BCC Minutes 03/14/1995 R REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 14, 1995,
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have
been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met
on this date at 9:02 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the
Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
ALSO PRESENT:
CHAIRPERSON:
Bettye J. Hatthews
Timothy J. Constantine
John C. Norris
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager
Kenneth B. Cuyler, County Attorney
Item #2 & #2A
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call to order the board of
commissioners' meeting for March 14th, 1995. Mr. Dotrill, would you
lead us in an invocation and pledge.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, as always, we pause and
give thanks this morning for your wonder and glory and your loving
grace. As always, we pray this morning that your hand guide these
important business deliberations that affect the county commission and
that you would bless our time here together today and that you would
bless the people of Collier County. We pray these things in your
son's holy name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The change list is longer than
the agenda.
MR. DORRILL: Just about.
MR. DORRILL: Good morning, Commissioners. We do have
quite a few changes on the change list this morning. We have four
add-on items.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: The first item -- the first two items are
on the county attorney's report. The first one today will be 9-A,
which is a resolution in support of a senate bill concerning access by
members of the public to local officials. The second one, 9-B, is an
additional resolution in support of a house bill as it pertains to two
house bills -- as they pertain to partial year assessments for ad
valorem and real tangible personal property taxes.
The next item will be 10-B, which is a discussion
regarding the Florida Cities Water Citizens Committee, and 10-C, which
is one additional resolution, regarding the appointment of a member to
the Collier County Housing Finance Committee.
And then finally 10-D, which will be a presentation by
Myra Daniels of the Philharmonic, regarding a conceptual agreement for
a tourist development grant application.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what item?
MR. DORRILL: That will be 10-D.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 10-D.
MR. DORRILL: And I have two items, two additional
items. One is a request to continue item 8-A-1.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I ask what the reason for
that is, Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, a couple reasons. I
got a couple phone calls yesterday that I think are going to have some
new information, and, secondly, the -- one of the developers is out of
the country and would like to be here for it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Because I've had a number
of phone calls from citizens that use that area to fish, and I thought
we had it resolved a couple months ago, but apparently not.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There is kind of a compromise
on the table, and having put it together, he'd just as soon be here --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to present it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's fine.
MR. DORRILL: And then I have one final item which is a
request to withdraw item 16-A-9. And actually they're showing that as
being continued for two weeks, it being withdrawn and continued for
two weeks until the 28th, and that was a recommendation to approve a
lien resolution for a code compliance case.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that continued or withdrawn?
MR. DORRILL: It appears to be continued.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Withdrawn completely? Okay. And then as
I came into the room this morning, Ms. Hankins has given me an item,
and for purposes of the record and our recording secretary, items
16-H-4 and 5 are recommended for approval into a particular cost
center and budget amendment. And that budget amendment is actually in
my office awaiting my signature. And we should condition your
approval on that item of the receipt of the budget amendment. We
didn't want to process a budget amendment prior to the commission
granting approval and moving funds for the contracts for that
software. The budget amendment is on my desk awaiting my signature,
and just for purposes of the record let that item reflect that it will
not be processed for the chairman's signature until the budget
amendment is signed by me and sent to finance.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dorrill, are those funds
currently budgeted, or is this additional funds allocating for
transfer?
MR. DORRILL: I may need some help from perhaps Mr.
HcNees. My understanding is that the funds are available, and they're
budgeted. We're trying to move them to a different cost center. This
is for the automated meter reading devices and the resolution of the
software agreement with NCC, and I don't have any other information.
My understanding is the funds are budgeted.
MR. HcNEES: Mike HcNees from utilities. You caught me
napping there a little bit. I believe that's correct. You're talking
about the funding of the new automated meter reading system? MR. DORRILL: Yes.
MR. HcNEES: Yes, those funds are available. I'm asking
to move them to the other cost center.
MR. DORRILL: And I didn't want to move them until I had
your approval, sort of a chicken and an egg. We need the
recommendation to reflect the chairman not execute the contract until
the clerk has received the executed budget amendments from my office.
MR. HcNEES: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: And that's all that I have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler.
MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, one item, on 16-H-8 I just
want to put on the record that we need to reformat that. We really
don't need to pull that off, doesn't need any discussion. It's a work
order, but we are going to be making some changes to the format on
that. I just wanted to put that on the record. We usually don't
change consent items.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are those changes material or
really reformatting?
MR. CUYLER: They're not material in terms of anything
we would be considering. They're just format of the document changes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So they're to be changed, but
nothing material?
MR. CUYLER: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Are there additional
changes, Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Only under BCC communications.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner
Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't have any either. Could I
have a motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move approval of the agenda
as amended.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Seconded.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Consent agenda included in that?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Second accepted?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a motion and a second to
approve the agenda as amended and the consent agenda. All those in
favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes.
Item #3
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 14 AND 21, 1995 - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I move approval of
the minutes of February 14th and February the 21st.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the minutes for February 14th and February 21st regular
meetings. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
Being none, motion passes 4 to 0.
Item #4A1
PROCLAivLATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF APRIL 2 - 8, 1995 AS MOTE WEEK -
ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is proclamations. First one is
Mote Week, and --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have Jefferson Flanders
with us this morning? Anyone from Mote Marine Laboratory with us this
morning? Read this proclamation and pop it right in the mail.
Whereas, Mote Marine Laboratory, an independent
nonprofit organization, has served well the State of Florida and its
citizenry for 40 years; and,
Whereas, Mote Marine Laboratory is recognized throughout
the world for its excellence in marine research and education; and,
Whereas, Mote Marine Laboratory has continuously
conducted public service in the form of marine and environmental
research and education in the State of Florida; and,
Whereas, Mote Marine Laboratory operates an aquarium
that is a world-class education facility in the environmental and
marine sciences; and,
Whereas, Mote Marine Laboratory will celebrate it's 40th
anniversary with a yearlong celebration beginning January 2nd, 1995,
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of April 2nd
through 8th, 1995, be designated as Mote Week.
Done and ordered this 14th day of March, 1995, BCC,
Bettye J. Matthews, Chairman.
I make a motion we approve this proclamation.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the proclamation. All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 4 to 0. Thank you.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Miss Filson, you'll make sure
the people from Mote get this?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
Item #4B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda, service
awards. Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, I'm pleased this morning to
present three service awards. First is to Mr. Geoffrey Grabnet of
water operations for ten-year service to Collier County.
(Applause)
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: All right. Second this morning
is also a ten-year service award to Miss Sharon Telly of court
administration. Miss Telly.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And our third award today, to one
of our unsung heroes in the office of management and budget, a
five-year service award, Ed Finn. He's working so hard he's not even
here.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He's up at bike week.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And also not here today, Gary
Kessler of parks and recreation for five years. We'd like to
recognize both of them and thank them for their service.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Commissioner Hancock.
Item #4C
PAULETTE WILSON, RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR MARCH, 1995
Next on the agenda is kind of a monthly thing that the
county commission gets to do, and we're always very proud and pleased
to do it, and that's our employee of the month. Is Paulette Wilson
here? Paulette, you're going to have to turn around and face the
music while I read all these good things about you.
Paulette is selected as our employee of the month. She
began her employment with Collier County government in mail operations
for the clerk of courts in -- oh, some time ago. I don't have a date
here, but she joined the public affairs staff in October of 1993. She
has been instrumental in assisting the department in the delivery of
quality services to the customers of the public affairs department.
She's developed a comprehensive procedures manual to assist new
staff. She's very enthusiastic in her creativity, has brought new
ideas to the office. She's shown exceptional customer skills --
customer service skills, and a recent administrative services division
customer satisfaction survey gave her high marks in this area.
Paulette is eager to participate in training and
development activities that will benefit both her and the county. In
addition, she's shown initiative and flexibility to assist in the AIS
office and wherever needed there is an -- where there is an overflow
of work. She has also assisted the public affairs coordinator with
special projects. You're a busy person. Paulette's well liked by her
peers and staff and other county agencies, and these are among a few
of the reasons that she was selected by her peers to be our employee
of the month.
We have a letter for you that merely says it's indeed a
pleasure. We have a plaque. I'd like to read it to you. Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, employee of the month.
Official recognition and appreciation is tendered to Paulette Wilson
for exceptional performance in March of 1995. Now, that's not just
during the month of March but '-
MS. WILSON: I know.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And we have the proverbial check
for $50. And, Paulette, it is indeed a pleasure.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a little addendum to
that. She's also nice enough to stop and pick up a commissioner who
might have run out of gas on one occasion.
MR. DORRILL: Paulette is one of those just genuinely
nice and angelic people who -- I don't know that she has ever had a
bad day. Every day that she comes to our office, she just really
epitomizes a highly motivated but sweet individual who does a very
good, thorough job and always has a smile for everyone on her stops.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: She will be proceeding directly
to the cloning laboratory I hope. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If only we could. In about a
couple hundred years we might be able to do that.
Item #SB1
JOINT PROJECT FUNDING FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEH
AT THE INTERSECTION OF PINE RIDGE ROAD AND 1-75 - APPROVED
As we move on with the agenda -- I don't think there
were any budget amendments, were there? MR. DORRILL: No.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. We'll move on with the
regular part of the schedule then, the county manager's report. And
first item on the agenda is 8-B-1 with transportation request for
approval of joint project funding for traffic signal installation.
Mr. Archibald.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Good morning, board members.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before he goes into a long
explanation, let me ask -- I don't know if all of us are familiar with
this, but pulling off exit 16 has got to be among the most frustrating
things driving-wise.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How about getting on?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or getting on. George,
correct me if I'm wrong, in '94 there were 50 accidents -- only 10
correctable, but 50 accidents at that location?
MR. ARCHIBALD: A little less, but there were a very,
very large number of correctable accidents.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This has been the most requested
intersection that I have come across.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So without further adieu, do we
have a motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to approve
the item.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second to approve
agenda item 8-B-1. Motion by Commissioner Constantine, second by
Commissioner Hancock. If there is no further discussion, all those in
favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks, George.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Archibald.
Item #SD1
CONSIDERATION OF LATERNATIVE IMPACT FEE CALCULATION FOR SHERWOOD PARK -
CONTINUED TO MARCH 28, 1995
Next item on the agenda is 8-D-l, consideration of an
alternative impact fee calculation for Sherwood Park. Mr. HcNees.
MR. HcNEES: Good morning, Commissioners, Mark HcNees
from your utilities division. Under the provisions of your water and
sewer impact fee ordinances, if a developer or builder feels like the
impact fee that he has been assessed under that ordinance is unfair or
doesn't accurately represent the capital costs that would be incurred
by putting that development onto the water and sewer system, he can
challenge the fees or ask for fee relief one of three ways: Either by
addressing our own master planning numbers and showing how they don't
relate to his project, by addressing the terms of the ordinance itself
and in showing how the ordinance doesn't and the study that created
the ordinance don't relate to his project, or by submitting an
alternative fee calculation that has certain criteria under the
ordinance for that fee calculation.
In this case the developers of Sherwood Park submitted
an alternative fee calculation that staff reviewed and our -- our
position is relatively simple. The staff -- from the staff point of
view, the ordinance, and I've -- I included the pages from the
ordinance in your agenda package that deal with the alternative fee
calculation. There's a -- some fairly specific requirements for types
of information that -- that are to be submitted in terms of
demographics, facilities, planning, some of that type of information.
What we've been given in this case is -- are some numbers that say on
an average annual basis this type of project uses less water,
considerably less water according to the developer on an average basis
than we assume is the average for this type of dwelling unit, this
type of use. And they really haven't addressed any of the information
in terms of how does that average flow over a year address the peak
capacities, which is what we have to build our facilities for. Is
this unit, which is not yet to be constructed, demographically similar
to the units that they're comparing it to? Some of those types of
information are just not included in the study, so staff's position is
-- is that the information that's been included in the alternative
impact fee study does not demonstrate with the types of information
under the provisions of the ordinance that are required for -- for you
to make a decision that the fee is appropriate. Now I'll emphasize
that this is not a staff call. Under the ordinance the Board of
County Commissioners makes a decision whether or not the information
supports a relief of the fee, and that is really pretty much wholly
staff's position. I know the developer wants to represent some of his
points regarding what he believes to be the fairness of the fee, and
I'm sure they're here to do that today, and I'll be happy to answer
any of your questions. With that I'll leave it to you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. HcNees, is -- this is just a
multifamily residential project?
MR. HcNEES: Yes. It's, I believe, a condominium
project.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Condominium project. Is there any
material difference, any substantial difference between this and
anybody else's condominium project?
MR. McNEES: I'd say it's on the small end of the scale
as condominiums go. I think as a part of case -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is the use of -- of water
traditionally proportionate to the size of the units?
MR. McNEES: Roughly, yes, but --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It roughly is. If someone has a
5,000 square foot condo, they're likely to use more water?
MR. McNEES: Only in that people in a larger condo would
tend to have more residents. That would be true. Now that's not
absolute, but within a range is -- is the key. And our ordinances are
built around that a type of use, there's a range, and there's
obviously an average. But, you know, around that average you're going
to have people who use a lot more water and some who use a lot less
water. So what I'm -- to answer your question would be within a
range, no, not -- they pretty much are consistent. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That was going to be my question,
Mike, and I guess I'll phrase it a little differently. When we
establish impact fees, the impact fees were based on in essence a
median use of a broad range of similar type structures; is that
correct?
MR. McNEES: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if one facility comes in on
the high end, we don't penalize additionally, and if a facility comes
in on the low end, we don't necessarily automatically give credit. Is
that a fair assessment?
MR. McNEES: Yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I just wanted to clarify
my understanding.
MR. McNEES: And in fairness to the petitioner, the
reason this provision is in your ordinance for the alternative
calculation is so that if there is a use that can be demonstrated to
be far outside of the range so that there -- there's a fairness issue
where the assumptions don't apply to them, they have an opportunity to
come in and petition you for relief. What we're saying is we don't
believe that that's the case in this situation, but obviously they
feel differently.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or if they're offering some level
of technology or something that -- that contributes significantly,
would that also be --
MR. McNEES: If they had to demonstrate they had some
sort of exact technology or fixtures where their water use was going
to be considerably less, then, sure, that would be the type thing that
__
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is my recollection correct that
we were going to -- this is the same item that was in front of us
briefly before, and it was postponed because we were going to get
substantially more information? And I don't have any more
information.
MR. McNEES: Neither do I. There was -- the petitioner
gathered more comparable use information from some similar
condominiums that are on our system, and what they showed to me -- I
just saw those a few days ago. What they showed was that this project
uses -- or they're saying it will use on an average basis about the
same amount of water as a number of selected similar condominium
projects that are currently on our system, which to me supports that
their fee should be the same as those that have come on and that we're
building these plants for.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just wanted to be sure that if
they had provided you with additional information, you would have
provided it to us because I'm disappointed not to have more in our
packet at this time.
MR. McNEES: They provided -- and I don't honestly know
that I got copies -- I may have -- of some additional comparable
condominiums, and I'll apologize if I didn't forward those on to you.
My understanding is the commission is to make a judgment based on the
alternative impact fee study that was submitted, and there are some
timing issues and deadlines there. And -- and I'll represent to you,
and I think probably the -- the petitioners will agree, that what they
found -- or at least what they submitted to us was that this project
is very similar in usage patterns to a number of the other
condominiums that are on our system, and they draw a different
conclusion from that, but I think that the material -- the facts are
that. And other than that, there was no additional information
presented.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. McNees, I've got two
questions. Number one, the first question is item 3 on the reasoning
that we should approve this is that units will be primarily occupied
by adults on a seasonal basis. Is there any -- any way that the
developer can guarantee that that will be so forever? MR. HcNEES: Not in my opinion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. The other question, you
say you've received information on comparable condominium units. Were
any of those comparable units granted relief under this?
MR. HcNEES: No, ma'am, and none of them petitioned for
relief under this.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. I presume, Mr.
Pickworth, you have something you want to say.
MR. PICKWORTH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Don
Pickworth representing Gulf Coast Communities, the developer of
Sherwood Park. Let me go through a few opening comments, and I think
I will address some of the items that were brought up in the board
questioning and that -- and then we will then go to our witnesses who
will give you more specific and firsthand accounts of some of these
things.
Let me -- to set the context of our entire discussion --
I think it's real important here. We are here because we asked the
county to enter into discussions with us to calculate an alternate and
an appropriate impact fee for Sherwood Park.
Sherwood Park is a condominium development consisting of
336 units. There's going to be, I believe its 42 buildings, each
building to be an 8-plex. And we felt for reasons that -- that our
witnesses will go into that the -- the fee structure -- see, we were
told that, you know, we can -- we can have a 6-inch meter, our
engineer says, and we'll talk about this. And what I'm going to give
you is a copy of the engineering report. A 6-inch meter is adequate
for this project. We were told that the impact fee would be basically
$900, which is your water impact fee or EDU impact fee, times 336.
And we were told that's what -- that's what it was.
Well, we looked in the ordinance, and that isn't what it
said it was, and we then felt that the reason was because at that
point it would be appropriate to enter into a discussion as to what
the appropriate amount was. And the touchstone for all this is found
in your ordinance, which says this article should not be construed to
permit the collection of water system impact fees from water system
impact development in excess of the amount reasonably anticipated to
offset the demand on the system generated by the development -- I
skipped a few words -- and there is the identical language in your
sewer system ordinance. So I mean obviously the touchstone of impact
fees is that everybody pay his fair share. And this is what is
required by the ordinance.
And the ordinance then provides a method -- and this
will address some of the comments Mr. McNees made -- a method by which
you go about addressing that situation. And it provides for what is
called an alternate fee calculation. Now, what I think has perhaps
been not understood by the staff, and we -- and we met with them the
other day and reiterated this point, but I guess we continue to
disagree on this. And you can see that in the executive summary they
talk about some independent study with demographics and facilities
planning and everything else.
Well, our point is we're not here to bring you a
separate independent study vis-a-vis the basis of your impact fees.
We're not challenging your own engineering study which establishes the
basis of your impact fees, and I'll quote from that in a moment. Your
impact fees are based on equivalent dwelling units. Your -- your
engineering study says equivalent -- it says ERCs or ERUs. There seem
to be a lot of different words, but it -- that's what your engineering
study is based on and we'll accept that.
And your ordinance says that an equivalent dwelling unit
is an average use of 410 gallons a day. Well, we're not here to bring
you an independent study where we think that your engineers were wrong
when they came up with that. We'll accept that proposition as a
starting point. And using that as a starting point now the question
becomes, given this use, what is the appropriate function of an EDU,
if you will, how do you -- and how do you establish that. And what we
have done is simply looked at your own records for -- your own water
use records and your -- and your staff people have been very
cooperative in giving us computer printouts. What I'm going to give
you in a moment is a big sack of computer printouts that they were
kind enough to give us which reflect comparable projects.
And we have taken projects, which are condominium
projects where the irrigation for the grounds is coming off of -- I
think in this case they were late type of irrigation. In other words,
it's not using your potable water system to -- to -- to irrigate the
project. And -- and so that's what we used for comparables, and based
on that -- and we'll talk about the numbers we come up with in a
minute, but that's how we arrived at what -- what would be a -- a
proper fee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Pickworth, can I ask you a
question?
MR. PICKWORTH: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why didn't we get any of this
information? Why are we going to have to see this on first blush?
Why didn't we get to see this today?
MR. PICKWORTH: Okay. Thank you. I meant to address
that. When we were here before, we -- we wanted a continuance because
we wanted the opportunity to develop this information and to work with
staff on this. And we met with Mr. HcNees last Friday, and the
message we got pretty loud and clear was -- because we told him we had
done a lot more development of comparables since then, and we laid out
exactly the same argument that I've just laid out to you. And it was
pretty clear that the rationale was exactly the rationale that was
just expressed: A, it doesn't matter how many comparables you bring
in because it's not going to change our mind; and, B, you're being
treated, quote, just like everybody else. Now -- so with that in mind
I guess our feeling was, well, we're going to have to bring this to
the Board of County Commissioners to get it adjudicated. I mean their
position is we apparently haven't done a study; the comparables don't
matter; and everybody else does it, so you should do it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But it would be nice if we could
-- since we're the ones that have to make that decision, I'm troubled
by having to make -- do some analysis of all these computer printouts
on the spot today.
MR. PICKWORTH: Well, I think we can -- I don't know if
we need to do that. I guess this is a quasi-judicial type of hearing,
and we're here to testify. And, you know, like in many -- any other
things where you listen to the witnesses and -- and adjudicate the
credibility and reasonableness of what they're saying. Our witnesses
will testify to -- to the fact that they have looked at the computer
printouts. They have field checked the various --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. I've got to ask Mr.
Cuyler a question. Does this rise to that level?
MR. CUYLER: This isn't really -- they do have a right
to present their case.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, I understand that.
MR. CUYLER: Some reasonable opportunity to present
their case. In terms of quasi-judicial, some of these things are a
little hazy as to whether they're quasi-judicial or not. I would
probably consider this quasi-judicial. This isn't really an appellate
position you're sitting in. Staff, in fact, brings this to you with a
recommendation one way or another. You make the decision.
Now, with regard to Commissioner Hac'Kie's concern, you
also have the ability to continue this if you want to after the
presentation of the evidence if you need additional time to look at
anything.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. PICKWORTH: I -- I would just ask that if we are
going to discuss that that we have the opportunity to participate in
that discussion if it comes later because obviously we initially wrote
the county manager, which is what your ordinance requires, back in
November. And in -- you know, there's a point at which, you know,
we'd like to get a decision.
Let me -- let me go back to what I -- what I was saying
about the basis of your impact fees, and I'm reading to you from the
study which forms the basis of your impact fees. It was done by
Hartman and Associates in August of 1992, and this is the, quote,
master plan referred to in your impact fees ordinances and
incorporated into your ordinance. So this is the study. And they say
an ERU is a unit of measure which approximates the average demand of a
single family residential customer receiving service based on certain
attributes of the residential unit, e.g. single versus multifamily,
comma, square footage of account.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Pickworth, I'm going to
interrupt you because if we're going to delve into the rationale nexus
that makes up the imposing of this fee of which none of us have a copy
of before us, we're not sure where you're going. But based on what
I'm hearing, I think you're going to run -- be leading us down a path
of a lot of numbers which many of us may not be able to keep track
of. And I'm wondering if this board is interested in continuing this
item and getting this information from the petitioner so that we can
study it under a reasonable basis because we're being asked to judge a
lot of numbers.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask one question. Mr.
Pickworth, can you make your case without attacking either the -- the
methodology of developing our impact fee ordinances or the ordinances
themselves, and can you make your case without presenting us with a
lot of numbers that we have not previously been presented? In other
words --
MR. PICKWORTH: The A part of your question the answer
is yes; the B part is no. And let me explain that. I am about to
pass all this out to you. We are not challenging the basis of the
ordinance. That's why rationale nexus really does not -- to address
your question, Madam Chairman, rationale nexus, which I understand is
the constitutional concept by which the general validity of an impact
fee is measured, is not part of our case. He's exactly correct that
we are not challenging the basis of your ordinance. I just read you
what the basis of your ordinance is. And all we're saying is take
that which says that the -- the basic unit is a single family
residential unit. Your ordinance says what that gallonage is, and
then use the county's records. This is where we have to get into
numbers because obviously in order to get a handle on this we have to
look at the records.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a minute. Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think I share Commissioner
Matthews' concern. And Commissioner Hac'Kie's expressed concern was
being given numbers even if you do have them in print, being given
numbers and asked to make a decision on that which in effect has an
impact of several hundred thousand dollars. I would -- I wish we
could have had these sometime in advance so I could have been able to
digest some of the numbers. You may very well have a valid argument
here. I just hate to have that handed out to us and immediately try
to digest them all and make the decision presto.
MR. PICKWORTH: Yeah, I don't know what the answer to
that is because obviously the ordinance provides we make an
application, and we have a hearing before the board where you decide
it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You'll have to speak to the
microphone and not to the wall. MR. PICKWORTH: Excuse me.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just wanted to remind you that
we need to pick this up.
MR. PICKWORTH: The procedure requires us to, you know,
make our application. We've worked with the staff and attempted to
resolve this, and having failed to, we now bring this to the board.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Don, I understand what you're
saying. The problem I have is that if I'm given this much information
without sufficient time to review it, I'm going to take the
conservative view and err on the conservative side for the county and
not throw a couple hundred thousand dollars away. If when in doubt
I'm going to protect the county. It is probably in your best interest
as well as ours to receive all the information that you have so that
we can review it individually so I can sit here and make an informed
decision. Without being able to digest all that information today --
and let's face it, every time someone hands me a packet this thick at
a hearing, I have no way of going through it and making it --
MR. PICKWORTH: This is it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's worse.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that -- this comes on
Thursday. So I get to spend my sleepless evenings looking at this.
But when I get something today, I have a difficult time making what I
would consider an informed decision on it, and it sounds like what
you're suggesting -- I would feel more comfortable looking at the
information you have ahead of the time to make a decision.
In addition, in a lot of what you have done already you
use the word average, or your consultants use average. Just to let
you know where I'm coming from, all I care about is peak. Average
doesn't mean doodle to me. When it comes down to water and sewer
systems, what we have to deal with in planning is peak because to
provide average means nothing. That means we can go under at any
moment. So I'm more interested in peak as far as what you're going to
present to us, but I would really like to see what you have to give us
with some time to take a look at it myself.
MR. PICKWORTH: Let me confer with Mr. Cuyler for one
moment and then respond if I could.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we've got a consensus.
Mr. Cuyler, is there a problem if we take a motion to continue this?
MR. CUYLER: No, ma'am. I think Mr. Pickworth and I
will both agree we don't waive any rights that either party has. Can
we have just one moment to talk?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sure.
MR. PICKWORTH: I just want to talk about how to
preserve fairness if we do this. I have no problem with the idea of
time and advance to submit the information.
MR. HcNEES: Commissioners, I'll fill in here for a
moment. Just a couple of things I'd like to clarify. Mr. Pickworth's
characterization of the staff is colorful, but it's not particularly
accurate. We do believe that the comparables matter, and we believe
that what they show is that this project's just like a lot of other
ones. And the contention that staff's mind is made up and no matter
what we tell them we're not going to change it, so we are going to
come to the board to adjudicate this, staff's position is essentially
irrelevant except as advisory. You under the terms of the ordinance
adjudicate this, and it's not a question of since they couldn't
convince us, they aren't going to convince you. And I tried to make
that clear all along that staff's position was only an opinion based
on how we read the ordinance, but it's your decision from the
beginning.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. HcNees --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment, Commissioner
Norris. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. HcNees, while we're
waiting, they've mentioned and you mentioned the comparables. I think
three in particular have been referenced. In your opinion, are they
truly comparable?
MR. HcNEES: They're -- they're similar. I would grant
that they're comparable.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And those three did not
petition us for a change? What I'm wondering -- without seeing the
numbers, I don't have any idea if he has a valid argument or not. But
if relief is available and group A, B, and C didn't pursue it, I
presume your recommendation that D should not get it is based on --
still on the numbers and the gallonage and the amount of water they'll
use. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact this A, B, and C
didn't pursue it themselves, because that was an option they had and
chose not to.
MR. HcNEES: No. We believed it to be fair, not just
because we did it for them, we have to do it for you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. HcNees, just one more time.
Has anything been presented to the utilities department that would
indicate that there's anything different about these -- this set of
condominiums than any other set that you've ever seen? Is there --
MR. HcNEES: No. Nothing has been presented to us that
makes this materially different from what we -- why we would assume it
to be as what it is.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What was it you just said, Mr.
HcNees?
MR. HcNEES: Nothing has been presented to us to make
from a staff point of view this markedly different from a standard
condominium type project, no.
MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, I think that the petitioner
will reluctantly accept the board's decision to have this continued.
I want to make it clear we're both preserving our rights as if they
existed today and as if the hearing went forward today. Mr. Pickworth
also wants to make sure that unless I tell him otherwise -- and he can
go in and speak to the commissioners -- that both he and staff present
the information and pay -- on paper to you, and you can review that.
But nobody is lobbying anybody, and nobody is talking to anybody. If
that changes -- if you have a question you need to get an answer from,
let me know, and I'll contact Mr. Pickworth and tell him what's going
on.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to
continue. My only question, can you have that to us this week so we
can put it on next week's agenda?
MR. PICKWORTH: I wanted to -- just a couple more
housekeeping items, and I think Mr. Cuyler and I are in agreement on
the process. This is almost like submitting a brief to an appellate
court, and you can read it, and we will come back here on a day, and
we will argue off of this. The staff will argue against this, and you
can adjudicate this.
I would actually like to present all of this to you
today because this is our evidence, and I have a copy of this for
everybody and one for the record, and what I'd like to do is -- this
will constitute our evidence in this case.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me ask you a question since
you're turning this into a court of law, so to speak. Under the rules
of discovery, doesn't staff have the right to see what you've got, and
don't they have the right to examine it?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My only question was how long
did you need.
MR. PICKWORTH: I don't know. But I guess they have
seen -- well, most of what we've got in here they've seen. Most of
what we've got is their records.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Pickworth, did you want
one week or two for a continuation? MR. PICKWORTH: Two weeks.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we
continue the item for two weeks. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's a motion and a second to
continue this item until March the 28th. All those -- is there
further discussion? There being none, all those in favor, please say
aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0 to continue for
two weeks.
Item #SH1
THIRTY YEAR AGREEMENT WITH TWELVE YEAR OPTION WITH THE IHMOKALEE WATER
AND SEWER DISTRICT TO LEASE A PARCEL OF LAND AT THE IHMOKALEE REGIONAL
AIRPORT TO OPERATE A WATER PLAN FACILITY - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
Next item on the agenda, item 8-H-l, a recommendation
that the Board of County Commissioners execute a 30-year agreement
with the Immokalee Water and Sewer District for the airport. Mr.
Drury.
MR. DRURY: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, John Drury, executive director for the Collier County Airport
Authority.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: John, I'm sorry to interrupt,
but you've been with us how long? Coming up on a year?
MR. DRURY: One year this week, I believe.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm noticing a little gray
hair in the front. I hope we haven't been that hard on you.
MR. DRURY: You're about the third person that's told me
that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Welcome to the club, John. I'm
getting it quickly myself.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ahh, poor things.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris has his
share.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That's okay.
MR. DRURY: Before you today is a recommendation that
the Board of County Commissioners execute a 30-year agreement with a
12-year option with the Immokalee Water and Sewer District to lease a
parcel of land on the airport. The Immokalee Water and Sewer District
currently have a 40-year lease on the airport that pays about $1,900 a
year. What we are asking Immokalee Water and Sewer District to do is
put in about $187,000 worth of waterline infrastructure to the new
industrial park. And that amounts to about four -- an increase in the
annual rent to about $4,452. The $186,000 that they will be
contributing to the airport industrial park will be matched by another
$186,000 by the Economic Development Administration in Atlanta to do
another $186,000 worth of work on the airport. So the total
contribution to the Immokalee Industrial Air Park is about $373,000.
This agreement would be at no cost to the county. It increases the
annual rent.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Drury, this sounds like one
of your standard presentations where, gee, whiz, we don't have to fork
out a dime, but we're going to get something in the end. MR. DRURY: That's a good summary.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, okay. I really don't have
any problems with this. I'd like to make a motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second,
motion by --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You need to get something on the
record?
MR. DRURY: Yes. There were some editorial changes, and
I'll leave them for the record. There was a page break in the
document that needs to be changed --
MR. CUYLER: John, you don't even need to cite them.
Just indicate that there are some editorial things we need to clean
up.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll amend the motion to approve
with changes submitted by Mr. Drury.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second, yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The second accepts the changes?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion by Commissioner
Hancock, second by Commissioner Mac'Kie to approve agenda item 8-H-1.
There being no further discussion, all those in favor, please say
aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0.
MR. DRURY: If it pleases the board, I just wanted to
let the board know that we just received all four grants yesterday for
the Marco Island Airport totaling exactly $875,000, so it's all coming
through.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It pleases the board.
MR. DRURY: It will be -- the authority accepted these
yesterday, and they will go before you in about a week.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks for all your good work.
MR. DRURY: Thank you.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 95-205 SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF HOUSE BILL 5 AND SENATE
BILL 438 RELATING TO ACCESS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO LOCAL PUBLIC
OFFICIALS - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the
agenda is county attorney's report, item 9-A, a resolution for public
access. We discussed this one last week.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is 23, and it's going to
go 5; is that right?
MR. CUYLER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've all had copies of this.
I assume we've all reviewed them. We had the discussion last week.
Unless there is public input, I'll be happy to make a motion to
approve the resolution.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Which ones are these?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 23 and 5, public access.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The one we've been asking for.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there public speakers on
this?
MR. DORRILL: No.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion by Commissioner
Constantine. Did you second it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I did.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Second by Commissioner Mac'Kie to
approve the resolution in support of the public access bill before the
legislature. No further discussion, I'll call the question. All in
favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 95-206 SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF HOUSE BILL 1693 RELATING TO
PARTIAL-YEAR ASSESSMENTS OF AD-VALOREH TAXES ON REAL PROPERTY BUT
OPPOSING THOSE PROVISIONS OF HOUSE BILL 1693 RELATING TO PARTIAL-YEAR
ASSESSMENTS OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise on the next -- H-B-005.
Is that the next one, or is this -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next one is a resolution on
partial year assessment.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, something we've discussed,
something that FAC has supported.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We just got that bill, and I was
going to circulate it, I think, today to you. This may be coming a
little bit premature. I'm not sure if you have had the opportunity to
read the bill. Is that tangible personal property clause in there?
MR. CUYLER: It's --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. Our version excludes that.
MR. CUYLER: We -- yes, it's in the bill. Yes -- yes,
it's in our resolution.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's been exempted.
MR. CUYLER: We do not -- we oppose the provisions that
relate to that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay, fine.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I made sure that was --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So we're opposing the
inclusion of the tangible personal property?
MR. CUYLER: Right. That's item number 2 at the bottom
of your resolution for 9-B.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If the board is comfortable
with that, I'll make a motion to approve that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion by Commissioner
Constantine and a second by Commissioner Norris to approve the
resolution in support of partial year assessment excluding tangible
personal property. All that -- if there is no further discussion,
call the question. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 95-207 REAPPOINTING FRANK BLANCHARD AND RICHARD LYDON AND
APPOINTING HUBERT HOWARD TO THE CITY/COUNTY BEACH RENOURISHHENT
MAINTENANCE COHMITTEE - ADOPTED
Next item is item 10-A, appointment of members to the
city-county beach renourishment maintenance committee.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I had just one question on
that one. Hub -- Hubert E. Howard, Junior. I wondered if -- if the
recommendations were made based just on this resume, which I don't
think would be an adequate description of Huby's ability to contribute
to this --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to this committee. I would
like to see Mr. Howard appointed to this committee unless there's some
strong reason that I am not aware of.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, I have similar feelings
about -- he's recommended for reappointment,
Dick Lydon, very involved, very active. I like both he and Huby. I
don't -- you know, again, I don't know Mr. Blanchard. I do know Miss
Fenderick. She's a landscape architect at a unnamed local engineering
firm.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That keeps cropping up.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. But I too also encourage
Mr. Howard and Mr. Lydon as two very well qualified candidates.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, then I will make a motion
that we nominate Mr. Howard, Mr. Blanchard, and Mr. Lydon.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion by Commissioner
Norris to recommend Mr. Howard, Mr. Blanchard -- Blanchard, and Mr.
Lydon to the city-county beach renourishment committee. We have a
second by Commissioner Constantine. If there is no further
discussion, all those in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0.
Item #10B
DISCUSSION RE FLORIDA CITIES WATER CITIZENS COHMITTEE - TO BE BROUGHT
BACK ON MARCH 21, 1995
Next item on the agenda is item 10-B, Florida Cities
Water Citizens Committee. Commissioner Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This should take all of about
60 seconds or less. When we did the conditional use for Florida
Cities' water expansion of their wastewater plant in Golden Gate,
there was a citizens committee referenced in there. There was some
confusion as to whether they had been officially appointed or not. It
was fairly clear on the record who those representatives would be, and
all I want to do is ratify that today that we have created, and those
people can meet and so on. There's been some confusion. Florida
Cities --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wasn't that an existing committee
that we merely moved into that?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. Florida Cities wants to
make -- has asked now to make a committee that they have -- citizens
advisory committee that they have appointed and had in place for a few
years, but those are their selections, which seems to be
self-defeating if this is supposed to oversee the Florida cities --
MR. DORRILL: We did something similar to this years ago
at Audubon, and it was to appoint a committee of residents who lived
just north of Audubon in Bonita Shores or Little Hickory. And we had
done a little research, and I remember there is a resolution as part
of the conditional use approval. And I don't know if -- Commissioner
Constantine, whether you want a subsequent resolution number or just
some official designation --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I'm asking that we
ratify -- it's fairly clear in that record as to who the positions
are. It's one person from the --
MR. DORRILL: Right, civic association.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A specific person from the
neighborhood, so on.
MR. DORRILL: All right.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just asking we ratify
that. That's all.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we bring that back next
week so we have definitive names and so forth and do it --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- do it properly. You can do
that next week, Mr. Cuyler?
MR. CUYLER: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We'll have that next
week.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 95-208 APPOINTING DAWN LITCHFIELD TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
HOUSING FINANCE COHMITTEE - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is a recommend -- or a
resolution from the Collier County Housing Finance Authority to --
they're recommending that we appoint Dawn Litchfield to their
authority.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a familiar name.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. There's only the one
recommendation, and there's only the one position, and I'm sure that
she's well qualified.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll gladly make that motion to
appoint Hiss Litchfield.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion by Commissioner
Hancock, a second by Commissioner Constantine to appoint Dawn
Litchfield to the Collier County Housing Finance Authority. If there
is no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor,
please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5-0. You've got a new
member.
MR. PICKWORTH: Thank you.
Item #10D
PRESENTATION BY MYRA DANIELS REGARDING THE CONCEPTUAL AGREEMENT FOR THE
TDC GRANT APPLICATION - CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL GRANTED WITH STIPULATIONS
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is item
10-D. It's a presentation from Myra Daniels on the mega event that we
all read about this morning that the Philharmonic is supporting, but
it is the county; is that right? The papers said the city. MS. DANIELS: It is the county.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what I thought.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It's an important point to start
off the presentation.
MS. DANIELS: Absolutely. They were here, and they
heard it as the county. I'm Myra Daniels, and, Madam Chairman,
Commissioners, I'm here to talk about a very exciting possibility for
our community.
The name of the event, the working name, is the mega
event. The corporate sponsors in this -- I have and have shown your
chairman a letter from Telarc International, the world's largest
independent recording operation, and they will put five million
dollars into this project. The date's Hay. We have yet to decide on
which day in Hay. We're hoping for the second week in Hay. The
location, a hundred acres in Westinghouse's new development, Pelican
Marsh, on Vanderbilt and Airport Road.
The goal would be to attract people to this worldwide --
worldwide publicized event in this county, and it would improve
tourism. We are aiming toward 20,000 people to come to the event, but
we know that there will be a billion impressions throughout the world
on the event. We already have commitments for nine total telecasts
all over the world, and there will be repeats.
The only way that I can explain this event to you is
that it is very similar to the Three Tenors. And the reason that I do
not name the artist is because we are in negotiation. And if we don't
get one, we have to get another, and you know how artists are. At
least we know with our six years of experience.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nobody wants to be second
choice?
MS. DANIELS: Right, right. We would be able to expose
our story and the Collier County story in 70 to a hundred countries
within 30 days of the event. We know that there will be CDs and video
cassettes and a book that will be printed. The book we will have
500,000 copies on the first run. The CDs will be approximately three
million to start with.
The campaign will be worldwide. We -- we have -- we
know that we will have advertisements in newspapers and magazines in
all the major cities in America; New York, Boston, Philadelphia,
Chicago, Cleveland, Washington. We know that we will cover Canada,
South America, Europe, and part of the Far East. The advertisements
will be both on the in-flight magazines for domestic and
international. A national radio campaign to promote this will be
done. There will be prominent placement in national direct mail
credit card campaigns such as American Express, Master, Visa.
Newspapers and magazines on all levels and the travel magazines will
take place. The -- we will be represented at POW, which is the -- the
organization that represents tourism throughout the country. We will
do some short-term concert campaign -- preconcert campaign
advertisements, and they will be in things like TV Guide. We will use
music magazines. We will use radio, television, and really basically
sponsor promotional campaigns.
There will be souvenirs. There will be a post-concert
campaign to sell the videos. That will be handled by Telarc. And
right down the line we have hired -- Telarc has hired the man who did
-- Wayne Brew (phonetic), who was the general manager of the Three
Tenors, and we will be working with him very closely. In fact, I have
been working with him very closely the last few days.
As far as our organization goes, you know we are in our
sixth year. Our assets are $31,733,244. We try to run a good
business, and so far we have succeeded in that. We will not promise
anything that we cannot present, and you might -- you might say, well,
why are you so interested, so I will tell you.
First, I think that this area deserves a major event, an
event that is not entertaining ourselves, but attracting tourism to
the -- to the community. But, secondly, my selfish side is that
Telarc International will hire our orchestra to perform with these
mega stars, and so that is a very, very major step.
The Philharmonic representatives and my colleague, Ann
Allen -- there she is -- who is our vice president of marketing, will
survey and collect data on all of the hotel occupancies. And we will
be able to not only check out what it means to the community, but we
will weigh what you are getting back. Ann, may I have my prop?
There are benefits to this community, and the community
really has far-reaching benefits. As we talked to the TDC, we told
them that it's seldom that you can get an outside investor to give you
a five million dollar investment to do this job. Telarc has agreed
not only to give us that sum, but to help us build an amphitheater,
and that would be on those hundred acres. And we would also have to
have at least 14 months of preconcert publications, publicity. And
it's such a hot item, because it's never been done in the world that
we know that we will get free mileage in the news publications and all
the major magazines and newspapers.
The worldwide television broadcasts in 70 to a hundred
countries we're pretty sure of because of the record of Three Tenors.
The -- and that will take place about 30 days within the 30 -- first
30 days of our presentation. The CDs and recordings, we're figuring a
very conservative run, and we think it will be three million. When
Three Tenors went out, they figured that, and they have more than
tripled that, so --
There are up to 20,000 that we can handle here in the
county, and they will be people coming from all over the world. We
have a commitment for 1,100 rooms. We need 500, but --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You need 5,000.
MS. DANIELS: 5,000. Did I say 500? I wish it were.
You just pile them into those 500 rooms. But basically we think that
we can get them in rentals, and we also think that when the hoteliers
see the whole plan, they may be able to let loose of some more rooms.
There's a team of a hundred production people who will
come in from Hollywood, but we will use probably three times that from
our own county if they are qualified for production. The documentary
is the making of a televised worldwide entertainment, and it will be
-- of course, we will show parts of Collier County, and it will be a
first-class piece.
And Three Tenors hit 1.3 billion viewers. We plan to
hit at least a billion. I think we'll -- I think we'll hit more.
According to Mr. Barouche (phonetic) and Mr. Woods, who is the
president of Telarc, they feel very confident of that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Let me first say that I
cautioned Myra last night about add-on items to our agenda that,
number one, get complicated and, number two, ask for a lot of money.
So she's elected to come forward on -- on her own, and I agreed to put
it on the agenda. So she's got a time frame that she needs to work on
__
MS. DANIELS: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and she's looking for
conceptual agreement. We'll talk in a few minutes what you mean by
conceptual agreement. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had a chance to talk with
Ms. Daniels this past week, and I hadn't seen it to this extent. But
as I try to break this down, we're looking at tourist tax dollars.
And if we can bring 20,000 people to the area, the economic impact
that adds is overwhelming. That is the purpose of the tourist
development funds. We talk about five million dollars that someone is
willing to pump into our economy, a crew of over a hundred people from
elsewhere, this is like Just Cause all over again. One of the big
reasons we had such a good season last summer was the filming of Just
Cause here in the county and the crews that they sent in and the money
that they spent. And that helps not only the hotels, but all the
other businesses in the county as well. So I think that money and the
economic side very easily is met.
I start looking at some of the other things you have
here, and it's staggering. That many countries -- we're looking at
maybe a hundred countries worldwide, CDs and videos. And you
mentioned several times the Three Tenors, and they are virtually
everywhere. You look at --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Even we bought that tape.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Naples Daily News. At the
end of the week they have the top albums and top videos and everything
else worldwide. And they are on both lists and have been for awhile.
And I suspect we could expect the same. But the recognition for our
area would not -- this isn't a one-time shot. This would go over and
over and over and over.
One of the complaints with category C, funds, is we've
been piling up the money, and there have been little or no applicants
for an event that truly draws people and has an impact. This looks to
fill that void. So I understand today you're just looking for
conceptual approval. You don't have whatever paperwork we need. But
at first blush this looks great.
MS. DANIELS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can't think of a bigger
event that's going to draw more attention to our area.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise I had the good fortune
of speaking to you, Ms. Daniels, over this week. And I became very
excited and in the same breath cautioned her that we have not seen a
request of this magnitude, nor have I think we've seen a project of
this magnitude, so they do parallel each other.
I have one concern, and that is that in the -- we're
looking at -- at what's the time frame from today to the point at
which this event happens? What is that time frame in months?
MS. DANIELS: If we get the concept approved, we will
work with your budget people and your attorney to get a document. We
will not touch any of your money and probably will not need it before
maybe March of '96. But we ask you to put aside the money that you
have and the additional money needed in escrow for this project.
We'll know quickly whether it's go or no. And we need to have the
backing that we would be able to use this two million dollars for the
artists and for some -- some of the media, but it doesn't start to
cover the media.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That brings in the second
question, which is there are obviously going to be other requests in
the interim between this time and the time at which that total two
million dollars is utilized. One or two of those may be significant
or may not. I would like to see what are we allocating; what are we
escrowing; what is left; in other words, are we using everything --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me -- let me do that. We did
some quick calculations last night. And currently in category C
there's about $800,000. There will be a little over $800,000 coming
from the supreme court settlement. We've got about 1.5, 1.6 available
right now in category C. We've been -- and that takes us through
what? September 30 of '94. So we're currently collecting money, and
we have another year to collect the money. We estimated by the time
that the Phil actually draws the money down, there will be about 2.8
available.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because my concern was
that we handcuff ourselves against any other requests or events that
may come in in the time frame, and I didn't want to put all our eggs
in one basket.
MS. DANIELS: There would be more, or you would have
that leeway. We're not --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Make sure we weren't
utilizing 100 percent during that time frame solely for this event,
because I am very convinced that this is a terrific idea.
MS. DANIELS: I don't think this will come to our
community every year, but I tell you that I stake my own background in
promotion on it because it has all of the elements of making a good --
a good presentation for our community. I apologize for being so rapid
on this, but we -- we have learned that a similar project could be in
the wind, and so we have to announce it. We have to get our
contracts.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just in reference to
Commissioner Hancock's question, which is a very good question, we
raise -- I don't know. What is it -- about 800,000 --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A year for category C.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- a year in category C, and
in the past couple years we've spent like 150,000 total. So I think
if we have over and above what you're requesting another 800,000, we
have a fairly good cushion there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Cuyler, on category C, if the
event is financially successful, the funds are returned to the TDC; is
that correct?
MR. CUYLER: Under the -- under the current guidelines,
yes, but there's been a lot of discussion about changing that. I
don't know whether that's going to get changed or not. When I say
under the guidelines, those are guidelines adopted by resolution of
the Board of County Commissioners. That's not in the statute. That's
not in your ordinance, but that is the current guideline.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's the current guidelines.
MS. DANIELS: We are asking for two million that will
cover the artist fees, and we have nothing to do with the other side
of the five million. We can't control it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Keep the -- but my -- my question
is, if nothing changes in the ordinance, that has to be repaid out of
receipts from the event.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I believe based on some of the
discussion. Would we have to make this change prior to the money
being approved?
MR. CUYLER: I would suggest that you do. There was a
lot of discussion at the TDC about if you could fill up enough bed
nights.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
MR. CUYLER: You know, that's what we're looking for as
opposed to a situation where you don't fill up that many, and then we
have an agreement that if you have anything extra, you return it.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A simple question that might
render this discussion moot is do you anticipate taking in -- you said
20,000 people, but do you anticipate taking in two million dollars at
the gate?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Actually it's five. The seven --
MS. DANIELS: The -- the total cost of this whole
project is a little over seven million dollars. We anticipate at
least three million to come in on gate, but we have to pay all the
rest of this out.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So unless you make more than
what you're putting out, then the discussion we're having is moot. I
think it's a valid point, and we need to look at it, but it may end up
being moot here anyway.
MS. DANIELS: I don't think we'll have seven million
dollars.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess one of my questions, Mr.
Cuyler, deals with the sequence of events that we're talking about.
If this board were to agree to conceptual approval of this -- and
obviously the application for the grant itself can't be filed until
she has some further word from her artist and the conductor and so
forth -- is it the date of the approval of the application or today if
we sign on conceptually to this that will guide the refunding of grant
monies?
MR. CUYLER: It will be the date of the approval of the
application will be actually your contract that you enter into, either
then or shortly thereafter. And to tell you the truth, I'm not sure
your guidelines really anticipate a project of this size.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Of this size, I'm not sure it
does.
MR. CUYLER: You may need to make some changes. Matter
of fact, some of the items that Miss Daniels is saying the money would
go to, I'm not sure that's what it would go to. But in an eight
million dollar project, there is certainly two million dollars that
can be used for appropriate items under your -- under the guidelines
and such, but it may take some tweaking and some changes to your
guidelines to accomplish this. But I knew that if this type of
project ever came along, that you would be looking at a change to your
guidelines.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This sounds like an excellent
project, this is something that would be very beneficial to our
community. Unfortunately, I haven't had the luxury of meeting with
Hiss Daniels in the last week or so, so this is the first time that I
have seen any of this information.
There is a couple of other factors. There has been a
suggestion, not a formal request yet, but a suggestion that some of
this money may be used for a project like Lake Avalon. The other
thing is we don't have two million dollars in the account right now,
and we're hoping that we will, and we would assume that we will, but
we don't know that at the moment. We can -- we can project that we
probably will. So all I'm saying is that while I think it's a
worthwhile project, it's something we need to take a hard look at. I
think it's a bit premature for me to support it today without having
the benefit of further information.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I disagree. You asked about
the current TDC law, and under our existing law Lake Avalon wouldn't
qualify because our local county has not -- it's not structured to put
money toward parks. I understand that question is coming up, but
under existing law that's not an alternative.
I understand we have one speaker, but I am going to put
a motion on the floor today to make a motion in favor of conceptual
approval and, of course, subject to budgetary review. If for some
reason we don't collect any tourist tax money between now and next
March and we don't have that much, then obviously we can only give
what's there. But I am going -- I will wait until we have the speaker
to make that formal, but I will make that motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Before we have a second, I need
to get some things on the record also. We have a speaker, Mr.
Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am, Mr. Keller. He's your only
One.
MR. KELLER: George Keller, concerned citizen. I would
just like to ask one question. Has the Tourist Development Council
passed this thing?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
MR. KELLER: Oh, they passed it?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They did on a vote of six to
two .
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Hr. Keller.
HR. CUYLER: Six to two based on conceptual that was
requested of the board.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay, Hiss -- Hiss Daniels,
before we get a motion on the floor, I've got some things that I think
we need to get onto the record. And number one is a budgetary
review. The Tourist Development Council has in the past opted to make
funds available in the event of a hurricane, and we had one summer
season before your event. And some of the funds that currently exist
may be furthered away should there be a storm this summer, so I need
to make you aware of that.
MS. DANIELS: I am appreciative of that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The other thing is I need an
explanation from you as to what is your interpretation of conceptual
approval.
MS. DANIELS: It means that I can go ahead and negotiate
the artist, set the time. We have the land. We would have to start
ticketing within 60 days. It would be a terrible thing if we then had
the concept pulled back. We would trust the fact that tourist
development's majority and whatever this vote is would back it, and we
would work toward finalizing it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you going to be working with
our attorney on the artist contracts so I presume that there will be
adequate protections for the county and the TDC funds should for some
reason the event fall apart?
MS. DANIELS: We -- we would carry insurance on certain
facets of it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I'm --
MS. DANIELS: We will not collect any money -- if this
event cannot go ahead, then there's no money to collect.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just don't want artists who
have entered into contracts winding up suing the county. MS. DANIELS: They can't.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just want to make sure that
that doesn't happen.
MS. DANIELS: We can make sure of that. You're not
hiring them.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're going to work with Mr.
Cuyler. And I presume, Mr. Cuyler, you're going to make sure that the
county is adequately protected.
MR. CUYLER: Yes, ma'am. And Hiss Daniels has obviously
done some big projects in the past. She understands that she can only
rely on the contract. And we need to actually get the contract put
together before she can --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to me it's kind of
like chicken and egg. You can't make a formal application unless you
know there is some support so you can't negotiate --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand that. I just need
to get these on the record --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- so that if things --
MS. DANIELS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- don't work out that we've got
what we need. And the last thing that I need to make sure that you're
in agreement on is that any conceptual agreement made by this board
today is subject to a submittal and approval of a grant application to
the TDC --
MS. DANIELS: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and this board at some future
date, that all we're doing today possibly is to agree with the concept
and agree to set funds aside in the event that you file this
application and get it approved. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: One -- one final question for Hiss
Daniels is are we going to know who the Tenors are before we commit
any final monies?
MS. DANIELS: They are not Tenors. I -- I hope that we
can negotiate this very quickly.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not going to be the Three
Piccolo players, is it?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: She maintains that we'll
recognize their names as soon as we hear them.
MS. DANIELS: You will know them. They are household
names.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Grateful Dead.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, do we have everything
on the record now that we need to get on the record?
MR. CUYLER: Yes ma'am. I think that everybody
understands what we're doing today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to make a motion.
Recognizing that the tourist development tax is indeed for that,
tourist development, and that this will pump seven million dollars
plus into our economy, that it's going to fill $55,000 room nights,
that as a result of that we'll have a --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: $5,000 room nights?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I've got a dollar
sign written here. Let me scratch that out. 5,000 room nights,
probably a little more than $5,000, a huge positive impact. And I
think perhaps most importantly to tourist development is we can gain
from this unparalleled recognition. MS. DANIELS: Worldwide type.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think there is any
other type of event that would bring this type recognition. So with
that in mind, I'll make a motion in favor of conceptual approval
obviously subject to the budgetary review and if we have a hurricane
or all the things outlined by our chairman.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion by Commissioner
Constantine, a second by Commissioner Hac'Kie. Is there further
discussion on the motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have to admit -- and I'm going
to support the motion -- it's big enough to give me butterflies,
Myra.
MS. DANIELS: Don't worry.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is a huge commitment. I
will support the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've got butterflies too, but
obviously we keep the money until she can produce the contract
applications and all that so I can support it.
MR. DORRILL: Commissioner Constantine is forever
reminding Mr. Cuyler and I that -- when he expects to see something
back, and you expect to be updated on this, and if so, what time
frame. And you may want to get some concurrence as to how quickly
that might be.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would be yesterday?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: She's indicated that she needs to
move forward quickly with the contracts. Can you give us some time
frame as to --
MR. DORRILL: 30 days.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- when the TDC will look for
this grant application?
MS. DANIELS: Oh, I think we can have the grant
application within the next ten days.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that will have all of the
contract names, artists, conductor -- MS. DANIELS: Well, I don't know about the contract
names yet. Give me the leeway then for 30 days. If I can come back
in ten, you have it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think -- I don't want to commit
this board, but I think we would like to see the names of the artists
when this application comes back --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When it's approved.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- when it's approved because I
mean it's two million dollars, Myra. MS. DANIELS: All right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's a lot of money. With no
further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor,
please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 4 to 1, Commissioner Norris in the
opposition.
MS. DANIELS: We're grateful. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Let's take a quick
break. It's 25 after. Be back at 20 of.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Come back for the afternoon
agenda.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I like that.
PUBLIC COMMENT - DISCUSSION REGARDING LANDFILL CONTRACT
(A short break was held.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the county commission
meeting for March 14th, 1994. We're into the afternoon portion of our
agenda.
MR. DORRILL: You do have a public comment.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We do have a public comment?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We're at the public
comment.
MR. DORRILL: From Mr. Delate.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Delate, we limit our public
comment to 5 minutes.
MR. DELATE: Good morning. For the record John Delate.
And before I give my remarks, I would like to give a brief preface.
Please do not assume that the public has lost interest in the landfill
issue. Just as low voter turnout does not signify satisfaction with
the elect firms, so too the lack of large groups in front of you today
does not indicate agreement with the landfill contract.
As you are well aware, on February 17th the board voted
3 to 2 to approve a contract with Waste Management for the operation
of the landfill. Through public review of the contract several very
important points have been clarified and have saved the county
countless amounts of money. It has been these county residents who
have fostered the following changes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Delate, I need to interrupt
you. You said February 17th. I believe it was February 7th.
MR. DELATE: Okay. Excuse me, February 7th.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DELATE: The reduction -- the county -- it has been
these county residents who have fostered the following changes: A
reduction in the size of the daily working space in the tarp; the
implementation of adherence to the Clean Air Act; the disallowance of
tires as an intermediate cover; and control of the origin of the waste
flow.
Public scrutiny of the contract has thus far been
extremely beneficial to every single county resident. The final
version of the contract, however, has not been put forth for public
examination. It is imperative that the board permits this democratic
process to take place. To avoid this review would be detrimental not
only to rate payers, but especially those people in the 4-mile radius
surrounding the landfill.
This contract probably still contains numerous serious
flaws that must be addressed. The board shouldn't, as they did in the
past, use the excuse that you will wait the 120 days until the daily
operations plan is presented. That plan will simply reflect items
currently in the contract.
I've spoken to attorneys on this matter as well as
engineers. They have told me there is no mechanism in the contract to
alter the daily operations plan once the document is signed. So any
alterations must, therefore, be corrected prior to the final signing.
Among the most critical aspects of the contract that
need to be addressed are the following: Number one, the use of an
intermediate cover. The contract, as I understand it, still states
that this cover may be lifted up to dump more waste. The Florida DEP
and sanitary landfill experts contend that at least 12 inches of dirt
fill should constitute the intermediate cover. Removing a 12-inch
intermediate cover is not the best management practice; and, number
two, the use of a synthetic tarp for daily cover instead of 6 inches
of dirt fill. The Florida DEP, the EPA, environmental engineering
experts, fire chiefs, and even our own county staff affirm that the
soil cover is much safer for fire control and that it significantly
reduces odor.
The EPA who I spoke to several times in the past few
days ranked daily cover materials and stated that soil fill is indeed
the most effective. They said that foam is next as an average cover
and that a synthetic tarp is the least effective. In fact, the EPA
official noted that a deodorizing agent, basically a perfume, is used
with the tarp just to help combat the odor. These safety and odor
control issues must never be trivialized.
Do not assume, as many have, that gas management systems
will abate the odor. The Lee County landfill has had the system in
place for years, and that dump still emits an awful odor. They have
the gas management system, but they also use a tarp. Here again the
EPA authorities say that no one should suggest that a gas management
system will eliminate the odor at any landfill, so the 80 to 90
percent reduction predictions that have been floated around are not
based on anything scientific.
The board should remember that economics must be weighed
with quality when assessing bids. It appears as though this contract
sacrifices high safety and quality standards for lower tipping fees.
The three board members of the prevailing side in this contract need
to revisit the contract and address the aforementioned issues as well
as many other concerns. The public must also have the chance to
review the finalized version. For if this opportunity to revisit the
contract passes, when the odor problem remains, we can thank
Commissioners Hancock, Mac'Kie, and Norris. And if this opportunity
to revisit the contract passes when the cost to correct operational
insufficiencies exceed the county's original bid, we will remember
Commissioners Hancock, Mac'Kie, and Norris. And finally, if this
opportunity to revisit the contract passes, and God forbid a fire
crisis occurs at the landfill, we will be forced to live with the
inactions of Commissioners Hancock, Mac'Kie, and Norris.
And so I ask the three commissioners who are on the side
who voted for the contract, will you take this last opportunity to
respond in a positive fashion on behalf of the community to reopen
this contract,
revisit it, and address these very, very important issues.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Delate. Mr.
Cuyler, I know there's one consideration still remaining that I asked
Mr. Weigel to look at. Do we have a final contract yet?
MR. CUYLER: The answer, in my opinion, is -- is yes.
We've -- we're waiting on one final call. The document is, for all
practical purposes, finalized.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We -- we have a date that needs
to be addressed in it, and as soon as that is done, we will have a
final --
MR. CUYLER: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A final, distributable contract.
MR. CUYLER: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So whenever that is done,
and I presume it will be sometime today, the final contract that you
have asked for should be available. And I've also asked it to be
distributed to the members of the board for them to review prior to my
signing it.
At this point I do not intend to sign the contract until
the board members individually have reviewed it though we are under
the constraints of the public meeting process that was held on
February the 7th. And I am under direction from my board to sign that
contract if the contents of the contract are indeed the items that
were discussed on February 7th.
At this point, with the exception of a date, it is. At
least I think it is based on what I read.
MR. CUYLER: Yeah. And let me just make one more thing
clear just in case anybody is getting the wrong impression. Any
comments or anything would come to our office, they're not going --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, they're not going to come
to me. Prior to my signing it I will be giving Mr. Cuyler a call, has
he heard anything from any one of the four of you regarding the
contract. And if he has not, then I will be signing it. That's the
direction of this board.
MR. DORRILL: Correct -- correct me if I'm wrong,
though, I don't think that we're intending to renegotiate the tarp
issue. If I understood Mr. --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That was not in the discussion on
February 7th or the January 20th meeting. It was discussed, but there
was no agreement.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think that's what Mr.
Delate has asked is if any of the three who were in the majority would
be willing to rediscuss that issue because of some of the information
he has brought to light. Obviously Betty and I don't have the ability
to do that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I will say, Mr. Delate, you
don't have one smidgen of an idea as to what I am or am not doing in
regard to this contract, sir. I take offense to your comments and the
manner in which you've stated them, and I'll just leave it at that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have further public
comment?
MR. DORRILL: Apparently I believe the same subject, Mr.
Krasowski.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good morning. I'm -- I'm here today
just to show agreement and support of Mr. Delate, just about
everything he said, okay. I share John's concern as well as his
frustration. I think the whole issue here is this -- the reason we're
here is in an effort to get one of the three commissioners that voted
for this contract to bring it up and put it back on the agenda.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're beyond the 30 days.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're beyond the 30 days.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. I was going to ask for
clarification on that. Well, I'm -- I'm sorry to hear that this
process has culminated in -- in the situation that exists today.
There are issues in regards to odor, to fire control, emergency
management, issues in regarding to engineering. You're agreeing to an
experimental landfill operation putting this community at risk when
daily cover is removed and intermediate cover is removed with no clear
direction as to how the -- the landfill pile will be constructed.
There's not even research, okay, that can indicate what the result of
these new techniques might be. Nobody does this anywhere. Okay. I'm
wondering what kind of impact this might have on the Golden Gate
residents as far as fire insurance, stuff like this.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hay I --
MR. KRASOWSKI: I think we have missed the opportunity
to -- and it's -- we've been kind of stonewalled. We've kind of
rushed the judgment on this and missed the opportunity to address
these issues in depth in the depth that's required.
The -- we have done a lot of work on this. There's been
a lot of discussion, a lot of negotiation, hearing from the public.
But at the very end here, this final contract, the contents of that
contract, the wording of that contract, the issues that are still in
that contract has not been seen by anyone, anyone. And you've gone
past the deadline which supposedly would allow the board to include
the public in -- in the process, so the process is dead. We haven't
even been permitted to see the final documentation. To me this is
taxation without representation, because we have to use this solid
waste system. Our garbage must go into this process. So I ask if
there is anything that can be done on your behalf, I'd appreciate it.
Mr. Hancock seems to have things going on out of view if
what he said to Mr. Delate is accurate. I don't know what he might be
doing behind the scenes, but apparently whatever you've done, it has
been ineffective, and your one vote along with the other two votes has
caused us to come to this position today. So as the tape of your
former meeting goes into the time capsule over at the Palm Cottage,
the tape of this meeting will be put on record for the next time you
guys come up for election or the next time that you people participate
in a project on behalf of this community. Because when the tipping
fees and the costs of operating that landfill go above what the county
could do -- do it for, the responsibility of -- of these problems is
going to lie on you.
And as far as the other issues that were brought up by
Mr. Delate, I agree with him a hundred percent. This is -- this
burden is on you. You brought us to this. That's all I have to say.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I'd like to respond to the
fire issue just to let this board know what I have done, and that is
shortly after the issue of landfill fire was brought up, I got a
letter off to Chief Peterson asking for information regarding how many
emergencies had occurred at the landfill in -- I guess since it opened
in 1976 and so forth. I have not received any response whatsoever.
So I -- I have to assume either the numbers do not exist, or it's
simply not important enough that he needs to address it. I don't
know. I just know that there's been no answer.
MR. KRASOWSKI: The way he was run out of here last week
was incredible.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I wrote him what I thought
was a letter not soliciting but eliciting a response and inviting him
that if we need to have some sort of engineering survey for fire
protection purposes, then so be it. We should do it. But I have not
had any response.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, I would think something like that
might take a little time. That's been what, a week?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't know. No. It's been a
little more than a week.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. Well, I appreciate it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But anyway I would hoped to have
had even a quick -- something to say. I'm working on it, but that's
not happened. Mr. Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Cuyler, did -- did this
contract process vary from the normal contract process?
MR. CUYLER: Only in the extent to which it was reviewed
by the board.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Have you in your tenure with the
county ever seen a contract examined in detail by any previous board
such as this one has been?
MR. CUYLER: No, I haven't.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Have you ever seen a contract that
had more public input and more public hearings involved with the
process than this one?
MR. CUYLER: Not that I can recall.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: When did we start this process?
Do you recall? Was it 19937
MR. CUYLER: Yes, we started talking --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: September, October 19937
MR. CUYLER: -- about these issues.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Does that lay, in your opinion, to
rest the criticism that we rushed into this process into this
contract?
MR. CUYLER: I clearly believe that you didn't rush into
the process, and I clearly believe that -- some of these issues, as a
matter of fact, have even come up after the main public hearing. And
I'm not sure the fire issue came up at the main public hearing --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, it didn't.
MR. CUYLER: -- which was the public's opportunity to
raise issues to the board. I think the board has probably in a couple
instances gone a little further than I would tell you to go in terms
of asking the other contract party to change things, but since that's
happened and -- and it's worked out for the best, and I think there
are some things that Bob would consider as having innred to his
arguments, you know, I would say, yeah, you've looked at it very
critically.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- I'm going to resist the
urge to comment to any great extent, but, first of all --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you have additional comment?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- my overriding concern is that
you're using this forum in a way that I think is inappropriate because
you're frightening people, and I think you could be frightening them
unnecessarily, talking about people's fire insurance rates and things
like that. And I would caution you, please, to be careful on the use
of the forum that you have.
MR. KRASOWSKI: You are frightening me.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I appreciate that. And I also
can't resist saying that I welcome you, please, that's what the
process is about. For God's sake, don't reelect me if I'm not doing
what you want me to do, and I don't feel that as a threat. I want you
to know that. I welcome that. That's what democracy is, so thank you
for participating.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I'm glad we see that.
One last thing. In regards to the work you've done on
this contract, it has been extensive. The only thing I perceive as
possibly a rush that I was referring to was at the very end of the
process. Nobody here -- nobody has read -- I have to pull back on
that. I think Mr. Cuyler might have read it, but none of the
commissioners, none of the public have read the final contract.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay.
ask?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay.
right?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Excuse me, I have read it.
When did you read it? May I
Gees, weekend before last.
And you've been working on it;
There were two issues left.
Okay. But as far as --
One of which turned into a
nonissue, the other of which is a minor date change.
MR. KRASOWSKI: My point being the final contract hasn't
gone through the process. That's just my position.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's tweaked so minorly, Bob,
it's just -- it is the final contract.
MR. KRASOWSKI: The process decides, not individuals.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The process has gone for two and
a half years, seriously.
Do we have any other public comment?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. Mr. Cuyler, you're presuming
that contract will be available this afternoon provided WMI's attorney
gets back to us?
MR. CUYLER: Yes, I expect it to be today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So it --
MR. CUYLER: We're waiting on a call.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: As I said, it --
MR. CUYLER: If the call is the answer I expect it to
be, it should be distributed today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: As I said, it's my intention to
sign that contract unless there are board members that impose
questions to Mr. Cuyler that need to be addressed. And I guess at
this point it would probably be Friday before I sign it because I --
it is an extensive contract, and it will take some while for you to
read it.
MR. CUYLER: Just -- you know, as the board's aware, you
often make decisions on documents, make changes, tell us to go make
the changes --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That happens quite frequently,
yeah.
Item #12A1
ORDINANCE 95-12 REGARDING THE 1994 GROWTH HANAGEHENT PLAN AMENDHENTS -
ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda, 12-A-l, review and adoption of
1994 growth management plan amendments.
MR. LITSINGER: Good morning, Madam Chairman,
Commissioners. For the record Stan Litsinger of the growth management
section. This morning this is the second public hearing or the
adoption public hearing for the 1994 growth management plan amendment
cycle which was transmitted to the department of community affairs for
review and comment on October llth, 1994 -- or, excuse me, on January
29th we received the department's objections, recommendations, and
comments report. I can characterize their comments and objections as
technical in nature to which we believe we have responded in a
noncontroversial manner and without changing the nature of the
intended amendments.
We have amendments to the capital improvement element,
which is the annual update, which we do each year. We have amendments
to the transportation circulation element. We have amendments to the
Golden Gate master plan, the future land use element, and the map
series of the future land use element.
If the board would like, I can briefly review the
amendments for the capital improvement element, and I can have Miss
Cacchione and Mr. Perry review the transportation circulation and
future land use elements.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Litsinger, this is -- with the
minor adjustments that you made, this is the same material that we saw
before?
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir, it is.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So this is really boilerplate in
nature?
MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. That's correct. With
-- if there is potential here for a motion, I believe Mr. Perry did
have some information he wanted to share with you on a study that you
requested to be done on the Vanderbilt Beach Road segment west of 41.
As you know, we changed the level of service there and established a
new constrain -- policy constraint level of service standard which the
department did not object to. But I think he wants to share some
information with you on that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, that's good news.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Perhaps we should hear
from Mr. Perry then.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: While Mr. Perry is coming up,
just for the rest of the board's edification, I found out last week
that Vanderbilt Beach Road for the segment between -- actually for the
segment all the way across -- the new construction segment has
received all of its permits, environmental permits. They're in hand
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's more good news.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- ready to move ahead, so --
real excited, and I'm sure Pine Ridge is jumping up and down at this
moment.
MR. PERRY: Good morning. For the record Jeff Perry
from the long range planning staff and services department. In
addition to transmitting the amendments requested by the board, you'll
recall that we had suggested that you designate the Vanderbilt Beach
Road west of U.S. 41 as constrained along with sending along the
definition of what that meant. The board chose instead to adopt a
level of service E standard and at the same time directed staff to
undertake another capacity study of that roadway to determine whether
or not there was, in fact, greater capacity than had been analyzed in
1990.
David Plummet and Associates was contracted to perform
that study. They had done the study in 1990. We have copies of that
preliminary analysis for you today for your review. But I'll very
quickly tell you that we did -- the results did show that there is an
increase in capacity across the board at the C range, D range, and E
range. So that what was, for instance, level of service E capacity in
the 1990 report was 12,600 vehicles a day. Based on the current
configuration of the road it's 13,100, an increase of 13 percent. D
range went from 12,000 to 13,000, which was an increase of about 8
percent. So because of conditions changing in the corridor,
additional turn lanes, signal timing changes, things that have
transpired since 1990, there's a slight increase in the capacity. So
by lowering the level of service to E and increasing the capacity of
E, you have given yourselves a few extra years of time to deal with
problems in that corridor short of going out there and four-laning it
as was originally programmed in your capital improvement element from
41 west to Vanderbilt Drive.
So we have copies of those reports we'll leave for you
in case you'd like to take a look at it. We'll also be looking -- the
rest of their study will be looking at other improvements in that
corridor short of four-laning the road that would add additional
capacity that would avoid having to four-lane the road anytime in the
next couple of years. And that study will be completed probably
within the next 30 to 60 days.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a possibility, since
this study pretty much addressed the problem, I think, for that road
-- I mean even level of service D is acceptable now even though we
adopted E -- that maybe we should make such a study with other roads
in the county. I mean it's five years old now.
MR. PERRY: Your annual update -- excuse me, your
adequate public facilities ordinance requires those kinds of studies
when we get to the point of having created problems short of a
building moratorium. In most cases we have long range projections
that indicate a continual growth of traffic on our roads. So it's a
matter of, well, is it going to be this year, or is it going to be
next year, and we might be able to get a little bit of extra
capacity. Sometimes it goes the other way. You go out and analyze
the road, and typically there have been more problems created on the
road. There's more signals. There's more driveways. Speeds are
slower, and it actually goes the other way. So oftentimes it's -- if
you go out and analyze the road, you'll find that you're in deeper
than you really thought you were originally.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess --
MR. PERRY: In some cases where we thought there would
be a capacity increase as a result of improvements, perhaps signal
timing improvements or something like that, we would certainly
recommend that we do that before we go out -- and certainly before we
go out and spend a lot of money on widening the project.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was just questioning whether we
should wake that sleeping dog, and I guess you're saying no, we
shouldn't do that, and whether there is an economy of scale in doing
it by planning districts.
MR. PERRY: We could certainly point out on which roads
it would be beneficial. On this particular road we agreed it would be
beneficial to do that kind of analysis based on the nature of this
particular roadway.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if there are any
public speakers, but if you'd close the public hearing, I'd be more
than happy to make a motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment. I think
Commissioner Hancock may have a question.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually not a question. I just
wanted to mention to Mr. Perry on behalf of the residents that live
along that corridor, to you and to my fellow members of the NPL, I
want to say thank you because we've really addressed a local need, and
I appreciate the work on it.
MR. PERRY: You're welcome.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there public speakers on
this, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to approve
the growth management plan amendments. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
adopt the 1994 growth management plan amendments.
MR. LITSINGER: One clarification. As a result of the
issues that Mr. Perry just discussed on Vanderbilt Beach Road, we will
probably be removing that improvement to the Vanderbilt Beach Road
segment west of 41 in the coming adjustment or update of the CIA.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Again, I think the citizens along
that road will be most pleased to see that. No further discussion,
I'll call the question. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, the motion passes 4 to 0, Commissioner
MAc'Kie being absent.
Item #12B1
PETITION PUD-94-11 PARKWAY PLACE - CONTINUED TO 3/28/95
Next item on the agenda is 12-B-l, petition PUD-94-11.
MR. CUYLER: That item is continued to 3-28.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, I'm sorry. I missed the --
at the end.
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 95-209 RE PETITION AW-95-01, RICHARD SCHONDER OF DOS
CALIENTE, INC. D/B/A TACO CALIENTE, REQUESTING A 350 FOOT WAIVER OF THE
MINIMUM REQUIRES SEPARATION OF 500 FEET BETWEEN PLACES SERVING
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND CHURCHES FOR A RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 1048 PINE
RIDGE ROAD WITH A RESULTING SEPARATION DISTANCE OF 150 FEET - ADOPTED
WITH STIPULATIONS
We're up to item 13-A-l, petition AW-95-01.
MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners. Fred Reischl,
planning and technical services. Petition AW-95-01 is a request to
waive the distance to allow the Taco Caliente restaurant to serve
alcoholic beverages within 500 feet of the Seventh Day Adventist
Church and school. They're both located on Pine Ridge Road across the
road from each other 150 feet in a 6-lane divided highway. In
addition, the restaurant is located over 100 feet behind the property
line south of Pine Ridge Road. And another fact, in 1990 the Board of
County Commissioners approved a 500-foot waiver for the Long John
Silvers restaurant immediately adjacent to the Seventh Day Adventist
Church and school.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a question also. Is there
a for-sale sign on that church and school?
MR. REISCHL: Yes, it's -- they're planning to not be
there much longer.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're planning not to be there
much longer, and they're not necessarily -- it's not necessarily going
to remain in the use of a church? MR. REISCHL: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're going to desanctify it or
whatever you do when you move a church.
MR. REISCHL: That's my understanding.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: De-christen?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't know what it -- I don't
know what the term is but -- do we have any questions for staff?
Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I assume we've had no letters of
objection on this particular project? MR. REISCHL: No letters.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have -- and again, I
apologize. This may be in here and I didn't see it, but do we have an
hours of operation scale? MR. REISCHL: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In other words, is the comparison
such that Taco Caliente generally is not operating at the same time
that the church would? I know the school would be a different
situation.
MR. REISCHL: The hours of operation of the restaurant
are 11 a.m. to midnight daily, so there could be some overlap.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And will the restaurant have a
stand-alone bar inside, or is it served only with --
MR. REISCHL: No, it's not a bar. It's beer and wine
served in conjunction with fast food.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because the thought of
someone sitting there getting tanked all afternoon and running over a
child leaving school bothers me.
MR. REISCHL: That's not the intent of the petitioner.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sure they don't mean that to
happen. Not having a bar certainly --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There's a median separation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just -- I think I read this
in here, but I need you to confirm along those same lines roughly 5
percent of their total sales is actually alcohol.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what they are basing on
their other restaurant.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So it's simply an accessory
to all the food?
MR. REISCHL: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: There are none. I have one question for
Deputy Rossi. Do they have a takeout facility or what's -- everyone
now has a takeout window, and if they're selling tap beverages, would
that otherwise violate the county's open container law as part of a
drive-through takeout?
DEPUTY ROSSI: I don't think it would violate the
ordinance at all.
MR. CUYLER: It may be -- I assume they have a COP,
which is a consumption on premises which -- MR. REISCHL: They're going to apply for it. That's
what this is based on.
MR. CUYLER: A COP license means they have to drink on
the premises.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's not going to be takeout
sales on alcohol?
MR. DORRILL: That's my question.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This isn't Wisconsin.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that what we're looking at;
they are not going to have an off-premises license for alcohol?
MR. REISCHL: I don't know the answer to that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does anybody here?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We can certainly make it
contingent on this.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: To my knowledge, they're just going to
apply for what's called a COP which is consumption on premise only.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And for the record?
MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere with planning
services.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is anybody here for the
petitioner?
MR. REISCHL: I think he must have anticipated a later
hearing.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Probably so.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have no public speakers. I'm
going to close the public hearing. I'd like to entertain a motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to approve
subject to the consumption on premises. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second,
motion by Commissioner Constantine, second by Commissioner Norris. It
is contingent on beverage -- on alcoholic beverage sales being only on
the premises. No further discussion, I'll call the question. All
those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0.
Item #14A
BEACH MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE - PRESENTED
That concludes the published agenda with the exception
of communications. Commissioner Norris, do you have any?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You have one about gambling.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I have -- yes, I do have one,
just -- just a quick update. Do you want me to go ahead with mine?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: If you'll recall about, oh, a few
weeks ago you appointed me to look after our beach management plan on
Marco and guide -- try to guide that through the state agencies. I --
I think we're all aware that the game and fish was trying to have a
meeting before the governor and the cabinet on March the 30th
concerning the same piece of property. We've asked that that be
delayed until we can have a meeting about our beach management plan,
which has been agreed to, so that has been continued before the
governor and cabinet is our understanding. And it may involve a trip
with staff and myself to Tallahassee next week to have a meeting with
DEP to try to get our beach management plan going. I just wanted to
update that that's where we are.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good, okay. Thank you.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh.
Item #14B
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE UPDATE - PRESENTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Real quickly, I wanted to clarify
something with Mr. Dotrill. In just recent conversations with
constitutional officers regarding the department of revenue, if we do
assume all of those duties -- assuming we're the low bidder, and we
assume the duties currently performed by the tax collector and the
clerk of courts, the personnel they have involved in the performing of
those duties are in essence -- I'm trying to summarize -- first in
line to be absorbed into our work staff, or is it going to be just
declare a vacancy and they can apply? We talked about this. My
understanding was we were going to assimilate as much as we could to
fill those slots so that there wouldn't be any real job loss, but
please clarify that for me because I understand there is some
concern.
MR. DORRILL: I may be mistaken. My recollection is
that would be us assuming their positions in our data processing
area. You'll recall that the primary savings from the department of
revenue were to reduce the overall number of positions that we already
have employed. They would be eligible, though, if we -- again, doing
solid waste collection -- if they are laid off or if you are promo'd
from constitutional offices, their -- our current policy allows us to
consider them to be absorbed where vacancies exist.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But, in other words, tit
for tat where a position is going to remain, the current -- MR. DORRILL: The total number of positions would
decrease under the department of revenue assuming responsibility for
garbage collection.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I just wanted to make sure
that the priority existed that current personnel would have a priority
for stepping into any vacant position.
MR. DORRILL: They would. I trust that all of you had
seen my quick memo to each one of them and a quick copy of a
performance spec that we prepared to encourage them to bid. There's a
prebid conference, I believe, tomorrow at which time we're going to
ask whether or not they intend to submit a fully compliant bid or
whether they're going to try and submit something outside of the
specifications. And once I know that, I'll relay that to you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, thank you.
Item #14C
DISCUSSION REGARDING GAMING RESOLUTION - NO ACTION
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing, thanks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nothing.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The only thing that I have is a
request from Clay County to address a resolution advocating an
amendment to the state constitution to provide for local control of
gaming and gambling activities. And before I directed the county
attorney to spend any effort, time, or anything on this in view of the
way -- of the resolutions we passed prior to the ballot in November
and the outcome of the ballot in Collier County, I thought it best to
ask this board if they wanted to proceed with anything like this.
Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not very pleased with the way
in which we have began amending the state constitution as if it were
some flexible document to be changed year to year. I don't think this
is an appropriate amendment to the state constitution, and I really
don't at this point find any support for it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there other comment?
Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I agree, first and
foremost with what Tim said. And secondly, we've gone on record
opposing the passage of gaming, period. I -- we don't know what form
will come back to us. If you compare the last two ballot issues on
gaming, one would have left open where casinos would have been. The
last one was very site specific on where those would have been. We
don't know if it comes back to the ballot again what form it will be,
so I think most of this is premature. If gaming passes, yeah, I'd
love to have local control, but the way this is written, it's almost
as if I support gaming as long as we could have local control, and I
think we've clearly stated we're not. So I'd just as soon leave hands
off on that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think our citizens in Collier
County have said many, many times that local control or not, we don't
want it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. That's fine.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that's consensus.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No interest.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We will not -- we will not
proceed with this one, Mr. Cuyler.
MR. CUYLER: Thank you. I appreciate that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: As we all suspected.
do you have anything for communications?
MR. CUYLER: No, ma'am. Mr. Dorrill.
Hr. Cuyler,
Item #15A
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE GORDON RIVER BRIDGE - PRESENTED
HR. DORRILL: One quick. This will be the subject of
your joint meeting with the city on April the 6th. I had previously
discussed this with Hiss Hac'Kie because it's pertinent concerning the
Gordon River Bridge. At least one of you, maybe two now have sent me
memos asking me what's going on, and I just think it's better to tell
you what's going on today than wait -- have us wait till the 6th in
the event that you want something different.
We have an interlocal agreement with the city that was
approved in 1992 to take us through the fatal flaw analysis and
preliminary engineering for the Gordon River Bridge. The city staff,
for whatever reason, moved forward and has issued a request for
proposal for engineering and construction management services that
would take the remainder of the Gordon River Bridge through the end of
construction. And I don't know completely what their rationale was.
I don't have any reason to believe there was any evil intent there. I
got involved when I determined that there was going to be a selection
committee of three.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is the city picking up the
tab for that?
MR. DORRILL: That's not yet determined. I'm getting to
that. There will be a selection committee of three; two city folks,
one county folk. I then called Dr. Woodruff and brought to his
attention that this was outside of the current agreement, that I
thought that since -- what I'm intending, this to be a county project
at some point linking two county arterial roads that you would
probably want to have the responsibility for that in your department
of capital projects management and that since this is probably going
to be a county project, we needed to assure our board that we had at
least an equal number of people on the selection committee. Dr.
Woodruff quickly realized and admitted, yes, from an equity standpoint
we needed to have two members, they needed to have two members. He
acknowledges that all of this has taken place outside of the current
agreement and that we need to either update our agreement, or we need
a new agreement as to how we're going to move forward and what the
source of funds is going to be, especially if we need to authorize the
contract to do extra things in advance of a referendum this summer.
So for those of you who are interested, that is what has
occurred with respect to this new RFP and my quick attempt to reach an
agreement with Dr. Woodruff as to what we need to do between now and
when you're scheduled to meet with city council on April the 6th.
Hiss Hac'Kie gave me a little assistance and also expressed some
concern to a member of city council that maybe we slow this thing just
long enough in order to get it in by the 6th.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just for further information,
when I did check in on this, the report that I got was, oh, my
goodness, no. We never intended for anybody at the county to ever
feel cut out of this process, and certainly we're just -- I think
that, frankly, everybody knows nothing can happen without our
authorization to spend the money. If, in fact, city staff is going
forward and spending city assets on getting some of the preliminary
work done, you know, God bless them. I don't see any harm at all
being done here and -- and nobody is talking about trying to cut the
county out of the process, because we are going to write the check.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you anticipate the city
requesting a reimbursement for funds expended, because my only concern
-- and I certainly don't want any part of this to become a city
versus county issue because I don't think there's a need for it, but
obviously when one is moving ahead and the other is not even notified
of that, there can be a problem there. So I just want to make sure
that one arm isn't committing the other arm unknowingly because so far
that hasn't been the case, and things have been going on rather
smoothly.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I think that things are going
to continue to go smoothly and that there is nothing to fear in that
department.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Trust me. I'm from the
government. I'm here to help.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, my Lord.
MR. DORRILL: That was all.
Item #15B
GRANT APPLICATION FOR PROJECT HELP - TO BE DISCUSSED AT THE MEETING OF
MARCH 21, 1995
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have one other thing I've just
discovered in the front of my book here. Beth Knake of Project Help
has asked the board to approve the signing of a grant application.
Based on what I have here, it doesn't entail any matching funds from
the government or anything. It's based on that information I'm asking
for the board to approve my signing the grant application. I believe
it's just a support of the public -- of the government for the
services of Project Help.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: An application to whom from
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's for VOCA, VOCA program
services. It's a ranking form. I'll be glad to distribute it
around.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can it wait seven days?
MR. CUYLER: Put it on next week.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I imagine it can. I will do
that. Will do. See you all next week.
With that, no further information, no further work to
do. Hiss Filson, we're done; right?
MS. FILSON: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're finished. Adjourned.
***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner
Norris and carried 4/0 (Commissioner Hac'Kie out), that the following
items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.518, RE "SAFE HARBOR", BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY
31ST AVENUE S.W., ON THE EAST BY TRACT 158 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT NO.
28, ON THE SOUTH BY THE GOLDEN GATE CANAL, AND ON THE WEST BY COUNTY
CANAL RIGHT-OF-WAY - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A2
FINAL PLAT OF "ISLESWORTH, UNIT ONE" AND ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
See Pages
Item #16A3
AUTHORIZATION FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "COLONNADE ONE AT GREY
OAKS, ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
PERFORMANCE BOND - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
See Pages
Item #16A4
AUTHORIZATION FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN HARSH GOLF
COURSE, PHASE THREE"
Item #16A5
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR PELICAN MARSH, UNIT 4 -
SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A6
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR PIPER'S GROVE, PHASE TWO A AND TWO B
- SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A7
RESOLUTION 95-199, AUTHORIZING RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF
"BERKSHIRE LAKES, UNIT #1, TRACT F, PARCEL A" - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
See Pages
Item #16A8
RECOHMENDATION TO ACCEPT A REPLACEMENT SECURITY FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE
WITHIN "NORTHBROOKE DRIVE" - ACCEPTANCE OF PERFORMANCE BOND AND RELEASE
OF LETTER OF CREDIT
See Pages
Item #16A9 - Withdrawn
Item #16B1
RESOLUTION 95-200, IN SUPPORT OF THE FAIR SHARE DISTRIBUTION OF GAS TAX
REVENUES TO SOUTHWEST FLORIDA IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT STATUTES
See Pages
Item #16C1
AUTHORIZATION FOR BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING FUNDS FROM THE RECENT
LIBRARY BOOK SALE AND A REFUND FROM A CANCELED SUBSCRIPTION
Item #16C2
CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH MORNING STAR NURSING SERVICE - INCREASING THE
CONTRACT BY $8,219.00
See Pages
Item #16D1 - Deleted
Item #16D2
AUTHORIZATION FOR SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE FROM THE ASHBROOK CORPORATION -
IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,086.25
Item #16D3
RECOHMENDATION TO AWARD BID #95-2335 FOR MEMBRANE SCALE INHIBITOR - TO
FHC CORPORATION IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $35,000.00
Item #16El
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS CONCERNING THE SALE AND
TRANSFER OF ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COUNTY AUCTION OF FEBRUARY 11,
1995
Item #16E2
RECOHMENDATION TO RESCIND BID AWARD #95-2327 FOR ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE
AND REPAIR SERVICES AT THE GOVERNMENT CENTER - BID RESCINDED; CONTRACT
AWARDED TO WEST COAST ELEVATOR IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,615.00 PER MONTH
Item #16G1
RESOLUTION 95-201, ADDING UNITS TO THE 1995 COLLIER COUNTY MANDATORY
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
See Pages
Item #16H1
BID #95-2329 FOR THE PURCHASE OF STREET LIGHTING POLES - AWARDED TO
HUGHES SUPPLY INC.
Item #16H2
RESOLUTION 95-202 ACCEPTING THE CONVEYANCE OF THE EVERGLADES AIRPARK
ENTRANCE ROAD, WITHOUT CONSIDERATION FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION TO COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY
See Pages
Item #16J
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Item #16H3
FOUR (4) WORK ORDERS (W.O.) WITH DUFRESNE-HENRY, INC., (THE AIRPORT
ENGINEERING FIRM) FOR THE DESIGN, ENGINEERING, AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
OF FOUR (4) PROJECTS AT IHMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT AND EVERGLADES
AIRPARK IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $52,529.00
See Pages
Item #16H4
RECOHMENDATION TO REPLACE HAND HELD METER READING SYSTEM WITH A NEW
METER READING SYSTEM - SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT
Item #16H5
RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS, EX-OFFICIO THE
GOVERNING BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE UTILITIES BILLING SYSTEM - SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF
BUDGET AMENDMENT
See Pages
Item #16H6
RESOLUTION 95-203, IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR FUNDS FOR THE
COLLIER COUNTY BEACH RESTORATION PROJECT UNDER PROVISIONS OF SECTION
161.101, FLORIDA STATUTES
See Pages
Item #16H7
ACCEPTANCE OF DRAINAGE EASEMENTS FROM FOUR (4) PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED
IN TOWNSHIP 48, RANGE 25, SECTION 16 WHICH WILL ALLOW THE STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT THE AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN A
STORMWATER DRAINAGE OUTFALL FOR THE LANDMARK ESTATES MOBILE HOME PARK
AND ADJACENT UNDEVELOPED LAND
Item #16H8
WORK ORDER WITH AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC. FOR AERIAL AND
SURVEYING SERVICES FOR LIVINGSTON ROAD CIE #52 AND #53 - IN THE AMOUNT
OF $190,045.00
See Pages
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #16J1
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1990
NO's. Dated
359 02/24/95
1992
190/191 02/24/95
1993
208/209 02/24/95
125 &127/129
118
Item #16J2
1994
1994
Tangible Personal Property
02/23/95
See Pages
Item #16K1
APPLICATION FOR FUNDING FROH THE UNITED STATES DEPARTHENT OF JUSTICE
COPS MORE (MAKING OFFICER REDEPLOYHENT EFFECTIVE) PROGRAM AND
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF THE CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS AS THE LOCAL MATCH
See Pages
Item #16K2
RESOLUTION 95-204, AUTHORIZING COLLIER COUNTY COURT SYSTEH VOLUNTEER
TRAINING, APPRECIATION, AWARDS AND RECOGNITION EXPENDITURES AS A VALID
PUBLIC PURPOSE
See Pages
There being no further business for the Good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 11:25 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
02/14-02/27/95
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Barbara A. Donovan