact fee
credit from this. The county staff has cited as a site specific. So
there's been a fair amount of evaluation. So when we really look at
the fairness, Winn Dixie is not trying to get one over or hoodwink
anyone. They are paying their fair share when you look at all the
costs that are being assessed, the amount of effort that has been put
in this impact fee analysis, too.
And that's (sic) really concludes my remarks. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I was hoping that you could respond
more thoroughly, I guess, to the points that Commissioner Hancock
raised.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I heard -- the math is the math, I
understand that.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. The -- again, our -- the calculations fall
right within the range for the ITE generation. Also, the fact that we
did conduct a single test, and it was during the peak season --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But there's still that 45 percent out
there.
MR. TREBILCOCK: The 45 per --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Forty-five percent. Isn't that the number
you used --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's single-family lots.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- of single-family lots that are unbuilt?
And no other potential shopping centers. So how do you factor in for
the future? There's not going to be any more grocery stores, we've
got 45 percent more people to come.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: According to our planning staff, there are
two additional sites on the island that could be but in all
probability won't be.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I just ran some numbers, assuming only
one of those two sites were ever used for a supermarket. Assuming a
30,000 build-out population, which is equivalent to maximum of 20,000
units, based on the average population on Marco. You have a lower
than -- you know, you usually have two or less. There's a lot of
families on Marco, but the average is a little bit lower. So assuming
20,000 units there, and averaging a trip per unit per week, we're
still to below 1,000 a day at build-out, which in my quick math kind
of validates the existing trip generation rate that Mr. Trebilcock has
presented to us.
If there were no more sites on the island, then potential, then I
think that could be a consideration. Although, as I understand, the
ordinance requires us to stick to certain elements in making this
decision. And I think -- as I discussed it with our staff, I think we
may be kind of shoe-horning an element in by using future land use on
the island that may not be as reliable.
That's not where I wanted to go with this, but as I've worked
through the exercise, I think we've got to consider the numbers needed
to clear the numbers that are presented valid as of today, or we are
running the risk of losing a challenge.
And Mr. Weigel, I have to ask you if that assumption, although I
hate to use the word conservative, but if that's a fair assumption on
my part.
MR. WEIGEL: I think it's an accurate assumption on your part.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think what it does, two things. One, it
kind of puts us in a spot on this calculation that may not be where we
particularly want to go, but I think it maybe shows us something on
the ordinance that we need to address in the area of potential
contributing land uses within a certain radius, based on the use, that
allow us to determine what the long-term impacts are, because that's
not something our staff has been given in that ordinance as a tool
they can use or not use in these calculations, and one that in this
calculation probably would have some bearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It makes me see -- and I apologize,
because I didn't mean to suggest that you should have given us that
information, Mr. Kant. I know that's not your job.
I do, though, want to make a point that as we get more of these,
and apparently we're going to get more of these alternate impact fee
calculations, they need to be reviewed, Mr. Fernandez, also by the
planning staff for these kinds of considerations as well. And if the
math all comes out with all considerations that your numbers are
right, then we'll be the only one that sees a fair thing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me give an example of where it may
help our staff in the future do something like that. Let's assume
there's a large rural area with a significant population and only one
service center. And if they put one supermarket in the middle of, you
know, thousands of acres of a rural area, that's going to be a focal
point for all those people to go to. They may have a greater roadway
impact --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- there than they would otherwise. But we
are not at this point allowed by our ordinance to factor those land
use decisions in to that degree.
And so I think maybe we've realized a potential weakness here
that could have been brought to bear here, but I don't know that Mr.
Weigel would be comfortable with us bringing it to bear today in that
form, particularly when I ran the numbers and it comes up almost the
same.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's fine if we don't use that land
use criterion. That's one criterion. But there's several others.
We've spent a lot of money developing criteria that justify our impact
fee rates, and I think they're valid.
I don't necessarily agree with the -- the information that's been
presented today by the petitioner. I think our original impact fee
study data is more valid. And on that basis, I'm going to make a
motion that we deny this alternate fee impact -- impact fee.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, may I ask a question of the
petitioner?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Trebilcock, you noted 1.9 as your
total trip length. How did you arrive at that? MR. TREBILCOCK: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Your total trip length in your compute
credit. You know, this is page three of our agenda. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You noted 1.9 as your trip length.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. What --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How did you arrive at that?
MR. TREBILCOCK: What that includes is when folks leave the CIE
network, the additional travel, it's, you know, half a mile beyond the
network roadway. It's the total trips, because that's how gas taxes
are computed is based on your total trip length. And that's not a
capacity.
MR. KANT: That's the factor that's in the ordinance, sir, that
it's based on -- that the ordinance has been based on.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Assessable trip length, then, at
1.4, is that also an ordinance number -- MR. KANT: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- or that's the variable number?
MR. KANT: That's the variable, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Assessable trip length of 1.4, is
that the furthest point from this Winn Dixie on Marco Island? MR. TREBILCOCK: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Under compute lane miles consumed per day,
you have assessable trip length at 1.47
MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. That was for the average of the study.
Again, our high number was 23 miles, our low number being practically
zero, because the folks will walk to the store that live right near
the store.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How did you obtain an average? Was it a
customer survey?
MR. TREBILCOCK: What we did is we conducted an all-day origin
destination study and interviewed customers that are coming in and out
of the store, asked them where they began, where they stopped. And
during that time frame, we captured six percent of the folks coming in
and out of the store.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Something that's interesting to me is if
they hadn't -- if they'd done it at the time of building permit, you
couldn't have conducted that study, because you wouldn't have had
customers, you would have been building. MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How would somebody establish that if the
building weren't in place? What --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me say that the other thing that the
petitioner is trying to do here is to try to justify a specific with
averages. I mean, you've got to be consistent. You can't do that.
I'm not going to let you do that. You know, I'm not going to be
swayed by averages when what you're trying to do is justify a specific
amount of data.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, one thing is on -- maybe the first issue
regarding the -- when we conducted the interviews, what is typical
when you do pay under protest, what's agreed to is you pay under
protest, you build your project, and then you conduct your site
specific analysis. So that's what would have been conducted and that
is a normal process. Or you go select -- staff and the interviewee
agree on an appropriate site that has similar characteristics and
conduct a study there. So that I think would address that one.
The site specifics, again, we did go through a process on a grand
origin destination study, and it's in conformance with the ITE
standards. And again, I submit to you that the ITE, they caution you
specifically in this land use, the most current one, that they have a
very small sample size. So in fact using this specific location is
better information than what they provide. It's a strict cautionary
statement in the manual.
So I'd submit to you that as good as our impact fee ordinance is
-- and I believe it's an excellent one, I've lived under it for six
years here -- there are cases that specifically warrant this, and
that's why it was put in the ordinance to begin with to allow this to
happen. We have over 19,000 permits per year. We don't have a whole
lot of challenges to our impact fees during that course of a year.
That's what happened in 1997.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Another question, if I may.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because Commissioner Norris, I understand
your motion, but I'm trying to see if I can get there.
Under compute lane miles consumed per day you have a factor, a
reduction factor, for interstate mileage? If your assessable trip
length averages 1.4 miles and the nearest interstate is 20 miles away,
doesn't seem right we can give you both. I mean, if your average is
1.4 and we're going to base our numbers on an average, to then get a
reduction on interstate mileage to me isn't logical.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, in the origin destination study, again, we
did use all the samples, and we had folks that came 23 miles, 23 miles
to the Winn Dixie. And because we used the complete sampling that is
possible, that four percent reduction made sense in that regard.
MR. KANT: If I may, commissioners, to help elaborate on that,
when the original road impact fee study was performed by Tindale,
Oliver and Associates, one of the issues that came up was the fact
that the interstate does transect Collier County. And because of the
-- that factor only appears in the gas tax credit portion of the
computation -- no, I'm sorry, in the lane miles consumed portion of
the computation.
And I don't remember the exact language within that study, but
all of the uses were factored by that four percent to account for
interstate mileage as opposed to local and local arterial mileage.
If you wish, we'll be happy to research that and provide that
information at a future point. But that would -- that is to provide
consistency with all of the other computations that we've done. They
back out the interstate mileage within the county. And I don't -- I
know that's in the ordinance, I just don't remember the language
justifying that off the top of my head.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess my feeling is that -- and
Commissioner Norris, you hit on the point about, you know, justifying
the entirety by an average. And you worded it more specifically than
that. But if the picture we're presenting is that this store serves
only Marco Island, for there to be any factor in here that reduces the
impact fees any way, shape or form that is relevant to the interstate,
to me they need to be removed. Because it defies the argument being
made by the consultant. And just as I did, if you remove the
interstate mileage reduction in the lane miles consumed per day, it's
a difference of an additional $7,000 in impact fees.
Now, I understand what you're saying, Mr. Kant, that it's
throughout the numbers, and I may be missing it elsewhere, but my
guess is a reduction four times is -- provides something more than a
reduction being removed once. So I guess what I'm saying is that
there's -- there seems to be something in the computation or argument
that I don't understand the logic for, and the only way I could be
comfortable is if we remove the interstate mileage reduction, and that
would increase the impact fees is how I look at it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps I'm not understanding the
interstate mileage reduction, but if that is in any way taking a
suggestion that someone's going to get off 1-75, drive south on 951 to
Marco Island to utilize the grocery store, I don't understand why we'd
possibly give that credit.
MR. TREBILCOCK: I don't totally disagree with you. However, in
this study that we did, because we did use -- there were some folks
that came 23 miles, and that --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sure there may have been --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but I -- they may have been
Everglades City, they may have been Copeland, they may have been
Goodland --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but to suggest that someone would
ignore -- you'd have to go by Publix on 951. Even closer is a Publix
and Winn Dixie about two miles in Davis (sic), and so I --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Were you there for grand opening day or
something?
MR. TREBILCOCK: No.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- it defies logic.
MR. TREBILCOCK: A part of it -- well, delivery support services,
which would use the interstate, and that's a part of your trip
generation from the site. I think that's a valid amount of traffic
for the site, and that's included in there. So I would submit to you
that it is valid, because we weighed everything as we did it. I feel
that we really were conservative in our overall assessment by not
throwing numbers out that really --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many vehicles a week come to the
store?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Based on -- if we're looking at 4,000, about
28,000 trips per week.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many of those are delivery
vehicles?
MR. TREBILCOCK: I don't know --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And be careful --
MR. TREBILCOCK: -- specifically, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I used to work grocery.
MR. TREBILCOCK: I don't know specifically, sir, but there would
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Suffice to it say, it's going to be a
tiny, tiny number of that 28,000. So when you say gee, delivery
vehicles, that's going to be a fair number, I'm not sure how you're
defining fair, but --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Maybe four percent? I don't know. I mean, a
small percentage. Four percent I feel is a very small percentage of
reduction. It's a standard reduction factor that the county uses for
these. And because it -- you know, to go through that is another
exhaustive study that it would seem reasonable on both parties to
agree to that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Forty delivery vehicles a day?
MR. TREBILCOCK: I really -- I can't --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not going to be. I mean, 28 days
in the month, 1,000 cars a day. I'm just doing math for easy
figuring. Forty of those every day going to be -- it's not going to
be. So it's not four percent, obviously.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You have another speaker.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, you have another speaker.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Joseph Madden.
MR. MADDEN: Good morning, my name is Joe Madden and I'm with the
Henderson, Franklin, Starnes and Holt law firm, here representing Winn
Dixie also.
And much of -- I appreciate much of the discussion that went on
here. There is a couple of quirks in this that have been presented to
you. I think you can see the answer to Commissioner Mac'Kie's
question in the first place, why the mistake happened. It's a
commonsense mistake, and Winn Dixie of course is not trying to take
advantage of Collier County in this impact fee, alternate fee
adjustment calculation.
You've heard how, from Mr. Kant and others, how the mistake
occurred. Again, we would reiterate that Winn Dixie, if presented
with the fee schedule amount of impact fees at building permit stage,
would have commissioned Wilson-Miller to perform an alternate fee
calculation, as has been done. I think to go back and look at the
timing of it and say well, now it's unfair to let them go ahead and do
this because building permit stage is past, I think -- in my opinion I
think the county may be estopped. I think Mr. Weigel is correct, you
would be facing some sort of a challenge there.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, but excuse me, sir, but isn't that
tantamount to saying if I'd have known what this week's lottery
numbers would have been, I would have bought a ticket like that last
week?
MR. MADDEN: Well, no, sir, I don't think so, because --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you do any trial work?
MR. MADDEN: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you allow speculation -- if you do trial
work, do you allow speculation? Would you allow a witness to provide
speculation?
MR. MADDEN: The study that was done for many different Winn
Dixies throughout the state, Winn Dixie is building these single
center -- single store centers. Their numbers are showing the
Wilson-Miller number to be correct.
As you heard, when Wilson-Miller ran the first set of numbers on
this, their amount, their impact fee, based on your own formula, comes
out to 75,000. What they've done is they've gone back to Mr. Kant's
analysis and agreed to the higher amount of 88,000, based on the
assumption of trip generation and trip length.
Yes, I can -- I'm saying it for -- to tell you on the record,
because Winn Dixie has told me, that if that number had been presented
at 136,000, they certainly would have commissioned this study.
That's the second part of it. When the mistake was discovered
and Winn Dixie was notified of the amount in error, that letter to
them said specifically, you can pay the $51,000, or you can do an
alternate fee calculation. Winn Dixie spent over 8,000 -- over $9,000
doing this alternate fee calculation, and your ordinance specifically
provides for this method of relief. They've done it. They've come up
with numbers that your professional staff has reviewed and concurred
with.
I'd reference another portion of the ordinance where this is not
only available, but it's also encouraged because the basis of impact
fees. And impact fees, as you-all know, are a proportionate share of
the fair value of -- a proportionate share value of the impacts of a
proposed development on the county's road network. Your own impact
fee ordinance prohibits you from collecting more than a project's fair
share of their proportionate share of the impacts.
I'd cite you to the section of the ordinance, section 74-322.9.
And to go back and throw out this alternative fee calculation and to
impose the generalized fee schedule amount would be doing just that,
it would be charging Winn Dixie more than their proportionate share,
more than their fair share, and it would --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're interested in a fair share?
MR. MADDEN: Yes, sir. We're --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You want to make sure that everybody pays a
fair share; is that right? And if everybody pays the same, you
somehow don't see that as being fair.
MR. MADDEN: Yes, sir, the alternate fee calculation is available
to everybody in the ordinance, which is the nice thing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So if you pay less, that's fair, but
everybody else has to pay more?
MR. MADDEN: Everybody else should pay their fair share as the
study would result in, and I completely appreciate --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Define your definition of fair.
MR. MADDEN: Well, we're using your ordinance and your criteria,
and what we've done is gone ahead and done an exhaustive two-day
survey at peak hour, peak season, and didn't use the averaging
technique that was available to us. So I think that what's been
presented is fair.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mentioned in your comments that the
numbers developed on Marco Island are identical to numbers elsewhere
in the Winn Dixie chain?
MR. MADDEN: No, sir. What I said is Winn Dixie is developing
these single freestanding supermarkets and they're aware of what their
trip generations are for these freestanding things versus a center.
What they've done is moved out of the centers into the freestanding.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are the numbers on Marco Island similar to
the freestanding numbers elsewhere?
MR. MADDEN: I think the numbers on Marco Island as demonstrated
in the survey would be somewhat less, given the uniqueness of Marco
Island, but don't hold me to that, I'm not the traffic engineer.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I thought I heard you say they were
similar to others in your previous statement.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He said something to that effect, yeah.
MR. MADDEN: The -- right, the -- what they were looking at was
trip generation, trip length ideas, looking at the $136,000 impact fee
that would have been charged and the difference was what they knew to
be their experience elsewhere. And that's the common sense why they
would have done the alternate fee calculation, why they would have
spent the money with an engineering firm to have that looked at.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess the problem I -- Commissioner
Norris, I'd love to go where you're going with this. The problem I
have is that under our current ordinance, they have prepared something
that has an element in it I disagree with. I think the interstate
mileage reduction just doesn't jive with the reasoning that the reason
this impact fee should be less is because it's on an island. And as
you back that out, it increases the impact fee to $95,064.36. That I
can find comfort with and also find comfort we're not going to be
spending tax dollars defending something in court that I personally
don't know that we would win, so that's my comfort level. I just want
to state that, because I know there's a motion on the floor to deny.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can agree with you there. The --
again, Commissioner Norris, I appreciate it. County did send a letter
-- an agent of the county sent a letter that offered the alternative,
so I think Mr. Weigel's cautions need to be well taken here. And if
we offered that, it's hard to turn around after the fact and say wait
a minute, we were just kidding, you can't do that. So we want to be
very careful that that situation doesn't repeat itself.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The letter did say that it had to be
approved by this particular board.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. Agreed. But it did offer
them the option of pursuing that.
I have no doubt it may come in, particularly on Mr. Kant's
comments, that it may come in less than the 130 some odd thousand.
However, with Commissioner Hancock's commonsense approach to it and
plugging in the numbers where you can't argue both sides of the coin,
then I'm comfortable that the 95,000 is a fair share. And I think
that's all we're all trying to achieve is make sure everybody is
comfortable that it's a fair share.
And in defense of these folks, everyone does have the opportunity
to pursue alternatives. Some do, most do not. And so the question
isn't whether the dollar amount is the exact same for everybody, it's
whether or not everyone has the same options available to them. And
they do. I don't happen to agree with the 79 or whatever number they
came up with. I think there are some questions over and above the 88,
but I'm comfortable with the 95,000 that Commissioner Hancock has come
up with. The 95,000.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'm going to support Commissioner
Hancock's proposal.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it looks like I'm withdrawing my
motion, then.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, you can withdraw your motion.
Do I have a new one?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. I'll move that we adopt an
alternate impact fee road calculation, as presented, with the
exception of removing the interstate mileage reduction under the
compute lane miles consumed per day section, as evidenced on page
three of our agenda. That would change the lane miles per day to
1.86. I can only go up to two decimals, Mr. Kant, so you'll have to
take that out to the five or six that are there.
With that change in lane miles per day, it has a resulting impact
fee change to again roughly $95,064.36. So with the elimination of
interstate mileage reduction and the balance being computed, it will
be roughly 95,000. I'll move approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Did you
want to say something?
MR. KANT: I'd just like for clarification to make sure that I
get the full intent of your motion, sir. Do you want staff then to
take that out and recompute the exact figure, or are you suggesting
that we provide an exact figure of 95,064.30?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir, I want you to compute the exact
figure with the interstate mileage reduction being removed. Once I --
MR. KANT: We can do that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- come up to three decimal places is
$95,064.36. But you carried it to more decimals than that, so I
wanted to be as specific as possible. MR. KANT: Yes, we'll do that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
Do we have any other speakers on this item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, I'll call the question.
All in favor?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four to one.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The last time --
MR. MADDEN: Thank you, commissioners.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- we went through one of these hearings,
we were -- I believe, if my memory is correct, we were advised that
perhaps we could remove the ability to have alternative impact fee
studies. I'd like to direct -- if that's possible, I would like to
direct staff to do that, to make that amendment to the ordinance and
bring it back to us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My recollection, unfortunately, was
different. It's that that was an important feature of the ordinance
that causes it to be legally sufficient.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps we could direct staff instead
then, since we have a difference in recollection, to report back to us
what the legal options are, and then we can give direction from there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, otherwise, you know, what we're going
to continue to see is we went through all the process to develop
impact fee numbers, and then someone's consultant is going to come up
here and say well, we have a different one for you which is a lot
less, strangely enough.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand and share your concern.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we've seen those that have broad
application. I remember one that said well, condominiums, because,
you know, seasonal people live in them at first, should be done at a
different rate. And we just turned that down flat, because its broad
application simply didn't hold true.
Those that come in and have a very specific detailed approach I
think merit consideration. There haven't been many that I recall that
we've approved. A couple, maybe? Today being one of them?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This one.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This one?
So, you know, I'm fine if staff wants to look at the -- it's
probably a question of Mr. Weigel. You know, is that element of the
ordinance a critical element of the ordinance in order to -- you know,
to collect impact fees? If so, then we might want to look at either
modifying rather than removing. But I think first we need to have
that question answered since there seems to be --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, one of the other factors here, as I
recall sitting out in the audience in '92 when these things were --
when the impact fee rates were put in, and the transportation impact
fee is lower than what was requested by staff at that time. And we've
never brought it back up to where it should be in the first place.
And then on top of that, to allow people to come in and cut it by a
third because they have the financial ability to hire a consultant, I
mean, there just -- there's something wrong with our process here.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've raised that on two occasions. The
board at that time kept it artificially low, because we were going
from zero impact fees to I think four or 5,000 out of the chute. But
I thought there was the idea that over time it would ratchet back up
to where it needs to be, but it simply hasn't. And the reason is,
we've looked at the individual homeowner and how much that five or
$6,000 impacts them.
So it's a judgment call for this board. But we again -- I think
that -- first let's get the question answered from Mr. Weigel about
impact fee -- alternative impact fee calculations and their necessity
within the ordinance, and if that answer is yes, they're a necessary
element, then I think we should talk about do we want to revise them.
That would be an approach I'm comfortable with. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: And if you'd like, in our review and informational
opinion to you, we'll look at any element there of future land use, if
there's any ability to pull that in at this point, check other
ordinances nationwide and see if state-of-the-art and the case law
allows that type of thing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That would be good to consider that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe as part of the presentation,
too, we can have the history. Because it seems to me we have done a
review on our impact fees, certainly since 1992, and gone through an
extensive process with Tindale-Oliver.
MR. WEIGEL: You mean like the local history of how we got to
where we are?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And just I think that's
important to keep in perspective, because it hasn't just drifted
aimlessly for six years.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Real critical question, because if -- you
know, if in fact when it was adopted in '92 it was with the
understanding that this was a phase-in, and it has not been phased in.
We've got to look at that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, and that's not what I meant. I meant
that -- but the reason it was kept a little lower at that time on an
individual homeowner was it went from zero to four or $5,000. I don't
think there was any statement at that time that said but we'll ratchet
this up. I'm just saying, obviously you're going to see a shortfall
in your road funding if you continue to keep it lower than it needs to
be.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But looking at those interim reports that
tell us where they should be will give us that answer, hopefully. So
I think Commissioner Constantine's element -- or addition will cover
that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Ilschner?
MR. ILSCHNER: Madam Chairman, commissioners, I want to bring you
up to date on where we are in the revision of the current road impact
fees.
We went out recently on our RFP for a consultant to perform a
complete revision and rewrite to bring back to you dealing with road
impact fees. We were unsuccessful in achieving an appropriate
consultant for that. Now we're in the process of bringing this award
to you to have you reject those, and then we're going to be going back
out on RFP's for road impact fee revisions. I just wanted to bring
you up to date on that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, at this time we're going to take a
break and give our court reporter a break, and we'll be back here in
about 10 minutes. Thank you.
(A recess was taken.)
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 98-186 CREATING THE AD HOC ETHICS STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE
- ADOPTED; RESOLUTION 98-187 APPOINTING CASEY WOLFF, W. EARL MARLIN,
WILLIAM THIESEN, JOSEPH MUMAW, AND FRANK HOLLAND, JR. TO THE ETHICS
ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - ADOPTED; COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO BE
THE LIAISON TO THIS COMMITTEE
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll reconvene the meeting and go to item
10(A), appointment of members to the ethics ordinance review
committee. Everyone is getting their cameras trained on this most
important decision to be made here. Monumental decision. Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. If I may, I'll preface your remarks. I
think that there may be two operations to be contemplated here. One
would be the adoption or the -- the adoption of a resolution creating
a committee. And then upon having done that -- and it will be your
determination, that whether it is an ad hoc committee to have in
existence of a year or less, or to extend beyond that. If it extends
beyond that under our current policy, it would be appropriate for us
to actually create an ordinance in that regard and we would look for
direction to do so.
Then secondly would be the appointment, if you choose to do so
today, of individual members, which would be implemented within a
resolution.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question on what our charge is
today.
Were you about to nominate somebody, or do you have a question?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, I was not going to nominate somebody.
I was going to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
pretty well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
I apologize.
I think Mr. Weigel explained our charge
I have one question about it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we adopt a
resolution creating an ad hoc ethics ordinance review committee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second to create
an ethics ordinance -- an ad hoc ethics ordinance review committee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That makes it have a life of one year or
less.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question for Mr. Weigel is relevant to
the motion, and that is at what point do we develop the charge for
that committee? When do we tell it and here's what we want you to do?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that's what I was going to ask
as part of the motion. I was going to ask Commissioner Norris if that
was consistent with the direction we really did set when we had said
let's advertise for people. We'd had that discussion for 30 minutes
or so and came up with what I thought at that time was a direction for
what their charge would be.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. What we should do, perhaps, is at a
-- at our next board meeting or something, each board member come
forward with the points that you would like to see the committee
review, and put those all together into a coherent form and deliver
that as the charge to the committee.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's reasonable. We can make
the appointments today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I mean, I could state that for myself
today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me, too.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does anyone need the additional week?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure would be nice to wrap this up.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Fine. Today is fine.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's do it today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we can do it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think everybody's ready.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we can do that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Once we determine the members of the
committee, Madam Chair, maybe it would be then appropriate we take a
singular motion on the membership of the committee and the direction
given by the board, so maybe break that into two discussions items:
Members of the committee, agree on those five -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- agree on a direction, then make it a
single motion.
But we do have a motion on the floor; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yep, I second.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I have.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, to create the -- a resolution to create
the ad hoc committee.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On the question of the charge of the
committee, is this the appropriate time to discuss that?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, let's do the members. Let's each of us
do our member appointment and then we will go to the charge for the
committee.
Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I believe Commissioner Mac'Kie mentioned the
name of the committee as something akin to an ad hoc ethics ordinance
review committee. And I want to make sure that if the word ordinance
is included in the title, whether that should come somewhere within
the charge, or if it's just an ad hoc ethics review committee, which
will have various elements to attend to as part of this charge, which
maybe include an ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I like the latter. Because even though
the Republican party submitted an ethics ordinance, I believe what we
had discussed by way of charge is more or less that the timing issue,
the time it has taken for the state to complete its process, is the
key factor, which was agreed upon by the Republican party when I was
at their meeting. And, you know, so I would like to take the
ordinance out of it so that it doesn't limit them just to reviewing
proposed ordinances.
MR. WEIGEL: Might you like something like the ad hoc ethics
standards and review committee, or something kind of like that? It's
looking at standards.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's in a name?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where we really need the clarity is the
charge.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
I have two applicants from my district, both eminently qualified,
and I appreciate both of them applying. And I would like to nominate
Casey Wolff.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, I didn't --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Casey Wolff.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I'm very fortunate and
unfortunate at the same time to have five --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me, too.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- highly qualified people. I wish I could
appoint them all, but we're only appointing one, and the choice for
district one is W. Earl Marlin.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have Mr. Marlin from district one.
Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great thing is to have as many
responses as we did.
William Thiesen.
THE REPORTER: Would you spell that last name, please?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: T-H-I-E-S-E-N.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
applicants.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
specific to ethics --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you know.
You had an incredibly experienced group of
I had three people that had served
Right.
-- in one way, shape or form, and I had
two that their career was ethics. So to be honest, the two best
candidates, I don't know either one of them personally, and this
morning I tried to call each of them to try and get a little clarity
and was unable to reach them.
So just on resume alone, I'm going to suggest Joseph Mumaw.
THE REPORTER: Could you spell that?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Last name is M-U-M-A-W.
And that was -- that's tough. James Carthaus has got an
incredible resume --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in the area --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Both of those are incredible.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- of ethics also.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: In my particular district, I think I know all
of these individuals. However, I have selected Frank M. Holland, Jr.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I like that choice, Barb. Frank's done a
lot --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I make a motion that we create the
committee with those five people. And then from my statement on the
-- what is the charge of the committee, I would like to keep it as
simple as possible, and that is I have two goals for this committee:
One is that it -- that it translate -- that it codify the state law
into a local ordinance, and that it provide a criminal penalty for
violation of the state law.
The criminal penalty element is essential to me. That's the one
piece that I'm the most interested in that allows the local state's
attorney to independently investigate ethics issues and eliminates the
business about having to have a formal complaint filed before there
can be an investigation.
And one other thing I want to get out right up front, because
it's one of those frustrating things that I thought of after the last
discussion, and that is all of the discussion that we've had about
whether or not one can legislate ethics and morals -- and we know that
you can't. You either got 'em -- what was Peter's comment? It's like
good looks -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
'em or you don't.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
It's like good looks, you've either got
-- you've either got 'em or you don't.
Why are you using that one?
So for me the charge to this committee is
not to try to legislate ethics, but to try to create a process whereby
an unethical public official can be promptly penalized. And ethical
officials can continue to function --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And be promptly cleared.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can be promptly cleared.
But the basic -- the bottom line is, if you've -- if we have
someone who violates the rules, we need to be able to get them
promptly removed.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, as much as we have
talked about this issue and the paper has done its best to draw sides
and whatnot, I think we're coming to the exact same point in what is a
reasonable expectation and what is best served for this community, and
I would agree with those points.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just jotted down -- I think it falls
within -- or that falls within this. But very simply, review existing
laws governing ethics and government, problems therewith, and
suggestions on how to correct those problems.
And we've defined a couple of times specific problems, timing
being the biggest one and the ability to clear that, or clear the
issue one way or the other promptly, and I think that's one. But if
they happen to find some other problem that's glaring, great, we --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- ought to allow them that freedom to
deal with it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie, with all due respect,
the course that you have presented really takes the -- really
eliminates the need for a committee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
Which is fine with me. Let's do that.
Well, can I finish?
I'm sorry.
Are you in on this, too?
In on this?
On the discussion, my discussion. Are you
going to do my discussion for me or are you going to let me do it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I'd like very much to hear --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- what you have to say.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the point is that our committee needs
to decide what, if anything, needs to be done. You've already decided
for them what you want done. I mean, why have a committee if that's
what we're going to do? If we're going to hire a committee, appoint a
committee to do this work, then we should let them develop whether or
not a local ordinance is needed, and if so, what that should consist
of.
And I think Commissioner Constantine has put forth maybe a little
better list of points to look at, but I think we need to let the
committee, if we're going to appoint them, decide what to do, not us
decide what to do and just have the committee do it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There is -- there is one opportunity here,
and I don't think anybody who's applied on this committee would take
great umbrage with this, and that is, you know, you raise the
possibility that this debate has gone on long enough and that we are
clear enough about a few things that we could go ahead and instruct
the county attorney to develop the ordinance using the state law, but
imposing a local criminal penalty, and that that would be a great
step. You know, if we all agree on that, we could have him do that,
and then have the committee also study what else we might need to be
doing.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think -- I think you're stepping in
and you're directing and you're leading a committee. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's true.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay? I don't believe -- it was not my mind
-- in my mind that that was to be our focus. Our focus was to select
five people that are going to look at the current rules that we all
have to live by, everybody that's an elected official, and they would
report back to us either the efficiencies or inefficiencies or
inconsistencies, or whatever word you want to use, in the current
state rules that we have to follow, and make some suggestion for local
-- something that we could -- may have to conform to or that all
elected officials would have to conform to in the future.
And I believe that means just asking them to review and to report
back to us, come back to us with a report, suggestion, whatever that
might be, let them look at it. If they think there's a problem, then
come back to us. If they think there's not one, come back to us with
that. But let them do the job.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could we give it a short deadline?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. I don't think this needs to drag
on for six months. I don't think it --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And it is.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You know, goodness sakes, I don't imagine
there's one person on here that hasn't read and knows about, you know,
all the -- that's been written about this particular issue in Collier
County. But all they need to do, perhaps, is make sure that they have
all of the state information that we have to abide by and then go
ahead and sit down as a group and discuss what is in there, and if
there's any troublesome parts, then point out what needs to be
addressed further and what needs to be done on a local --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I think the
intent of what you're saying there is fine. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The perception publicly would be oh,
they've short-circuited the public committee again. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're not -- because we've had the
debate, we'll agree or disagree, I think we'll agree on most of the
issues. But to have an unbiased group of people actually put their
stamp on this is what we see as a problem, this is the direction we
think we should go with it I think will be much better received than
our short-circuiting --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. You're right. The frustration
with the slowness of the process is difficult. Even with the slowness
of the process of getting us to have a local ordinance, which is where
I think we'll end up, but --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would love -- your suggestion of
putting it -- put a short time line, though, I would love to see it in
two or three months' time have it come back -- I assume most of these
folks hopefully are here during the summer months, and if we can work
around any vacation schedules they may have, but get them back in a
couple months' time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd love that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've been -- like you, Pam, I -- you know,
I have a direction I would like to see this thing take, but that's not
the purpose of forming a committee. While, you know, there's
obviously -- you know, the -- you know, the politics is being played
out there. And everything can be played on as a delay, but the truth
is, something this important needs to be objectively reviewed by
citizens; otherwise, as we said before, this board stands to be
criticized as the fox guarding the hen house. You know, we're going
to tailor it so it meets our individual needs. And I think what we're
doing here is clearly opening this up to say you, community, as these
five representatives, tell us what you feel are the shortcomings of
the existing law, what are the strengths and how it can be
strengthened to be -- to apply more locally.
So I'm going to agree with Commissioners Norris and Berry and
Constantine that we need to give direction that they review the
existing state law, they review, you know, ethics ordinances as they
choose, and that they report back to us with what they feel to be
areas that need to be addressed and how they could be addressed to
make the ethics picture more clear for the elected officials of
Collier County.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we just add to that one other thing,
that I've recently looked at the human resources policy for our staff
and it's very clear about conflicts and gifts and those things, and
that might be something else we'd ask them to look at. And then I'd
just like to make it unanimous that we --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And ask them to review the gift disclosure
side also for its clarity?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. Please.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: One other -- Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are the meetings of this particular group,
these all fall under the sunshine?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, they sure do.
MR. WEIGEL: I was just going to suggest that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They'd better.
MR. WEIGEL: And I think that yes, they may as well. And they
may as well, even if it weren't required by statute, suffer the rigors
of sunshine so they'd understand them better.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I definitely want that made clear --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and their meeting certainly made known to
the public. And that if any members of the public happen to attend
these meetings, that at the end of their discussion on a particular
meeting, that they would take input from the public.
MR. WEIGEL: Fine. I might add also, typically with advisory
committees, other committees, there has been a liaison recognized to
the committee from staff on behalf of the board, and unless someone
else jumps into the breach there, I'd be very happy, for the county
attorney office, to be that liaison.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that's appropriate.
MR. WEIGEL: We have file and historical material that we would,
you know, clearly make available and assist with any other agencies
that they need to deal with.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Great.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Other than providing them with the current
ethics law that we all have to deal with, I don't believe that this
group of commissioners should lead them in any way, shape or form. I
think it's a matter of here's the information, get back to us at a
time that we all need to decide of what we think is fair.
Any thoughts on how long you want this committee to work, or --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I think we could suggest a time
frame.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. But if they need more time or --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If they determine that they need more time
to do the job adequately, we shouldn't force it. I'm anxious as
anyone to get this taken care of. But if -- rather to have a good
ordinance than a quick ordinance. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. And that's -- again, back to the
point of us directing the committee, if we say give us -- give us
whatever you can give us within "X" time frame, then that opens the
door for criticism of saying you either delayed it too long or you
didn't give them enough time or whatever.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There'll be a road in three weeks. I don't
care about the quality, just --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just let them take care of all of those
things themselves so it doesn't look in any way that the commission is
directing that committee.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question then is, are we asking them --
the threshold question for them is please review the status of ethics
laws and let us know if you think there need to be any local changes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And if so, what.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, how --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we had -- I was going to see if we
had public speakers, and then I was going to try to craft it into
words to see -- I jotted some notes down to see if it was something we
could all agree on.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. While we're waiting for the public
speakers to come up, why don't we go ahead and formalize the
appointments through a motion?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I did that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You made --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I made a motion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- the motion and I'll second it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second to
appoint the following members: W. Earl Marlin, Joseph Mumaw, William
Thiesen, Casey Wolff and Frank M. Holland, Jr.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we have speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No speakers.
Okay, Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had just jotted down similar to what
I said before, but I made a couple of changes. Commissioner Mac'Kie
had made one suggestion. That the charge is the review of existing
laws governing ethics, and I left it that vague purposely, because
it's not only state laws, but if there are other local laws, if there
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Whatever.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- anything that's out there.
Right.
So review existing laws governing ethics in government, including
gift disclosure laws, review the problems therewith, and make specific
suggestions on correcting those problems. And that way, if that's an
ordinance, that's great, if that's --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Whatever.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- changing it to criminal, that's
great, but leave it open enough so that they can make what they
believe to be the most appropriate suggestion.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A request mn addition.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That we would request a report on the
status of their work, what, 60 days, 90 days?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's go with 60 days.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sixty days. Sixty days from their first
meeting.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that's a great -- because what
they may want to do is answer the question first, is there a problem.
And then it may take more time to develop a solution.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: When they want to see --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- we're not going to predispose anything.
They have this -- you can't do this. You've just got to hand it to
them and say go.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And that's -- let 'em do what they're gonna
do. I don't want to in any way, shape or form -- let's don't get into
it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This is it, guys, you're serving on a
committee of five people, take a look, and when you get something that
you want to get back --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At high speed.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- to us with, let us know what it is. And I
think that's fair and I think it's open, and I don't intend to have
any contact with any one of them, so --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ever again for the rest of your life.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, I just -- I don't want to get anywhere
close to the committee. I want -- in no way do I want to lead the
committee. I -- it's up to them. They got it, they volunteered for
it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That first sounds like a windfall for Ryan
Collin (phonetic), but --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Restate the motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Restate the motion quickly so we can see --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The charge would be to review existing
laws governing ethics in government, including gift disclosure laws,
to review the problems therewith, and to propose suggestions on
correcting those problems.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second with that
information stated.
Any other questions or comments?
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just got a question for Mr. Weigel. Is
there -- because I'm not anxious to make that same commitment to keep
my mouth shut, is there some requirement that I should do that?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think you should make that commitment. I
think all of us should make that commitment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know you do.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Whether it's a requirement or not,
Pam, I think it is important just to make sure public perception is
that we're not in there fiddling with the process, and that this is
truly an initiative coming from five unbiased people.
Obviously, the five of us will have an opportunity to deal with
whatever they bring back, but I think we've had adequate discussion,
if they take a peek at what we've said, it will be fairly clear where
each of us are on this, but I think just to maintain the integrity of
the process we need to be a little careful there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there a rule about that? I mean, I
respect that advice, I'm just curious if I --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Whether you're going to abide by it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I have to abide by it or not.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Why would you want to tinker with it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I'm so opinionated about that it
needs to be criminal.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But you can't -- I don't think you should
give your opinion in this situation, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think you're going to see that in the
newspaper. I think they're all going to be aware of it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
Mr. Weigel, is it required that I stay out? Even though -- I
just want to know the answer to the question.
MR. WEIGEL: Just let your conscience be your guide. I would
state, however, that --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great time for the ethics issue.
MR. WEIGEL: -- this committee will be information gathering, and
you may wish to consider whether they would have the opportunity
through either a sub-committee or an individual information gathering
to come to a commissioner to ask about a particular issue or subject
matter.
And I will advise you that if it's a sub-committee or the
committee itself that falls of course within the Sunshine Law
parameters, for what that's worth, there is some exclusion of required
Sunshine Law in a meeting with the commissioner, if we have one
individual on behalf of the committee approaching and discussing the
matter with an elected official such as a commissioner, you may not
want to have that contact whatsoever and keep it purely from the
information that's already out there, the history that exists and
other sources that are included --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hadn't thought about the Sunshine --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You bet 'ya.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- repercussions.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I just don't think you want to get anywhere
close to it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. 'Bye.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I wonder if we could just agree
formally here that obviously if they need to come to us, we need --
are sought out for information represents one thing, but just to make
a committee here that we're not going to get in and try to tinker with
the process itself or persuade them what their --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll agree to that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- move should be. I just think for
-- I don't think any of us are going to do anything inappropriate with
that, I just think the perception, because of the issue itself --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Perception matters.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- is important.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Perception matters.
And if they do request an interview with any of us individually,
the process would be what?
MR. WEIGEL: The process is they call your secretary for an
interview, I think. There's really nothing more than that. If it's
an individual. They themselves -- it's not you that would suffer --
necessarily suffer the consequence of a Sunshine Law violation, but it
would be the committee itself that violates the Sunshine Law by
inappropriately meeting with someone, as far as that goes.
But I just wanted to raise that as whether you want to be
involved in this kind of information exchange on a one-on-one basis or
not, in case they wish to exercise that prerogative.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I guess we're saying we're not going to
be involved in that information exchange.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I really would rather not be.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask, Mr. Weigel, obviously you've
offered a liaison, and I think your office is most appropriate for
that.
At that first meeting, in addition to briefing them on the
Sunshine Law, would you address the absurdities? I -- you know, some
committees think that if they gather information and then mail it to
another member, they've violated the Sunshine Law.
I mean, you know, there are committees out there that are kind of
frozen because they're so afraid of the Sunshine Law because they
don't understand that it simply doesn't allow you and another member
to get together and discuss matters that -- you know, that the
committee is addressing in form of recommendation. That's it. It
doesn't mean you can't gather information and send it to the other
members of the committee, or mail it to them or hand it to them.
That's not a violation of the Sunshine Law.
So would you please also address the absurdities and the
misrepresentations that are sometimes characterized from that? Because
it can freeze up committees if they get so worried about it that they
don't do anything.
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely. And the county attorney office has a
standard document which is kind of a nuts and bolts questions and
answers which goes into many of those little arcane things that seem
reasonable and then you find out whoops, better not go down that path.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, any further comments or questions?
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 98-188 APPOINTING ARTHUR SCHOENFUSS, DANIEL GONZALEZ AND
WILLIAM LEWIS TO THE CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD - ADOPTED
***If not, we'll move on to the next item, which is item 10(B),
appointment of members to the contractor's licensing board.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, three reappointments are
recommended, Mr. Schoenfuss, Mr. Pedone and Mr. Gonzalez. I move the
three of them.
MS. FILSON: Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where are we? On which --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Item 10 --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Sue?
MS. FILSON: They aren't recommended for appointment. We don't
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I apologize, I misread the item. Thank
you.
MS. FILSON: And then I also want to point out that if Mr.
Michael Pedone is reappointed, that you'll have to waive section
7(B) (1) of ordinance 86-41. He has served over two terms.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, staying consistent with what
we've done since I've been on the board is while Mike's a great guy
and he's done a wonderful job, if we have other qualified people, I
don't know that it's appropriate to waive that, so I'd just ask you
maybe to alter your --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- motion.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll then just go ahead and make a motion
for Mr. Schoenfuss, Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Lewis. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second.
Ail in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #10C - Deleted
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 98-189 APPOINTING MIKE DAVIS, ROBERT PEACOCK AND DR. CHARLES
KONIGSBERG TO THE HEALTH FACILITIES AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Next item, Madam Chairman, has
three openings and three applicants. I'll make a motion we approve
Ms. Buxton, Mr. Davis and Mr. Peacock.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hold on just a moment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's two vacancies.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There's two vacancies, I believe, not three.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sorry for --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If there are currently three vacancies but
a press release was issued advising of two vacancies, since --
MS. FILSON: On this particular committee, they are requesting
that Dr. Konigsberg be appointed to represent the Health Department --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, the third appointment.
MS. FILSON: -- and then two additional applicants.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, I had jumped ahead to --
thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, would you --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if you'll withdraw that, I'll nominate
Mike Davis and Bob Peacock.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And Dr. Konigsberg.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Dr. Konigsberg.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hang on just a minute. I need some
help. You need to explain this to me in some detail.
MS. FILSON: Okay, in the past the public health department
director has served on this committee, and Mr. Pickworth, who is the
accountant -- who is the attorney for this committee, has requested
that the public health director also be appointed to serve on this
committee. And then there's two additional vacancies.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Prior to this, Dr. Polkofski (phonetic)
served on this committee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sort of a technicality --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- is what it sounds like.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask that we alter the motion to
include Ms. Buxton instead of Mr. Davis?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to support the motion of Mr.
Davis and Mr. Peacock.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: As will I.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then we'll leave it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think I've already seconded it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's been seconded, right.
We have a motion and a second then to accept the applicants of
Mike Davis and Robert Peacock, along with Dr. Konigsberg, the health
director.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I do have one question.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Why is this executive summary prepared by
Donald A. Pickworth?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You don't work for this county anymore,
sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Why is this?
MS. FILSON: Do you want to respond to that?
MR. PICKWORTH: I guess my only response is I'm the attorney for
the board. I don't know -- I'm not sure how the rules are with regard
to who prepares these, so I volunteered to prepare it for Ms. Filson.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you did a darn good job, I --
MR. PICKWORTH: That's the only reason why.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're the attorney for the health
facilities authority.
MR. PICKWORTH: Yes. So that was the only reason why.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That explains it then.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was thinking he did such a good job,
we should have him prepare more items every week.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As long as he does them for free.
Item #10E
DISCUSSION RE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT - CHAIRMAN TO
NEGOTIATE A THREE YEAR CONTRACT WITH MR. WEIGEL AND ALL COMMISSIONERS
OF THE BCC TO DO THE EVALUATION
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ail right, moving on then to -- we're at
the public comment section of our agenda.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We only do one item --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You had your attorneys --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, we do, and I added it on. You wouldn't
think I would not forget that, Mr. Weigel.
Last week -- this happens to do with the county attorney's
employment agreement. Last week Mr. Weigel and I had a meeting
concerning his employment agreement, which will be up in September, I
believe; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: October.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: October?
MR. WEIGEL: First week of October.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: First week of October.
Due to the fact that we're going to be recessed until probably
end of July and then only here for a meeting or two in August, rather
than delay this until the latter part of August, which then basically
gives Mr. Weigel only a month -- about a month prior to the time that
his agreement would be up, we thought it would be appropriate to bring
it up at this time and give some direction and set some kind of a
procedure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we have an evaluation process for the
county attorney, since he's an employee of the board? Have we done
that before? I don't remember.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We have in the past.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it seems like that would be the next
appropriate step.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to do that evaluation
process; however, I'd also like to ask if the board would give our
chairman leeway to negotiate another three-year contract, similar to
what we have with Mr. Weigel. I think there are a couple of minor
incidents along the three years but overall has done an outstanding
job and gives a measured, cautious, well-informed opinion on issues to
us and serves us well. His group has served us well, and the -- from
a financial standpoint, we've done extraordinarily well, not only
budgeting for the department, but our track record in legal matters
that go to the courtroom is significantly improved since Mr. Weigel
has become county attorney. So I'd like to make sure we keep him on
and give you the go-ahead to -- maybe we can do a review so that if
there are specific areas that we need to look for alteration we can,
but I'd like to give you the go-ahead to negotiate something.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you happen to have -- or is there any kind
of an evaluation instrument?
MR. WEIGEL: I'm not aware of one that's used -- one has not been
used for me over this three-year period. With Mr. Cuyler, I have not
seen anything in our county attorney records in that regard.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Any of the commissioners that are
here, what --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Filson has one.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, usually designed by the chair,
there's a kind of semi standard one we've used, but it's been tinkered
with and altered with by the chair in individual years in the past.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What we --
MS. FILSON: It's similar to --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe similar to what we asked for Mr.
Fernandez is we not try and nail ourselves down to numerical scale,
but simply address issues of competency, opinions on how those have
been dealt with by the individual, and let that stand as the
individual review of his job.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, rather than everyone trying to sit up
here and recollect, Mr. Weigel, if you could provide for us some
information from your office over the last few years, different items
that your office has handled and those kind of things. I guess
accomplishments and so forth, and --
MR. WEIGEL: I think we can give a full picture of that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, if you could do that and provide that
to each of the commissioners, then I think perhaps maybe the best way
is maybe just a written narrative, you know, stating your -- you know,
the good points, the areas of concern, or whatever, questions,
however, and go from there, if that's satisfactory with all the rest
of you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd just like to ask Mr. Weigel, if he
would add to that, and if you would identify areas that you have
targeted as goals for improvement as well, because everybody's got
room for improvement. And rather than me criticizing something that I
think is broken, if you already know that and have a plan for how to
fix it, I'd like to know what it is.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think, too, Commissioner -- I think that's
a good point. I think after we maybe perhaps make our statements, it
would be in Mr. Weigel's interest, if indeed everything is favorable,
I think it would be to his benefit if this commission gave him some
goals that he could, you know, quantify that, you know, am I reaching
this at the end of three years, if that's what the contract, the new
contract, is, that he knows whether he has reached these goals or not.
And we would also know. It gives you kind of something to go on.
It's -- I have to tell you, I think it's kind of hard when
there's not something, a list of goals, set out. How do you know if
he's met the goals or not? And it leaves him hanging in the air, too.
He thinks perhaps, you know, he's doing a good job and all of us are
maybe saying well, gee, I wish he'd do this and do that and something
else, but if he hasn't had that, you know, given to him, it's very
difficult to know whether he's on the right track or not.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you're saying the singular goal of
don't mess up isn't sufficient.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think the singular goal don't mess up
will cut it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think that's a fair way to go about
an assessment.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with Commissioner Constantine's
direction, though. I would like to see you go ahead and begin
negotiating a three-year contract, similar to the one that he has now,
and move ahead with it. At least have something so those two can
probably come concurrently.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. If you'd like to put that in the form
of a motion, or --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. The motion is to start some form of
negotiation for a new contract at the same time -- or simultaneously
we will be doing our evaluation of the county attorney.
Ail in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Thank you very much for taking care of that matter today.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Glad to heap more work on you, Barb.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah.
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 98-55, AMENDING ORDINANCE 97-48, THE UNIFORM UTILITY
OPERATING AND REGULATORY STANDARDS, PROCEDURES AND MONTHLY BILLING
SCHEDULE ORDINANCE - ADOPTED
Now we have the public comment section. Do we have any
registered speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, the only speaker was one who had
registered under a previous item, under the public petition. I
understand, though, she has left. Kathleen Passidomo.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right.
Then we'll move on then to the next section, the public
hearing section. This is item 12(C) (1), which was continued from June
9th about an ordinance amending ordinance number 97-48 making minor
changes regarding fees and charges other than monthly user rates. A
whole bunch of different things here.
MR. FINN: Yes, ma'am --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Finn.
MR. FINN: -- thank you. Edward Finn, operations director and
interim water director.
We're seeking approval of some amendments to the utility
operating ordinance 97-48.
When we've recently put our emergency lawn irrigation regulations
in place, we realized that the regulations are too complicated and too
cumbersome to communicate and enforce.
As a result of this difficulty, frankly, the regulations have had
little to no impact on reducing our water demand. As a result of
those difficulties, we're proposing changes to the ordinance that
primarily simplify the irrigation regulations, essentially every other
day, based on odd/even addresses, three days a week in Phase I, two
days a week in Phase II, one day a week in Phase III. Really, this is
just designed to simplify it.
The other important change that we're making is we're proposing
language to bring the penalty provisions into sync with the citation
ordinance, which will allow the Code Enforcement Department to issue
citations under their ordinance and therefore give us the ability to
have a little bit of teeth when we're trying to enforce this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Wait a minute, Commissioner Constantine
wishes to speak.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We had a discussion maybe three months
ago when Clarence Tears came to us, and we opted not to alter our laws
at the time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is very challenging for you,
isn't it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. I'm very opinionated.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just wondering if what's been
brought back to us is contrary to what we said that day in considering
our discussion last week on Santa Barbara extension. I'm wondering if
this again is contrary to board direction, only this one in a
three-month period instead of a four-year period.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was a two-two vote. There was no
direction.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right, the direction was not to change
it, though, and this appears to change it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The --
MR. FINN: Commissioner Constantine has a very good point and a
good memory. The ordinance that we brought before you approximately
two or three months ago was a regulatory ordinance that would prohibit
entirely 365 days a year the irrigation -- the use of irrigation, both
potable, non-potable and well water anywhere within the county.
That was, and I believe continues to be, the desire of the South
Florida Water Management District, and that will eventually become a
requirement of our withdrawal permit in order for us to continue to
produce water.
At this point in time the ordinance before you is simply amending
laws that are already in place to simplify and clarify and to give us
enhanced ability to enforce the laws so as to end up with what we're
ultimately looking for, and that is a reduction in the demand for
water in an emergency situation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This doesn't alter the hours allowed,
this doesn't alter anything?
MR. FINN: This ordinance allows -- continues to allow the board
to put in place emergency irrigation regulations that would prohibit
the use of irrigation on certain days and allow irrigation only on
certain hours and certain days.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The question again, this does not
alter the existing law in any way, it merely clarifies? MR. FINN: Yes, it clarifies.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Doesn't alter the existing law in any
way?
MR. FINN: The penalty provisions are enforceable under the
citation ordinance; that is a change.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Any other changes?
MR. FINN: Yes. The other change involves the issuance of
variances to the irrigation restrictions. The previous ordinance
required those variances to be granted by the Board of County
Commissioners. The draft you see before you allows those variances to
be granted by the county administrator or his designee.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that the complete list of
alterations?
MR. FINN: The other alteration is to define time and materials
as the actual cost of time and materials, and the overhead factor to
be applied. That was not clear in the ordinance previously.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Any other alter -- I just want to make
sure we've got them all covered.
MR. FINN: Yes, sir, I believe we've covered them all.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing? Okay, we've got
a public speaker?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did I read this correctly, the first
offense is $1007
MR. FINN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was always kind of a problem for me,
because I thought maybe we ought to be allowed to issue warnings.
MR. FINN: The intent here is to make it consistent with the
citation ordinance; the language essentially is the same as the
citation ordinance; it would be enforced in the same way as other
violations of the citation ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess -- I don't know, I just -- I think
the difference is as much as I am -- you know, I kind of see the
writing on the wall where our water restrictions are going from South
Florida Water Management District. You know, common sense tells you
don't let the weeds in your yard grow past 18 inches. I mean, that's,
you know, kind of tough to miss that one. But I'm not sure how --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You'd be surprised.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- common sense says water only on
Wednesday, not on Thursday. I know we want to be consistent with the
citation ordinance, but the -- it seems to me the ability for a
warning as a first offense needs to be in there somewhere on this. Is
there a way to do that, Mr. Finn?
MR. FINN: We can certainly write that in there.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want -- I would just suggest we be a
little careful there. I mean, the law says don't go over 65 on the
interstate, but sometimes the officer chooses to give you a warning,
if it's an egregious error or you have a past track record of speeding
they don't. It's not specifically written into the law for speeding
that he can give you a warning --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's discretionary.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but that's discretionary. And I
would assume our people would use that same discretion, and I want to
be careful not to write something so that people take advantage of the
situation either. I understand if somebody makes an error on
Wednesday, you want to hit them up for 100 bucks, but I would assume
there would be some discretion from our --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does the ordinance disallow warnings?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't believe it specifically disallows it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As long as everyone's treated the same,
fairly by our officers, then fine.
MR. FINN: And it is a progressive approach to the penalties.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And keeping in mind, this is only once we
have declared a water shortage emergency.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move approval.
MR. FINN: Madam Chairman, if I may make one further comment.
Mr. Ilschner just reminded me that we have added reuse or non-potable
water to the irrigation restrictions. I apologize for not covering
that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You have or you have not?
MR. FINN: We have --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You have.
MR. FINN: -- added that to the water that will be restricted
under this ordinance.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I'm not sure --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, close the public --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She's got to close the public hearing.
Then I'll make a motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I will close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'm pleased to have your
enthusiastic support for this.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #12C2
ORDINANCE 98-56, REPEALING ORDINANCE 88-28, AS AMENDED, WHICH
ESTABLISHED THE MARCO ISLAND BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE -
ADOPTED
Next item is 12(C) (2), an ordinance repealing Collier County
Ordinance number 88 --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- 28.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, I'll withdraw the move.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any public speakers on this item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve the
repeal of Collier County ordinance 88-28, which has to do with the
Marco Island Beautification Advisory Committee.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #12C3
ORDINANCE 98-57, PROVIDING FOR PARTIAL FUNDING FOR A LEGAL AID OFFICE
IN COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED
And the last item that we deal with is an ordinance providing
for partial funding for a legal aid office in Collier County.
MR. MANALICH: Good morning, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any registered speakers?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not going to vote for it unless
Christine gets up here and talks about it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm not sure Christine wants to speak about
it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My only question is, does this bear in any
way, shape or form from the approval of the board to move ahead with
this?
MR. MANALICH: No, this is pursuant to your unanimous direction.
Last time at specifically Commissioner Norris' request, has a
provision that it be limited to qualified indigent residents of
Collier County.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In that case I really don't need --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We do have a public speaker?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. Jill Burzynski.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: She's waiving off.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: She's saying no, no, no.
Okay, I will close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve this
item.
Ail in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
Motion carries five-zero.
Item #14
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
ZACHARY
INTRODUCTION OF ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY ROBERT
Mr. Weigel, do you have anything that you would like to convey
to us this morning?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I do. My thanks, and also, I'd like to
introduce to you our newest assistant county attorney, Mr. Robert
Zachary.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was wondering who that was.
MR. WEIGEL: You may have seen him in the hallways. He comes
from the criminal element of this building.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: A criminal element?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does that mean he's in the hallways at
night carrying computers out or what?
MR. WEIGEL: Better than that. He's had significant involvement
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Jailhouse lawyer.
MR. WEIGEL: -- with the State Attorney Office, and we're very
pleased to have him come to us.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you for coming from the criminal
element. I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We needed some more criminals.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very nice.
Mr. Fernandez, do you have --
MR. FERNANDEZ: I have nothing.
Item #15
BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS - UPDATE ON GREEN SPACE
COMMITTEE
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- any words of wisdom for us?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Not today, thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Not today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Not today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a 30-second update. I have met
with my little what we are calling the green space committee; although
they're looking like they want to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Time's up.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- looking like they want to alter
that name to preserve space committee, because nobody could agree on
what was green space and what wasn't. But they're working on their
definitions now. But I'm sure several months from now that we'll have
some information for you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Twenty-three seconds. I'm impressed.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Even with the interruption.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a reminder, number -- couple of things,
don't forget to file your financial disclosure with the state --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and number two, don't forget the Florida
Association of Counties meeting which is being held on Marco Island.
We're lucky to have them in Collier County bringing all that wonderful
green material to Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You want to be there on Thursday when I
get my award, you know, so --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thursday?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You get an award?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What are you getting an award for?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For chairing the growth and environmental
policy committee that -- and also for just my involvement in the
eminent domain process up there, so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I'm being recognized for it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Wonderful.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If there's no further business, we're
adjourned.
***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris and
carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda
be approved and/or adopted with changes: *****
Item #16A1
ACCEPTANCE OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND ACCESS EASEMENT FROM THE
TRUSTEES OF NAPLES SOUTH CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 98-183, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60301-002,
OWNER OF RECORD LUCY RINES, ESTATE
Item #16A3
FINAL PLAT OF "GLEN EAGLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, PHASE THREE" - WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A4
FINAL PLAT OF SAWGRASS SUBDIVISION - WITH CONSTRUCTION A_ND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT /LND STIPULATIONS
Item ~16A5
FINAL PLAT OF BOUGAIN VILLAGE - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16B1
STAFF TO REJECT PROPOSALS RECEIVED FOR BID NO. 97-2764 ORTHOPHOSPHATE/
POLYPHOSPHATE - STAFF TO REBID
Item #16B2
BARE LICENSE AND USE AGREEMENT FOR FENCE INSTALLATION ALONG A PORTION
OF THE PERIMETER OF TRACT "A" WESTLAKE UNIT ONE BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND NORMAN J. TREBILCOCK AND MERCEDES L. TREBILCOCK
Item #16B3
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 WITH BONNESS, INC. FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT WORK AT
SUGDEN PARK (BID NO. 97-2670) (PROJECT NO. 80081) - IN THE AMOUNT OF
$67,357.94
Item #16B4
FUNDING TO REPLACE UNDERGROUND DIESEL FUEL STORAGE TANKS AT WATER
DEPARTMENT FACILITIES
Item ~16B5
WORK ORDER JEI-FT98-2 FOR JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC., TO PERFORM
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE STATE ROAD 951
12" WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 70824 - IN AN A~4OUNT NOT-TO-
EXCEED $90,000.00
Item ~16B6
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO PAY FOR LEGAL SERVICES IN THE CASE OF COLLIER
COUNTY V. R.A.K., ET AL, IMMOKALEE ROAD FOUR LANE IMPROVEMENT (U.S. 41
TO 1-75), PROJECT NO. 66041; CIE 06
Item ~16B7
AMENDMENT NO. THREE TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HAZEN &
SAWYER, P.C., FOR THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITY 5-MGD EXPANSION, CONTRACT #96-2474 - IN THE AMOUNT OF
$88,495.00; AND STAFF TO SOLICIT BIDS TO SALVAGE THE DECOMMISSIONED
SOLIDS PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
Item #16B8 - Moved to Item #8B3
Item #16B9
PURCHASE ORDER INCREASE FOR ADVANCED LAWN AND LANDSCAPING'S CURRENT
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR THE LELY GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION
DISTRICT (MSTU) - IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,665.18
Item #16C1
ADDENDUM IV TO CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN FLORIDA
COMMUNITIES TRUST ("FCT"), A NONREGULATORY AGENCY WITHIN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, AND COLLIER COUNTY RELATIVE TO
SUGDEN PARK
Item #16C2
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR REPLACEMENT COMPUTER EQUIPMENT THAT WAS STOLEN
FROM SERVICES FOR SENIORS
Item #16D1
RESOLUTION 98-184, RATIFYING SPECIFIC EXPENDITURES FOR NEW EMPLOYEE
ORIENTATION SESSIONS AS SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE
Item #16E1
BUDGET AMENDMENT 98-271
Item #16G1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #16H1
PURCHASE OF REPLACEMENT DESKTOP COMPUTER SYSTEMS FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE FROM GATEWAY 2000 UNDER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
STATE OF FLORIDA CONTRACT #250-040-96-1
Item ~16H2
RESOLUTION 98-185, PROVIDING FOR THE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF A
LOCAL OPTION FEE FOR PROVISION OF ENHANCED EMERGENCY "911" TELEPHONE
SERVICE AND EQUIPMENT
Item #16H3
STATE REVENUE SHARING APPLICATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998-99
Item #1611
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT ACQUISITION ON
PARCEL NOS. 163.1 AND 163.2 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
K.O. VAUGHN, ET AL., CASE NO. 91-2352-CA-01 (PINE RIDGE INDUSTRIAL PARK
MSTU)
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:45 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
BARBARA B. BERRY, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING
SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC
, as