BCC Minutes 04/18/1995 R REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 18, 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 9:05 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
CHAIRPERSON:
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
following members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
Bettye J. Hatthews
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
Timothy L. Hancock
W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager
Kenneth B. Cuyler, County Attorney
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll call to order the board of
county commission meeting for April 18, 1995. Mr. Dotrill, would you
lead us in an invocation and pledge?
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you as always
this morning for the wonder and beauty of Collier County. We thank
you for the wonderful weather that we've enjoyed recently. Father, we
thank you for your grace and your love and your protection.
As always, we pray that you guide the deliberations of
this county commission today as they make important business decisions
that affect our community, and we ask always that you bless our time
here together. We pray these things in Your Son's holy name. Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Items #2 and #2A
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Woops. Hr. Dorrill, are there
changes to the agenda?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Good morning, Commissioners.
Very few. I have a request to continue one item -- it's 16-A-6 under
the community development portion of the consent agenda -- for one
week until the meeting of April the 25th. It's a routine item as it
pertains to utilities acceptance agreements for a project known as
Falcon Ridge.
I have two agenda notes -- that concludes the changes --
two agenda notes or requests today for time certain discussions, the
first which was received from the chief judge of the circuit and his
office, Judge Reese, that item 8-H-6 as it concerns policy decisions
regarding the funding and support of the circuit county court system
be heard at 1:30 this afternoon. That was a request in order to
assist both his docket schedule today as well as other Collier County
judges who asked to participate in that.
The other request that we have that we -- we should
probably discuss is a time specific request for 12-C-1 which is under
public hearings, but it's a resolution establishing new commission
district boundaries in accordance with a provision in the Florida
statutes. There are a group of citizens who are here this morning
from Wyndemere, and I would imagine it's most of the smiling people
sitting on this side of the room here who had asked --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're not all -- they're not
all smiling, Neil.
MR. DORRILL: Well, it's still a little early. Some of
them are -- who had asked that a time certain be coordinated, and we
had the request at 11 a.m. They are here and -- and have asked if
perhaps their testimony could be given in advance of that.
This public hearing, though, affects districts
countywide, and Ms. Matthews has also reminded me that there may be
people from Poinciana Village who have also concerns. And so you may
want to split the hearing and take testimony from these folks since
they've asked for a time certain. It would otherwise be held, I
believe, at the conclusion of the regular meeting or during the
afternoon session as it was shown on the index.
And that's the only changes and/or requests that were
received in our office.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. With respect to the 12 --
what is it? 12-C-17
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I do have some concern
because that was published in the newspaper, the agenda, showing it as
being an afternoon public hearing. And while I appreciate the
concerns of the people who are here, it -- the -- it would be my
feeling that we should split the public hearing if our attorney tells
us that that's an appropriate thing to do with the public hearing. I
would not want to hear the entire issue this morning because I -- I
feel that there may be a number of people who are planning to come
this afternoon based on what the published agenda is.
MR. CUYLER: You can open your public hearing this
morning. They just need to understand you're not going to be making
your decision till you hear everything, and that would be this
afternoon.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is the board interested in doing
that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question. I -- perhaps I
just missed it. But what was the genesis of the request? Who -- who
asked for --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wyndemere. Wyndemere asked.
MR. DORRILL: The -- the folks from Wyndemere, and they
have a representative who is this gentleman if you'd raise your hand,
sir. He specifically asked me when I came into the meeting this
morning. And I -- for those types of things I always say, well, it's
at the discretion of the board. But any time I get a request for a
time certain, then I refer that to the board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My curiosity is that they're here
at 9 but they would have sat here till 11, God bless you, but why
didn't you ask for 9:30 was my question?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I think one of the ideas
here is that 11 a.m., it's close enough to the noontime that it's not
going to be lost from a morning to an afternoon item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if it's this board's desire,
I certainly support Commissioner Matthews' suggestion that we do split
the public hearing, hear from the concerns of Wyndemere residents at
11 a.m., and then as the item comes up on the agenda, we'll hear the
additional input from the public and make a decision at that time.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Works for me.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I count three. Is that fine?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It'd be nice to get a consensus.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: (Commissioner nodded head.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. We'll do that
then. At 11 a.m. we'll take public input from Wyndemere and whoever
else is here on item 12-C-1 and then continue the public hearing on
that issue until the regularly scheduled agenda item.
Okay. Are there any other changes to the agenda,
Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, I would like to add a
discussion item regarding the school zone in the Poinciana Village
area along Airport Road. I don't see Mr. Archibald. I see you,
Bill. I knew you'd be here. I don't see Mr. Archibald, but if you
would kindly let him know, Mr. Dotrill, I'd like to add that as an
item.
MR. DORRILL: That would be 10-F.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 10-F? You want to put that in
there or under transportation? 10-F.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'll leave it at 10-F. That's
fine.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: As long as it's where we can make
decisions. Is that all -- all, Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's all for me.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just that I need to abstain from
one consent agenda item which is 16-A-5.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So noted. And
Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to add item 10-G,
and that will be item regarding potential leave of absence for one of
our planning commission members.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. CCPC. I would like to
remove from the consent agenda item 16-C-3 which refers to the
commemoration of the 50th anniversary of World War II. My only
purpose for doing this is I think it's a significant event that we
ought to take a -- take a separate vote on it. MR. DORRILL: 8-C-2.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 8-C -- it is already 8-C-27
MR. DORRILL: No, it will be.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, okay. I didn't think it
was .
MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, if there's no other items
from the board, as a result of a couple calls that I got and also a
couple people in the audience asked me to announce that the Lake
Avalon item is not on today's agenda. Apparently a couple people are
here, and I had gotten a couple calls about it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So the Lake Avalon issue
is not on the agenda today. Of course, if anyone wants to stay for
the public comment between the morning and the afternoon session,
you're free to do so.
Those are the changes. Is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to approve
the agenda and consent agenda with the one note Commissioner Hac'Kie
must abstain from the one item.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the agenda and consent agenda with a single abstention. All
those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #3
MINUTES OF THE MARCH 17, 1995 BUDGET WORKSHOP AND MARCH 28, 1995
REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, motion to
approve the minutes of the budget workshop from March 17 and the
regular meeting of March 28, 1995.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the minutes as designated. All those in favor please say
aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #4A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 22, 1995, AS "EARTH DAY BIRTHDAY" -
ADOPTED
Proclamations and service awards. Our first one today
is one we always enjoy each year. Commissioner Hancock, Earth Day
birthday.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Actually --
I'm sorry. Commissioner
That Tim thing again.
Earth Day birthday. I like it.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Changing my name. Is Ellie
Krier here? Ellie, I'm sorry. Looking out the wrong way.
Whereas, on April 22, 1995, the nation will observe the
25th anniversary of Earth Day; and
whereas, the purpose of Earth Day is to focus the
world's attention on the threat to our global environment and to
teenforce our commitment to the protection and restoration of our
land, our water, and the air we breathe; and
whereas, Naples and Collier County will participate in
the events through the combined efforts of the city and county
governments, The Conservancy, other concerned organizations,
businesses, and private citizens; and
whereas, The Conservancy of Naples, Florida, is
observing its 30th birthday, having been established in 1965, just a
year after I was established, for the -- for the purpose of conserving
the biodiversity, environmental quality, and natural resources of
southwest Florida's native ecosystems for present and future
generations through ecological research, environmental education, and
public policy development; and
whereas, the purpose of Earth Day Birthday at The
Conservancy is to celebrate a fun and educational day with the overall
message of creating unity toward the common goal of saving the
environment, both globally and locally, through grass roots efforts,
support, and awareness.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the day of April 22,
1995, be designated as Earth Day Birthday.
Done and ordered this 18th day of April, 1995, Board of
County Commissioners, Bettye J. Matthews, Chairman.
Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve
this proclamation.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve a proclamation for Earth Day Birthday. I like the sound of
that. All those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Tell us what's going to happen.
MS. KRIER: I will. Thank you. I'm Ellie Krier, and on
behalf of The Conservancy as well as the citizens of Collier County,
thank you very much for recognizing this event.
I think the 30th anniversary of Earth Day is perhaps one
of our more important ones. Five years ago when we had the 25th
birthday party, we were patting ourselves on the back. I think the
30th birthday party is a little more important because we need to pay
attention again.
We will have an all-day event for everybody in the
county at The Conservancy. We would welcome you. I'll tell you right
up front the cake and ice cream's at four o'clock, so do come for
that. WOLZ is broadcasting live all day, and we expect an enormous
number of people.
Also we are doing water quality testing. If you wish to
have your water tested, please call, make an appointment, and come get
a sampling kit. And for a minimal fee we will be doing water testing
for people as well. I think that's an important thing that we can
offer for Earth Day. Thank you very much for recognizing this.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Miss Krier.
Item #4A2
PROCLAivLATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF APRIL 23 - 29, 1995, AS "NATIONAL
VOLUNTEER WEEK" - ADOPTED
Next proclamation, Commissioner Hancock now.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is Mr. Burhans in the audience?
MR. SANDERS: How about a stand-in?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll withhold comment in case Bob
-- Bob's listening.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Several stand-ins.
MR. SANDERS: We didn't say better.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I was going to say that,
but, you know, I didn't want to insult Bob. It's my pleasure to read
this proclamation today.
Whereas, the week of April 23 through 29, 1995, has been
designated as National Volunteer Week; and
whereas, the sheriff of Collier County has designated
this week as Collier County Law Enforcement Volunteer Week in Collier
County; and
whereas, last year the volunteers of the Collier County
Sheriff's Office unselfishly donated over 15,000 hours of service on
behalf of the Collier County Sheriff's Office; and
whereas, the volunteers of the Collier County Sheriff's
Office perform in an exemplary, dedicated, and conscientious manner;
and
whereas, this special proclamation recognizes the
tremendous contribution and experience our civilian volunteers bring
to the Collier County Sheriff's Office and the community.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of April 23
through 29, 1995, be designated as Collier County Sheriff's Law
Enforcement Volunteer Week.
Done and ordered this 18th day of April, 1995. Signed,
Bettye J. Matthews.
Madam Chairman, I move that we accept this
proclamation.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
accept the proclamation. All those in favor please say aye. Motion passes five to zero.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I wonder if all of you since you
are armed would like to make comments.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Congratulations. What else is
happening other than the add-on?
MR. SANDERS: Madam Chairman and Commissioners, I'd like
to accept this on behalf of the Collier County Sheriff's Office and
for the volunteers that have given all these hours to the Collier
County Sheriff's Office. And I'd like to say without them, a lot of
the duties that we do perform both on the law enforcement side and the
civilian side in the clerical that a lot of duties would go undone.
I'd also like to introduce these two people to you if
you don't mind. Lieutenant Pat Mullen, who's in charge of the
auxiliary side of the house which is law enforcement guys who come out
and volunteer their time in uniform and assist us in uniformed patrol,
and Barb Dosanzo, who's the new coordinator for the volunteer program
on the civilian side, has been very active since she has joined us in
the sheriff's office and has enhanced it quite well.
We would like to thank you once again for recognizing
these important people with the Collier County Sheriff's Office.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a -- a small comment, too,
having -- having recently started looking at -- at the sheriff's
budget from years before. The taxpayers of Collier County owe a great
debt to the volunteers because we would be bearing a much greater tax
burden but for the elimination of the services that they provide. So
thank you.
MR. SANDERS: Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
Item #4A3
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF APRIL 17 - 21, 1995, AS "JUVENILE
JUSTICE WEEK" - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda,
Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Chairman. Could I
have Kathleen Passidomeo please come forward for this to accept this
proclamation?
The proclamation reads, whereas, the state's juvenile
crime problem has ramifications far beyond the juvenile justice system
and affects the health and integrity of the state's business,
community, education, and family institutions; and
whereas, the state as well as the county of Collier must
therefore employ a comprehensive strategy to address the problem of
juvenile crime if the problem is to be effectively solved; and
whereas, statewide there has been an increase in the
number of youths committed for delinquency of 16 percent in the last
fiscal year; and
whereas, the county will not tolerate the criminal
activities of our youth; and
whereas, the citizens of our community need to have a
heightened awareness of juvenile justice issues; and
whereas, the county will work with the Department of
Juvenile Justice and local businesses on programs for the prevention
and intervention of juvenile delinquency.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of April 17 to
the 21st, 1995, be designated as Juvenile Justice Week in the county
and urge all citizens of our community to take part in stopping or
preventing juvenile delinquency and to make a conscious effort to
learn more about the programs for prevention and intervention. I
further call upon all the citizens of our community to join together
in the fight against crime in our society.
Done and ordered this 18th day of April, 1995, by the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida.
Miss Chairman, I make a motion that we accept this
proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
accept the proclamation for Juvenile Justice Week. If there's no
further comment, all those in favor please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If we could impose on you to say a
few words?
MS. PASSIDOHEO: Sure. Who? He?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, sure.
MS. PASSIDOHEO: I'm speechless. Morning. My name is
Kathleen Passidomeo, and I have the pleasure of being the chairman of
the Collier County Juvenile Justice Council, and I am accepting this
proclamation on behalf of the Juvenile Justice Council.
What you may not know is that juvenile justice week as
we speak has been declared this week by the Governor of the state of
Florida, and throughout the state there are numerous activities
planned this week.
What I'd like the people of Collier County to know is
something that will help us. The Governor is unveiling tomorrow a new
license plate. It -- it says, invest in children. I wish I had a
copy of it because it's really beautiful, and it's got a picture of a
palm tree and a -- and a couple little kids on it. And for those who
like vanity plates, $22 from the sale of each one of these plates in
Collier County will remain in Collier County for use in juvenile
justice programs. So everybody go down to Guy Carlton's office and
buy a license plate.
Thank you very much, and we hope that the people of
Collier County will work with the Juvenile Justice Council in the
upcoming year because we've got lots of programs planned. Thank you.
Item #4B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the
agenda is service awards. Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is Pamela Rinehart here?
Well, nevertheless, we'd like to recognize her for five
years of continuous service to the airport authority, and we'll set
this aside for her.
How about James Raymond?
Oops. Well, let's see. Mr. Raymond, also five years of
service with the airport authority.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: They're such hard workers they
couldn't make it here today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They couldn't tear themselves
away. Rhonda Watkins. There. She could come in. We appreciate
that. Rhonda has had five years of continuous service in pollution
control, and we'd like to thank her for that.
And next, Joseph Saldana. Am I saying that correctly?
MR. SALDANA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. For five years of service
in facilities management. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. Part of the rescue
team for me last week.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And at the -- the risk of
offending Commissioner Constantine, is it Mike Constantine? MR. CONSTANTINE: Yes.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you come forward please and
receive this pin? Facilities management, five years.
MR. DORRILL: What was that last name?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Constantine.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: He pronounces it correctly.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Mr. Lowell Raines? Good,
because this is a 20-year recognition for Mr. Raines' service in
office of capital projects.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
birthday.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
you, Commissioner Hac'Kie.
Thank you.
Almost as long as the Earth Day
Almost. Getting close. Thank
Item #4C
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR APRIL, 1995 - MARILYN VAN ATTA RECOGNIZED
Next item on the agenda is a -- a pleasure. We do this
once a month, and it's recognition of the employee of the month. Is
Marilyn Van Atta here?
Spin around while I read about you. Miss Van Atta is
our -- is our employee of the month for the month of April. She began
her employment with Collier County in 1988 as a library page. She's
been employed in the circulation department and has been a major
contributor to the inter -- to integrating changes brought about with
the new automated system and circulation procedures. I think we all
who go to the library are familiar with those and works quite well.
She never lets her work pile up and is always willing to
do what's necessary to ensure that she's able to handle whatever
increased work load comes her way. I think we could dream up some
more.
Harilyn has a very pleasant, friendly personality and
always goes out of her way to assist library patrons in any way that
she can. She's consistently achieved overall excellent ratings on her
performance appraisals. And with recommendations like that, the
employees of Collier County have chosen her as our employee of the
month for April of 1995.
We have for Harilyn a plaque. It says Collier County,
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, employee of
the month official recognition and appreciation is tendered to Harilyn
Van Atta for exceptional performance, April of 1995. Now, that
doesn't mean you did it in April of '95. And along with the plaque we
have a letter recognizing you and the proverbial check for $50. MS. VAN ATTA: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thank you very much and nice
job.
Item #5A
BUDGET AMENDMENT 95-229 - ADOPTED
And we move forward on the agenda to approval of budget
amendments. Mr. Smykowski.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good morning. For the record, Michael
Smykowski, acting budget director. There is one budget amendment that
requires your approval this morning on the budget amendment report.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Move for approval.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the budget amendment number 95-229. All those in favor please
say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero. Thank
you.
Item #SA1
REQUEST BY ANDREW QUEST HANCE, SR. TO REINSTATE BUILDING PERMIT NUHBERS
92-13516, 92-13515, 92-13512 AND 92-13514 - CONTINUED
Next item on the agenda, there are no public petitions.
We'll move to county manager's report, community development. Item
8-A-l, request by Andrew Quest Hance Senior to reinstate a building
permit.
MR. CUYLER: That shows as continued --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Continued.
MR. CUYLER: -- on the agenda.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. It's been continued.
Haven't we heard this or seen this one on the agenda a number of times
now, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: I'm not sure. I'd have to ask Mr.
Hihalic.
MR. HIHALIC: This is a building permit issue.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
MR. CUYLER: I think it has been on before. I don't
know why it's being continued this time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Again. Okay.
MR. CUYLER: But it has been on before.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Maybe we should follow up.
MR. CUYLER: Maybe at the petitioner's request. The
last one I think was at the petitioner's request.
MR. DORRILL: This one -- this one was at -- at my
request. We continued a number of items today or held them off the
agenda just trying to do some time management, and this was one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
Item #8A2
BUDGET AMENDHENT TO AUTHORIZE THE REALLOCATION OF URBAN IHPROVEHENT
GRANT FUNDS (FUND 121) TO PERMIT THE COMPLETION OF CAPITAL
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS IN COPELAND, FLORIDA - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine. Thank you. Item 8-A-2,
recommendation to approve the budget amendment for the Copeland,
Florida, improvements.
MR. HIHALIC: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Hihalic.
MR. HIHALIC: This is a normal budget amendment. We put
it on the community development agenda just so we could update you as
to the progress of this project.
About five years ago the county entered into an
assistance program to try to help the community of Copeland update the
water and sewer system as well as update their roads and some other
code enforcement activities in Copeland.
We received a grant for $650,000 from the Department of
Community Affairs, community development block grant funds. And we
have tried to make as many improvements as possible. Unfortunately,
$650,000 was not enough funding to complete the job with the original
scope that we originally had for the project, and we've been cutting
back from the original design to try to successfully complete the
project.
Last November we came back to you and said that the
state had preliminary allowed a $42,000 budget amendment to another
grant we had for some emergency assistance money. And we were
planning to transfer that money into Copeland to finish it.
We have since learned that the county will -- I mean,
excuse me, that the state will allow us to transfer an additional
amount from that fund for a total of $78,640. This money was
originally set aside for some emergency assistance for rehabilitation
of people's houses that had some damage from Hurricane Andrew.
We have shifted the rehabilitation to the SHIP funding.
And -- and eight out of the ten people whose houses had some damage
from Hurricane Andrew qualified under that program. So we will shift
them and rehabilitate their houses using the SHIP money. And of the
two additional houses where the people would not qualify under the
SHIP criteria, we will rehabilitate those houses using this funding
source.
However, this allows us to shift $78,640 to the Copeland
project to complete the -- hooking the residents up with water and
sewer funds as well as extending the main service into an additional
area that the Department of Community Affairs says that we have to
hook -- hook them up because that was the original intention of the --
of the grant.
I believe that we will be able to cover the cost to
complete the project, and we will use utility personnel to assist in
hooking up people's houses and laying the end water and sewer lines
from the street into the houses that -- that are there.
So we believe that within this funding we will be able
to complete the project. And we expect it to be completed in the next
three months. Again, this is a normal budget amendment. We just
brought it up so we could tell you this personally.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions for staff?
Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the item. One question, Mr. Mihalic -- MR. MIHALIC: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- before we vote.
MR. MIHALIC: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Will -- is this enough money to
complete the project?
MR. MIHALIC: With the assistance of county staff to
finish it, yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. MIHALIC: I'm not sure it will cover all the water
utility cost for employees' time, but I believe we do have enough
money here to complete the project.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Greg, has some of our staff been
volunteering their time on these hook-ups?
MR. MIHALIC: The original intention was to have the
community do the hook-ups between the street and the houses. That
didn't work -- work out. We then went out to see if we could get some
prison labor or other volunteer labor. That hasn't worked out
either.
However, last November when we brought it to the board,
the county manager was directed to use county staff from the utilities
department to assist in providing those hook-ups. That would be
during work hours, not -- not volunteering time afterwards.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wanted to make sure if
they were that proper recognition given.
MR. MIHALIC: There is. Although there has been a
tremendous amount of volunteer time from people within the county
staff assisting in this project from the beginning. And without that
county assistance from all departments, it would have been impossible
to do what essentially was probably a million and a quarter dollar job
within the budget that we were allocated.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It was your second; right?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion by Commissioner
Constantine, a second by Commissioner Hancock to approve the item. If
there's no further discussion, all in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
MR. MIHALIC: Thank you.
Item #8A3- Deleted
Item #8A4
RESOLUTION 95-284, APPROVING THE LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN FOR
FISCAL YEARS 1995-96, 1996-97 AND 1997-98 AS REQUIRED BY THE FLORIDA
STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) PROGRAM - ADOPTED SUBJECT
TO APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF NAPLES ON 4/19/95
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Item 8-A-4, a
resolution approving a local housing assistance plan. Hiss Arnold.
MS. ARNOLD: Good morning. For the record, Hichelle
Arnold with your housing and urban improvement department. I'm here
to present to you the housing assistance plan. It's a three-year plan
identifying how we will be utilizing SHIP funds which is the State
Housing Initiative Program funding.
Originally we approved the housing assistance plan back
in '92. The total allotment that we received under that program for a
three-year period was approximately 906,000. We're estimated to get
three times that amount for the next three years.
The plan that's presented before you includes the same
three programs under the original plan which included impact fee
relief, rental rehab, and down payment assistance programs or
strategies. Because of the increase in the allotment, we are adding
three -- or four new strategies to the program. They're identified in
your executive summary on page 2. Those strategies include a land
acquisition program, demolition with new construction, preapproved
plans, and special needs housing strategy.
The -- a large amount of the funds that are being
allocated in this program are going to be used for the impact fee
relief program. If you look on page 4 of your executive summary, you
can see the -- the budget and how the monies would be spended per
program.
We are probably going to come back to you later on to
ask for waiver to allow for waiving of impact fees rather than a
straight deferral which is what the ordinance currently provides for.
So look for us in the future for that amendment to the ordinance.
What we're also going to -- what we're asking for today
also is the approval of an interlocal agreement. Along with the
housing assistance plan, the city of Naples and the county has entered
into an interlocal agreement to allow the county to be the
administering body for these funds. Through that agreement, the
county will administer the funding for both city and county, and the
programs can exist in either jurisdiction. The city council will be
hearing that interlocal agreement tomorrow. And that's also
identified in your packet. Basically that's it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there -- are there questions
for staff? Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to reiterate, I know it
says it here, but for the public, all loans will be paid -- all funds
involved here will be paid out of SHIP funds?
MS. ARNOLD: Right, correct. And that's -- we've
established a separate funding system. What we have to do with this
anticipated funding, however, is separate it from the previous plan
that we received.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Arnold, on page 2 of the
staff report under number 4, it says that all units assisted must be
occupied by very low, low, or moderate income persons. This board has
kind of taken the position that we want to concentrate on the very low
income for these types of -- of funds and deferrals. And the
inclusion of moderate income persons there makes me a little uneasy.
Just clarify the application of that to make sure that it's -- the
neediest get the greatest amount.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, 66 percent of the program allocations
going to be going to very low income individuals, 34 to low income.
And moderate, there really isn't very much to --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Good answer. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there further questions?
Mr. Cuyler, can we approve this subject to the city's
approval of the interlocal agreement tomorrow?
MR. CUYLER: We expect that to go through tomorrow?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
MR. CUYLER: Yes, you can do that if you wish.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So the motion would be
subject to the city's approval?
MR. CUYLER: The motion would be approval. It will be
effective tomorrow upon the city's approval. You may place that as a
condition.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I make a motion the board approve
subject to the city approval tomorrow. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
If there's no further discussion, all in favor please say aye.
Motion passes five to zero. Thank you, Miss Arnold.
Item #8A5
RESOLUTION 95-285 APPOINTING TWENTY-FIVE HEHBERS TO THE CITIZENS
ADVISORY COHMITTEE (CAC) FOR THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR)
ON THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda, 8-A-5, recommendation the board
consider recommendations from the planning commission on a CR -- CAC.
MR. LITSINGER: Good morning, Madam Chairman,
Commissioners. For the record, Stan Litsinger, growth management,
community development services.
In response to the board's resolution 95109 adopted on
February 7, 1995, we received 80 applications for consideration for
appointment to the CAC for evaluation of the growth management plan.
On April the 6th, the planning commission reviewed the
applications and resumes and provide you a list of 25 potential
appointees for consideration by the board for appointment to this
committee which is attached.
Also the planning commission requested that the board be
advised that the commission district residence was not used as a
criteria for consideration or inclusion on the list of recommended
applicants. This morning we're asking that the board appoint 25
members to the CAC for the purpose of public participation in the EAR
process.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We had discussed at one point
that we would receive the recommendation from planning commission, and
there was a statement to the effect that each board member would name
somebody; is that correct?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I had thought this was
originally --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that my recollection?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I had thought there was
originally 20 members that the CCPC was going to bring forward and
that we would each put our blessing on that and appoint one additional
member.
MR. LITSINGER: The -- as I understand the resolution --
and Mr. Cuyler can correct me -- the planning commission recommended
25 which you may pick all 25 or none of the 25 at your discretion.
The resolution provides for at your discretion to reach a consensus on
20 appointees and to have each board member appoint one applicant from
either his or her individual district to make up the 25 total
appointees.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe Mr. Cuyler needs to
help because I don't know what we are required or not to do here from
that explanation. But I had reviewed the planning commission's
recommendations and had gone through the resumes and kind of listed in
order what my preference if I were to choose selections here. And I
chose a couple more than five. Almost all of those appear on the list
anyway. There are a couple that do not appear on the list that were
recommended. I don't mind sharing that. My only question is I don't
know who we would then eliminate. I don't know how you go about
eliminating someone who was recommended here.
I wondered if what might make sense if each of us
verbally indicates five names, we go through, see how many of those
already appear on this list. I'm going to guess just through that
process alone we'll quickly come up with some sort of consensus on the
majority of those, and then we'll probably have five or six positions
left to sort out.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that idea.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does that sound reasonable? I
don't particularly have any problem with any of the names that are on
the list. So I'm willing to listen to whatever.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't have a problem with names
on the list, but there are people who applied who -- who I think it
would be a shame to waste the opportunity to have them serve. So --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
my five.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
But we only have 25 spots.
Yeah.
And we have 80 names.
Well, I --
That's why I'd like to name my --
My recollection is the same as
Commissioner Constantine, that -- that we were going to be presented
with a list of 20 at one point from the CCPC and then we were -- we
were each to select 1 additional from our own districts. And my
suggestion is that we send it back to the CCPC and get what we want.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let them call it to -- to 20.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let them make it down to 20 and
then bring it back the next time and we -- we put in one of our own
choice.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That was my understanding. That
was my understanding when it first -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But even if they do that, can't
we reject the whole 20 if we want to?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In the -- in the interest of
efficiency, wouldn't it make sense just each of us name five names?
I'm going to guess at least 20 of the names that are on this list are
probably going to be those which we pick anyway. And I'm just
thinking it would be more efficient to go ahead, do that, run through,
see what we come up with instead of sending this back and waiting
another couple of weeks before we see it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What does the board want to do?
I would just as soon finish it -- it today. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He too.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's just run down the --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We need to get started.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Norris, do
you want to take a shot at a couple of them?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're supposed to --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Couple of names.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're supposed to name five that
are on here, that are already on here?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, five who have applied is what
I --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Five out of the eighty.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, five who have applied. Okay.
MR. LITSINGER: Excuse me, Commissioner. My
understanding is you're not bound by the recommendations of the
planning commission. They are advisory.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Our -- our problem, too, I
think if -- if we are to just name five people from each of the five
of us today, it's real important in this process that we have five
people who represent a cross-section of abilities, and I'm -- I'm a
little bit concerned that if we just each of us propose five names
that we're not going to get the cross-section that we want. So I'm '-
I'm not sure that maybe we shouldn't send it back.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, my reason for
suggest --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I understand that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My reason for suggesting it
today is let's get those names on the table. And if we look at the 25
names that we've put out in the next 60 seconds and think, gosh, this
isn't a cross-section, then we can send it back. But I think if we
have the opportunity to be efficient and have it done by ten o'clock
this morning instead of two weeks from now and let these people get
started, we ought to do that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We can try and hope we get
a cross-section of -- of abilities in the group.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm -- I'm willing to take a shot
at -- at naming 5 and, you know, with all appropriate apologies to the
other 75, God knows I don't know all these people. I mean, I'll make
this speech for everybody. We don't know everybody. We -- I'm sure
everybody is qualified. But of the people on the list, five who I
think represent a cross -- cross-section, one is Kevin Coleman. He's
a land use lawyer. Chris Straton I think would be a big benefit.
John R. Wood, I'd hate to waste the opportunity to have someone with
his experience and lifetime in this community; Jon Staiger who is the
city's natural resources director and Fred Flato who again I think has
a great deal of experience in Collier County and could represent
general citizens. That's my five.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Norris, do
you want to try next?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. I'll -- I'll take a shot at
five of them here that looks like might be a pretty good
cross-section. Kim Kobza, Jeff Nunnet, Bob Laird, Hike Cart, and Fay
Biles.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
he's on the list.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Who is the second one?
Jeff Nunnet.
Is he already on the -- yeah,
Yeah, he's already on there.
Okay. Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Glenn Simpson, Joe McMackin,
Nancy Bisbee, Don Pickworth.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Pickworth is on the list.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yup. And Pepper MArtin.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
choices.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
Is Pepper on the list? No.
First of all, many of you took my
Yeah, I know.
Sure. It's going to happen.
So would it be then in my best
interest to pick five that you haven't, I assume?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. I just want to make
sure I'm with the program here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Works for me.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have Sally Barker, Doug Nelson.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He's on the list.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: He's on the list. Neno Spagna
who's also on the list, Bob Laird who again --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I've already got him.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Already got Bob Laird.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I tell you, I gotta pay more
attention up here. Terri Tragesser who is on the list. And searching
for a fifth now, I'll -- I'll take four and come back for one after I
take another look at the resumes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There you go. Okay. My
grouping, I would like to see Linda Lawson, Tony Pires, Pires. Let's
see. We got Terri. We have Chris. Jim Gore.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gore was that?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh, James Gore, Kathleen
Slebodnik. And that's four. I don't have a fifth right now either.
Do you have one more, Commissioner Hancock? Who are we missing? We
have a planner.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I'm looking at the
cross-section now trying to --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Probably should have a person in
finance.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm very comfortable with Dave
Weston as far as finance goes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
appoint Dave Weston.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
person; is that correct?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
He's not been picked yet.
No. I'd be happy to -- to
Okay. Then we need one more
Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Last guy on the list is a
banker from your district.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, we got --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not Dave. Jeff Miller.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Last guy on the list.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What -- what other areas are not
covered? We've got attorneys. We have engineers. We have a
planner. We have ordinary citizens, whatever that may be.
of us really.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You haven't filled the
funeral director slot yet.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we only have one planner in
this group?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We only have one planner in the
group right now.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is -- is Michael Fernandez in
that -- in that group? I think -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, he's not.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- one more planner might --
might provide some balance.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't know Michael Fernandez,
but I'll accept the recommendation.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He -- he worked for the city of
Naples as a planner and now is in private practice as a planner.
That's all
I've
worked with him on both sides of the fence. He does -- I'd recommend
him.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you know Mr. Fernandez?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just superficially, and I think I
agree with the planning emphasis, and -- and I think that would be a
good --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Since it's an evaluation and
appraisal report of our growth management plan.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's one of those planning kind
of things.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Michael Fernandez. That's
all 25?
MS. FILSON: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we've got a good
cross-section too.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't really think this needs
to go back to the planning commission if this board is comfortable. I
would make a motion that we approve the list as listed here today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the 25 names that we have collectively given. All those in
favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes.
MR. LITSINGER: Thank you.
Item #8C1
COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT MASTER CONTRACT - APPROVED WITH
INSURANCE AND LIABILITY CLAUSE INCLUDED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is 8-C-1,
Collier County Public Health Unit master contract. Mr. Olliff?
MS. POLKOWSKI: My name is Jane Polkowski, and I'm the
director of the Collier County Public Health Unit. I just wanted to
begin until Tom gets ready there. The contract which had the wording
the county attorney had wanted in there came back unsigned by the
state, as you know. And this is the reason why we're back today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: The board is well familiar with all of the
-- the issues here. I believe that over the course of the last
couple of days we've received copies of language which exists in that
Hillsborough contract which the commission has talked about. And
actually amazingly, I think both parties can live with this language.
And it is language that is currently in existence in contracts in
Hillsborough County today. They cannot guarantee that -- that their
side of the shop will sign, but they believe that they can at least
make a recommendation that they approve this kind of language.
And given that, I would like just simply today to get
the board's direction to be able to have this language included into
the contract and have that contract submitted for signature.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just for --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine?
MR. OLLIFF: In addition, I think we -- we would want to
continue to provide that medical malpractice insurance issue that was
already in the contract that was approved prior.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Bryant, you've been very
-- fairly spirited in this debate. You're comfortable with the
wording from the Hillsborough contract?
MR. BRYANT: I certainly am, Commissioner. It's not as
wordy as our original submission, but it certainly covers everything
that we wanted, and I appreciate HRS taking the interest in it and
looking at it from not only our viewpoint but what happened in
Hillsborough.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My only other question is the
insurance coverage we've spoken about. Is that excessive for our
needs?
MR. BRYANT: Is it excessive? No. It's very limited,
if you would, for our needs because one severe case could easily eat
up the entire amount.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That question had arisen I
think yesterday in the newspaper. I just wanted to make that clear.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually my question was
answered.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Are there other
questions? If -- if we have a $200,000 limit because of sovereign
immunity, why -- why would we need a million dollar policy?
MR. BRYANT: Because of the fact that there could be a
case that we do not have that cap. If we have a situation that should
be a merging of, let's say, malpractice together with some type of
allegation of a civil rights nature, we have no sovereign immunity
cap.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Civil rights.
MR. BRYANT: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The annual cost of that insurance
again was --
MR. BRYANT: It's only like $7,500.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it would --
MR. BRYANT: I mean, it's like nickels and dimes for
what we're getting.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It would only take one major case
every 25 years for this policy to be worth it financially.
MR. BRYANT: The policy is definitely worth what we're
buying it for.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I have one -- one final
question, and this is probably for David Bryant. If -- if we are to
move forward and approve this contract today, including the insurance
and the liability clause language as opposed to indemnity language,
would it be your recommendation that we pursue the indemnity language
through the court system?
MR. BRYANT: No, ma'am, I don't think that's a need at
all. I think that this covers us completely. And like I said, I
commend HRS for looking at it this way.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. Any other
questions? Is there a -- I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- just, Dr. Polkowski, are
you smiling? Is this -- do you feel comfortable that -- MS. POLKOWSKI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I just want to get your
side of the story. Then I move we approve the contract with the
language described by staff.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
describe -- to approve this contract as described by staff. It's with
the insurance and with the liability clause. If there's no further
discussion, all those in favor please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
MS. POLKOWSKI: Thank you.
Item #8C2
RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS APPROVE
CO-SPONSORSHIP OF AN EVENT COHMEHORATING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE
END OF WORLD WAR II - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the
agenda is item 8-C-2. This deals with the World War II commemoration
of the ending of the war on September 2. I just -- I personally just
felt that this was important enough that we should recognize our
veterans in a separate motion rather than bury it in the consent
agenda. And being chairman, I shouldn't make motions, but I will
since I moved it.
Mr. Luntz, do you have something more to say -- more to
say about the parade and what we're planning?
MR. LUNTZ: Madam Chairman, members of the board, I'll
be as brief as possible. Suffice to say that we have a
once-in-a-lifetime opportunity here to celebrate the end of World War
II. The actual date of the signing on the Battleship Missouri was the
2nd of September, and that just happens to fall on a Saturday. So we
decided to put together a parade.
I went to city council workshop yesterday, and they
unanimously approved their support as I figured that they would
because they've supported everything patriotically that we've ever
done in this community.
I'm pleased to tell you that when we had some tacit
approval from them last week, I made my initial phone calls, and I
think you'll be glad to know that we already have six bands booked.
Veterans' Council will issue a resolution by motion form tomorrow
night. And then I've been invited to the Tri-County Music Directors
Association up in Lee County on Saturday at Cypress Lake High School.
And I think before this is all over with, we will probably have an
opportunity to make this a southwest Florida event.
What we're asking the board to do is to issue support
for the effort that we're trying to move forward with. We're not
asking for any funding from you, just to give us the clout that we
need if we have to go to Lee County or Charlotte County or whatever.
I'm also pleased to tell you because there was something
in the paper today about tourist development money, and I'm not going
to go into that because nothing has been applied for at this point.
I've had a brief discussion with Mr. Cuyler about whether or not this
event would warrant such an expenditure because we're going to be
bringing a lot of people into the community.
The 82nd Airborne Division, the 4074 support battalion
which is the adoptive unit of the city of Naples has been in contact
with me. And believe it or not, we've got an opportunity to get the
82nd band down here besides a 50-member marching contingent.
We don't want to in any way, shape, or form have any
adverse effect on the 4th of July parade. That's going to be a
different type of parade than this. This is going to be nothing more
than patriotism and stomping the feet and marching music and this sort
of thing. And we're not going to get into a whole lot of other things
that wouldn't be considered true patriotism, and we just want your
support. That's why we're here today, and we'll move forward.
Hopefully we'll get it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Luntz --
MR. LUNTZ: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and I'm sure on behalf of the
board, as a veteran of the most recent foreign war, I want to thank
you for your efforts on this, for bringing this to the forefront in
this community. Many times our veterans are forgotten by the younger
generations, and it takes something like this to draw it to the
forefront, to put these kids on the curb with flags in their hands
with the military procession in front of them to bring what -- the
importance of the sacrifice made then. And I personally want to thank
you very, very much for this.
MR. LUNTZ: We're going to try one other additional
thing. I've already spoken to a couple of band directors, and we're
going to eliminate the dancing in the street, just going to let them
do straight marching this time and play patriotic stuff.
And, you know, this -- I'm sure that we're going to get
national media attention. I have to tell you this because you'll be
hearing it as we move forward. The 82nd band was supposed to be in
Wilmington on the Battleship North Carolina to do a program on that
day with the course from the 82nd. And when the request was made by
telephone, they pulled the band out of that event and said, if you
want them, you've got them. We're looking into the possibility of
having them jump.
I've been looking for a drop zone, and I'm going to go
to city. And if we can get the money to do this and get them to jump,
there are two places in the city that we might be able to use. And
one is Mike Watkins' golf course. I don't think he'll be too happy.
But I think the Fleishmann -- I think Fleishmann Park might be an
excellent place for them to jump because you've got an area larger
than a football field in the middle. And I was concerned that maybe
some people would be out doing their walk at the Coastland Center when
all of a sudden here come the -- the paratroopers in full combat gear
but -- and a C141 will drop them in if it happens.
So those people at the 82nd are trying to make it a
training mission. If that happens, we won't have any costs, but I
thank you for your remarks. We're looking forward to doing something
real special after the 4th of July is over.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, Mr. Luntz, I will gladly
make a motion this board support the 50th anniversary commemoration of
the World War II treaty and look forward to it coming forward.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
support the recommendation of staff to support a parade on September
the 2nd. If there's no further discussion, all in favor please say
aye.
Opposed?
MR. LUNTZ: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion passes five to zero.
Thank you, Mr. Luntz.
MR. LUNTZ: Look forward to seeing you all there.
Item #SF1
RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS APPROVE RADIO
TOWER LEASE AGREEMENTS IN ORDER TO ACCOHMODATE EQUIPMENT AS PART OF THE
800 HHZ RADIO SYSTEM - APPROVED WITH INDEMNITY LANGUAGE WITHOUT THE
$3,000 FEE
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is 8-F-l,
a recommendation of the Board of County Commissioners approve radio
tower leases. We had discussed this last week, isn't it?
MR. DORRILL: This was continued to answer some
questions, and Mr. Daly is -- is here or Mr. Norris and can provide
you with the answers to the questions specifically whether or not that
tower was built to code and also a request as it concerned a statement
or representation by the General Telephone people that in the event
certain towers were approved that they would provide those to Collier
County at no cost. And you may also have a speaker as well.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DALY: John Daly, communications manager, emergency
services division. I reviewed the -- and this was sent to in memo
form. Community development has advised us that that tower was built
according to a site plan that was approved by them, and the use of
that tower continues to adhere to that site plan.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hay I just stop and ask you a
question? The fact that it -- that it's under water to a great degree
complies with our codes? MR. DALY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's okay?
MR. DALY: According to the information that development
services has received and -- and this is supported by our site
acquisition subcontractor that the tower is sufficiently grounded and
that the grounding system will dissipate the electrical charge, that
it will not go across the surface. They seem to be comfortable with
that. I have a representative of our site acquisition subcontractor
here who can answer the questions on that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- my -- just while you're
coming up, my interest is, you know, we had those photographs that
show a great deal of this tower under water. And from a layperson's
perspective, that is a scary sight. So can you reassure us
sufficiently?
MR. GOCZESKY: Well, as far as a scary sight, I wouldn't
classify it as that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excuse me, sir.
MR. CUYLER: Please identify --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You need to give your name,
please.
MR. GOCZESKY: Dan Goczesky with RDB Consultants and
Contractors. The site or the tower was designed to withstand
ll0-mile-an-hour wind loads. It's also designed to carry certain
equipment. Many of the water conditions that you see here or which
are shown have no bearing on the tower strength at all. This is a
condition by Mother Nature that occurs in excessive rains and so
forth. And we see that many times on our local streets and so on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- my question wasn't so much
-- excuse me -- about the -- whether or not it -- it could withstand
the wind but whether or not there's a safety concern related to a
tower standing in water.
MR. DALY: No, there is no problem with that at all.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about the grounding? Do you
want to give more information?
MR. DALY: The grounding is what they call a halo
grounding which surrounds the building and the tower itself which
draws off any charges that come from electricity, from the skies and
so forth and directly into the ground. It has no bearing on -- or
safety to anybody whatsoever.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions?
MR. DORRILL: Question specifically, Mr. Daly, with
respect to the suggestion that a -- an alleged workshop by GTE
representatives that we would be entitled to free use of any tower,
whether that was an appropriate statement or whether that was an
actual representation, and then what is reflected in the lease
instrument that we have before us.
MR. DALY: According to development services, there were
some discussions during the tower sharing ordinance back in '91 and
'92 that we would have free use of the tower. That specific
condition was -- was approved as part of the site plan for two of
GTE's towers, one which is at Carnestown at 29 and 41 and one which is
at Miles City at 1-75 and State Road 29. We are not using the Miles
City tower.
The ten dollar annual fee is to basically keep the lease
legal and to record the document. The $1,000 access fee they are
utilizing to cover their costs of reviewing the technical data we
supply to them as to whether our use will interfere with their use of
the tower and also to provide review of the legal documents that the
county has supplied to GTE Mobilnet. That $1,000 fee is a one-time
fee per tower to basically cover the cost of executing that lease.
We have supplied them a great deal of documentation.
RDB has provided structural analysis of the towers, intermaud
(phonetic) studies, and also analyzed the grounding systems. So
that's where those fees come from.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the total cost is $1,0107
MR. DALY: $1,000 access and 30 -- $30 a year for all
three towers, yes.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So $1,030.
MR. DALY: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And next year --
MR. DALY: It will just be the ten dollar annual fee.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just be the ten dollar fee.
We have a public speaker?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Mr. Rodinsky who is the
citizen who asked for the continuance, and he's your only speaker.
MR. RODINSKY: Chairman MAtthews, Commissioners, my name
is Paul Rodinsky. I live at 11231 Trinity Place.
One thing they forgot to mention is Collier County is
number one for lightning strikes in the United States. Another thing
is we gotta start looking at cellular and microwave, radio wave, and
all these things and protect our children from cancers and other
diseases.
And as far as this tower goes, I wonder if the Collier
County insurance company that they're going to insure this equipment
with would like to see these pictures and would like to know how much
damage was done to the utility companies surrounding this particular
tower like the phone company and the power company that don't
advertise in the paper that they were struck by lightning and burnt up
within the general vicinity.
I've had over $10,000 worth of damage, and you're not
going to tell me that I've learned from the 6th grade that electricity
travels on top of water, not through the water. I know that this
tower is grounded properly. It was permitted by the county. But it
wasn't to be sitting in water. It just doesn't seem to me -- four
legs completely in cement pads are completely covered -- that this
thing would be grounded properly.
I haven't got too much more to say except that if you
check this area, GTE uses a lot of these wetlands and fills in a lot
of these wetlands and has these contractors do them and get red tagged
and say, well, it wasn't me. It was a contractor.
Another thing I'd like to say is -- is with this tower
sharing at these workshops they had, it was pacifically (sic)
mentioned -- and there was other people there that will swear to
it -- that Collier County gets free tower use from GTE. And it was
mentioned at the workshop, and it was so outrageous, it seemed to me
like it was a bribe. But to -- but to -- to the county it wasn't a
bribe. And this is all when we were making up these ordinance.
I have nothing against Collier County leasing these
towers and putting this equipment. We need this emergency services in
Collier County. But to put something on this tower that's possibly be
destroyed or possibly cause more of an electromagnetic field which
would expand the cone area of this tower which would probably get more
people involved, there are other people surrounding the area but are
really grounded as in Krehling Industries which is a cement industries
that have more than -- more than one grounding before this tower was
put in. That was the main place that usually got struck by
lightning. Now it's mainly the tower.
And as far as working on this tower, they never have
permits to work on the tower. And it just seems like they want to put
more stuff on this tower before they can put the sheriff's department
stuff on this tower so they can come back to this board. To say,
well, this tower can't handle the wind load, we need more towers in
Collier County, they're aesthetically beautiful and they increase the
property value -- and that was a -- a statement from Mr. Kitsten
(phonetic) from GTE from Tampa, Florida, that I couldn't believe but
the other commissioners believed, everybody except Max Hasse at the
time.
And that's all I have to say except that we should not
pay one dime for any of GTE's towers in Collier County. And the
county should use them for nothing, just like it was stated at the
workshop and in front of the commission meeting. If I remember
vaguely, he offered the sheriff's department free tower use, and that
wasn't just for two towers. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
questions from the board?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
there a second?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Thank you. Is there further
No further questions.
Is there a motion?
Hotion to approve.
We have a motion to approve.
Is
Second.
We have a motion and a second to
approve the item on the agenda which is a recommendation to approve
the tower leases.
MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, before you take your
motion, could I just indicate for the record that we want all of the
liability indemnity provisions -- we've been dealing with this, as you
know, in a couple different areas. We want that to read to the extent
permitted by law, comma, lessee indemnifies. We will take care of
those changes. We've already checked with the lessor. That's
acceptable to them.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion maker will accept those
modifications to the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Second?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the lease agreements as modified by Mr. Cuyler. Is there
further discussion?
There -- Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Obviously hearing some of this
for the first time and not being here when this all happened I'm '-
I'm a little unsettled. What's presented to me looks great on the
surface and there were some questions raised. Mr. Daly, I'd -- I'd
just like to -- the grounding situation, my father's an electrician.
I don't need to go through that. I -- I understand that fairly.
But some of the things about as far as Collier County
not having to pay for the use of the towers and so forth, have you
researched that, and is that correct?
MR. DALY: That was restricted to two of GTE site plans,
the one at 29 and -- Bryan Milk at community development has advised
us that that was written into two of the -- some of the tower site
plans that have been approved by community development since the tower
sharing ordinance. It specifically applies to Carnestown which is 29
and 41 and the Miles City tower. That was -- the Carnestown use was
also restricted to a certain number of the antennas which was three.
We're putting five on the tower. We are putting some additional items
on those towers.
Now, they may -- Bryan Milk has told me that they did
make blanket statements that they would give Collier County free rent
and those type of statements but that they were changed when they did
the site plan approval. And some of those conditions were
specifically written into certain site plans.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, now you've raised a
question mark for me because when we have -- any time we have a big
contract, when we had our Ericsson GE thing or when we had our
landfill thing, when we have any of those, there are certain things
that are -- thing is my word today -- certain items that are brought
before us that are verbally agreed to and then after the fact we
physically enter into a written contract. Are you telling me what was
verbally alluded to and what are in those contracts are two different
things?
MR. DALY: They appear to be. Apparently they had
originally indicated it was blanket, you know, anything we build. It
has now been written into the site development plans that were
approved by community development, certain statements regarding
sharing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That I have a problem with
because anything -- all we have to go by, us five people, is what is
told to us what is agreed with us on a Tuesday. And if someone comes
in and is trying to get a particular thing, a particular permit, a
particular agreement passed and makes verbal agreements with us for
that for the legal team or developmental services or even if it comes
back before the board if we get a contract an inch thick and somewhere
in there it says two sites instead of a dozen sites, that's not
appropriate. If the board -- at the time it was five different
people. But if the board was led to believe one thing and now
somewhere along the line the paperwork has changed what that is, then
that's not appropriate.
MR. DALY: I don't know if those -- I don't know if
those statements were made to the board. I know they were made in
meetings at community development. I don't know if they were made to
the board. The commercial value of these leases that we have with GTE
Mobilnet if -- we were quoted by a couple tower owners commercial
rent. These leases with GTE Mobilnet have a value of over $90,000 for
the amount of items we're putting on the tower.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Rodinsky brought forth
last week that this occurred in a workshop, that that -- MR. RODINSKY: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- was -- was a workshop.
The verbal commitment was made apparently to the board. And I thought
the instruction this board gave last week was to go back, see if we
can find those minutes from that workshop and see if there was that
indication.
MR. DALY: I did not find --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're telling me you talked
to Mr. Milk, but you don't know if it happened in a workshop.
MR. DALY: I couldn't find the minutes to that
workshop. I did find a consent agenda item from 1992 for the
Carnestown tower where there was the statement about that we could put
three antennas on their tower and no annual rent and then the
statement regarding free use of the shelter at the bottom of the
building which is what we have. I could not find workshop minutes
where that was stated.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I'm going to withdraw my
second on the motion, and I'm -- I'm angry to hear from staff that you
couldn't find minutes. That's -- you know, find them.
MR. DALY: I was -- I was given the date of a -- of a --
of a board meeting and when this was initially approved.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, then my -- my advice to you
if that was the wrong date, find the right date and find the minutes
and get us the answer to the question. Please don't come up here and
tell us that, you know, this is the answer to the question when, in
fact, the information was not thorough or complete.
MR. RODINSKY: Excuse me. It was on 6-6-91 or 6-24.
Those are the workshops. And GTE --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not his job to do that
work. It's your job to do that work. And, you know, we asked a
question. Please get the answer.
MR. RODINSKY: And you can also look under the statement
that they said they'd also be good neighbors. It's something I
wouldn't say. In other words, they offer free tower use because
they're good neighbors, something I didn't forget.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Rodinsky, we're still in the
process of -- of discussing this. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, we're talking about $1,000
and $10 a year. It's not really a fiscal question. I just want to
make sure the actions we take today are consistent with what has been
represented in the past. We have a motion on the floor that has not
been withdrawn. If that is withdrawn, then I would like to make a
motion to continue, but I think we --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You can make a motion to table,
and we have to address that immediately. Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm confused. If it was free for
nine but we're only discussing two today so that's why we only care
about $90, I mean, this -- I don't understand.
MR. DALY: We have five leases on the agenda. Three are
with GTE Mobilnet at $10 a year. Two are with the State Department of
Transportation at no annual rent and no access fee.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So the $10 a year I would
suggest -- and the county attorney could advise us -- is truly not
necessary for legal reasons anymore. I mean, that's baloney.
MR. CUYLER: It's not, but I find it hard to believe Mr.
Rodinsky's objecting to $10 a year.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. So -- so, in fact, is the
fiscal -- the total fiscal here is -- is the thousand dollars we're
talking about?
MR. DALY: Per tower.
MR. CUYLER: That's what I -- that's what I understand
from staff.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A thousand per tower.
MR. DALY: Correct.
MR. CUYLER: And I think the point they're making is
that you need to decide whether you accept this or not. But staff is
representing that GTE is representing to them that that is an
administrative fee for review of the plans and the fact that the
antennas are going on the tower as opposed to the use of the --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But, again, I just want to be
perfectly clear. If, in fact, wherever, at a workshop, in a meeting,
wherever it was, a representation was made that you get this for free,
then somebody tell me are we, in fact, getting it for free but for
$1,000 and but for $10 per tower?
MR. CUYLER: The answer to that is yes. We are getting
it free except for the ten dollar consideration and the thousand
dollar access fee.
MR. DALY: Correct.
MR. CUYLER: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let me clarify what you
said. The -- the statement has been made that GTE promised at some
workshop to give us free rent. Now, we're only dealing with three
towers that are owned by GTE.
MR. DALY: Correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: They can't give us free rent on
anybody else's tower obviously.
MR. DALY: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. So the three that are
in question from GTE we're getting for $10 a year.
MR. DALY: Correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Which is close enough to free to
satisfy my concerns.
MR. DALY: And then the two state towers there's no
charge. You know, the state has engineering staff in-house that
provided the analysis work that we needed.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I tell you what. It may be
small dollars in the big picture, but $1,000 isn't free. We don't
know if it said free rent, or we don't know if it said free use. And
I suggest we table the item till staff can --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that a motion to table?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- answer the questions we
ask them to do. Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a second to the motion
to table?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion --
MR. DORRILL: Could we --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and a second.
MR. DORRILL: Could we perhaps continue it until later
in the meeting because one of the representations I thought Mr. Milk
made last week was that the workshop was a staff workshop, and the
board may not have been present. And specifically the reason for the
staff workshop in 1990 or 1991 was the board had expressed concern
about having a proliferation of towers throughout the county and asked
staff to have a workshop in order to see whether jointly owned towers
could be developed and then shared.
And if you can continue that until a little later in the
meeting, maybe we can have Mr. Milk up here and clarify whether it was
a county commission workshop, the minutes, or whether some salesman
stood up in a meeting with staff and said, well, it would be our
intent to do such and such as part of the consideration of the tower
use ordinance that was under consideration.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
MR. DALY: Mr. Dotrill, that's correct. The
representation I got from Bryan Milk was that it was a workshop held
at development services. It was not in front of the board.
MR. DORRILL: Let's -- let's continue this until later
in the meeting and have him verify that and give us the day the
workshop was held and whether it was a county commission workshop
which entails one thing. If it's a staff workshop and some salesman
stands up and represents that, then --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we want to revisit this
later today and you can provide us with all that information, that's
great. But I want to see -- I assume even when we have staff
workshops, if it's a public workshop, we have some sort of record of
that. I would like to see what the record is, not simply have Mr.
Milk's recollection of some meeting that occurred in 1991. If you can
provide that before the day is out, great. If you can't, I want to
table this item until said time that we can bring that back.
MR. DORRILL: That's fine. I will tell you in advance
that if it was a staff workshop, then there may not be any requirement
to keep a record or prepare minutes or have a court reporter there if
they're working on amended draft ordinance language as a result of
some direction the commission gave them. Those types of things just
are not normally done.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion to table and a
second, and I presume based on the comment the tabling will be for a
short while to be re -- readdressed later in the day.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It will be until we get the
answer to the question --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- is what my intention is.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If there's no further discussion,
I'm going to call the question on the motion to table. All those in
favor please say aye.
Motion passes five to zero.
(Final action taken later in the meeting.)
Next item on the agenda is -- we're moving to the county
manager's report. It's almost 10:30. I'm going to take a recess for
15 minutes until 25 minutes of the hour. Thank you.
(A short break was held.)
Item #SH1
TWO APPRAISAL AGREEMENTS RELATING TO THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY
REQUIRED FOR THE FOUR-LANING OF RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll call -- call back to order
the board of county commission meeting for April 18, 1995. We are at
the point in our meeting where we are doing the manager's report, and
we are at item H-i, a recommendation the Board of County Commissioners
approve two appraisal agreements. Mr. Conrecode?
MR. CONRECODE: Commissioners, for the record, Tom
Conrecode from your capital projects office. And this item before you
today is request to approve two appraisal contracts for right-of-way
acquisition work associated with Rattlesnake Hammock Road.
The board approved or authorized by resolution in
November of '94 acquisition by gift or purchase all the necessary
right-of-way for the construction of the four laning of Rattlesnake
Hammock Road.
These two items before you today split the number of
parcels along Rattlesnake Hammock Road between two appraisal firms.
And as a result staff is recommending approval with two specific
recommendations that you approve the attached appraisal agreements and
authorize the chairman to execute them as well as to approve the plan
for payment of appraisal fees as it relates and differs from the
original contracts that the board put in place. Total fiscal impact
is -- is estimated at $26,300.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions?
Is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is there public speakers?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have -- wouldn't think we
would. But do we?
MR. CUYLER: No, we do not.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I wouldn't think so.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the recommendation and to approve the appraisal agreements.
No further discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor please
say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero. Thank
you, Mr. Conrecode.
Item #8H2
COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY'S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S EHPLOYHENT
AGREEMENT TO REFLECT A SALARY OF $59,900 EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1995 -
APPROVED
Next item on the agenda is a recommendation that the
Board of County Commissioners amend the Collier County Airport
Authority's executive director's employment agreement. Who is
speaking? No one?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Item's been withdrawn.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have --
MR. CUYLER: I assume because of the sort of unique
position of the airport director that there's not going to be a staff
presentation. We do have four public speakers.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have the chairman from the
airport authority I think that wants to address this.
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Price. I assume all of these gentleman
are in favor of this. But Mr. Price is the first speaker. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Price.
MR. PRICE: Thank you. I'm speaking on behalf of the
airport authority as the airport authority's current chairman. And to
stress the importance of this I even went and got a tie. You don't
see me in one of those very often but it is --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's a nice looking one too.
MR. PRICE: It is an important issue to us. I'm going
to try to be brief because I think that the facts in this case speak
for themselves. You've got a long agenda, and I don't want to tie you
up as the other speakers feel the same.
But I think the important point to concentrate on here
is the fact that a little over a year ago we advertised a position.
We advertised the position based on the county manager's personnel
department saying this is a salary range after their research that it
will take to fill this position.
After we advertised the position, interviewed candidates
and were ready to hire, the county commission decided that -- that
because this was something new they were getting into and -- and --
and they were a little bit tentative, they wanted to see how it was
going to work, said, we're going to lower the amount that we're
willing to pay in -- in the beginning. We'll look at it later. And
if we feel that we were inappropriate in the amount we set, we will
come back in line with where the recommendation was that the salary
be.
That time has come. We have seen the performance of our
executive director. We have some four million dollars plus in
improvements being made to our airports. We have a substantial amount
of matching funds from FDOT and EDA. I think everyone in Collier
County is surprised at where we've gotten in a very short time because
Mr. Drury did come in, hit the ground running.
We do know that the first two applicants that we talked
to for the position withdrew their applications when finding that the
salary had been -- range had been lowered. So we do feel that the
personnel department was appropriate in setting the salary range to
begin with, and we need to make this adjustment to get the salary
where it should have been.
We know that there will be concerns by other employees
that say, I'm not getting this kind of a raise. But those employees
were hired at an appropriate salary level to begin with. They are
hired within the salary ranges recommended by the personnel
department. This employee was not.
And we're simply saying one time let's put the salary
where it should have been and then from that point forward, he will be
subject to the normal employment appraisals and salary evaluations
that every other county employee is. But we must make this one
adjustment to get it to where it should have been to begin with.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Price, you've hit on some
of these, and -- and I'm sure the other members of the authority will
as well. I do have a concern, and this in no way reflects on John.
He's done a fantastic job. And I have been an airport authority
supporter since before it existed and a John Drury supporter from day
one through now.
I do have a concern with people like Tom Conrecode,
people like George Archibald who are working 50 and 60 hours a week,
doing a great job. And you're right. They did accept a job at a
recommended price level and have been compensated each year
accordingly. I do have a worry. John did accept a job at forty-nine
nine. We also discussed at that time, as you indicated, increasing
that accordingly and according to him proving himself.
The last thing I want to do is nitpick and penalize
ourselves and end up losing John over a few thousand dollars because
he's done a wonderful job. But I do have a concern about the
perception of a thousand county employees getting a 3 percent or 3.4
percent or whatever the number we end up at increase this year and one
employee getting a -- what amounts to a 20 percent increase. And I
just -- I need you to help me with that.
MR. PRICE: Well, I think it's very simple, and I agree
with the concern. And I think it goes back to a discussion you had
earlier this morning when you were talking about representations that
were made although verbally. In the end, you know, were they lived up
to or not? And you expect GTE to live up to verbal representations
they made to the board.
I think this is a similar situation. There were verbal
representations made to Mr. Drury at the time although no firm
commitments. It was simply a matter of, look, this is something new.
We don't want to spend any more money than this. You want to come
down and give it a shot, you make it successful, and we'll take a look
at whether or not we were right or wrong in setting the salary range.
And it's a very simple matter.
It's -- it's -- it's not comparing apples to apples.
The other employees were set in established job positions with
established salary ranges. They were existing jobs that we already
had the salary ranges established for, and they were hired within
those ranges.
The county's personnel department researched this issue
and came up with a salary range. And then after that was done, we
simply said, no, for the first year we're going to try it down here.
If it's successful, you know, we'll take a look at it again. And
that's all we're asking you to do.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It -- it seems to me when that
discussion occurred, too, a little over a year ago that we not only
elected to start the position at forty -- what was it? -- forty-nine
six or whatever, but we actually lowered the classification on that
job. We as a board did that and dropped -- dropped the classification
number to some --
MR. PRICE: That's possible. I don't have a
recollection of that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- lower or higher number,
whichever it is.
MR. PRICE: -- because I don't understand all the county
classifications sometimes anyway.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think -- I think you're
right. My recollection of that is we did that for a couple of
reasons: One, the existing facilities were almost non-existent.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the number of employees
that supervision would be required for compared to some of the other
department heads who supervise 60 or 80 or 100 employees.
MR. PRICE: And -- and -- and I will tell you I don't
think the county airport authority is going to be back to you next
year saying we need to do this again and the next year saying -- this
is something we're going to say we want a merit evaluation of his
performance, and we want him to receive a salary increase in the
future that's commensurate to what other people that are performing at
that level are getting. This is a one-time adjustment to put him
where the job ought to be and -- and not to compare to other salary
increases.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we currently have -- I'm
trying to remember the format we ended up. We debated what format we
would do this in because we hire the executive director, and he
answers to everybody. It's kind of a unique formula. Do -- do we
have a contract, or were you hired in as a regular -- I think there's
a contract, but then it references several of the regular employee
statutes. I'm just wondering.
MR. CUYLER: Correct. And the -- in fact, your
attachment is an amendment to that contract that would be necessary to
increase the salary.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: From -- all right. I'll
wait. I may have an idea with that.
MR. PRICE: And that creates a difficult situation too.
I'll give you an example. Last Friday there was an issue that came up
last week that may have delayed the Immokalee construction by three or
four months. When Mr. Drury called me because he thought there was
something I could -- I could help with there to -- to resolve that, we
were putting a new computer in the bank, and I just couldn't give him
any time except Friday morning. I told him, here's 30 minutes.
That's all you can have. Well, it happened to conflict with a county
manager's meeting. And, you know, he's trying to get me to -- to move
my time, and I'm saying I can't. And he's answering to -- to -- to
two different people. That's a difficult situation. But I think he
does the best with it that can be done.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: On that, as the airports develop,
I think we will see a structural streamlining of that. I hope to. My
whole basis for support of this salary increase is that a non-specific
performance caveat was basically placed on Mr. Drury when he accepted
the job. It was -- it was very general. It was vague. But the
underlying meaning was -- and this is based on -- on what I've gone
back and looked at -- was you perform, and we'll bring you up to where
you should be. It's not unusual in a new position to do that, and I
think it was a wise and prudent move.
Whether we do it now or we do it a year from now when
our field sales have -- have tripled or quadrupled or gone through the
roof due to the improvements and -- and the airports are coming along,
it's going to have to be done. So eventually we're going to face a
decision of whether -- of -- of bumping Mr. Drury where other
employees are not seeing that same type of increase. I have no
reservations about making that now because as everyone up here feels,
he has proven himself quite capable.
And so I just wanted to say that the whole support for
this is coming simply from that -- that non-specific caveat, and I
think it's time that we put this behind us, we put him where he needs
to be, and that he's on the same playing field with all other county
employees. I will say that if we bump him at this time, the upcoming
3 percent or roundabouts for county employees this year, I don't think
that should apply.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This contract prohibits that
anyways.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I wanted to clarify that,
that that increase this year would not apply to Mr. Drury, but he then
would be subject next year. Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually Mr. Price said exactly
what I wanted to say, and that is we have talked a lot this morning
about having people live up to the verbal representations that they
make in meetings. And -- and I understand that a representation was
made. And all we're being asked to do is live up to it. I -- I would
wonder if there -- if the other public speakers are all in support if
they might waive their speech and let me make a motion in support of
approving the -- the -- the raise as proposed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion.
MR. DORRILL: The only registered speakers appear to be
the other members of the port authority.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris had some
comments.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I -- I just want to say
before we vote that Commissioner Constantine has some very good
points, and we've discussed this before. The perception by other
county employees that -- that this is an unjustified escalation of pay
I think is -- is probably not correct in this instance because my
recollection agrees with -- with Mr. Price that -- that we did, in
fact, as a board discuss this at some length originally and -- and
decided that if we could -- if we could hire Mr. Drury at a lower
salary, then subsequently he proves his worth and value and -- and
gets things moving that we would certainly come back and take another
look at his -- at the more appropriate salary range. And that's what
we're here to do today, and so I will second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Is there further discussion?
There being none, I'll call the question. All in favor
please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero. Thank
you.
I think that goes a long way toward telling people not
only are we going to do what we promised to do as far as the public's
concerned, but we're going to -- to address our employees with their
-- with the promises we make to them also.
MR. DORRILL: One thing that we're going to suggest so
that there not be a -- a misconception on the part of your other
management people, the board last updated its -- its managerial pay
plan in 1987, and that was the year that we created the pay plan that
is still in place.
And in fairness, one of the things I have asked Mr. Ochs
to evaluate is perhaps towards the late end of summer or going into
next fiscal year is to -- is to do a check of the pay plan and make
sure that we're still able to attract the type of people that we want
to be because unfortunately it's never been modified or reviewed since
it was adopted eight years ago.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: When we did pay plan -- tongue
tied -- pay plan adjustments in our budget last year, that didn't
include management?
MR. DORRILL: Typical focus on those is just the pay
ranges for certain selected positions as a result of a survey. What I
would like for us to do is a review of the entire position
classification and pay plan and -- and see whether or not the minimum
and maximum ranges need to be adjusted. And I think that's the
prudent course of action for the remainder of the employees.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dotrill, I -- I think that's
fine, but I would like that to be done in conjunction in committee
form with the productivity committee which has done extensive work in
our human resources department. And I believe the Greater Naples
Civic Association has done a tremendous amount of work there too. I
think in order to have community support for any action regarding a
reclassification, the involvement by those two groups would be --
MR. DORRILL: That's an excellent idea.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- would be necessary.
MR. DORRILL: I support that 100 percent.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. I --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's exactly what I was
going to suggest.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'll ask that you -- and
we'll sufficiently direct the productivity committee if necessary and
ask that you contact the civic association and request their
assistance.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That sounds like direction from
the board?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Indeed.
Item #12C1
RESOLUTION 95-290, ESTABLISHING NEW COUNTY COMMISSION DISTRICT
BOUNDARIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 124, FLORIDA STATUTES AND THE
FLORIDA CONSTITUTION - ADOPTED SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Next item on the agenda,
it's eleven o'clock. We are going to begin the public hearing process
for item 12-C-1 which is the redistricting. Mr. Perry, I believe
you're going to give us a brief overview this morning for the benefit
of the Wyndemere --
MR. PERRY: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- residents. And then later
this afternoon at the normal public hearing time, you'll give us a
full presentation on it.
MR. PERRY: Right, right. It will be important for me
to get some information on the record in the afternoon session.
For the record, my name is Jeff Perry, chief planner in
the county's planning services department. I've been asked to make a
presentation to you today concerning the proposed redistrict boundary
changes that were presented to the board on December 13.
The board directed us to proceed with a series of public
meetings. We've had those public meetings and presentations to two of
your advisory boards in addition to the three public meetings. This
morning I believe the majority of the people that are in attendance
would like to put on the record information or their opinions about
the redistricting boundaries for one particular area.
I have two maps over here, two identical maps. The area
number 5 which is the Wyndemere parcel up here is presently within
county commission district 2. It is also within school board district
3. In fact, according to the -- as the boundaries for the county
commission districts and school districts are currently drawn, it is
the only deviation between the county commission districts and the
school board districts that were approved in 1991.
That deviation exists because at the time Commissioners
Volpe sitting as a county commissioner and School Board District
Representative Quinby were both residents of Wyndemere and, in fact,
could not be in the same districts. So that deviation presently
exists, and that is the primary reason for attempting to change the
boundary now that along that particular line Wyndemere would then
become part of county commission district 3 and would also be in
school board district 3.
What that allows to happen with all of the other changes
is the school board, should they decide to do so could come along
behind the county commissioners, adopt the same district boundary
changes as we have proposed here obviously without having to do
anything with the Wyndemere development within district 3, and they
would be able to have exactly the same boundaries that the county
commission has. So that's the purpose of the changing of area number
5.
Present -- 1994 population, 566 people. That is just
the Wyndemere community. And that's the purpose for that particular
change. I think at this point it would probably be appropriate to
have public input and then any additional questions that you might
have I'd be glad to answer as we go along.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Perry. Mr.
Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have received as I assume
each of us has seen from Wyndemere the petition with four hundred and
some odd names on it. That's better than the voter turnout we usually
get. There's 506 there, and we've got 400 names already on a
signature. I came up with a couple alternatives.
I know our goal first and foremost by law is to keep our
commission districts as equally represented population-wise as
possible. At the same time I think it -- one of the goals you
mentioned is to try to get those commission districts similar or
identical to the school board districts. I think that is a secondary
concern.
I think the most important thing is make sure those
people in the districts are happy with their representation as well.
That's more important anyway to me than having exact same lines as the
school board.
I played a couple little mathematical games here, and I
think we can have very, very close numbers as required by law with a
couple of different alternatives. One is simply to not shift
Wyndemere from Commissioner Hancock's district into my district. That
would keep Commissioner Norris, Commissioner Matthews, and
Commissioner Hac'Kie all the same. Let me just read you those
numbers: thirty-six eight seventy-nine in Norris; thirty-six one
twenty-two in Hancock; thirty-six seven fifty-nine in my district;
thirty-seven four forty-five as proposed in Commissioner Hac'Kie's;
and thirty-five six eighteen as proposed in Commissioner Matthews.
All of those would -- the three other than Tim and Tim would be
exactly as it was proposed by our staff. That would merely shift
those 506 people back into district 2.
The other alternative would be in an effort to offset
some of those numbers in -- in -- losing in my district is to bring
back North Road which is just north of the -- just south of the
airport, has been suggested to be moved to Commissioner Hac'Kie. So
again, Commissioner Matthews, Commissioner Norris would stay the same
as what is proposed by Mr. Perry.
But that change would give us two commissioners in the
thirty-six thousands, two commissioners in the low to mid thirty-seven
thousands, and yours would remain the same in the high thirty-five
thousand.
So both of those I think meet the legal requirement of
what we're trying to do, keep you all happy. And the only one that
may not be happy is Mary Morgan if she still ends -- ends up with the
school board having separate districts. But I think that achieves our
goal of legally trying to keep the districts as close as we can.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: First I want to thank
Commissioner Constantine for his calculator work. I -- I appreciate
that very much, and I think it's very much in response to requests
from -- from you, the citizens.
The need to match the school board districts in my mind
does not outweigh the logical placement of county commission district
lines. To pull Wyndemere out at this time means that we create a
single community that is bordered on three sides by a separate
representative district. That's not logical. What's logical is to
keep as neat and clean lines with as few pockets as possible.
In a couple of years -- I'm sorry, three and a half
years, Mr. Quinby will be either up for reelection or if -- if his
sanity is still present will probably not run for the simple reason
that I don't know why anyone would want to be on the school board.
But should that happen, we then have Wyndemere that's
been districted out that would at that time make sense to be
districted back in. And -- and, you know, whether we change it now or
we look at it in three years, I don't think it's going to have a
dramatic difference.
It will cause Miss Morgan to make one more type of
ballot style because that line will not match. I understand that's a
difficulty. I understand it's an expense. But I'm not willing to
sacrifice what I consider to be a contiguous representative area for
that single purpose.
So, Mr. Constantine, as you ran through your numbers, it
made sense to me, and I think there are a lot of people in this room
that might be save some time is if there is an additional -- at least
one additional on this board that feels the redistricting of Wyndemere
itself is not logical and does not make sense. And if that's the
case, then we can carry forward.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a second. Ladies and
gentlemen, in an effort to complete what we have to do today -- we do
have a fairly long agenda item, and -- and I know you've just heard
two -- two commissioners tell you what you want to hear and -- and --
and make you -- and make you very happy. But in an effort to move
this on, I'm going to ask you to hold your applause. And we are going
to be continuing the public hearing to the afternoon portion.
Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I just want to make everyone
aware that I certainly feel inclined to support the wishes of the
citizens in maintaining their -- their status in district 2 from
Wyndemere. So I think I can count to three already.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I think I'd like to hear
from Mrs. Morgan as to what kind of grief this would -- this would
cause her and her office. Mrs. Morgan, do you have anything to say?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hiding around the corner back
there.
MS. MORGAN: I don't really have any comment. I'm going
to live with your lines.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You have to come and put that on
the record.
MS. MORGAN: The only comment I have is that you -- I
feel that you're obligated by 124 to -- every odd-numbered year to
receive a report from your staff on the population among the districts
and if there is an imbalance to adjust it. I have no say in where you
draw the lines.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Is 330 votes difference,
because that's essentially what we're talking about with this
particular change, going to make a difference from --
MS. MORGAN: You need to see if it's going to --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I need him to tell me that.
MS. MORGAN: -- comply with the court cases, with the
case law, and not what I'm going to tell you because wherever you put
the line, we're going to live with it. And I may moan and groan about
it, but that's my right because I didn't have a say in where you drew
the line.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Cuyler, is 330
votes approximately different spread going to make any difference?
MR. CUYLER: It's not going to legally preclude you from
doing that which will be the ultimate question that you have. You do
perhaps -- you are perhaps going to have some other citizens this
afternoon before you figure any final figures. Obviously you gotta
listen to those. But no, if Wyndemere were to stay in the present
district as opposed to being moved, that's not going to render your
decision legally incorrect in any way.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But the -- well, I'm looking at
the suggestion Commissioner Constantine has made that we swap out
North Road area for the Wyndemere area. That -- that's a net change
of only 330 votes instead of 660 -- 560, I'm sorry.
MR. PERRY: Can I comment on that?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Perry, uh-huh.
MR. PERRY: Keep in mind that we're talking about
population and -- and not actual registered voters or anything like
that. These are all women -- men, women, and children we're counting
up here.
Also keep in mind that Commissioner MAc'Kie's district,
district 4, does not grow as rapidly and will not grow with the new
boundaries as rapidly as the remaining districts. And that's one of
the problems that over the last four or five years has created the
disparity between the district populations.
It would be -- just to respond to Commissioner
Constantine's calculations, it would probably be better not doing
anything with the North Road area, leaving Commissioner MAc'Kie's
district that much higher than the rest because by this time next
year, she's probably going to be behind in population because
everybody else continues to grow and her population area does not.
But I would also agree with -- with Mr. Cuyler that you
will hear -- I assume you will hear from this afternoon other people
who are not particularly enthralled with the idea of moving district
boundaries.
So I've run some numbers, as Commissioner Constantine
has, about moving this one in, this one out, not doing this, not doing
that. And any number of combinations can be made, and we'll take
whatever direction you provide to us and come up with those numbers
for you. So it's a matter of, I think, listening to everybody and
deciding what is important.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, I -- I -- I remember when
this was done in 1991 which was just before the 1992 election
obviously. And I had a significant area that became part of district
5 meaning east of 951 and south of 41. And I literally had to spend a
good deal of time convincing the residents there that they were indeed
in district 5. So yeah, it -- it -- it can be an educational
process. There are public speakers, I believe. MR. CUYLER: Mr. Randall.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, you had something you
wanted to say?
MR. CUYLER: I just have a -- a petition to describe and
submit for the record when Mr. Randall finishes. As a matter of fact,
he may -- he may describe this himself.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Randall.
MR. RANDALL: Thank you. My name is John Randall, and
I'm the president of the Wyndemere Homeowners' Association and in that
capacity representing Wyndemere's position in this issue of
redistricting.
I think that we owe a special debt of appreciation to
Commissioner Con -- Commissioner Constantine and Commissioner Hancock
and presumably to Commissioner Norris. And essentially what you've
done is remove most of what I had proposed to say which in the
interest of time hopefully will be persuasive.
I would simply try to summarize the situation by quoting
from a famous Supreme Court case dating 1825 involving Dartmouth
College versus the State of New Hampshire wherein Dartmouth College
was represented by Daniel Webster who said that though Dartmouth is
only a small college there are those of us who love it. I think we
could say though Wyndemere is only a small development, there are
those of us who love it, especially in district 2. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Randall. Does that -- does that conclude the speakers, or you need
to --
MR. CUYLER: I believe that --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- address the -- the petition?
MR. CUYLER: Why don't you come to the podium and
identify yourself.
MR. KERRIGAN: Bill Kerrigan, Poinciana Village. There
are those of us in Poinciana Village that love it and we would love to
stay in district 2 if my paraphrasing was good.
Can Mr. -- can Commissioner Constantine sharpen his
pencil and figure out a way for us to stay in there? And hopefully
we're going to look at one issue that will be very serious is some
people when they get redistricted can vote every other year for county
commissioner. Some stay at four years. And some as in district 4 --
district 1 going into district 4 may lose the opportunity to vote
every four years and get postponed to six.
So, you know, I think that's something we need to look.
I made the point before. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
MR. KERRIGAN: I mean, in the interest of fairness, we
won't -- don't want to tell somebody you're not -- you're going to
miss an election cycle. So --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have to balance the population
within the districts too, and -- and some people have the ability to
do that also individually just by moving around within the county.
So I mean, we -- we -- it's impossible for us to address
every contingency obviously. But we're -- we're going to try to do
our best as -- according to what the law requires us to do.
MR. KERRIGAN: Remember -- but Wyndemere would have
voted every other year instead of every six. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I hear you.
MR. KERRIGAN: And, you know, we're willing to work with
any commissioner that is our commissioner just as long as they got an
oil can because sometimes we're a squeaky wheel.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one comment.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment. Commissioner
Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do want to say -- and it's --
it's been expressed to me by the residents of Wyndemere also that in
no way are these requests directed at any one person on this board but
simply a desire for things to be a certain way. And I want to express
that particularly because I feel confident that -- that any area
that's redistricted will, in fact, receive adequate if not equal more
so representation.
So I want to pull that off the front because it has been
expressed to me from residents of Wyndemere that it has nothing to do
with the individual but more or less the association, the geography,
and so forth. And -- and I want to thank you -- thank you for that
comment.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the things -- and I
think I speak for all five commissioners -- is regardless of where
the district lines are, I hope you will feel welcome to call --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- on any of us.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because while we
geographically are elected from one area, we do all represent the
entire county. So whether you're in 2 or 3 or 5 or whatever, feel
free to call me or any of us for that matter.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I get calls from all over.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me too.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we all do.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'm sure we all do.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, I think you have a
petition that you need to describe for the record.
MR. CUYLER: Yes, MAdam Chairman. It's the petition
that was referred to earlier I believe by Commissioner Constantine.
It just states that it's a petition. The purpose of this petition is
for the community of Wyndemere to remain in district 2 and has a legal
description. It says, we, the undersigned residents of Wyndemere,
hereby petition the Collier County Board of Commissioners to support
our desire to remain in district 2. And then there's the various
signatures and addresses. There's a cover letter from Mr. Randall,
and we had also asked for a couple of the types of letters that had
been sent by the commissioners to the residents, and that's included
as well.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How many petitioners signed
that? Any idea?
MR. RANDALL: 407.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 407 out of the 566 were a
significant number.
MR. CUYLER: And I'll submit that for the record.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. With that, we are
going to suspend the public hearing on this item until later this
afternoon when it will come up in the regular course. Mr. Perry?
MR. PERRY: Just in the interest of time, if you would
allow me to pass out to you the worksheet that I prepared this morning
concerning some of these boundary changes and how it affects the
numbers, and then you'd have a chance to look at it perhaps over lunch
and be prepared this afternoon.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's a good idea. Thank you.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Just for informational purposes
for those of you here from Wyndemere, I think you can feel fairly
assured that this board should be acting this afternoon that Wyndemere
will remain in district 2. Thank you for being here.
(Final Action taken later in the meeting.)
Item #8H3
REPORT ON REVENUES FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF FISCAL YEAR 1995 - ACCEPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're going to move -- we're
going to move forward with the agenda. If -- ladies and gentlemen, if
you could exit the room more quietly, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
Next item -- next item on the agenda is -- is 8 -- I'm lost.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The Mike Smykowski report.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, that was this morning.
8-H-3. This is the report on revenues for the first quarter. Mr.
Smykowski. You were right.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good morning. For the record, Michael
Smykowski, acting budget director. I'm here to present the report on
revenues for the first quarter of fiscal year 1995.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me, Mr. Smykowski. Ladies
and gentlemen, could you please quiet down? I appreciate that, and
thank you. There's nothing like the noise from a happy crowd.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's so rarely heard in these
chambers.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's true. I thought it was something
I said. The room is empty now.
On page 3 of the executive summary is a listing of the
actual state shared revenues, major enterprise fund revenues, and
impact fee collections from October 1, 1994, through December 31 of
'94 which is the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 1995.
Within the intergovernmental revenue category, we have
the half cent sales tax and the state revenue sharing are slightly
below budget, as is the voted gas tax or the nine cent. State law
does require, however, that the county only approach 95 percent of
available revenues. And as these are -- 50 percent variance is within
that 5 percent, we are -- if you -- if you collect 95 percent, you
make -- you've made budget in essence.
The local option gas tax is showing a variance at this
point of 7.1 percent. We'll be monitoring that closely. When the
budget was developed, we had three months of actual revenues. Again,
that was the five cent local option that was initiated in January of
last year. So at this point we do have five months of revenue in the
bank. We're watching that closely obviously to see how they compare.
At this point it does appear it will be slightly below. We'll be
monitoring that closely over the next month or so and potentially make
a budget adjustment there if necessary.
Within the enterprise fund revenues, water revenue is
slightly below at 2.2 percent again. That is within the 5 percent
revenue reserve. Sewer revenue is 8.6 percent, projected at 8.6
percent below the budgeted amount. That is something we've watched
closely.
As part of the FY '94 year end report, sewer revenues
were like 8 -- in the same ballpark short from what was projected and
actually received in fiscal year '94. And as the executive summary
states, the budget was built upon the forecast level. At this point
we are running slightly behind. Again, at the end of the second
quarter we will be making -- assuming that trend continues, we would
make a budget reduction in that area to reduce appropriations as a
fiscal control measure.
Impact fees, we've had some very large commercial impact
fees hit during the first quarter of the year. And obviously, as you
can see, there are large surpluses projected in most categories. So
in general terms the revenue trends remain strong and positive.
Obviously the local option five cent gas tax and sewer revenue is
something we would monitor closely. And if we had any recommended
budgetary adjustments, it would be at the -- at the presentation of
the second quarter report.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? Commissioner
Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Smykowski, would you just
briefly explain for me the -- I understand the reason for the 36
percent reduction for ambulance fees. That money will be made up
from --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: At this point it's a function of
billings being behind and converting to a new billing system --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- that we're working in conjunction
with through the hospital.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That answers my question.
Thank you.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: So there is not -- year end you see we
are not -- we are projecting to receive the full 2.2 million, so it's
just an administrative issue at this point. That is being resolved.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have a relatively high
level of confidence that they'll actually get the billing system in
order and everything will be where it should be by the end of 12
months?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. And we discussed that both with
the EHS director and Mr. Yonkosky. And in speaking with Mr. Yonkosky
just this morning, they're hoping to resolve it in the next couple of
weeks and getting the billing up to snuff. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I just have one question,
and it's a consistent question that I'm asking every quarter that we
get this is -- is that we get percent variances for the quarter, and
we get percent variances year to date. And I -- I guess what I'm
asking for, the quarterly budget information is what was actually
budgeted to be received for that quarter? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So -- so you have taken
into account the historical receipt of revenue over a period of time.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And our local option gas tax
while it was new and therefore it's -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is one that we just divided into
categories.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. It's going to be a little
-- a little hairy. I do notice, though, that the state revenue
sharing is down 11 percent for the quarter which to me is more
important than what it's down for the year and -- but that the 6 cent
tax is up by 17 percent and the TDC tax is up by 13 percent. Are you
expecting that trend to continue for the -- for the year?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Not for the entire year. At this point
we're projecting 5.4 percent for the -- for the year for the -- for
the tourist development tax above budget and --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So -- so we're still in a process
of -- of smoothing out, so to speak, the quarter-to-quarter -- MR. PERRY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- or even month-to-month
allocations.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. Some of those obviously -- the
tourist development tax we do not have a long history there as -- as
we do in some of the other areas so that --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. Okay. I -- I think that
over -- over time I would just like to see a more smoothing out of the
process by the quarter so that we can see for the quarter we were
expected to get a certain percent of the annual res -- of the annual
revenues and it either met that projection or it didn't.
There's enough variation here that to me is wild enough
such as water impact fees being up 105 percent for the quarter that
I'm having a little bit of difficulty understanding that impact fees
are up so high but building permits are -- are -- are down 2 percent.
So, you know, our planning is either good or it's bad. But these two
things indicate that it's neither good nor bad. I mean, really I
would expect impact fees --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I gotta write that down.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I would expect impact fees
to be keyed more closely to permits, yet our permits are down and
impact fees are -- are wildly out of range.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: They fluctuate wildly typically with
very large commercial permits that when they hit, you're -- you're
light years ahead of budget. And if you budget for them and they
don't come in, you're light years behind.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Then you're way behind.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: We've attempted to be fairly
conservative and tried to wean those out of the budget. And a few
years ago we -- we had the large impact commercial fees budgeted. And
we went through three quarters of the year and they hadn't hit yet,
and we looked dramatically behind. And then suddenly they do
materialize and it's ah, it saved the day kind of thing.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, then -- then what you're
telling me then is -- is that the permit fees for a large commercial
project are -- are not -- there's not as large a difference between a
large commercial project and a smaller project for permit fees as
there is difference between the impact fees for those two projects and
that without a long history, you don't have any way to really project
it.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct. I can tell you the
impact fees is obviously the area of the greatest volatility from
quarter to quarter.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Smykowski, you've got a number
of different ways or a number of different gasoline taxes that are
split up. Looking at the quarter, the variance on what we actually
collected over what we had budgeted, I see that one of -- one of these
taxes is up 17.3, one is down 2.4, one is down 3.2, one is up 1.9, so
forth and so on. Are there some gallons of gasoline being sold that
-- that have only a portion of these gas taxes, or do all these taxes
apply to each gallon of gasoline sold?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: They all apply to each gallon of
gasoline sold.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: In that case why aren't all these
numbers exactly the same as far as the variance goes?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Well, one thing that has changed this
year, previously the county gas tax, the state took all the
administrative fees out of one source for the -- both the sixth, the
ninth, and the seventh cent. What -- what has happened is the county
sued and said why are you taking money away from the seventh cent gas
tax as an administrative fee when it was actually collected and should
have been charged to the ninth cent?
So part of that is a reallocation of the administrative
fees in proportion to each of the various revenue sources as opposed
to taking it exclusively from the seventh cent gas tax. That is one
change that has kind of thrown a -- a monkey wrench into the system.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So your answer is -- is that to
some degree it's allocation -- specific allocation of administrative
costs and so forth?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Otherwise it seemed to me it would
be a very simple matter to make them come out exactly the same. You
just guess the number of gallons that are going to be sold and project
that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And assess the tax, right.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. This is -- this is a
report. I don't believe there's anything we need to do other than to
receive the report. Is that correct, Mr. Cuyler? MR. CUYLER: That's correct.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: At this point there are no recommended
budget reductions or changes at this point. They will be made at the
second -- at the second quarter should they be necessary.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Smykowski.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you.
Item #8H4
DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION RE MANDATORY SOLID WASTE ON THE TAX BILL - TAX
COLLECTOR'S BID APPROVED AND DOR STAFF TO BE REDUCED; COUNTY ATTORNEY
TO AMEND ORDINANCE AND DEVELOP CONTRACT
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is item
8-H-4 which is the board discussion and direction regarding the
mandatory solid waste on the tax bill. Mr. Dotrill.
MR. DORRILL: I'll be presenting this, and we also have
a handout. And I wonder if Mr. Yonkosky could assist me in just
passing this out to the board.
The board members will recall that as part of the final
deliberations to approve the billing activity for those portions of
the county manager's agency that we had indicated a willingness to
take alternative bid or proposals for those activities that are
currently being performed by constitutional officers, specifically
garbage collection and a variety of special assessment billings that
are under the perview of the clerk.
And we have established and there is a proposal process
that follows your purchasing practices, and I believe the date for the
receipt of those is sometime on or about the 1st of May. We will
report those back to the board.
As part of a prebid conference that we held with the
constitutional officers who have expressed an interest in potentially
billing, the tax collector indicated that he would be proposing on a
billing mechanism but that aside from that that he intended to ask the
board and make them aware of the possibility of putting your mandatory
garbage billing on the tax roll and including those costs along with
the ad valorem and other special assessment taxes that are on the tax
roll.
And I indicated to him that while I did not feel that
that was particularly responsive, that that is a policy issue that is
available. There are other counties that put solid waste billing on
the tax bill. And as a result of that, I indicated to him that
outside of the bid process that I would entertain and then pass along
to the board his proposal to put solid waste billing on the tax roll.
And I will tell you that if you look just at the cost to
-- to print and mail the bill, he has given us a very good proposal,
certainly much better than what he is currently charging us which is
$175,000. He has agreed to do that for one dollar per account. It's
my understanding that there are approximately 47,000 accounts that are
currently there.
In an effort to show the board what the total costs are
because the work that is being performed by the tax collector's office
is just one element of an overall billing and accounts administration
and complaint tracking function, I had directed the staff to show the
board and to break apart the various costs so that we could show both
transfers which are costs to other constitutional officers -- in this
case Mr. Skinner and also Mr. Brock -- and the separate costs that are
under agreement with Mr. Carlton and then compare them against his
alternative proposal at one dollar per account to do those as part of
the tax bill.
And we have endeavored to do that. And we've got the
three columns. The existing column are those total costs that are
currently involved in maintaining comprehensive solid waste billing
and accounts administration and complaint tracking. The costs in the
middle are those costs that would be a reduction from that and
ongoing.
The one area that I am not clear on -- I understand
we've discussed this with the county attorney -- the last costs that
show as one-time start-up costs, it's my understanding that in order
to put this on the bill that we would have to contact every account in
the county by first class mail and -- and -- and do that prior to the
consideration of putting garbage billing on the tax bill which can be
done in a public hearing. Those costs, as I understand it, are about
$20,000. And I'll need somebody to help me with those because I need
to have those verified.
The final column shows the comprehensive costs again to
undertake the billing function as part of the separate proposal that
you last reviewed when we asked you to conceptually approve the
department as it was proposed.
And if I could get Mr. Weigel or Miss Guseneau
(phonetic) or Mr. Yonkosky to answer my one question concerning those
start-up costs that are under the -- the tax bill because I'm a little
-- I'm not totally clear on that, and I don't want to misstate that.
MR. WEIGEL: David Weigel, assistant county attorney.
The initial start-up costs are statutorily required, mailing --
information mailing to all residents that would be subject to
assessment on their tax bill. And we also would have an advertising
cost, possibly repetitive cost, to the newspaper prior to the board
adopting its resolution which would provide for the implementation of
this billing of mandatory solid waste as a non-ad valorem assessment
to be implemented into the tax bill that's sent out annually.
MR. CUYLER: The estimate's 20,000 as Neil indicated.
MR. WEIGEL: The estimate of 20,000 I think is -- gives
us a little extra room. We know it will be at least sixteen five,
maybe as high as twenty.
MR. DORRILL: The only other item that is shown that
would be new is also under the middle column, and it's what's called
costs for roll certification. Mr. Carlton is under no obligation to
make the various rolls merge, and he has repeatedly cautioned us and
other governmental entities that his job under the constitution is to
take the master roll from the property appraiser and then -- and then
convert it to a tax bill.
The other rolls that are there electronically and in
this case on tape must be provided to him by the governmental entity
that is asking for the special assessment to be placed on the same tax
bill. But the obligation is either yours or the Lely community
development district or whatever the entity is to provide him
electronically or on a medium that is acceptable to him.
And so we have -- to the extent that we can have put a
value on what it would cost to have that information conveyed to us as
source information from Mr. Skinner but then converted and updated
annually similar to what we do on the east and south county sewer
assessment. That's the closest thing that I can compare it to.
And there are some engineering costs. Historically
those types of services have been performed by civil engineering
consulting firms. And we feel that they can do that cheaper than we
can. And so the other costs that may be new to you is the costs that
is shown there as roll certification. And that is the annual estimate
as to what it would take to -- to be able to merge that master roll
and a solid waste assessment roll with probably 50,000 accounts.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Questions?
Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I see our tax collector is
with us today. Hi, Guy. How are you?
MR. CARLTON: Fine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good. I need a little help
here. I got through these three -- I don't know. Have you seen this,
and do we have an extra copy of this so we can --
MR. CARLTON: Good morning. I'm Guy Carlton, your tax
collector, and I'm the one without his reading glasses.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Should I hold it for you, Guy?
MR. CARLTON: That'd be just about right, Commissioner.
I can make that out pretty well.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need a little help on a
couple of things. Under the dollar bid -- maybe I'm just being a
little slow here. But if we were paying -- what are we paying now?
Three bucks, three and a quarter, three --
MR. CARLTON: About $3 a bill now, 3 percent.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And --
MR. CARLTON: And basically we've dropped it to 1
percent.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When all is said and done
according to this list under the existing, it's three eighty-six two
hundred. By dropping it to a third of what it is now, it's three
hundred and fifteen eight hundred, actually two ninety-five after the
first year. Maybe I'm being a little slow here. But if we're cutting
your expense into one-third of what it is --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why didn't it drop to one-third?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Why did it only drop
about 25 percent? And maybe, Mr. Dotrill, you can help me.
MR. DORRILL: Well, again, the only -- the only line
item that is there that shows tax collector, those are the only costs
that we're paying for the service that he provides. The other costs
there for personnel, for example, are those costs that pay for the
account clerks or the customer service clerks who are in solid waste
who will refer, gee, we sold the house or gee, they missed my garbage
today. So that's why I said I'm careful to say these are the
comprehensive costs that go into the entire solid waste equation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Guy, the dollar bid
contemplates putting this on the tax roll or no?
MR. CARLTON: Yeah, we can do it for a dollar an
account. That might even be four billings for a dollar which is
really a good bargain if they get in the installment program. But we
will offer installments just like you do on your tax bill.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you do it --
MR. CARLTON: We did 44,800 this year. Had that been in
place, that's what the bill would have been for, 44,800. We will not
recover the cost of the rewrite in this bid, but then that's
government billing, government billing government. So --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You cannot do it for a dollar
per unit if we don't put it on the tax bill.
MR. CARLTON: Absolutely not, sir. We cannot buy a
bill, print a bill, and mail a bill for a dollar.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, 158,000 for
personnel under DOR, if we were to go to the tax collector, how much
will that DOR personnel cost go down?
MR. DORRILL: My understanding is it goes down by
$54,000. Because the personnel requirements run along the top line
there, are those costs that we would have for the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't mean on this bid. I
mean in our department of --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's support.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Now he can read it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean in our department of
revenue -- I don't mean in this bid. I mean in our department of
revenue if we give this bid to the tax collector, our payroll will go
down in that department I assume. MR. DORRILL: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They have less to do. They
don't have to do this duty, so they need one less person or two less
people or --
MR. DORRILL: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much is that? Does that
equal there, 54,000?
MR. DORRILL: $54,000.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So what I'm wondering is is
talking about real tax dollars as opposed to what's laid out here. I
assume you've already got your personnel. You're not going to hire
anybody new. You're not going to lay anybody off regardless of what
we do with --
MR. CARLTON: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what I'm looking at is --
is real savings as opposed to just this simple issue. And if we can
save one FTE or two FTEs in our DOR and not -- you don't have to hire
anybody new, then we have truly saved dollars. Those are true savings
as opposed to if we put it in our DOR and you still carry the same
load, then the taxpayer -- it's in your -- your budget or it's in our
budget. But the taxpayer is paying for a couple extra people than
they would otherwise overall. So it seems to make sense to me with
that reasoning that it would -- that -- to give it to you and not hire
a couple of extra people on our side would be the ultimate savings to
the taxpayer.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not sure who to direct this
question to, but I'd like to know under our current system of billing
how many or what percentage do we ultimately collect? Who can answer
that?
MR. CARLTON: Well, I can tell you on the first year --
because then we turn it over to the clerk. But the first year we run
about 93 percent --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. CARLTON: -- collection. On the tax bill it's
always 100 percent.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's -- that's my point.
If it's 93 percent, that would mean that there's about three or
thirty-five hundred accounts not being collected at a hundred dollars
a year; right?
MR. CARLTON: First year.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: First year.
MR. CARLTON: When we -- when we surrender to the clerk,
we pick up a new roll for collection as an independent billing. Some
of those accounts obviously get addressed. The penalty is not very
heavy. So some people just say, well, fine me a couple dollars a
month. I'll pay it when I can. Now, we're not aware of that payment
because that goes to the clerk as it stands today.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So in any case, it would be
anticipated that our collection rate would go up somewhat.
MR. CARLTON: Yes, sir.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. CARLTON: I might mention that if you all have to
notice every -- notify everybody that would be on the tax bill because
it cannot be done this year, we would be glad to add an insert to the
tax bills for '95 that would be that notification if it would meet the
legal requirements. I have no idea if it has to be certified mail or
not. But if we're already sending them a tax bill in '95, we might as
well put that information. And I don't know what you've allowed for
cost for that. But if it would be the right material to go through
the Insertamax machine, we'd be happy to do so. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, can we do that?
MR. CARLTON: That may not be a legal notification. I'm
not sure.
MR. WEIGEL: In any event, it's first class mail. But
the -- the insertion, the information, is rather lengthy. It may or
may not logistically fit into what he has to mail. We could -- we
could investigate that.
MR. CUYLER: Yeah, our initial response is no, but we
would like to take a look at that if Mr. Carlton would leave that
offer open for us.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Are there other
questions? Commissioner Hancock?
MR. CARLTON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine
clarified some things for me, and I'm grateful because I look at this,
and I feel like I'm playing the shell game. You know, all of a sudden
numbers are coming from places, and the bottom line here is -- and,
Mr. Dotrill, correct me if I'm wrong -- if we contract with the tax
collector for a dollar a bill, the taxpayer one way or another in the
end could realize some savings; is that correct?
MR. DORRILL: Over what you're currently doing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or over what is proposed being
handled completely in-house with the DOR.
MR. DORRILL: Well, I think the answer to that is -- is
no, but we ought to walk you through the last column there because
you'll -- you'll see the difference is about $27,000. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Start-up or each year?
MR. DORRILL: My understanding is it's all inclusive.
The costs -- Mr. Yonkosky, I'll need your help on this. The final
column costs are annualized costs that would be for the first year of
operation that total $289,500.
MR. YONKOSKY: That's correct.
MR. DORRILL: What -- what, if any, additional one-time
start-up costs do we have as part of solid waste billing that may not
be included in here, if any?
MR. YONKOSKY: There -- there are no additional start-up
costs.
MR. DORRILL: No software costs? They're already built
into these numbers.
MR. YONKOSKY: They're built into that. The software
cost is part of the capital -- where it shows capital software, that
is built in there, so there is no additional or no costs that haven't
been pointed out to you.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So that -- that $27,000 after the
first year becomes $7,000, and we're still not even talking about the
54,000 in salaries that we could save in the DOR if Mr. Carlton's
people do it. Would that be a correct assessment?
MR. DORRILL: I think that is a correct assessment.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then I see a real savings for
taxpayers there. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions?
MR. CARLTON: I don't know if the county attorney's
staff -- it surely, if it goes under 197, has to relieve them of the
filing of lien, and -- and the -- and you all don't have to take
somebody's house for the lack of payment of garbage. We'll do it for
the lack of payment of taxes. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you looking for some
action, Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. -- just a moment. I had one
question. Mr. Carlton, you had mentioned billing on a quarterly basis
because that was one of my questions. What -- what happens to the
households that are paying their garbage collection quarterly?
MR. CARLTON: Well, all -- all quarterly payments I
believe end sometime in April. If this goes into effect, they will
have paid -- they will again pay in the same year if they -- if it
gets on the tax bill or they have the option to pay in November,
December. But we have quarterlies available. You merely have to
apply in April to get a quarterly payment on your tax bill.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: On your tax bill.
MR. CARLTON: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So they could do that with
this -- MR. CARLTON: Quarterly payments are available for your
taxes, and this would be on the tax bill and be available, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Gotcha. Any other questions?
Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion that we go
with the tax collector bid and as part of that motion that the FTEs
for the DOR be reduced appropriately.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
go with the tax collector's one dollar bid on this and to
commensurately reduce the FTEs for the DOR.
Mr. Weigel, you look like you have something you want to
say.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, yes. Perhaps for further
definition of direction to the staff, Collier County ordinance 90-30
as amended, the mandatory solid waste ordinance, does provide for
alternative type of billing. It does, in fact, in its current
language, although it's a 1990 ordinance, state that billing pursuant
to chapter 197 may be elected by the board.
I would request that the board authorize staff or the
county attorney office to bring back that ordinance with amendments as
necessary and the appropriate resolution as necessary so that we can
implement what you're already directing in the motion.
And secondly, I think it would behoove the county to --
and the staff to work with the tax collector and bring back a contract
draft for this board to consider as well as the tax collector for the
implementation of his one dollar per residential account bid that he's
provided here. And although I don't know that it's been specified
that we would suggest that it's for multi years, conceivably up to
five years, which would run the potential of the full extension of the
mandatory solid waste collection agreements that we have with our two
franchisees.
MR. DORRILL: Specifically it was my understanding --
I'm sorry Mr. Carlton left. He's committed to a five-year no-increase
proposal for his fee, and I understand they've confirmed that. I'm
sorry that he's not here to put that on the record, but we do have
that confirmed by the deputy tax collector, Mr. Haynes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll also as part of my
motion give direction for our legal staff to look at the alternative
for mailing out what Mr. Carlton had outlined. The initial indication
is we may not be able to do that. That's certainly worth looking
into.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Would the motion maker accept Mr.
Weigel's comments as an amendment to his motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Second?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second agrees.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Second accepts it too. Does the
second accept Mr. Constantine's amendment to his own motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second accepts it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. With no further
discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye.
Motion passes five to zero.
MR. DORRILL: Observation for what it's worth, this is
one of those areas where if we all do work together on something and
we perform our task -- and Mr. Carlton has given us an exceptionally
good fee to perform a task that he doesn't have to do -- we can all
work together and have a higher rate of collections and save $71,000
over what Mr. Carlton is currently charging the Board of County
Commissioners. So it's sort of a win-win thing all the way around.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yup.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We love that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sure seems that way. Thank you.
Item #9A
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE CONTINUING RETANTION
AGREEMENTS FOR SERVICES ON AN "AS NEEDED" BASIS WITH THE LAW FIRMS OF
CARLTON FIELDS, NABORS GIBLIN, AND HOGG ALLEN TO MEET PURCHASING
CONTRACT UPDATE REQUIREMENTS - APPROVED
Next item on the agenda has a time certain for 1:30. We
would then move to the county attorney's report. Recommendation that
the board approve and authorize continuing retention agreements.
MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, you will find as back-up to
item 9-A that there are three separate short form contracts with three
separate law firms that we deal with. These contracts are not for
specific services, but they provide the basis for the as-needed
requests for legal services in accordance with your purchasing
policy.
Again, they're short form. They have the attorneys that
we usually work with. Their per diem, travel costs, and food costs
are the same as county employees. And these have been brought to you
in the past, and we need to get these renewed.
Recommendation is to approve all three contracts. The
fiscal impact for these contracts is zero, but the fiscal impact when
we request services obviously will be in accordance with these prices.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You are satisfied enough with the
performance of all three of these firms to go ahead and continue them
then as I understand it?
MR. CUYLER: Yes, sir, I've been very satisfied. As a
matter of fact, Carlton, Fields has assisted us both on the North
Naples plant and also in the tourist tax, and I was extremely
satisfied with -- with that one.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think most of us are fairly well
satisfied with that -- that particular performance. I'll make a
motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the recommendation on these contracts. No further
discussion?
All those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 95-286 APPOINTING JERRY THIRION AND ROBERT STAKICH TO THE
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is under Board of County
Commissioners. We have an appointment of members to the TDC.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Chairman, I'd like to
nominate former citizen of the year from Marco Island, Robert Stakich,
to the TDC.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one question on that.
His letter says non-owner/operator, and I know he's no longer owner.
However, every time I call Bob, I still get him at Marco Bay Resort.
And I wonder if he might not be more appropriate under the
owner/operator category.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, he's -- as I understand it
-- and you're certainly welcome to talk to him about it. But as I
understand it, he is -- just maintains an office there to have a base
where he can accept phone calls out of his home.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why I ask that is twofold:
One, that may be so. And if so, maybe he's appropriate to be
non-owner. But if he's in some way attached there, that would be
owner/operator.
Secondly, I'd like to see Don York reappointed. I
served with him on the TDC. I think he gives a good perspective. One
of my concerns with the TDC is that the hotel view, shall we say, is
very heavily weighted. And even if Bob is no longer in the business,
that is his background. Don kind of gives a little balance to that I
think.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unfortunately I know both of
those people, and I don't -- it's a coin toss for me. I like Don and
Bob both. My recommendation is from the owner/operator for Jerry
Therion. I've had terrific experience with Jerry. He has become very
involved in the community, in -- in the YHCA and Red Cross and certain
events and so forth. And I just -- as well rounded as he is, I'd like
to see from the owner/operator category Mr. Therion appointed.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The other consideration for
nominating Mr. Stakich is, of course, that I think the current
statistics show that Marco Island produces about 37, 38 percent of the
tourist tax, and it -- it certainly would be appropriate to have
someone from Marco Island be a representative there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's no one from Marco Island
on the TDC now?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't know whether there is.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bud Davis.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Bud Davis is on there.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Bud Davis is on there, yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Are there other comments?
Why don't we break this into two since we have two
proposals for the non-operator. We have a proposal for Jerry Therion
for the owner/operator category.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make that in the form of a
motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Discussion. I'll tell you
why I asked earlier, John, about the owner/operator is -- Bob's a
friend of mine too, and I would prefer to see Don stay on there. I
wondered if Bob qualified under owner/operator for the reason that
both of those names would then be appropriate.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It doesn't sound like he does.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unfortunately by his admission.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: By his own admission. He may
have an office there, but his business is other than the hotel.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Is there a
second for Jerry Therion for the owner/operator category?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one more question --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- for the county attorney. Is
-- is -- former operator is not sufficient, doesn't meet the
requirements?
MR. CUYLER: Statute says owners or operators. It
doesn't elaborate any further than that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If he's an operator that --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Retired.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Like, you know, you can be a
pilot and not be active.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good one. Are you sure you
didn't go to law school?
MR. CUYLER: If you want to continue it a week, I will
check into seeing whether I can see any room in there to discuss it.
My guess is not, but I'll be happy to check it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Certainly no offense to Mr.
Stakich. I'm just very impressed with Mr. Therion's activities in the
community, not to mention the -- for non-Marco properties, The
Registry is a very I would say important property just based on size
and location. So I think not only do we get a community voice but a
dual representation from one of the more prominent hotels which is
what the owner/operator category is -- is geared for. So again, if
this comes back next week, I would probably nominate Jerry --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- again next week. I'm just
very impressed with him, and I would like to see his services utilized
on this particular committee.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to second the motion to
get it on the floor and get this off of first base or center base or
whatever it is we're at.
If there's no further discussion I'll call the
question. All in favor of Jerry Therion being appointed as
owner/operator category please say aye. Motion passes five to zero.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to make a motion we
appoint Don York in the non-owner/operator category, reappoint him.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I -- before we call the vote on
that, let me point out one more time that there's nine members on the
TDC. Marco Island supplies 37, 38 percent of the money into that
pool. And if -- if Don York is -- is approved here over Bob Stakich,
we will have one person from Marco Island representing the 37, 38
percent of the money. I don't think that's necessarily appropriate.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, as a -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Don York is a fine fella. I know
him as well as anybody else on the -- on the board, and he's done a
good job. But at the same time, you know, fair is fair. We need to
have representation from Marco Island.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with you. But as a
past president of the Marco Island Chamber of Commerce, I think Don is
probably in tune with Marco Island as much as anybody.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That was my thought, too, is I do
think of Don as a -- I mean, Island Bank, Marco Chamber. If that's a
misimpression --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Wyndemere resident.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which is remaining in district
2.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second on
the floor to appoint Don York -- to reappoint him. I'm not going to
support the motion and not because I don't think that Don York is
doing a fine job. I think he is. But we -- we have other residents
of Collier County who want to participate in the process for the TDC,
and -- and I -- I think we should offer as much expertise and as much
variable expertise as possible. And we have four other people, so I'm
not going to support the motion. Further discussion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Before Commissioner
Hancock --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- makes up his mind --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which is not made up at this
point I want to point out.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the -- I'd like to follow
up on your point there. We want as much variation and as much
diversity on here as possible. And that was my point earlier is that
I like Bob a lot, and I'm not trying to be derogatory. However, his
background is in the hotel industry as is a number of other people
currently on the board. And the purpose of having a
non-owner/operator category is to increase that diversity. And so in
an effort to do exactly what it is you're saying, I'd like to see Don
York stay on there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. If there's no further
discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. All opposed?
Motion fails three to two. Is there a substitute
motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, Miss Chairman. I'd like to
make a motion that we nominate Robert Stakich.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to second the motion.
And this -- this has just been tough for me because I -- I really like
Don a lot.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we all do.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I like Bob. But the -- the
comment from Commissioner Norris about the representation from Marco I
think is an equitable position, that the -- the revenues generated
down there are -- are significant enough that more than one of the
nine I think should be a resident of Marco Island, and that is the
only reason that I can -- I will differentiate between Mr. York and
Mr. Stakich. So I'll second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
And I'm reviewing once again Mr. Stakich's involvement in the local
boards and memberships and so forth. And he's a very, very well
rounded person, and I'm -- I think I like what I see.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we nominate both? Can we
increase the size?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, we can't. We can't do that.
It's either/or. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the
question. All in favor of appointing Robert Stakich to the TDC please
say aye.
All opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero. Thank
you.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 95-287, APPOINTING TESSIE KASENGA TO THE PUBLIC VEHICLE
ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is item 10-B, appointment of
member to the public vehicle advisory board.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's -- only one of the
two are an elector, so only one is eligible. MS. FILSON: Yes, and I telephoned him.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the one who
is eligible.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve -- is that Tessie Kasenga?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- for the Public Vehicle
Advisory Committee. If there's no discussion, all those in favor
please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 95-288, APPOINTING ROBERT P. MEISTER, JR. TO THE CONTRACTORS
LICENSING BOARD - ADOPTED
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, on the next
item there's one opening and one person who's applied. I'll make a
motion we appoint that person, Robert P. Heister Junior.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
Second.
Second.
We have a motion and a second.
Excuse me. Discussion, please.
Is there discussion?
According to the back-up appli --
information here that Mr. Meister's not a licensed engineer and,
therefore, not qualified to fill the vacancy.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe the language on that
indicates that there is a preference of a certain makeup. However,
that makeup is not solid in the sense that if we have no one applying
from a certain profession that the contractor licensing board cannot
operate. Is that a correct assumption, Mr. Cuyler?
MR. CUYLER: That's correct. You'll see further down in
the paragraph right above fiscal impact, Miss Filson's correct in her
statement that the section's merely directory and failure to have a
member of these trades, et cetera, is not grounds for voiding the
action.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. My -- my only concern was
that perhaps if we're not under some sort of severe time constraint
that it might be more appropriate to readvertise.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Filson, you have more
vacancies on this board?
MS. FILSON: No, I'm sorry. I don't have more
vacancies, but I have advertised twice for this vacancy. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: And the city has also advertised.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, then based on what
you have said then the -- the paragraph requiring members from
specific vocations is only a directory -- a directive or a directory
for information only?
MR. CUYLER: Correct. You're not precluded from
appointing this individual.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. There's a motion
and there's a second to appoint Robert Heister Junior to the
contractor's licensing board. If there's no further discussion, all
those in favor please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 95-289, APPOINTING CELIA DEIFIK AND RICHARD MC CORHICK TO
THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is an appointment of members to
the Collier County Code Enforcement Board.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a couple of questions
on this. Do we have in writing or have you spoken, Miss Filson, with
Lionel L'Esperance because second-hand information that he's withdrawn
is not appropriate.
MS. FILSON: Yes. I did telephone him, and I thought I
had placed his letter in here in the back-up.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I didn't see it. I saw it
said that someone in our staff had spoken to him. It did not indicate
that was you. So I assumed it was second-hand.
MS. FILSON: Yes, I did telephone him.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You talked with him
personally.
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am -- sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My other question is Monte
Lazarus I served with on the Code Enforcement Board. He has served
two full terms, and we have been fairly consistent. Monte has done a
fantastic job. He's one of the best people we've ever had on there.
However, I'm thinking back a couple of years ago. We did the same
thing with parks and rec. Our law suggests that except when the board
votes unanimously to make an exception that two terms -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is the limit.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- consecutively is enough.
And despite the fact Monte has done a fantastic job, I think we need
to stay consistent with that because that is what we have done with
the other boards.
With that in mind, I want to recommend one of these
people, and that is Celia Ellen Deifik.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I additionally would like to
recommend Richard Healey McCormick. You may remember he has presented
himself to us previously, and I think he's -- not only does he have
the technical background but has kind of the passion to -- to do a
good job. So I would like to round out the recommendation with Mr.
McCormick.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second those two
appointments.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
appointment Richard Healey McCormick and Celia Ellen Deifik to the
Code Enforcement Board. Is there further discussion?
All those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #10E
RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS REVIEW THE THREE
PROPOSALS TO PERFORM THE AUDIT FOR COLLIER COUNTY DURING FISCAL YEARS
ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1995, 1996 AND 1997 - CONTINUED TO 5/2/95
Next item on the agenda is a recommendation that the
Board of County Commissioners review three proposals.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me. I'm -- I'm sorry,
Madam Chairman. But I believe we had as item F under 10 the Poinciana
Village school zone discussion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
nevermind.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
We're at 10-E.
10-E?
Yeah.
Oh, I'm sorry.
In that case
We're going to listen to
proposals of recommendations from the audit committee. Who is here to
give that to us? Miss Hankins, are you going to introduce it, or did
you want me to?
MS. HANKINS: You can.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, you can. It -- it may very
well be a 30-minute item. I think we're going to get three short
proposals.
MS. HANKINS: Today we -- I'm Kathy Hankins, director of
finance. We -- we've given to the board the proposals from the audit
selection committee short listed to the three firms that are noted:
Arthur Anderson; Coopers and Lybrand; Peat, Marwick. Today we're --
we're looking for your selection. One option may be to have the three
firms do oral presentations, short ones for you, and to ask any
questions of those firms. I'm not sure that the three firms are
represented today. I see Coopers, Peat. I do not see Arthur
Anderson.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What's the board's pleasure? Do
you want to have a presentation from the two firms who are present?
Or do we want to schedule this for another day and invite Arthur
Anderson?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Have we made -- have we had
any notification of the three that there would indeed be a
presentation time? I take it it's probably not appropriate --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to have two of them do it
and one of them not be aware that that's going on.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't believe we sent
notification to the -- to the three on the short list, did we, Miss
Hankins?
MS. HANKINS: We simply advised them that it would be on
the agenda.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You have to --
MS. HANKINS: We contacted them by phone to let them
know that it would be on the agenda today for discussion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine. Thank you. So our choice
is if we want to hear a presentation from the three firms on the short
list, we probably will have to continue this item because one of the
firms is not here.
The other choice is that we go through the packages
ourselves which I don't think anybody's really prepared to do either.
We don't have the packages.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we
continue the item and have a maximum of a ten-minute presentation from
each of the three final lists.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sounds good to me. I'll second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's fine. I wonder if
maybe we shouldn't hear the presentations from the two that -- that
did bother to take the time to come down here and give their
presentations. And if the third party is not interested enough to
come make a presentation, perhaps we should eliminate them from
consideration anyway.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that's why I asked Ms.
Hankins the question. Was there some notification that they would
have an opportunity to do a presentation today? And she said no,
there was not. So that's why it's not appropriate to penalize them if
they didn't realize they were going to have that opportunity. I
agree. If they were -- if they were told they were going to have that
opportunity and they weren't here, I would agree with you
wholeheartedly. But it appears that is not what happened.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It does -- it does appear that we
-- we did not notify them that time would be granted today to make a
presentation. So I guess -- I guess the question is are we in
agreement to listen to presentations maximum of ten minutes at some
future date? We have a motion to that effect. Is there a second?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's a second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a second to -- to that
effect. Do we want to set a time?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ms. Hankins, do you have any
idea how long it would take to notify them and -- two weeks adequate
time?
MS. HANKINS: In my opinion, they would be ready for you
next week if you'd like to continue it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What does our agenda look like
next week?
MS. HANKINS: Oh, I'm sorry. Forget that. FGF away
conference is next week. No one will be here who deals with money.
Two weeks would be good.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Have you had the opportunity, Mr.
Dotrill, to look at the agenda for two weeks out?
MR. DORRILL: Other than that it -- it would be another
advertised public hearing day. But if you attempt to do those in
advance of the public hearings, it shouldn't be a problem.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we do that. The motion
maker, I'm going to ask to include two weeks.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Amend second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Second? Okay. We have a motion
and a second to listen to ten-minute presentations from the three on
the short list two weeks from today. If there's no further
discussion, all those in favor please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, if
Arthur Anderson isn't here in two weeks, I'll buy you lunch.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Arthur Anderson personally? You
got a deal on that one. We'll check his ID.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. You may be buying lunch if
you're looking for him personally.
Item #10F
TRAFFIC PROBLEMS WITH POINCIANA AREA THROUGH THE SCHOOL ZONE - 20 MILE
PER HOUR SCHOOL ZONE AND GUARDRAIL APPROVED; STAFF DIRECTED TO REPORT
BACK
Next item on the agenda is item 10-F. This is a
discussion of the guardrails, caution light, and speed limit on
Airport Road at Poinciana.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm going to try and --
George, I'm just going to try and streamline this to the question, and
then we can answer the question to see where we are.
The deceleration lane is being installed or is -- is
pretty much done for the most part at the entrance to Royal Poinciana
-- or Poinciana Elementary School. Currently what we have there is a
guardrail that separates the sidewalk from the roadway, and we have a
yellow caution light signalling a school zone and a reduction in speed
at certain times.
I'll just kind of tell you what I want and what makes
sense. And then you tell me if it -- if it can't be done. One, I
want a guardrail between the traffic and the kids. I don't care if it
is a deceleration lane. Any time you have a jog in a sidewalk that's
immediately adjacent to a roadway, I have a safety concern.
Secondly, I would like the light to continue being there
to notify people of the school zone. Whether it's 25 or 35 miles an
hour, I don't know if that's as important as a significant reduction
in speed and notification to the driver that this is a school zone,
slow down.
Those are the two things I personally am looking for in
this. And if those two things can't be done, let me know, let me know
why, and we'll go from there.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Those two things can be done in addition
to making it a consistent 45 mile per hour when the construction's
completed. So there's three issues there. I think there's some
consensus that the 45 consistently from Pine Ridge south to Golden
Gate Parkway is a must. I think the guardrail to be reinstailed in
those turn lanes is underway, so those two issues I think are behind
us.
The third issue is maintaining the existing school zone
in there. And from my discussions with parents, I don't necessarily
agree with all of the concerns. But, in fact, one concern that --
that I'm in favor of maintaining the school zone for is the age of the
school children that are using that. I recently found out that we're
not dealing with teenagers. We're dealing with five- and
six-year-olds.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: These are kindergartners.
MR. ARCHIBALD: And have no business being out there
unsupervised to begin with. So the issue -- the only issue that I
think is left is the issue of the school zone and whether it should be
20 or 30. The parents of the children, the school officials would
like it to remain at 20. Your staff would like it removed, but I
think there's good grounds to maintain the school zone. We're talking
about a half an hour before school and a half an hour after school.
So the issue really is whether or not 20 is appropriate.
Unfortunately, we have 20 throughout the county. Twenty
is appropriate where there's crossings. But again, the recommendation
that we have is obviously not to have the school zone because there's
no crossing. But, in fact, there are other concerns. Those are
concerns warrant a school zone, and the board can maintain the 20 mile
per hour that's currently there or make a change.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner MAc'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just absolute strong unequivocal
support for a 20-mile zone there and just a little bit of -- of
concern. MAybe the word wasn't chosen carefully. But you didn't mean
to say unfortunately it's a 20-mile school zone there?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Well, keep in mind -- and this is some
information that hasn't been provided to the board -- is that
throughout the county, this is the only location where, in fact, you
have guardrails. This is the only location where you have a school
zone without a crossing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, that --
MR. ARCHIBALD: So throughout the county, on
Goodlette-Frank Road, on Pine Ridge Road, on U.S. 41, all these
locations you have a 45-mile-per-hour or higher speed limit. You have
children of that age group walking along the roadway, and only where
you have crossings do you actually have a school zone.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that -- that -- that makes my
point. I am troubled to hear that and want to be sure that Poinciana
doesn't lose what they have but would ask you to -- to make some
recommendations to us about other areas particularly where we're
talking about elementary school kids, you know. I'm shocked, frankly,
to know that this is an unusual situation. I think it has to be
preserved, and we ought to look into replicating it in similar
elementary school pedestrian areas.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Again, I think it's worth taking a look
at and providing a report to the board. One of the concerns we have
that I just expressed is the age of the children. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Extremely young children unsupervised.
And our solution for that problem is to get them off Airport Road
completely, and we're looking into doing just that through another
pathway alignment off the roadway, and I'm hopeful that we have some
luck with that. But Airport Road is an exception to the rule, I
believe, because of the mix of traffic, because of the speed of
traffic.
But if, in fact, we're able to relocate those children
to another pathway in the future, I'd like to be able to come back to
the board and say maybe we don't need that speed zone out there if we
can meet those conditions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I -- I think that's a good
idea. I just want to be sure that -- the alternate pathway is a good
idea. But I can't off the top of my head think of other elementary
schools where children might be walking along such major roadways.
But will you look into that for us and give us a report?
MR. ARCHIBALD: I can give you a list. They're not only
in the county, but they're in the city.
MR. DORRILL: I'll tell you one that immediately comes
to mind is the elementary school in your district, Ms. MAtthews, on
Golden Gate Boulevard. Is that the Big Cypress Elementary School?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh, yes, it is.
MR. DORRILL: If you've ever been Golden Gate Boulevard
in the morning at 8:30 --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Jeez, Louise, the kids are
walking along that?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, they do. And I'd
appreciate it for the court reporter if we try not to talk over one
another. It's difficult for her. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, this is
your district. You know both the transportation and the safety needs
there better than any of us probably. What is your recommendation?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: School zone, 20 mile an hour,
guardrail, period.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you want to make that into
the motion, I'll be happy to second.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hove that we have a school zone
at 20 miles an hour and a guardrail at the deceleration lane and where
it currently exists not to be removed at any time.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And keep the light? Is that
included?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, the school zone -- the light
is a part of the school zone for notification purposes. And I
understand you're doing your job as far as transportation, Mr.
Archibald. But there comes a time when we all figure ten seconds of
inconvenience is well worth the life of a child.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion, and we have a
second. I'd like to ask the motion maker to consider that the
guardrail be consistent with the already existing guardrail and that
it be double sided for the protection of the children riding their
bikes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I will amend. And to
answer your question, so that there's not a -- a -- an open backing
that handlebars can get caught in or, you know, so if the kids bump up
against it, they don't wipe out immediately. They have a few seconds
of recovery time. But I will -- I will amend the motion accordingly.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you have a public
speaker?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We probably do. Will the second
accept the amendment?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Are there public
speakers?
HR. DORRILL:
separate matter.
HR. KERRIGAN:
MR. DORRILL:
MR. KERRIGAN:
No, but Mr. Kerrigan was here on a
I had two there.
Okay. I'm sorry.
Bill Kerrigan, Poinciana Civic
Association. I want to thank the board for hearing this so promptly.
I'd like to -- now you made me lose my train of thought. Oh. Is
there going to be a time frame set for when the guardrail will be put
back up on the deceleration lane? And one section of the guardrail --
I forget what the name of the development is. It's between Coach
House Lane and the school road, the --
A VOICE: Pinewoods.
MR. KERRIGAN: No, we're going south. The -- the other
side of the double rail is off, the round part that goes in there. I
know we talked last night that that could be something.
So, you know, we'd just like to -- I'd like to point out
we had a good meeting with Mr. Archibald. He came to Poinciana
Village last night.
So there are just the two things if we could get maybe
the ball rolling and put that thing back up pretty quick.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So -- so we want the guardrail to
be consistently double sided throughout the length of -- of the
guardrail's existence. Mr. Archibald, do you have a suggestion on the
time frame that you can accomplish this?
MR. ARCHIBALD: We've asked the contractor to provide an
estimate for that. We haven't received that yet. But I would expect
within the next number of weeks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Within the next number of weeks.
Six? Four?
MR. ARCHIBALD: I'd like to --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two?
MR. ARCHIBALD: -- think within three to four weeks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Three to four weeks.
MR. ARCHIBALD: It really depends -- there's certain
material on the site that can be put right back in place. But there's
other material that has to be ordered, and there's special pieces that
have to fit where the curves in the guardrail exist, and those are the
delivery time problems.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand that, and I
appreciate that you understand that schools are in right now and that
-- that the children are walking and biking along that sidewalk now.
Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just in the interim if you see a
delay, can we get cones, barricades, something up to -- I'm sure you
would do that. I'm just asking specifically that we have something up
that acts as a visual barrier so that the cars and the kids both --
both realize it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You had one more speaker.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. Do we have another
speaker?
MS. DYCHES: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not registered, though.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fill in -- fill in one real quick
and come speak.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Come on up to the microphone if
you would.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Quickly.
MS. DYCHES: Hi. My name is June Dyches. Good morning
to commissioners. Thank you for letting me speak. I am the guidance
counselor at Poinciana Elementary School. And I'm here to represent
the school staff and the Poinciana Village parents who met the other
night on April 4 at a PTO meeting, and they had many concerns about
the traffic signal, the speed zone, the speed lights -- speed limit
zones and the guardrails.
And just to let you know, they wanted to maintain the
school flashing light which you obviously are in favor of and the
speed limit at the 20 miles per hour. They also wanted to maintain
the 35-mile speed limit for Poinciana -- from Poinciana Village to
Poinciana school. And they would like to maintain the guardrails
where they are currently placed and extend them to -- the guardrails
to the Pinewoods development which is just past Poinciana Village.
And for your information, I brought summaries of what
they were -- what they talked about and their concerns. And I'd like
to give them to the board. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I don't think the motion on
the floor includes extending the double-sided guardrails up to
Pinewoods.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It doesn't. Let me ask Mr.
Archibald, one -- right down by Poinciana elementary the sidewalk is
adjacent to the street, immediately adjacent. As we go northward from
there towards Pinewoods, is there a separation between the sidewalk
and the street?
MR. ARCHIBALD: No, there's not.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No. It is continually adjacent?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is one of those situations
where you -- you want to guard and protect as best you can, you know,
regardless of price. But I find that tough to do realistically. We
have not had that guardrail extended in that area. Do we have any
history of accidents involving kids? I'm just curious how many kids
are actually -- how many parents of a six-year-old are letting them
walk or ride from Pinewoods?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we ask Mr. Archibald to
get us a report on exactly that in the next two weeks, and then -- and
we'll talk about a guardrail up to Pinewoods or we'll talk about
putting some sort of pathway away from Airport Road and -- and get a
report from Mr. Archibald on that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dotrill wanted to mention
something.
MR. DORRILL: I live in Pinewoods and have for seven
years and -- and drove one of several carpools every morning with a
kid -- you know, kids in the back of the car and what not. There may
be some children that ride their bike from Pinewoods or I think Naples
Bath and Tennis is also in your district. At least it was when my
child attended that elementary school.
I think the original intent behind the guardrail was to
-- to begin to collect all of the kids as they neared the funnel and
especially the vast preponderance of children coming out of Poinciana
Village and Bailey Lane and to give them a little protection when they
may be two across going down into the entrance road and that I think
that if you start considering keeping a 35-mile-an-hour speed limit on
the six-lane divided highway or running galvanized steel guardrail
clean back to Pinewoods and/or Naples Bath and Tennis which is going
to be over a mile, the costs of that are going to be probably a little
more prohibitive. And if you want estimates on that, we can get them
for you. But I -- I think that that's -- that goes beyond what the
motion was.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: MAy I -- can I just say before --
before we go that far, maybe we ought to spend some of that money on
this other elementary school situation that's completely unprotected.
As -- as important as this one is, there may -- you know, we should
not look at it so myopically I would think.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. I think when Mr.
Archibald comes back, we can talk about the things that were contained
in this letter that are not a part of this motion and make a
determination then. But for this particular moment let's go ahead and
move ahead with the motion if possible.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second,
and I think Mr. Archibald has his direction. I think we need a report
back also in a couple of weeks on this. If there's no further
discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Thank you.
Item #10G
REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMHISSIONER
MEMBER - APPROVED
Last item on the morning agenda is item 10-G. It's a
leave of absence for a member of the CCPC. Mr. Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. It's come to my
attention Lee Layne who has served quite well on our CCPC is going to
be doing a little contract work for a period of six weeks, maybe --
are you familiar with this? MR. DORRILL: I am.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's six weeks.
MR. DORRILL: It's a temporary part-time assignment, and
I was made aware of it last week.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At the end of that time she
will conclude that and will no longer be working with the county. Our
legal requirements are that if someone is working as a county employee
-- and I don't know if that even falls legally here -- then they are
not to serve on those.
I wondered if we could do two things: Try to get an
interpretation by next week from you as to whether this situation
applies or not; if she is indeed considered an employee or ineligible
if we could simply grant a leave of absence since it's only going to
be for a six-week time period.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's she going to be doing for
us for six weeks?
MR. CUYLER: She's doing some independent contract work
for growth planning -- or I guess it's not independent contracting.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Another question I have is how --
how long is her term of office?
MS. CACCHIONE: Lee is a temporary -- my name is Barbara
Cacchione with the long range planning staff.
We have asked Lee to work on a temporary basis for a
period of approximately two months to conduct some research for us in
the evaluation and appraisal report for the comprehensive plan
evaluation. It's expected that she may miss two to three meetings.
She has a year from this September in this term and if the board so
chooses can be elected to another term under the provisions of the
ordinance.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My thought is very simple. I
mean, she's done a great job on there. I hate to lose her just
because we're utilizing her talents for six weeks, eight weeks
somewhere else.
MR. CUYLER: The employee handbook does say that
employees shall not serve on advisory boards. But I would interpret
that to mean -- service mean actually serving on. So if you were to
grant her a leave of absence, I've already indicated to some staff
members that that would be the way to do it if --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you don't need to do any
research, if you're -- if you're already aware of that, I'll make that
motion now, that we leave -- grant here a -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- leave of absence for the
time period ending when she completes her duties on -- for your staff.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We don't want to lose her.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we want a not to exceed two
months?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you comfortable she'll be
completed?
MS. CACCHIONE: It could extend a little bit longer than
that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not to exceed three months.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Three months.
MS. CACCHIONE: Okay. That'd be great.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the motion maker accept the
amendment?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Second?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a
second to extend a leave of absence to Lee Layne on the CCPC for a
period of time not to exceed three months. All those in favor please
say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Is there public comment, Mr. Dorrill?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There's no public.
MR. DORRILL: We've got one individual, Mr. -- Mr.
Mitchell, who's perennially here concerning the Golden Gate Golf
Course. He told me that he might speak under comment or he might
speak concerning their land use issue later this afternoon. We'll
just wait and see if he's back.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. We'll take a break
until -- what is it? 12:307 I can't see. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's 12:30.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll take a break till 1:30, and
we will hear the court issue at that time.
(A lunch break was held.)
Item #8H6
POLICY DECISIONS RE THE ADHINISTRATION AND FUNDING OF THE COURT SYSTEH
IN COLLIER COUNTY - TO BE BROUGHT BACK WITH A MORE DETAILED PLAN WITHIN
6 WEEKS
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the Board of
County Commission meeting for April 18, 1995. We have a 1:30 time
certain for item 8H(6) which is make policy decisions regarding
administration and funding of the court system.
MR. DORRILL: Madam Chairman, this executive summary is
as a result of an effort undertaken by my office in conjunction with
the resignation of the former courts administrator, Paul Brigham, over
the -- I think there are two issues here, the organizational and
program management of the courts and all of those programs and
departments within the courts and also the annual funding and
appropriation from Collier County in support of the courts and I can
tell you -- and by way of introduction, introduce the chief judge of
the circuit who's Thomas Reese and is here today, and we should
acknowledge and thank him for his willingness to be here and also
Judge Baker who I believe is the recently appointed chief judge of the
county.
In an effort to try and resolve some concerns on the
part of the circuit, other counties are providing a lump sum or a
disbursement of cash in support of court programs directly to the
state courts administrator office in Fort Myers, and we're part of the
20th judicial circuit. For whatever reason, historically this county
has not done that. The employees that are within the court's area --
and that runs the gamut from all of those county-provided programs, be
they probation, mediation, witness management -- there are others --
court security, those employees historically have been on the payroll
of the Board of County Commissioners and within the organizational
structure of the county manager's agency, as are your other
departments. And the annual appropriations were reviewed and
prioritized and approved by the Board of County Commissioners as you
do your other county budgets.
The state courts administrator has indicated that this
puts them at a disadvantage sometimes as it pertains to trying to
ultimately be responsible, and no one is questioning that ultimately
the chief judge of the circuit is the one who is responsible for the
programs and activities within that courthouse. I will be the first
one to tell you, though, that the way that the case law and the
funding requirements are, are not necessarily fair when county
commissioners are being asked to raise funds, general revenues in
support of court programs, but you do receive court-related revenues
that come back to us in the way of fines and forfeitures.
I will also tell you that when Mr. Brigham was here, Mr.
Brigham was in a situation similar to that of Mr. Drury in not really
knowing ultimately who he was responsible to. He is responsible to
both the chief judge of the circuit and/or his court administrator who
is a state employee and at the same time being responsible to the
Board of County Commissioners through your county manager.
So in a nutshell that's where we were. I had asked for
an opportunity to meet with Judge Reese and express our concerns and
he, in turn, give me an opportunity to express the concerns that they
have. They were very helpful in providing budgetary information and
what other counties are paying and what other counties are receiving
from state court funds. And I will use the term "state court funds,"
and that's synonymous with "circuit court funds" because they have two
different sources of revenue, local and then funds they receive from
the state. They've been very helpful with that.
The nature of what they are doing at the moment -- and
then I'll ask Judge Reese to maybe express some of his interest --
they're in the process now of replacing the courts administrator with
someone who will be selected and paid for by the circuit or with state
court funds, and that individual will now be -- I think the title is a
deputy courts administrator and responsible to Fort Myers for purposes
of coordination. As part of that, though, the issue remains what to
do with the other employees who are there and what to do with the
annual appropriation and/or support of the courts that you are, in
fact, responsible for.
I'd be happy to answer any questions, and if I've missed
anything, I'd ask Judge Reese to assist me perhaps in what the
perspective of this issue is.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? Do you want to hear
from Judge Reese before we have questions? Judge Reese.
JUDGE REESE: Madam Chairman, it's my pleasure to be
here today. My name is Thomas Reese. I serve as the chief judge for
the 20th circuit. That's a rotating position. I happen to be in Fort
Myers but that's the -- that is -- You know, the chief judge could
just as easily be in Collier County. Any circuit judge may serve as
the -- as the chief judge.
My purpose in being here today and taking your time --
and I thank you for being so generous and putting us on your -- on
your agenda -- is to urge that we move forward toward what we consider
to be an opportunity for good management on our part of the court
programs and for the people working in those court programs. The --
Previously they -- they -- the operational control was -- was the
interest of the -- of the deputy court administrator and of the
administrative judge. The personnel, risk management, other factors
were the responsibility and interest of the county manager, and what
we would like to do is to consolidate and bring those employees
together so that we can be as efficient as possible in the operation
of the court next programs, have accountability to the counties and --
who are supplying the funds and do some things such as not only saving
in the provision of the services but also in cross-training of
employees and -- and the supervision of employees who are -- whose
work directly affects the work of the courts.
One important point I wanted to emphasize was that any
appropriation of dollars from the Collier County Commission stays in
Collier County. The clerk of the circuit court -- in Lee County
Charlie Green, Barbara Scott in Charlotte County and Dwight Brock in
Collier County -- is the physical officer for the courts. They keep
the checkbook. They draw down a certain amount of money each month to
pay payroll checks and other appropriated expense items. The money
does not leave Collier County. It doesn't go into any state pot to be
distributed or anything around the circuit. It is directly solely 100
percent toward services for the courts as needed in Collier County.
And, of course, there is the full and complete audit function by the
clerk's office of the -- of the expenditures and accountability to the
county commission through audit and through the budgetary process.
The -- I thought we were fortunate being able to get
funds to -- to pay this position to relieve a burden. The counties
are called on by the state to pay a tremendous number of article five
costs and it's not fair, but that's the reality of operating our court
system, that if the -- Basically, as you all are well aware -- I don't
need to restate it at length, but basically the statutes say if the
state doesn't, the county shall, and we're trying to -- in that
"county shall," we're trying to be as tight with the dollar as we can
to get our job done to provide the services we need, whether it's
witness management, arbitration, mediation, guardian ad litem,
interpreters, court reporters, or whatever it may be so that the
courts can operate efficiently and effectively conserve the dollars
for Collier County.
This will provide us with a -- with a clear chain of
command for the employees for direction of their -- of their operation
and -- and, as I said before, it will provide us with the capacity to
move people, to cross-train, to hopefully make the fullest use of the
-- of the abilities of these folks working for the court system.
(Commissioner Norris enters the meeting room.)
JUDGE REESE: There are personnel rules and regulations
which basically mirror those of the county. We have a detailed
agreement that we have reached. In the other counties where there's
been a resolution by the -- by the board adopting the concept, we then
implement with the county administrator's office an agreement that
goes through in great detail all aspects so no employee will be in any
doubt as to their sick leave credit, their annual leave credit, or all
of the other personnel management factors and other things that are
necessary for us to effectively operate. I think it will be a benefit
to Collier County. It will be a decided benefit to the courts, and I
think we can take a little of the burden from the county manager's
office and -- at least to the extent of these -- of these programs. I
would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have just a couple. Do you
know -- Can you tell us -- I see that we have about $2 million that
comes out of the general fund into the court system. Is that amount
-- Did I understand you to say that the amount is mandated? Do we
have any discretion on how much money we fund in the --
JUDGE REESE: No, ma'am. I -- I -- Excuse me. I didn't
-- I did not mean to say that the amount is mandated. The statute
speaks of personnel and services and facilities. The cost of those is
a matter of legislative or county commission decision as to what you
feel would be appropriate, how much you want to -- you want to
appropriate in those areas. I'm not suggesting that the commission
does not have the full budgetary authority to set the amounts. What
we would like to do is to manage those dollars and report back to you
and hopefully at the end of the year be able to return dollars to you.
That's been our experience in the other counties as we've been able
to return dollars to the counties.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My other question is from a
programmatic perspective. For example, one of the things that we're
talking about in Collier County is -- is the spouse abuse unit, and
that came up in budget workshop discussions, and it's something that I
strongly support and want to -- JUDGE REESE: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- see happen in Collier County.
If -- If we adopted this proposal, would I have any influence on
whether or not there was a spouse abuse unit in Collier County, or is
that strictly a decision that would be made in the circuit courts?
JUDGE REESE: Well, when you say "spouse abuse unit,"
I'm not quite sure how you define -- what concept you have for spouse
abuse unit, but let me fill you in if I can on what our plan is and
what we hope to -- what we envision.
Judge Starnes has been leading the charge on domestic
violence courts. To give you a little bit of history, it was November
of '93 that -- at a judges' meeting that I indicated let's take the
drug court concept, repetitive, nonproductive, self-destructive
behavior, and let's use that same concept on domestic violence to try
and treat domestic violence cases. Judge Starnes took that concept
and has developed it into what is now a domestic violence court. It
is my understanding that -- that that's exactly what we're trying to
develop here in Collier County as we have in Lee County, is a domestic
-- a docket designed to deal just with domestic violence, the need
for intervention, the need for counseling, the need for help with the
families. We have -- I guess you could call it a domestic violence
unit in Lee County, and I would hope the same thing would come into
existence in Collier County. You have a very strong advocate and ally
in Hugh Starnes in this area, and I think the commission's desires and
willingness to fund are going to be of great importance in the
structuring of this program because while it will be a court -- a
natural part of the courts, still the sheriff is a component of it --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
JUDGE REESE: -- that the county commission is, because
we have human services and other aspects that are all components and
they all work together, and hopefully the result is going to be that
of compromise and melding of these ideas together.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My last question -- I'm not sure
who it -- who it would be for, maybe Mike, maybe Neil, is, if this
change were implemented, how would the budget process look different?
For example, we did this programatic budgeting where one of the
things we do is to say, "Okay. You know, you've got to cut some
employees here, but we want to see this spouse abuse unit, so we're
going to fund this amount of money for a spouse abuse unit." Would we
be able to do that, or would we just say, "We're going to give $2
million. Please spend it wisely"?
MR. DORRILL: My understanding is that Lee and Charlotte
County do not scrutinize to that level, but I thought I understood
Judge Reese to say that they recognized that your jurisdiction or your
authority to set annual appropriations is at your discretion. My --
My presumption would be that you could do program review budgeting if
you chose to do so. I'd ask Judge Reese to comment on that, but my
impression is that you could, but then the management of those funds
would be almost similar to the way that we treat other constitutional
officers or contract agencies in this case like the State's Attorney's
Office or the public defender.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is pretty much no control.
Which is pretty much we write a check and please spend it wisely.
MR. DORRILL: Currently for those two agencies that's
correct.
JUDGE REESE: Well, what we have -- What we do in the
budget process in Lee and Charlotte County is we in the budget request
set out the amount of dollars for the various types of activities,
whether it's court reporters or arbitration, mediation, witness
management, guardian ad litem, and in that budget request of the
employees, the dollars for support of the offices and their share of
the cost of the facilities and all of that. And if -- and it is
within that budget process if -- if we have a -- You know, if adequate
funds are not available to be appropriated yet there is a program that
-- that -- that should have priority, I think that's the time that it
can effectively be addressed. And, you know, we have not come up
against that problem yet, and our experience has been that court
administrators working with county administrators and OMB, we just
haven't had the problem. We've worked out whatever there may have
been. We have to have certain activities and certain things. We have
to have -- For instance, we couldn't cut court reporters at the
expense of -- or do domestic violence at the expense of court
reporters. There's certain things we have to do. There is a certain
liquidity in that budget process, though, where a greater emphasis can
be placed. And, believe me, the courts are not unmindful of the power
of the purse of the county commission to appropriate or withhold
appropriations, and we're all here working towards the same end.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've got some questions on really
logistics of this. This executive summary talks about 44 employees of
the county, six of which are in court security, and they -- they
perform security procedures for all of the county at different
locations, not just the courthouse. If we were to dedicate those six
employees to court administration, what do we do about the other
security efforts that those people have? In addition to that, if --
if we were to say, "Okay, Judge Reese. You've convinced us that we
should give you $2 million a year and that we should turn these 44
people over to your jurisdiction and control," what do we do in the
future in controlling an increase in the numbers of people and an
increase in the dollars?
JUDGE REESE: Well, let me address that first. You have
the control because of the amount of money that you -- that you
appropriate. We're not going to add employees or increase budgets
without the county commission's --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But these are article five costs.
We don't have a lot of choices.
JUDGE REESE: Well, but that's -- that's one area where
we're able to control article five costs. So it's -- The concept is
it actually gives you more input into the article five costs. Right
now when an order is signed for a court-appointed attorney, the County
Attorney's Office can verify that they put the number of hours they
say they did into that case, but the county has to pay it. If -- When
I sign the order for the court reporter overtime, the county has to
pay it. But in this scheme and through this and through this budgetary
process, the county actually has more input because you can look at
how good a job of stewardship we have done in the overall picture, all
of the court reporters, all the court-appointed attorneys, all of
these things have we done a good job, not be piecemealed by individual
things so that you never can quite tell how far these article five
costs are going to go, but it will give you an opportunity to have a
lot better idea of what article five costs there are and what are
necessary and are we doing a good job of managing the use of those
monies that are for article five costs. This gives you much better
control and perspective of these article five costs rather than just
having an order signed and say, well, we have to pay it. But --
Forgive me. Your first question was the --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How do we control the numbers of
people increasing over the years? And should we turn this function
over to the court administrator, how do we then control the dollars
that get funneled into the system? How do we just keep it from
burgeoning into just giving you a free passage into our pocketbooks?
JUDGE REESE: No, ma'am. There's not -- absolutely not
a free passage into your pocketbook at all.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I want to know how --
JUDGE REESE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- we're going to make that
happen.
JUDGE REESE: We have to come to you each year as a part
of your budget process --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: When do we get --
JUDGE REESE: -- course.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: When do we get to oversee what
you did with the money other than just writing a check and hope you
spend it wisely?
JUDGE REESE: During the -- During the budget workshop
and appropriation process just the same as every other county function
has to basically justify what it's done with last year's
appropriation, what it needs to operate next year, whether it's an
increase or a decrease in personnel or funding or equipment or what it
is, and you get to look at it at that point and say we can -- we can
fund this much or we can fund this but we're not going to fund that.
You make the decisions within the appropriation. Your office of
management and budget will receive all of the budget request
information. It's not that we make a lump sum request and say write
the check for that amount, not that at all, because you will see every
component that goes into that and where the money is spent and to what
extent and what employees. And if we are -- If we need to add
additional employees, you will see the -- that in there and have the
opportunity to have the deputy court administrator responsible right
here as well as the court administrator and the physical people
justify, if they can, the need for that additional position or
additional funding, and if you don't feel it's needed, don't fund it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we get to look at that
historically or perspectively?
JUDGE REESE: Well, because of the way things have sort
of evolved, I don't know if there's a -- if there's an effective way
to do it historically because of these -- the programs starting out
and the way they've grown, but we will use every bit of historical
information we can as a baseline to try and -- as far as operation is
concerned. It's not our intention at all to start adding people and
increasing programs. We may come back and say we need additional
personnel to meet a particular need. But just the same as any other
request for appropriation, we've got to have some basis, some reason
for that. And, of course, the commission has the authority to say we
agree or we disagree or make due with what you had last year or do the
best you can, and that's the way it would work.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, has any work been
put into this into trying to visualize what the future of this project
is going to look like?
MR. DORRILL: If I understand your question, I'd say
nothing over the long-term. And I will tell you initially I -- you
know, we're just sort of down home enough still here, and I went to
Fort Myers and met with Judge Reese, and I told him, I said, well, you
know, we may be sort of dumb and naive, but we've got a lot of control
for a lot of years and we just have some concerns, and I think we've
worked our way through those preliminarily. Over the longer term, I'm
not sure where court costs and court programs and court priorities are
headed.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If the court administrator or the
section doesn't agree with what the county commission appropriates for
you in any given year, what would be the appeal avenue? Is there an
appeal avenue?
JUDGE REESE: Well, I think a review of the cases around
the state would indicate that if the counties do not appropriate
adequate funds, say, for a courthouse, for instance -- this happened
in Jacksonville -- there is a process for a mediation and then for
perhaps a lawsuit, but that is the most extreme example. That's --
That's -- That, I think, is intended to address a crisis situation
where in Jacksonville the City of Jacksonville did not have enough
courtrooms for the judges to hold court. It was -- It was a terrible
situation, and it turned on the funding for a bond issue and a lot of
other factors that -- for building a new courthouse, but that's an
extreme example, one that I do not contemplate ever reaching here.
The county commissions have basically been happy with
the job we've done. We've been able to save money. We've been able
to show substantial savings and an increase in services. Whether
that's a reduction in the appropriation for the next year or a -- not
an increase as is the situation in Lee County in the last few years,
although they have plugged in increases. We have not asked for any
increases because of the savings we've been able to effect.
If they said, "We can't ...... We can't give you that much
money. You're going to have to do with less," well, we try and work
it out as everybody does during the budget process but if that -- if
that is the ultimate decision, that's the decision of the county
commission, and that's the one we have to work with.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. One more
question, I think, for Mr. Dotrill, perhaps Mr. Cuyler. If we were to
make the decision today to make this change and sometime in the future
we decided that we didn't like the way things were turning out, do we
have the ability to reverse today's decision at some point in the
future?
MR. DORRILL: I -- I think honestly that -- that you
could try that. I think that we would probably then be a little more
adversarial with the circuit court than what we are today. We have
been -- tried to be cooperative thus far, and that's why I told you
ultimately it's my impression that the king of the mountain for court
program decisions is the man standing before you. You're on the other
side of the appropriation scale, and as long as you're controlling the
appropriations, there's got to be some cooperation there.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's fine, and I'm sure we
all want to cooperate, but I do need the answers to these questions.
It's all a part of the decision-making process. MR. DORRILL: I understand.
JUDGE REESE: Yes, sir. This is a resolution by the
board. A resolution passes and the -- there is implementation of this
agreement. If the board should just rescind that resolution thereby
obviating that agreement, then we're back to where we started from,
and we would have to then work out the provision of these court
services and all of the other matters. But, yes, sir, there is. The
board is not -- is not making -- It's not an irrevocable trust. It's
very much of a revocable trust --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's good.
JUDGE REESE: -- and we're the stewards.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that answers that
question. I would like to ask one more time for clarification -- I
think Commissioner Matthews had asked about the current security
personnel also look after some of our county facilities and not just
the courts. Now, tell me again how that's going to work.
MR. DORRILL: Well, my -- my desire obviously would be
to be able to control the work plan for those individuals and have us
perform a service to the courts and still work through the state
courts administrator for the reason that was stated because,
otherwise, they perform security functions at county-owned facilities
throughout the Naples and Marco Island area, and that's the only
instance where a department in courts has shared multiple
responsibilities. There are no other cases. So my preference would be
for us to be able to maintain the operational security issues so that
we can also make sure that the rest of the government center has
security provisions, the County Barn Road facility has a security
provision and that's -- that's more of a selfish interest admittedly
on our part to be able to control that function.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: One last question then.
JUDGE REESE: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If we -- If the board were to
approve this agreement here before us today, would we be able to
include in that visitation rights for Tobey?
JUDGE REESE: Followed the Tobey case closely, very
closely, Commissioner. Great case. Commissioner, in the performance
agreement, the question you had for the county manager about court
security, providing security for other county sites and things, this
is something that can be easily worked out in the -- in the
performance agreement between county government and court services. I
-- I don't see a difficulty with that at all. We're concerned with
the -- with the court facility. If there's a greater role or mission
for those security people, I don't see there's any conflict there.
We're all doing the same thing.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- Just -- I may be asking
the same question again but I'm trying to -- I understand the concept
of we fund a program. I'm stuck on the spouse abuse unit again, but
we fund the program, and there are employees who work for us through
the manager who, you know, if they don't implement the program the way
we want them to, I know how to respond to that. Under this proposed
scenario, what if? I mean, I call you if they're not doing -- JUDGE REESE: No.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- what we wanted them to do --
JUDGE REESE: Well --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- before I would have called
him? (indicating)
JUDGE REESE: No. The -- If -- If the program -- Well,
first of all, for a specific program such as that, I think that the
program and its components need to be set out in the agreement so that
there's a clear understanding of what the county government's
responsibility is and court services' responsibility for that program.
It may be that that is an area of some joint responsibility. If the
program -- and it can be specifically set out as a budget item, as an
appropriation item, and that program can live and die on its own
merits, and you can address that specifically as opposed to the budget
in general, just personnel and the general budget areas. There's no
reason why that can't be done so that it is accomplishing its mission.
We do these -- They have been done with state-appropriated funds as
pilot programs, as specific named designated programs for a specific
period of time for the appropriating authority then to review how
they've done. We started out that way with law clerks. We started
out that way with witness management. We've started with a lot of
different programs that were, in effect, pilot programs. They had a
-- They had a life span, a known life span. And if they weren't
accomplishing what was desired, then we pulled the plug on them. If
they were -- and hopefully this will be the case -- then it just
continues on as an appropriated item for appropriation and continues
as a part of the system, but a lot of the programs they have right now
started just as that, just as pilot programs, because we didn't really
know where we were going with it or how it was going to look in the
end, and we didn't want to just throw money at it. We had to use what
we had, the greatest effect, and then evaluate it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Last question just because I
can't resist asking it is -- JUDGE REESE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- what if we voted this down,
what -- and we elected to stay with our program as it presently
exists? Will we find ourselves in litigation with the circuit courts
or '-
JUDGE REESE: I would -- I would -- I would -- Well, I
would hope not but what we -- what we would see is the -- the same --
the same sort of parallel responsibility from the county
administrator's office and from the court administrator's office we
haven't been able to work successfully, but there are areas of
conflict and areas where we've had to -- we have had to negotiate and
deal with some of these things. We would not have the ability to
contract, for instance, for attorney services in conflict cases and in
excess appeal cases. Those are the ones sent back from the second
district because the public defender up there can't handle them and we
assign them out. That would fall to the county and some way to do
that, and the county has to go through the RFP, the contracting
process which is a large process for a small -- very small contract.
The courts are able to -- through contracting through the court
administrator's office to do that, but business would continue. I
don't think we would be able to effect all of the savings that we
would like to, and I don't think we would have the management
flexibility that we think would be beneficial, and I don't say that in
any criticism at all to the county administrator, not in the least.
He's been here a long time. He's done a good job. And so what I'm
proposing is a way in which we can perhaps do the court's business a
little bit better and save some dollars in the process. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, Judge Reese has just
a few moments ago talked about some areas in administration where
there's been some conflict between what we want done and what the
court administrator wants done. Is that nearly always resolved in the
opinion of the court administrator or is there often a compromise?
MR. DORRILL: I think historically there has probably
been plenty of compromises. There have been a couple of personnel
issues that were awkward. There was one that occurred last summer
that occurred where an employee ultimately resigned, but, again, I
think that one solved itself, and I think the other issues -- It's my
understanding the decision has been made that Mr. Brigham's
replacement will be on the payroll and within the organizational
structure of the courts administrator for the circuit, and they are
about to begin their final round of interviews and make the selection.
And if the board elects not to proceed with the proposal, then we
will have to set up some type of mechanism because you will otherwise
then have a state employee who is indirectly supervising county
commission employees who are adhering to the various personnel and
purchasing and risk management rules and ordinances that you have
adopted.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think for myself I'd -- I'd
like to see some more input from the county manager's office and from
the court administrator on what the expected differences would be in
the future from what's happening right now. I'm not sure that I see
anything that's constructive coming from our handing this over to you.
Right now we have a court administrator and a county administrator
who sometimes are at odds with one another and work out a compromise
that is to the benefit of both parties. If we turn this over to the
court administrator carte blanche, the county administrator would
never be invited into those discussions again, and that might be
detrimental to the county. We don't know that.
I think for myself I need to see more about what it is
we're talking about actually doing rather than just to say, "Here,
Judge Reese, have it." I need to have a little more control. These
are -- These are 44 county employees, and I presume they would remain
county employees if we were to transfer this responsibility.
MR. DORRILL: No. No.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They would move to the state?
MR. DORRILL: That's what's done in Lee and Charlotte
Counties.
JUDGE REESE: No, ma'am. They would be court employees.
They don't work for the State of Florida. They are under the state
retirement system. They are -- They are -- They work for the court
and for court services.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Who would write their checks?
JUDGE REESE: The clerk would write the checks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The clerk of?
JUDGE REESE: The clerk of circuit court.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The clerk of the circuit court.
JUDGE REESE: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not the clerk of the court,
Dwight Brock?
JUDGE REESE: Dwight Brock, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He is the clerk of the circuit
court also?
JUDGE REESE: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
JUDGE REESE: Yes, ma'am. He will control the money.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So their paycheck would come from
the same person, the seniority would remain the same? JUDGE REESE: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Except for administrative --
MR. CUYLER: The payroll would be the state payroll as I
-- as I understand it.
JUDGE REESE: Well, the payroll would be -- and, Dick,
you've got to help me on this one.
MR. HALLAM: No. The payroll would come from Collier
County.
MR. CUYLER:
JUDGE REESE:
MR. CUYLER:
JUDGE REESE:
Will this be the county payroll?
Well --
I stand corrected.
Well, the payroll would stay right here.
As to the amount of pay or pay increases, I'm -- I'm -- you'll have to
help me with that one. I'm not clear on that. This is Dick Hallam.
He's the senior deputy court administrator.
MR. HALLAM: Well, generally the way that we'd work it,
if -- if you have a -- if you have a cap on a budget in other counties
-- as other counties do, the increase -- if you provide a 5 percent
increase for overall pay increases for people, we try to accommodate
our personnel in a way that's conducive to creating and to improving
their performance, not necessarily a 5 percent increase for rewarding
bad behavior of employees that aren't producing and -- throughout the
evaluation period. I don't know what process because we haven't
discussed it, that if you just give 5 percent increases over all, we
generally -- we generally have all good employees in Charlotte and
Collier County -- or Charlotte and Lee County, and every time that
we've had pay increases, every employee has got one with one or two
exceptions, but these exceptions were personnel that were -- that were
-- had some difficulties in the past, but this wasn't during a
transition period at all. This was something that came up that action
had to be taken.
The budget process that we were -- that we -- that I
think that you're grappling with can much be the same budget process
that you're going through now. We have to be accountable to you, and
we want to be accountable to you. We want you to know where your
funds are being spent. So I doubt very much that the commission in
Charlotte County or Lee County have ever seen anything any different
than what they saw before, that the county relinquished the complete
control over the employee that we're discussing here today.
So I don't think that your concerns about control or
your concerns about who does what as far as from your standpoint will
change that much. You still have a budget review authority of
domestic violence program, witness management program, or if these
Honors determine we need a court program in order to perform some
specific function that the Court needs to have performed, as always we
have to go to the counties and ask the counties, look, here is what we
need in order to be able to function as a court system in your county,
and this is the amount of funds that it takes, this is what we're
going to try to accomplish, and we discuss the same thing as we always
do. So there's very little --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Judge -- Judge Reese has said all
that already.
MR. HALLAM: All right. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess the more we talk, the
more confused I've gotten now.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Me too.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A moment ago, Judge Reese,
you indicated that they would become state employees. They would -- or
become court employees.
JUDGE REESE: Court employees. Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The most important thing to
me is that they stay in the state retirement system -- JUDGE REESE: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- so if someone is eight
years in.
JUDGE REESE: Absolutely. They are.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I did get a little confused,
however. If the check is still going to have our chair's signature on
the bottom, if their paycheck does, I'm not sure how that then becomes
a state court employee.
JUDGE REESE: No, sir. The only -- The only difference
their paycheck would have is it would be signed by Dwight Brock as the
-- as the clerk of court as a physical officer disbursing for the --
for the courts. That's the only -- That's the only difference. It
would have one less signature on it. It would still -- The
accountability and everything else would all remain the same.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just need a clarification
again. I think I've got my wires crossed. I thought that at the
beginning of the presentation you had said the personnel policies
would be the same. And if they were, then if we say a 3 percent raise
across the board for county, you know, then that would apply to court
employees under our present system, but now I'm hearing that you would
make those decisions, and you might give 10 or you might give none or
you might --
JUDGE REESE: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I'm confused about personnel
policies.
JUDGE REESE: Okay. What -- I did not state that very
artfully, and what I intended was that the personnel rules and
policies virtually mirror those of the county's. There will not be
any drastic change that they will see.
As Mr. Hallam has indicated, we -- we use merit raises
more than across the board. But if it is the desire of the county
commission that there be an across-the-board increase, we still try to
give that and then some additional so that there is a merit increase.
Performance is what we like to emphasize in that respect. But the
policies and procedures are virtually the same. Are they -- Collier
County's absolutely identically? No, I don't think they are.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was just saying I'd like to
follow your model --
JUDGE REESE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and do it strictly on
merit as opposed to automatic for everybody.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
JUDGE REESE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're having an awful hard
time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm having a bad time today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just say "Tim."
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you want to switch chairs?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just say "Tim." You'll be safe.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two things --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. If I just say "Tim," I'll
have it covered.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- you said today make a lot of
this go away. One is that it's revocable. This is not something that
if we -- if we enter it and find out there's a problem and we can't
act on it, we can't pull it back. So I like that idea.
The second thing you brought up, my favorite word in
open government in the last two months has been the word"savings"
because every time up here we approve $10,000 in savings, I find out
six weeks later we had to spend 20,000 to get it. What I'd like to
ask is -- you said savings. In real dollars, what are we talking
about when you say savings to the taxpayer, not shifting from one
category to another? But in the end run, are there real savings that
are realized?
JUDGE REESE: Yes, sir. Let me just use as an example
the provision of court-appointed attorneys by using contracts with the
court administrator's office in Lee County, we have saved on the
average $115,000 a year of -- of over the 330, almost $400,000 that is
spent annually in that appropriations category. We have saved those
dollars. We have provided the services without expending as much
money as we would have otherwise or customarily following the way it
had been done before.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And by approving this resolution,
you would anticipate similar real dollar savings in Collier?
JUDGE REESE: Yes, sir. Fortunately I would anticipate
real dollar savings in Collier County. Yes, sir. And if we can't --
And if we can't, if we're not good to our word and there's not a
reasonable explanation of why it didn't happen, you can pull the plug
on it. You can pull the plug.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I continue to feel that I want to
see some sort of a plan of action that's going to tell us where the
savings are going to be, what's going to happen with the employees,
differences between current employee policies under the county and
employee policies under wherever it is they're going to go, whether
it's court administration or the state or what have you. I think we
need to know what's going to happen with the employees, and are there
any differences even minutely between the county policy and the court
administrator's policy. I for one am not prepared to move forward on
this today in a positive direction because I don't have the answers.
I don't have what I need to see. Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand your concerns.
Myself, I am comfortable enough to move forward, and I'll make a
motion that we go ahead and approve this resolution.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second that motion.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm -- MAy I? I'm --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner MAc'Kie.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to oppose it for today
because I'd like to get answers to some of the questions that we've
heard asked today on a more specific -- in a more specific way so --
so that -- It makes sense to me in concept that courts would do a
better job of managing this money than certainly we would, but some
real questions that I still have open I'd like to -- I think we could
resolve, and then I'd be more comfortable to support the idea.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I -- obviously I'm not
going to support the motion. I've said before the motion was made
that -- what my reasons were.
If we don't have any further discussion, I'll call the
question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed?
Motion fails 2-3.
Is there a substitute motion?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make one just with the
same comments as Commissioner MAc'Kie. I think ultimately we're going
to get to -- get where we're trying to go. I just agree with
Commissioner MAtthews. Perhaps a little more detail to help clarify
it in my head will make it easier to do. I don't have any doubt we'll
get there, but I don't know what kind of time frame we need to put
together some of those details and answer some of those questions but
maybe --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Six to eight weeks anyway.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we need that long?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't care what time frame.
I'll make a motion we continue or bring the item back within -- and
I'm open to suggestion for a time frame.
MR. DORRILL: But we would -- we would actually have
some type of specific agreement with respect to programs and personnel
rules and pay plans.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We want to see more specificity
on this, what are we going to do, what are we going to save, where are
we going to save it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about a draft of this
performance agreement that we're discussing?
MR. DORRILL: That's -- That's what I'm suggesting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, if the performance
agreement is the ultimate -- that's the vehicle that will be used to
implement the policy, let's put a draft together, and then we can
specifically approve that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How long?
MR. DORRILL: We'll need at least 30 days because I'm
going to be very busy reviewing all of the line item budgets so that
you are prepared to start viewing those the first or second week in
June.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll say within six weeks on
my motion.
MR. DORRILL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
give direction to come back with a more detailed plan to tell us more
about what's going on. Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Judge Reese, is that sufficient
time you feel to provide and work with our staff for what is being
asked?
JUDGE REESE: Yes, sir. I think so.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good. I'll call the question.
No further discussion. All those in favor please say aye. All those opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5-0.
JUDGE REESE: Thank you very much for your time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. We'll see you again
in six weeks or so.
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 95-30, RE PETITION PUD-83-14(2), DWIGHT NADEAU OF MCANLY,
ASHER AND ASSOCIATES, P.A., REPRESENTING GMA DEVELOPERS, REQUESTING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE GREEN HERON PUD - ADOPTED
We'll move to the afternoon portion of the agenda.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it's only 2:30.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Item 12B(1), Petition PUD-83-14,
second amendment. Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Ron Nino of your Development Services staff.
The petition that's before you this afternoon is for the purposes of
amending the Green Heron PUD which is marketed as the Sapphire Lakes
development. The Green Heron -- Green Heron PUD, as you all know, is
on the north side of Sapphire -- north side of Radio Road. A
substantial amount of development has occurred within that PUD, and by
virtue of that, it's no longer -- it is vested for purposes of having
met the substantial development criteria.
The PUD seeks to bring about two amendments to the -- to
the document. One is to amend a development requirement that is in
the current document that is tailored to the type of housing that was
built in the first phase where the parking lot is front loaded in
front of your more conventional condominium-type development. That
setback provision was 50 feet for principal buildings and presents a
problem in terms of providing for a more single-family-type residence
which is the development strategy for the balance of the Green Heron
development, attached single-family housing primarily with garages as
an integral part of the housing structure. Under that scenario, the
more typical setback is 25 feet, and that's what's proposed in the
amendment. That, of course, would not affect the districting
development.
The second -- The second request here is to eliminate a
golf course which was part of the original master plan and that's -- I
posted that on the bulletin board behind me. The developer at no
time, we're advised, ever marketed the Green Heron development as a
golf course community. That -- That information was furthermore
relayed to me in a number of telephone calls with people who had
received our notification. Quite frankly, they were surprised that the
original plan included a golf course. There was nothing in the -- in
any marketing material that was a concern as we indicated in the staff
report, but that was a concern that we have that this project wasn't
marketed as a golf course community. Now they're pulling the plug.
So that's not an issue here.
In addition, as is normal, the normal custom of staff,
we took the opportunity to make some changes in the PUD document to
reflect references to current land development standards, and we
encourage the developer to make some changes to the transportation and
environmental stipulations, and all of those changes are reflected in
the document that you have in your package.
Moreover, the issue of an ease -- of a drainage easement
came up during these discussions, and the developer has consented to
dedicate an easement to Collier County for drainage purposes in
connection with future Radio Road work.
The Planning Commission heard this petition on March 16
and unanimously 9-0 recommended approval. There was no written or
verbally communicated objection to the amendments that are before you.
I'll be happy to answer questions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nino, does this petition ask
for any change in the number -- the total number of residential units?
MR. NINO: No, it does not.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It doesn't? They remain exactly
the same?
MR. NINO: Exactly the same.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Nadeau, do you have more to
add or are you just here to answer questions?
MR. NADEAU: Only for the record. My name is Dwight
Nadeau of HcAnly, Asher and Associates representing GMA Developers in
this petition request. Mr. Nino was very articulate in his
description of the amendment. I'll be happy to answer any questions
that you might have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nadeau, for the record, can
this board be assured that promotional materials at no time showed or
alluded to a golf course in this development? MR. NADEAU: I can assure you that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? Are there
public speakers?
MR. CUYLER: There are no public speakers.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Then I'll close the public
hearing.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve PUD-83-14. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the
question. All in favor please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5-0.
MR. NADEAU: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #12B2
PETITION PUD-87-36(2), HICHAEL R. FERNANDEZ, AICP, OF AGNOLI, BARBER &
BRUNDAGE, INC., REPRESENTING NAPLES INTERSTATE ASSOCIATES, REQUESTING A
REZONE FROM PUD TO PUD FOR A PROJECT TITLED CARLTON LAKES - DENIED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the
agenda is item 12B(2), Petition PUD-87-36. Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Again, Ron Nino, for the record, of
Development Services. The petition before you, the Carlton Lakes PUD,
is a petition that you recently approved and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, before you go too
far, I'm reading down a few paragraphs. It says, "With respect to the
substance of this petition, nothing has changed since the last
decision relative to the matter of the number of dwelling units," and
having seen this once, I'm wondering -- and maybe you can't answer
this. Maybe the petitioner has to. But, A, is there a difference; B,
if so, what is it; and, C, if not, why are we seeing it again?
MR. NINO: There is a slight difference. The petitioner
is offering to limit the amount of commercial development to a set
area; namely, 80,000 square feet whereas under the normal development
standards of the Land Development Code adhering to setbacks, open
space, parking, they probably -- they probably could build in the
neighborhood of 100,000 square feet of development -- commercial
development on that seven acres. That was also alleged in their
transportation impact study. There's -- So there's -- They're
offering to limit that to 80,000 square feet and their position is
that the 80 -- the -- the -- The difference in 20,000 square feet in
terms of automobile trip movements equates with the added number of
dwelling units that they're seeking; namely, 174 dwelling units. That
is the position that is somewhat different than that which was
communicated to you at the November 22 hearing.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there other questions?
Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This property is located adjacent
to -- if I'm not mistaken, was proposed at the northern extension of
the Livingston Road corridor? MR. NINO: Yes, it is.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are there agreements that if the
dev -- if this parcel does develop, that that corridor becomes more
readily available or closer to being built or -- In other words, does
it help us along to getting that extension?
MR. NINO: Well, the current approval does that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So --
MR. NINO: The current PUD has them building two lanes
of Livingston Road.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if they were to construct
tomorrow, we're in much better shape on that section of Livingston
Road as far as getting it constructed?
MR. NINO: As I said, that condition exists under the
current -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand. But if they never
develop, it's not going to get built; is that correct? In other
words, if -- if --
MR. NINO: Unless -- Unless the county takes the
initiative to do it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because the reason I ask
is -- and this was something that I made an -- if I remember, an
unsuccessful argument the first time I saw this in November of last
year, and that is that this original approval is not new. It's --
It's been sitting there. Markets change. Products change. What is
doable one year, five years later may not be possible or may be on the
fringe of possible. And when I look at the overall request as I did
then and I look at it now, the density for the project, if we approve
the increase, is still 3.4 units per acre, I believe. MR. NINO: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In an area that our Growth
Management Plan called out as being allowed for up to six units an
acre due to its proximity to the interstate activity center; is that
correct?
MR. NINO: It allows -- It allows seven.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It allows seven. Then I saw the
__
MR. NINO: Actually -- Actually, it allows eight. It
authorizes -- Let me -- Let me correct that statement. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. NINO: It authorizes up to eight dwelling units.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If we get to 12, I'm going to
hear sold.
MR. NINO: There's a base density of four dwelling
units. Then there is a potential three additional dwelling units for
being within the one-mile band, and then there is an additional
dwelling unit when a project fronts on two or more arterial roads.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I just -- I put all of that
together and I looked at the overall request, and what I see then and
see now is not an unreasonable request by any means. In addition, if
the project has difficulty moving forward, I'm in no hurry to put
units anywhere in Collier County. If the project has difficulty
moving forward with a lower unit number and there's a subsequent
benefit that we get two lanes of Livingston Road built, I'm -- I'm
listening, and I would just ask that the board consider those
elements. I'm sure the petitioner has a proposal. But 3.4 units an
acre, I don't think anyone's vision is 20/20 ten years in the future,
and I don't see this as an unreasonable request.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Of course the longer we go
without those additional 800 family units, the less the need for that
Livingston Road extension is to the property.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: We can argue that, you know,
until the cows come home, and if that's the case, why don't we put a
moratorium on the whole county. We won't have to build anything.
What I'm saying is that the market changes and things
change, and I don't think any of our crystal balls is sufficient to go
out in the future and determine exactly what will or won't sell, and I
think we're eliminating flexibility within reason by not entertaining
this request.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I certainly hope no one
else interpreted my comment with such an outrageous thought as putting
a moratorium on the entire county.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, why not?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's nowhere close to where
I was going with that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That would certainly make our work
a lot simpler here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there other questions? I am
having difficulty with the 28 percent increase in the dwelling units.
It's just a 28 percent increase. I'm having a lot of trouble with it.
I voted against it the last time, and if there's a motion to
approve, I probably will now.
Do we have a motion? I have to close the public hearing
first. I'm sorry.
MR. CUYLER: If you're going to hear this, you may want
to hear from the petitioner.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. We may want to hear from
Mr. Pickworth.
MR. PICKWORTH: Yeah. I -- I --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks for coming by, Don.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question was, if we deny this
-- and setting aside the possibility that we can be sued for -- you
know, everybody can sue us whenever we say no. I'm not suggesting
they would have a suit that they would win, but anybody can sue us.
But if -- if they came in with a brand new PUD application for this
property today, what could the density be? MR. NINO: The eight.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Eight now?
MR. NINO: The density bonus system authorizes the total
density of up to eight dwelling units per acre. I want to be specific
on that. It authorizes up to.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do have to make one comment
before we go too far. Commissioner Matthews said -- you said, well,
it's a 28 percent increase. But if I have 100 acres and I'm selling
for one home and I change that to two, that's 100 percent increase,
but it's still a really, really low density -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and -- So I think the crux
of it comes down to, is 3.4 a bad density.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That really is --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's higher than whatever it is.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree. But -- And I appreciate
that comment because that's kind of where I'm coming from. They're
well below the base density. Forget what they're allowed to request.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The base density is four units
per acre in this county, and they're even below that with an increase,
and I guess that's why it just doesn't cause me any grief for an
increase in density when it's well below what we have determined to be
an acceptable standard, much less what they could request. So I look
at that, and I just have a tough time saying, this is unreasonable,
this is not fair.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Pickworth.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One last question just for -- How
many votes do we need on this, Mr. Cuyler?
MR. CUYLER: Four.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Four.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Four.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Just counting.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're on, Mr. Pickworth.
MR. PICKWORTH: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Good
afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Don Pickworth
representing the owners of the property. Before I make a couple of
brief introductory remarks, let me, you know, in amplification of a
couple of comments that have been made, I mean, yes, it's an increase
in density, but, again, it's an increase to a density that is still
far below what your Comprehensive Plan authorizes and, in fact, what
you have routinely approved, not only prior to this petition, but
subsequent to this petition and let me -- (Tendering documents to
commissioners)
What I did was just went through -- and Mr. Fernandez
will talk about it in a minute -- but just went through and looked at
some of what I call the density band PUDs, PUDs that get additional
density because they're within these density bands around activity
centers. And you can see I've put Carlton -- I've put them in order
of approval and you can see that -- that two petitions have been
approved subsequent to Carlton Lakes coming in last fall when they
asked for the increase in density. Both of those are for -- one for
6.3 and the other for 5.96 density. So -- So even with what we're
asking for, as you can see by what I just gave you, I mean, we are
far, far below what similarly situated properties are.
Let -- Let me -- Let me go further. And following the
board hearing last November, we took a hard look at the project, and
we asked ourselves can we make some changes that -- you know, within
the context of the board approval that was given, is there some way
that we can change the project to -- to -- to deal with this. And so
as Mr. -- And what we suggest is that we have a seven-acre commercial
tract. Our PUD, like virtually every other PUD, contains no
limitation as to the square footage of commercial that can be put in
there, and I know that you've heard and I've heard that you can get
10,000 square feet an acre. Well, that isn't the case. You can
easily get 15,000 or more. As much as if you want to go to a
two-story design, you can get as much as 30,000 square feet, and these
are reasonable designs. It's not exotic. It can well be done.
So when we did this PUD, the traffic study that was
submitted to the county at the time the PUD first went through simply
used as a figure 100,000 square feet of commercial which is around
14,500 and some square feet per acre. And that plus the requested trip
-- the requested residential would create a certain intensity of use
based on trips per day. So what we went back and did and we said what
if we reduce or -- I shouldn't say reduce because there is no limit on
the commercial square footage. What if we voluntarily place in the
PUD a limitation on the square footage of commercial that can be built
such that the actual intensity expressed in terms of traffic
generation would be the same or less than that which is currently
approved because right now we can put 100,000 or more square feet of
commercial on there and 626 residential units.
And so we went through and had the traffic people look
at the numbers, and by putting an 80,000 square foot limitation in
there, we actually have a traffic generation that is less than that
which is currently authorized. So I guess -- and, you know, we offer
that in the spirit of trying to find a way to move forward with our
development project, and we'd like to move forward expeditiously with
this, and we're willing to live with this kind of a limitation.
You know, that's basically our bottom line. We think
that by approving -- by approving us for 800 units with a limitation
on the square footage of commercial, you will have assured yourself a
development of substantially less intensity than similarly situated
developments. You will have assured yourself of a development that
has less density even in the project next door to us, a limitation on
commercial square footage which does not exist in the commercial areas
of the developments around us.
So you have achieved if -- You know, if -- if simply
reducing intensities below what's allowed by the Comprehensive Plan
is, in fact, a worthwhile goal, it would -- without admitting that
that would necessarily be true, you -- at least you will have achieved
that, and I guess we'd like you to consider that. It's -- It's an
increase in residential, and it's a decrease in commercial, and it's a
decrease in trip pressure.
I'd like Mr. Fernandez to walk you through a few details
of this if I could, and then, you know, we'll be happy to answer
questions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, you had a
question?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I'm sorry. I don't believe
it's in this staff report because this is -- we've looked at this
before, but what are the densities surrounding the property to the
northeast and west, Mr. Nino? Are there any approved projects
bordering this one?
MR. NINO: Well, immediately across the street from this
project, of course, you have the West Winds or at least known as the
April Circle. That's a bad word.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Windsong.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Windsong.
MR. NINO: Windsong. The Windsong is about 12 dwelling
units per acre.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's affordable housing.
MR. NINO: Affordable housing. Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we have 12 units per
acre across the street.
MR. NINO: And there isn't really anything immediately
adjacent to the property on the east, west, and north. The closest we
get is the Huntington PUD which we approved last year, sometime in the
last year. I believe that was a 5.9 dwelling units per acre.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Six and a half, I think.
MR. NINO: Six and a half?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So without -- without really
coming to this board, the property on both the east and west can
develop at four units an acre and be consistent with the Growth
Management Plan; is that correct?
MR. NINO: Commissioner Hancock, I don't know how many
units the Regency Park PUD is approved for. I -- I -- I didn't look
that issue up.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's on our -- isn't that --
MR. NINO: That's correct.
MR. CUYLER: It's listed as part of the handout. If
that's accurate, then it's six fif -- six eighty.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So at a density of 4.33 units per
acre, Regency is next door, and on the other side we don't -- on the
other side of what would be Livingston Road, there's not a particular
PUD on that property?
MR. NINO: No, we don't.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But, again, without
requesting anything from this board, per our Growth Management Plan it
could develop at four units an acre?
MR. NINO: That is correct. That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Michael Fernandez, planning director
with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage. I would like to walk you through
just a couple of points to put it on the record.
First of all, the project enjoys convenient and safe
access from the future Livingston Road via Immokalee Road consistent
with Growth Management Plan's access management standards.
Additionally, the project transportation commitments include
appropriate turn lanes, traffic signalization, and arterial level
lighting.
The project is a proposed gated community, and its
gatehouse location is internal to the site which assures no backup on
Livingston Road. The project's impact on the affected adjoining
roadways of Livingston and Immokalee Roads will not reduce the level
of service. These impacts will be less than 5 percent of the roadway
capacity.
The Growth Management -- The project's location's within
the urban designated area of the Growth Management Plan which is fully
served by parks, recreational areas, schools, and other public
facilities. The needs of this project are, therefore, anticipated by
the service providers and mitigated by impact fees which are also
anticipated by service providers. The project will cause no unusual
burden on services.
The project is within the density band and is consistent
with the provisions of the Growth Management of -- Growth Management
Plan. The density conceptually -- Well, I'll show you. We prepared
three -- We prepared three graphics to look at the context of the
project. Graphic one on your right here shows the PUD, Carlton Lakes
in blue. You were asking about adjacencies. To the south of the
project as part of the land area itself, there's a 100-foot canal
easement and Immokalee Road. To the east, you have Regency Village
PUD which calls for 170 acres of multi-family residential in the green
areas. There's 30 acres of commercial in the southeast corner of the
property. To the north, there's some overlap again of the Regency
Village PUD. The other area is zoned agricultural with the potential
to be rezoned up to seven units per acre, and it's generally wetland
areas. Much as the Carlton Lakes PUD, the north part is wetland areas
providing a good buffer. To the west, we have over 600 feet of
county-owned property. There's 275 feet of Livingston right-of-way,
and then there's FP and L easements and other county-owned property
and utilities to the east.
In the context of a one-mile radius of the site itself,
Carlton Lakes here in blue again with the heavy outline, you're seeing
the areas that are compatible. These colors represent a density range
of two; blue being a range of two to four; green being upwards of that
from four to six; yellow from six to eight, yellow area of Huntington,
the affordable housing project you spoke of earlier and some other
projects to the west. The gray areas are commercial. Red areas are
ten-plus units per acre. The area beyond 600 feet to the west of the
project is in a subdivision, and the zoning there is three units per
acre. Areas that are in tan are ag at this time with the potential to
be rezoned. This is a map of density potential relative to Growth
Management Plan. Again, Carlton Lakes is shown in blue. The yellow
areas show the areas that could be rezoned up to seven units per acre.
The red areas are shown up to 16 units per acre. And the white
areas are the roadways. And that's the context of that project. And
if you have any questions, I'll be happy to address them.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Pickworth, I don't see a lot
of difference between this request and the request that this board
denied in November. Why in the world should we support this just
because you bring it back five months later in essentially the same
form?
MR. PICKWORTH: Well, I guess there's two answers to
that. One is there -- there -- there -- there is a difference in the
sense that the request before you in November did not contain a
limitation on the commercial square footage. So there is a difference.
And, as I said before, in fact, the request we're asking for today
is a less intense development than what you did approve in November.
That's one thing that's changed. Okay.
The second thing that's changed is clearly the board in
its practice of dealing with zoning in these density band areas has --
has not applied the same density limitation strictures that have been
applied here. I mean, I guess what I'm suggesting is we've got a
little more history now. Things -- things -- What has changed? The
board's position has clearly changed it would seem.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I can't agree with that.
MR. PICKWORTH: Well --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This -- You have had this PUD
approved twice in the past and -- and if it was acceptable to you on
those approvals, it's acceptable to you now. What I'm seeing here is
that -- is that because this request asks for more residential density
with a commitment to lower commercial densities, someone has made the
market assessment that the residential is ultimately going to be more
valuable than the commercial in this case. That being so, if -- if --
if you want my support here, I think we're going to need to make some
changes in this PUD. And if you want the residential density to go up
from what you have been approved twice in the past, how about if we
just eliminate commercial development all together?
MR. PICKWORTH: Well, you know, that all sounds good,
but I guess the problem with that is I would ask you the rhetorical
question, why -- why is the price of doing that -- I mean, what is
peculiar about this PUD that means it has to have -- Okay. I --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have an answer for that.
MR. PICKWORTH: Okay. Give me it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We've approved it for you twice.
MR. PICKWORTH: Well, but --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what's the difference.
This is not a new request.
MR. PICKWORTH: But I guess my rejoinder to that is, you
know, you have -- you have a Comprehensive Plan. You have a Land
Development Code which says that this is what can be developed, and it
gives a procedure by which someone can come in and request a land use
action. I don't know if this is the answer you're looking for. I've
never seen anywhere in any code something that says, gee, if you come
in and we approve Development A, you can never come back and ask for
Development B even though our -- even though our -- our regulations
allow it, even though the guy next door who hasn't come in before can
come in and have that. I mean, why would we even want that kind of a
rule?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the point here to me is that
on the original approval of this PUD, you got what you asked for. Now
you've come back twice with the same request that doesn't -- You know,
I don't see why you would expect this board to continually change its
mind about your development. You asked for something. We granted it
to you in the past, and now you want to change that, increasing
density, and I just -- I am not seeing enough reason to change the
board's original decision, and that's all I'm saying.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
MR. PICKWORTH: I would like the opportunity to address
that but I know --COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, I've got
a question for you, and that is, what difference does it make the
number of times something comes back? The -- What we have to look at
is the end result. Is the end result of what's being requested
applicable, appropriate, in congruence with the neighboring properties
or not.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If this was the first time
through, if we had never seen this PUD before and someone came in and
said, well, we know there's a density of 12 across the street, and we
know there's a density of 6.5 just down the street, and we know there
can be four on either side of us, just going straight through the
process without even questioning us, and we'd like to put it at 3.4, I
don't know why we would turn that down. And what I'm looking at is
the end result, not if they had it at 2.8 or whatever it is currently.
Just because we accept it once doesn't mean a change in
heart or a change in market is not a good thing. You said, gee, if
the market changes and it appears now residential may be the market
instead of commercial -- I'm paraphrasing you. But if it is, so what?
If the impact is no greater and if the density is still far below what
they could have if it were new, all the neighboring properties, the
end result is good. So I don't follow the logic, and maybe you can
help me.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, you've asked about
three different questions. Let me see if I can go at it. First of
all, you say if this was the first time that we've seen it, would we
approve it, and that's a critical question because the first approval
was based on the -- what is it -- 626 units. This Board of
Commissioners -- and I understand that there's a couple of them that
weren't here when this was first approved and maybe none of us were.
I don't remember when this thing --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's '85.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: '85. So none of us were here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: '86, something like that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But who's to say at this point
that the commissioners who voted in favor of that would have voted for
it at this level.
The other thing is -- The other thing that you asked is,
well, what if -- you know, what if all the rest of them have certain
densities, why won't this apply, or something to that effect. Tell me
again exactly now how -- what it is.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. And I guess the
question before us is what does this board think is appropriate, not
what does -- what did somebody in 1986 think appropriate. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But -- But my question was,
if all the densities surrounding and those that can automatically be
approved for the neighboring properties are all going to be higher
than 3.4, what's the problem with 3.4. And the third question was, if
the market changes from commercial to residential, so what?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: So what. Okay. All right. Your
question relates to -- and, again, I'll paraphrase you -- why
shouldn't someone come back over and over and over to get what they
want. Well, the simple reason is that if you're going to do that and
you're going to approve every request that somebody comes back with,
why hear it at all? I mean, you've got to make a decision. Give them
what they ask for if it's appropriate, and then that's it. Because if
they want to come back five more months from now -- This is five
months ago they came back. If they want to come back for 1,000 units,
are we going to do that? If they want to come back for 1,500 units,
are we going to do that? I mean, the point of bringing a PUD to the
Board of County Commissioners is to get approval for what you want.
Then do that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One final comment and then
I'll -- I'll let Commissioner Mac'Kie go ahead. But I guess the
analogy I would use is, if I want to build a home and I go and get a
$150,000 mortgage which I can -- I can't in real life -- but assume I
can easily afford and I decide after the fact, wait, I want to add a
swimming pool. I need to have a $170,000 mortgage instead. The bank
looks at my income statement and whether or not I can afford a
$170,000 mortgage. They don't say, gosh, you've already been approved
for 150. Why are you coming back? They look at that individual
thing, and I think that's what we need to do here, is not look at what
was approved in 1985 or 1986. They're coming back and asking for a
specific thing as our law allows, and we need to look at the merits of
that individual thing, not the fact that they are coming back.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And I'm glad you brought up
that particular analogy because if you walk into the bank and ask for
more money, they're going to ask for something different from you, and
that will be either more collateral or some other guarantee that
they're going to get their money back. In this case, that's exactly
what I said. If you're going to ask for more residential, let's cut
back the commercial even farther.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's don't make this a one-sided
deal. And the difference, of course, between this and you getting a
mortgage for your house is that we're -- we're -- we're representing
the entire public of Collier County, not just ourselves in this.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's quite true. Commissioner
Mac'Kie.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've been perplexed by this
petition since -- since the last time it was here. I feel like if it
were a brand new petition, they'd be gone as fast as Dwight Nadeau was
out the door. We wouldn't even let them make their -- their
presentation. "You're just here for questions. Great. Move
approval." It would be in and out.
I continue to wonder what is the magic about this jinxed
piece of property, and I feel sort of like, you know -- I'm sorry.
But my father's old way of child rearing was every now and then you
just said no so that they know you can and this sort of -- it keeps
coming in my mind. I can't see a good reason to say no to this.
So, you know, I think we should treat it as a brand new
application because that's what it is and, for God's sake, let's close
this public hearing and vote and approve this thing. It's -- It's --
We're talking about property rights here, and they have a right.
We've given them rights under our Comprehensive Plan and under our
ordinances that allow them to come back and ask, and they're only
seeking approval of what they're entitled to. So I'd like to vote on
it.
MR. PICKWORTH: If I can just make another point, I
would just like to emphasize that you're correct. We're only asking
for what your rules and regulations say we can ask for and have. In
fact, we're asking for much less. We're -- I mean, the -- the -- the
project was originally approved back in'87. To my knowledge, it went
back one time in November with a request for a number of residential
units which at that time was well within what your rules and
regulations said it could be. And for whatever reason -- I was not
involved at that time. I've read through the transcripts and it's --
it's not real clear to me why there was a problem with that.
Since that time -- As I said, we have given you a -- if
-- if -- if a reason is necessary -- and I agree with Commissioner
Kie. There's -- Mac'Kie -- there's not. I mean, the rules and
regulations don't say you only get so -- you know, you can't come
back. When we give you something, you can never come back. You have
the right to make an application. We have the right to have this
board consider that, and we're only asking consider this. Don't --
You know, don't consider it in the light of because you asked before,
you can't have anymore. I mean, you know, I don't -- I've never seen
anything in any of your Land Development Codes that says there's some
rule about that. You know, consider it in terms of, is what we're
asking for reasonable under -- reasonable under the circumstances. As
Commissioner Mac'Kie said, if this was unzoned property, you're right,
we'd be out the door with the lowest density project around.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One thing was mentioned such as a
precedent. If we say yes to you, then we are opening the flood gate
for every other project to come back in and say we want more. And I
venture to say that in the past, as someone who has appeared before
this commission before, the precedents were never set on how many
times someone came, how many requests they made. The precedent was
always set on what the resultant impact of a development was to the
community. Was it in line with what was surrounding it. Was it
compatible, seemed to be the big key. Was it asking for more than you
would be entitled otherwise to have. The precedents were never
repetitive appearances at this board. So I don't fear that.
Some of my frustration does stem from being on the other
side of the fence, that at times you're given a set of rules to play
by and you act in a somewhat -- as I look at this petition, a somewhat
conservative manner in coming well within those rules, and the only
reason I have heard specifically about why those rules are no good
right now is because you're asking for more, and I guess I just have a
problem with us making the rules and then applying them what appears
to me in differing levels for differing pieces of property. And I
agree with Commissioner Mac'Kie. I keep looking for the why. You
know, someone dropped the other shoe because I'm missing something
here.
And, you know, I apologize about my snap earlier about
the moratorium but I also -- I felt the same frustration I did the
last time I looked at this and just not understanding why because you
were here once and you're here again, that has anything to do with the
final end product, and it seems to me that's what this board should be
concerned with.
That being the case, unless the petitioner has anything
else, I would like to make a motion to approve --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have to close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll withhold my motion until --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there any public speakers?
MR. NINO: MAy I -- MAdam Chairman, may I bring to your
attention as a result of our recent amendments to the Land Development
Code or actually will be the first reading, we've developed this
concern about making sure we have time limits and when things are
done. This petitioner has agreed to provide -- when requested by the
county, the transportation dedications will be made, and I would ask
you to acknowledge that as an amendment to the PUD.
I also need to remind you that when I said -- I didn't
mean to indicate that the base density of four units, Commissioner
Hancock, was necessarily an entitlement. It's our-- It's staff's
position that that leads up to four as well as does the additional
bonus considerations.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understood that it runs with
zoning, but historically it's been difficult to turn down -- MR. NINO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- three and a half units in this
area.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Before I close the public
hearing, I'm -- I'm just going to comment on why I have felt the way
that I have felt about this particular project in an increase in
density from 626 units to 800 units, and Mr. Pickworth has been so
kind as to give us this sheet of density band PUDs and so forth, and I
note on here with the exception of Regency, every one of them was
approved after Carlton Lakes, and every one of them probably in the
course of being approved were approved with the knowledge that Carlton
Lakes was 2.6, and that's why I'm having trouble with increasing a
density in a pre-approved project.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: MAy I comment on that?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just that I -- My lawyer red flag
just goes up when you say that, and Ken can give you advice on it, but
I would be concerned if Property Owner A's property rights are
diminished because of benefits given to Property Owner B.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm looking at the total
circulation of traffic and just the general growth in the North Naples
area. I mean, it -- the whole thing is --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But all of those -- All of those
issues we're told have been measured and are below the standards we've
adopted, and traffic even goes down with the proposal we have. I
think that -- that maybe -- I mean, did I hear correctly that because
of the agreement to reduce the commercial square footage, traffic
counts indicate that we are, in fact, diminishing impacts if we
approve this? And, you know, I -- I try when I come in here -- MR. PICKWORTH: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to take my lawyer hat off,
but, you know, I -- I -- I feel like these people are entitled to what
they're asking for. They're below the adopted standards. They're
minimal and that when -- what they're telling us is --
And, in fact, Mr. Norris, they are, in fact, trading you
something today. They're telling you they're not going to give up all
the commercial, but they are willing to reduce the commercial square
footage to the point that they can prove a reduction in traffic
impacts, and I don't know what else, you know, we could want. It
sounds to me like they have protected all of the concerns that we
would simply have in the area.
So even though we see, as you said, Commissioner
Matthews, these -- you know, the analysis that, yes, when you -- when
you voted to approve one of these at a density of, you know, four
point something or six point something, you kind of weren't too
worried about it because you knew that there was this low density one
also in the neighborhood. They're telling you right now that the
traffic impacts from the amendments are less than what you had in mind
when you're contemplating these -- you know, these subsequent
approvals.
MR. PICKWORTH: Keep in mind further that whatever these
densities were when Regency Village and this one first came through,
back in 1989 we went through a massive comprehensive planning process,
and we drew a blueprint for how things were going to be planned in
this community, and we tagged density to proximity to -- Well, the
planners could say this better than me -- but has to do with
infrastructure and intersections and things like that and I -- Forgive
me. It's not my bailiwick. But in -- in our wisdom we said that we
are going to have density areas, if you will. We're -- Some areas are
going to be eligible for higher densities than other areas based on
those characteristics and -- and so whatever it was before -- The
first time this petition came before you subsequent to your adopting a
new set of rules on how density would be measured was when it came in
last December when they asked for the 800 units, and the two projects
you see above that again both come in subsequent to ours, both are
density band projects eligible for the increased density as a result
of being in the proximity to these activity centers, again just what
the Comprehensive Plan says is supposed to happen in these areas. And
so we have simply -- are asking that that same thing that's supposed
to happen here happen to our property.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Chairman, we don't seem to be
covering a lot of new ground.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. No, we aren't.
Commissioner Hancock says he has one small question.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a new ground question.
Mr. Pickworth, how recent and up to date is your environmental work on
this site?
MR. PICKWORTH: If I could ask Mr. Fernandez to answer
that because he'd have more knowledge than I would on that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just knowing that there's a
wetland system to the north, I'm just curious. Is your master plan --
does it take into account a very recent and up-to-date environmental
study?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. Actually, the -- subsequent to the
approval that we received, we went ahead forward and went ahead and
applied for and had approve a preliminary subdivision plat which
showed those areas not being touched in the north area.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But you've had a professional
biologist or agency reviews --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- of these areas recently?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews, you
mentioned your concern was the other site approvals and --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I'm -- I'm --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me finish my question.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You mentioned your concern
with the other site approvals and the impact this original plan may
have had on those decisions. Aside from a legal question of whether
or not it's appropriate as Commissioner Mac'Kie indicated, what then
-- I'm looking for the reason then. If the impact -- impacts will
actually decrease from the numbers we had used, that appears to take
away that concern. I'm assuming from your affect right now there are
other concerns as well, and I'm wondering what they may be.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. That's -- I don't want to
say that's the -- the -- you know, only concern that I have. I, like
Commissioner Norris, am just simply concerned about PUDs repetitively
coming back to the county commission asking for increases or -- or --
in -- in density, increases in commercial property, increases in
anything like that. I -- I -- I kind of feel that when -- when this
project came before this board, whoever was here in 1987, that they
made their best shot. They said this is what's the most appropriate
use for this property, and they gained approval based on that and --
and, you know, I --
MR. PICKWORTH: And based on what the Comprehensive Plan
said at the time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me, Mr. Pickworth. Let me
finish.
MR. PICKWORTH: I'm sorry but --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And -- And I know the
Comprehensive Plan has changed, and I know we've gone through zoning
re-evaluations and all of that but I'm -- I'm just not understanding
why we should be -- feel compelled at this point to increase the
density here by 28 percent.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if we don't think
people should come back and be able to revisit those, which is in part
what you said, then we should change our Land Development Code and we
should change the Comprehensive Plan and not allow that. Right now
the law allows people to come back and visit. So to use that as a
reason, gosh, we shouldn't have people come back and ask to amend
their PUDs is a bogus reason.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. We have people come to --
come and ask to change their PUDs at various times, and almost without
exception, almost without exception, it's minor, tweaky, not an
increase in density of 28 percent. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just -- I -- If you took that
logic to its -- to its furthest extent, then whatever was the first
zoning in 1900 -- You know, how far back are you going to go and say
that that board -- those were the wisest ones, you know, those were
the ones who knew what was right, and we're talking about people's
property here, and markets change. If we don't allow -- Why would
anybody ever come in with a PUD? Why not just go out there and
develop what you can at the four units per acre? We want to encourage
PUDs. They give us a chance to do a lot to the property, to have more
restrictions and to regulate things that we don't generally regulate.
I -- This is one of those I continue to be perplexed.
I'm going to say this and then I'm going to stop. I find myself in a
position of arguing for the developer, the property owner, whatever
you want to call it. It's not my job to argue their case so I'm going
to stop, but I feel like what I'm arguing is in defense of Collier
County taxpayers who are going to be subject to liability if they
don't -- For God's sake, if you guys are going to turn this down, put
some findings on the record that are legally defensible.
MR. PICKWORTH: Can I make one more comment?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
MR. PICKWORTH: In response to what you said,
Commissioner Matthews, you said, why should I feel compelled. Well, I
hope you don't feel compelled, and it's not my purpose here today to
make you feel compelled. My purpose here today is to try to convince
you that -- forget all the legal mumbo jumbo and justice and right
that this petition is asking for, that which is far less than your
rules allowed.
Let me ask you this hypothetical. If we give up our
zoning and go back to agriculture and start all over again like we
were never zoned and we come in asking for 3.4 units per acre, is that
going to be a problem for anyone with -- with -- with -- with the
densities all around it? I mean, why is that -- Is seven acres of
commercial going to be a problem when there's far more commercial
right across the street from us with no limitations?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Unfortunately we don't have the --
the latitude to work hypotheticals here. MR. PICKWORTH: Well --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We have to deal in what's
presented to us.
MR. PICKWORTH: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If you want to -- If you would
like to go back and start all over, have -- MR. PICKWORTH: Well --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- feel free to do so.
MR. PICKWORTH: I -- I -- I appreciate that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: In the meantime, Miss Chairman, if
you would please move this along.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Thank you. I --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we haven't covered any new
ground for about a half an hour with the exception of Commissioner
Hancock's environmental question, of course.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I just have one more
question, Mr. Nino, because I really need to qualify this in my mind.
If -- If this project is approved or not approved, and I know you've
gone through these pros and cons and they're -- they're -- they're all
nicely stipulated out here, and I keep hearing something about
diminished traffic, and I don't remember reading anything like that.
MR. CUYLER: That's --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I haven't found it in the staff
report either.
MR. CUYLER: That reference --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't remember reading it, so
where is it?
MR. CUYLER: That reference is to the 20 percent
reduction in the commercial, I think.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But it wasn't in our executive
summary.
MR. NINO: The proposal to reduce the amount of
commercial and, consequently, traffic impact came after the staff
report was completed and the Planning Commission's deliberations.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Excuse me. Michael Fernandez again, for
the record. On the executive summary, there's a statement there that
there's a rough equivalency between the traffic impact of 20,000
square feet that's been reduced and 174 units that are being sought in
addition to, and our calculations actually show that there's an actual
reduction between the two.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So -- So I guess my point is I
read the reduction related to the commercial property. I'm sure we
all did, but I didn't read anything about an overall reduction --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- which I was being led to
believe --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and our staff hasn't made us
aware of an overall reduction in traffic.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, I thought that's what the
executive summary was talking about, the number of units relative to
the 20,000 square feet.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They probably sent that to you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's a trade-off.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Somebody tell us in plain
language if -- if the number of square feet of commercial that you are
reducing is equal to how many units of residential, and then how many
units of residential are you asking to increase?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
please?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
Hay I offer a point on that,
Yes. I mean, I -- I don't mind.
100,000 square feet of --
Commissioner Norris.
-- of office space, medical space
is not going to be nearly as intense as 80,000 square feet of high
volume retail or something to that effect. So to try to make a direct
correlation is going to be a lot more difficult in the commercial side
than in the residential side when you can -- when you can pretty much
pinpoint the number of residents and, therefore, the number of cars
per home.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Do you have a response to
that too?
MR. BRUNDAGE: Yes. For the record, my name is Dan
Brundage. I am president of Agnoli, Barber and Brundage and serving
as engineer for the project. Basically the reduction of the 20,000
square feet of commercial area is roughly equivalent, slightly less
than the increased traffic that would be anticipated from the
additional units that we're requesting.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it's a wash?
MR. BRUNDAGE: It's slightly less. Slightly less.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. Is it slightly less
traffic or slightly more traffic?
MR. BRUNDAGE: Slightly less traffic is being proposed
with the 20,000 square foot reduction in commercial area.
MR. NINO: If I may address that comment because
Commissioner Matthews raised it, it's staff's opinion that it's about
a wash.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what I thought I was
getting out of it.
MR. NINO: And that's what the executive summary said.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If there's not any further
discussion with the petitioner, I'm going to close the public hearing.
Is there a discussion or a motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve
the item, and I'm going to suggest that those -- to protect ourselves
in any potential litigation, anyone who opposed may want to record for
the record a legally defensible reason as to why they're declining.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Is there further discussion on the item? There being -- Commissioner
Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Cuyler --
MR. CUYLER: What was the -- I'm sorry. I missed the
motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The motion was to approve the
item. I just suggested as -- not as part of the motion. My
suggestion was to make sure if someone is voting to turn this down,
that they make clear their reasons therefore.
MR. CUYLER: I'm sorry. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Cuyler, what are some of the
reasons that we could use to have a no vote -- MR. CUYLER: Well, you know --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- that are legally defensible, of
course, that being your area of expertise?
MR. CUYLER: Let me say this. This is a little bit of
an unusual case. I'm probably a little more comfortable that the
board can do what the board by a four-fifths vote or a failure to give
a four-fifths vote decides to do. And the reason I say that is I
probably would have been more concerned the last time this petition
came up if the board had outright denied it, and a lot of the
discussions that we've had would have caused me more concern in terms
of potential overturning of the board's decision. The board didn't do
that. The board granted a certain density. And Mr. Fernandez, if my
recollection is correct, was at the podium, and the board said, do you
accept this density. And I don't think Mr. Fernandez was particularly
happy about it, but he turned around to his client and then got back
at the podium and said, yes, we'll agree to that.
So I think you have the ability to approve the request
now if you want to, but I don't think you're mandated to do that. In
other words, I think you have the ability to say -- and I think the
case law would support you in saying -- that it's not an arbitrary or
unreasonable decision to say that we are not required to change this.
We, in fact, approved something that's a reasonable use. It's
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. So unlike a lot of
situations, I think I can defend your decision either way you go in
this.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
MR. PICKWORTH: Madam Chairman, before you close --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've closed the public hearing.
MR. PICKWORTH: Well -- Okay. Whether the public
hearing is closed or not, I think -- you know, if there is going to be
a vote to deny, then I would like to at least put a couple of things
in the record also.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You had your opportunity to put
all on the --
MR. PICKWORTH: Well --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- record that you needed to.
MR. PICKWORTH: All I -- And I have effectively put this
in the record. I have referred to a series of PUDs you have approved
at higher densities, and I have the actual ordinances themselves here
which I would like to be included.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. --
MR. PICKWORTH: If you're telling me I can't include
those on the record -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Pickworth, your client agreed
five months ago to the density. MR. PICKWORTH: Can I --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just take the vote.
MR. PICKWORTH: Can we correct this?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. --
MR. PICKWORTH: Excuse me, but I don't think that's the
case. Wasn't that 6.6 what was allowed?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Pickworth, the public
hearing is closed. You had an opportunity. If you didn't get it all
in on behalf of your client, that's your fault. I'm with you on this
One '-
MR. PICKWORTH: Okay. Fine. Could I --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but it appears the whole
board isn't, and you had your opportunity. Okay?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call the question. All those in
favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion fails 3-2.
Next item on the agenda.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Want to take a break?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. It's 3:30. Why don't we.
Why don't we take a break -- it's 3:30 -- until quarter till 4:00.
(A short break was held.)
CONTINUATION OF ITEM #12C1
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To reconvene the Board of County
Commission meeting for April 18, 1995. We're at item 12C(1) which is
the resolution for the new -- new commission district. Mr. Perry. MR. PERRY: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is a continuation of the
public hearing from earlier this morning.
MR. PERRY: That's correct. This public hearing is --
Excuse me. For the record, my name is Jeff Perry. I'm chief planner
of the county's Planning Services Department. This is a public hearing
to consider adopting a resolution that will re-apportion the
commission district boundaries to distribute the population among the
commission districts as nearly equally as practicable.
In 1991 the board adopted Resolution 91-740 establishing
the new county commission district boundaries based upon the 1990
census. On December 13, 1994, the board directed staff to
re-apportion the commission district boundaries to distribute the
population as nearly equal as possible pursuant to section 124.01 of
the Florida Statutes. The county staff has compiled and prepared the
data necessary for the commission redistricting. The table in your
executive summary details the changes as presented and endorsed for
public review by the Board of County Commissioners in December.
The county staff has held three advertised public
meetings to provide the public with an opportunity to review the
material and data and give the general public an opportunity to ask
questions and provide their comments. The meetings were held on March
27 at the community center meeting room at the Immokalee Community
Park, on March 28 at the Golden Gate Community Center, and March 30
here in the commission chambers.
At the first meeting in Immokalee, there were three
individuals in the audience. Joseph Matthews asked -- asked that the
record reflect his recommendation that the Collier County public
schools boundary -- school board boundaries parallel those proposed
here by the county commission boundaries. Mr. Chuck Multee (phonetic)
complimented staff on their work and commented that it was a very
credible job.
At the second meeting in Golden Gate, Mr. -- There was
one attendant. Mr. Jack Pointer stated he was very pleased with the
presentation, had no concerns regarding the proposed changes.
At the third meeting here in the board chambers on March
30, Mr. John Randall, president of the Wyndemere Property Owners
Association indicated that on March 27 he had forwarded a formal
request to Commissioner Hancock that Wyndemere remain in district two.
He indicated that 407 of the 566 residents are requesting to remain
in the area, remain in district two. The reason, that the
similarities to the residential area in district two and their failure
to understand the substantial reasons for making the change other than
balancing the population. As you know, we've obtained copies of the
petition from the board office and have made them part of the official
record. Mr. Henry Tribble asked the questions about the frequency of
changes as far as how often changes to the district boundaries might
be made. Mr. Tribble also asked what questions were asked at previous
meetings and staff responded.
In addition to the three public meetings, staff made two
presentations, one to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board on March 23
and second to the Black -- Black Affairs Advisory Board on April 5.
It was the consensus of the Hispanic Advisory Board of those in
attendance that the new commission district boundaries were
appropriate. At the conclusion of the presentation, the Black Affairs
Advisory Board unanimously approved the proposed changes as being
appropriate and positive.
That concludes my presentation. Following any other
public input or comment, the board should consider the adoption of the
attached resolution which establishes the new county commission
district boundaries, authorizes the County Attorney's Office to
preclear the new district boundaries through the U.S. Department of
Justice. I'll be glad to answer any questions or cover anything that
we haven't already talked about or have talked about.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Perry, particular to district
two which does a little meander around district four, with the future
population projections, assuming that we will be successful today and
Wyndemere will remain in district two, future population projections
show the northern part of my district becoming more and more
populated. Do you anticipate over time, over five, ten, fifteen
years, that the southeast portion of district two will basically
dissolve and will be incorporated into other districts? I guess I'm
looking at district two and I think the migration of that district is
in a northern pattern, to be more dense in the north, thus the changes
that are going into district four at this time. Is that appropriate?
MR. PERRY: Yes, it is. The district four has common
boundaries with two, three, and one, does -- obviously does not have a
common boundary with district five. So as district four needs a
greater share -- a larger and larger share of the countywide total
every time we go through this exercise, it has to get its population
from its neighboring districts which means district four has to get
part of district two and moves out into district three and it moves
down into district one, either, you know, little bits at a time or
taking a lot from one district and leaving the others alone.
What we've done here in this case is that there's been
-- because district two has far exceeded the other districts in
population growth in 1994, there's about 9,000 more in district two
than in district four. There's a larger chunk of district two coming
off and going in district four. There was some coming out of district
three and going to district four, district one going into district
four, and then the others were simply to balance the population to
kind of make that adjustment.
So I think you're correct. As -- As -- As district two
continues to be populated as well as three and one, there will be more
and more need to expand the district four boundaries to continually
incorporate more of those areas. Unfortunately the areas that are
being picked up do not have a lot of growth potential. In other
words, there's not going to be a whole lot of new units in this
particular area. So we're adding -- While we're balancing the
population in '94, we're not adding a whole lot of areas to
Commissioner Hac'Kie's district that is -- that is going to allow her
population district -- district in her population to continue to grow
at the same rate as the other districts. So they will continue to be
in balance after the 19 -- after the year 2000.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I asked -- I'm sorry.
Just a quick -- The reason I asked is that obviously as I stated
before, Wyndemere's being kind of notched out whereas this other
southern portion of my district -- it just stands to reason
unfortunately logically something has got to give, and that is the
most logical location. As much as I'd like to keep everyone I have
right now, that's going to have to migrate northward. I don't see any
other way, and that was the purpose of my question, and thank you for
the answer.
MR. PERRY: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mine -- Hine's related. Since we
-- This is a painful process for people to go through, and I think
it's particularly painful this close to having just elected a
commissioner whom they know and have vested some trust in. Since it's
painful, why are we only doing what's necessary to meet 1994
standards? Why aren't we, for example, drawing a line across Pine
Ridge Road and connecting -- you know, cutting off that little
straggling portion?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He lives south of Pine Ridge.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because I live south of Pine
Ridge.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, drawing a line and a
little circle. Is that -- I mean, are there other reasons besides
this?
MR. PERRY: Well, the basic requirement is we would
balance -- we would balance the 1994 population. We could, in fact,
project and draw boundaries that might put us closer to home in the
year 2000, but the requirement is that we balance to today's
population, so that we tried to make as few adjustments as possible to
accommodate that goal without making wholesale changes.
MR. CUYLER: I think, Commissioner Mac'Kie, that the
legal requirement is as nearly practical as possible. The statute
doesn't contemplate two things. One is trying to adjust a good deal
into the future. And, secondly, it really doesn't contemplate a
county that grows as fast as we do. I mean, if you had one of the
panhandle counties, you might not have to change your boundaries, you
know, once every 15 years or something. It's really the result of the
growth.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I'd like to see happen is --
is if there's a way to avoid people having -- For example, if we adopt
what you have proposed here, three years, four years from now when --
when the people in the balance of district two have re-elected Mr.
Hancock and really want him to remain a commissioner forever, at that
point are we going to take him away? Are we anticipating so that
people don't have to go through this painful process in a
post-election year is what my question is.
MR. PERRY: Well, the statutes require that it be done
in odd numbered years so that you're not -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know.
MR. PERRY: -- doing it during an election year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So why not do more this year so
that after the next post-election year you don't have to do what we're
doing this year which is jerking the rug out from under people.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The fact is every odd year is
a post-election year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But not in district two.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. But we're changing more
than just district two.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One thing --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my question is only about
district two though. Why not draw that line?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One thing, I do want to
compliment staff. You pointed out you're trying to make as minor
changes as possible, and I think the job you have done here in trying
to balance an extra essentially seven or 8,000 people per district
since four years ago is great because I know with the changes you
mentioned this morning how much yours changed in 1991, and I know
district three ran from Rattlesnake Hammock to Green Boulevard, and I
ran into the same thing. You had everything north of Green,
Vineyards, Leisure Park, all those people who were not aware for a
while that they were in district three. So I think this is certainly
a much cleaner change than we had last time around. That was, indeed,
wholesale changes last time. So I think they're coming much closer to
the effort you're asking for.
MR. PERRY: We would expect -- We would not expect to be
doing this again until after the year 2000 census, that we've gone
since 1991 to almost 1996 that I would suspect that we would probably
look to these boundaries being in place, but we'll do it as often as
the commission directs us to do it in odd number of years. It's at
the board's direction to try to correct this imbalance that is created
-- that is created simply by the virtue of where the growth happens
tO Occur.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That -- That makes -- makes--
That really satisfies my concern, that I didn't want the year after
Commissioner Hancock is re-elected, for more people to have to go
through this trauma that we're proposing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that the same year you're
going to be re-elected, Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: She'll be my campaign manager.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right. I'll be working
for him.
MR. CUYLER: Yeah. We would -- We would be looking at
two thou -- We would be looking at 2001 as probably the earliest date,
if not 2003.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So you're looking at these being
good for six years.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because there is -- They are
creating that swing, Commissioner Mac'Kie. There will be a difference
between your district and Commissioner Matthews of 2,000 people
because the growth is anticipated in Commith -- Commissioner Masthew
-- in her district.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're all tongue-tied today.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So they are -- They are doing
that. I think it's a point worth noting.
MR. PERRY: If we can just provide for your information
-- I believe you received this, distributed to you perhaps prior to
the meeting today -- the supplemental data. This is the material we
provided to all of those participants that showed up at the meetings
and was in the advisory board agenda packages. It does have the
methodology we use to come up with the population numbers and also
shows the district changes as well as the racial and ethnic mix as a
result of those changes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Are there further
questions for Mr. Perry? Mr. Dotrill, are there public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Randall was registered. Again, I
don't know whether he -- I think he's indicating no. He's the only
one.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Close the public hearing.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I will close the public hearing.
Is there a discussion or a motion? Commissioner Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion. I think
it's a foregone conclusion we all seem to be in agreement on
Wyndemere, keeping that in district two, and we had a brief discussion
this morning. I'd like to see North Road, Brookside area not move
either and -- which is the one, two, three, four, fifth, next to the
bottom, second from the bottom.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Area two.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Area two on that map?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Area two. I -- I -- I'd oppose
that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, I support the Wyndemere
change, but I'd like to go ahead and do what we can to district four
to allow it to --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I agree.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because, actually, the thing
-- and I -- I apologize. I forgot Jeff's comment this morning on
that. Those were the two I had made. But considering the growth that
will likely occur, I'll change that and just go with option one on
here. Wyndemere.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wyndemere. Good.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I apologize, Jeff. I
forgot. You mentioned that this morning.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I -- I --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we do
exactly that, just do not move Wyndemere. Other than that, go with
that which has been laid out by Mr. Perry. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll second. We'll all second.
Unanimous second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and we have at
least four seconds, so I guess that tells you where it's going to go.
MR. CUYLER: And, Madam Chairman, you will be adopting
the resolution that is in your agenda package as an attachment as part
of this, and that will be adjusted to reflect what your motion is.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we're going to be adopting the
resolution subject to the change we've just talked about that would
not be included.
MR. CUYLER: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wyndemere will not be moved from
two to three. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the
question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5-0.
MR. PERRY: Thank you.
Item #13A1
PETITION PR-95-1, DONALD A. PICKWORTH, P.A., REPRESENTING THE GOLDEN
GATE INN & COUNTRY CLUB FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING APPROVAL TO
RESERVE REQUIRED PARKING PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE - CONTINUED TO 5/2/95
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda, it's
item 13A(1), PR-95-1. Mr. Pickworth.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hi, Don.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are we still talking?
MR. PICKWORTH: I feel like I'm working here.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You are.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Before we get started on this,
this is a request, I believe -- at least I received a letter that
indicated it was a variance. Mr. Cuyler, I forwarded that letter on
to you. Is this a variance request?
MR. CUYLER: This is not a variance. I think Mr. Nino
as part of his discussion, if he's doing this, will tell you that this
is not a pure variance in the sense of your variance criteria. This
is a reserved parking agreement for parking spaces which I think the
petitioner agrees he needs to put in.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is this considered quasi-judicial
then?
MR. CUYLER: It is --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It is.
MR. CUYLER: -- considered quasi-judicial, yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Then I --
MR. CUYLER: It falls within that area where I probably
can't find that anywhere. But, in my opinion, yes, it is.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I need to make a statement then
that I did receive a letter from someone. I don't even recall the
person's name now. And as soon as I realized it was quasi-judicial in
content, I forwarded it to Mr. Cuyler's office.
MR. CUYLER: That was a letter from Mr. Boyle who I
believe still owns the restaurant right in the area that we're talking
about. I'll make sure that that goes into the record.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For the record, if we're
talking about quasi-judicial, I've had at least two -- I've had three
conversations, actually, I think with all parties involved on this,
and I've also received correspondence from at least two parties
involved in this; however, I have certainly not tainted my ability to
make a decision based on that which is presented to us today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Regarding the quasi-judicial
matter, I under my former employment was involved in a shared parking
agreement that was executed for this parcel. Other than that, just
providing me with some knowledge -- Mr. Pickworth, if you would allude
to that parking agreement in your presentation or if staff would.
Other than that, I don't think there would be any conflict.
MR. PICKWORTH: The '89 agreement? Is that the one
you're talking about?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It wouldn't be '89.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He's not that old.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He was in school then.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Graduating high school;
right?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I was on my fifth year of my
four-year degree. Thank you.
I -- Maybe I'm mistaken. Maybe we didn't get all the
way to a shared parking agreement. I just remember doing a
significant amount of work and research on some form of a shared
parking agreement. If we didn't get it, the Court had -- It -- It
came before this board for some action and I -- I guess if it's -- if
you're unaware of it, I -- I must be mistaken.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That might have been -- It
seems to me when I was on Code Enforcement Board we had a couple of
things with this property too which I hope don't taint me in any way,
but I don't know if that work -- That may have been the work that came
before us.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I'll just ask staff. Do
we have a shared parking agreement executed for this property?
MR. NINO: No, we don't.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Never mind.
MR. CUYLER: And I will point out, for the record, that
I'm not even sure this type of agreement is on your list of things to
watch out for for quasi-judicial items so -- you know.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. Do you have a
comment, Commissioner Norris?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. It's beginning to sound
like with all these disclaimers, we're not going to have enough people
to vote on this item.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think I've heard anybody
exempt themselves yet.
MR. CUYLER: Everybody will be voting.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. CUYLER: I think that the representations were that
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I feel much better.
MR. CUYLER: -- everyone's impartial.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Nino, I understand
that there may be several different sides to the story, and if you
would walk us through very cautiously and slowly -- MR. NINO: I'll try.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and we can try to understand
it better.
MR. NINO: Again, Ron -- Ron Nino, for the record, from
Development Services. You're correct. There is a long history with
respect to this property, and it culminated in a stipulated agreement
in 1989 which agreement set the number of parking spaces that are
required exclusively for use by the Golden Gate Inn and Country Club,
and that number of parking spaces was set at 294 spaces. The -- There
were physically 177 spaces in place at the time the agreement was
struck. The petitioner as a result of the '89 agreement responded and
constructed what they thought were 117 spaces. Actually, they
constructed 122 spaces. They no sooner constructed the 122 spaces and
-- and they decided to use part of those spaces for a tennis court.
That reduced by 44 the number of spaces they responded to in terms of
-- in terms of the agreement. They then -- They then found out that
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It must be tough hitting all
those balls out of bounds.
MR. NINO: They then found out that 26 of the spaces
were really not on their property. They were part of the condominium
development. This area in here was really part of the condominium
development and another area over here. And then the Florida Power
and Light went and put a substation on another part of the parking
spaces that were applied to meet the total of 294. The end result of
it all is that of the 122 spaces, it got diminished by 46, leaving
them still with a deficiency of 71 spaces from the agreement, the
stipulated agreement of '89. The petitioners -- Yes?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 1989, that agreement was
between what parties?
MR. NINO: The agreement was between the county and I --
Mr. Robert Boise -- Boise -- Boisesano, Mary Boisesano, and Collier
County. (phonetic)
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So it was between the Golden
Gate Inn, Quality Inn, and Collier County.
MR. NINO: Golden Gate Inn and Collier County. Correct.
MR. CUYLER: There's -- Ron, if I could break in,
there's some history to that, but I'm not going to go through it
because I know you don't want to listen to it, but we don't usually
have those kind of agreements, but it was to cure a problem back then.
MR. NINO: And I think I alluded to that in the staff
report, followed some litigation, civil action.
The upshot, they were short by 71 spaces. The
developers -- The owner of this property is now saying -- basically
saying, look it, I acknowledge that I'm short by 71 spaces; however,
in the real world that parking lot is never filled. I don't need that
many -- those -- that many spaces, and remind us that the Land
Development Code provides that where a developer can show that the
requirements of the Land Development Code in terms of parking are
actually excessive to their needs, they have the opportunity to come
to you and ask that you put those parking spaces in reserve which is
basically a statement that says if at any time in the future anybody
determines that the parking lot is not functioning well or it's
functioning over capacity, we have the ability to turn around and say,
look it, folks, you need to construct those reserve parking spaces.
So that's what this petition is all about. The
petitioner is saying, I really don't need those spaces, but I
acknowledge that I -- that they're part of the Land Development Code
requirements, and I'm prepared to designate an area on the property
that I own meeting that requirement, and they have responded. And I
don't know where the figure 88 comes from. Maybe -- Mr. Pickworth was
never really able to describe it to me.
But, in any event, their response is even though they're
required to give us 71 spaces, they're prepared to put 88 spaces in
reserve, and that's iljustrated on a map in your package. The
location of the reserve area you will see -- you'll note is to the --
is in the area of the 18th and the 10th -- 18th green and the 10th tee
or to the southwest -- to the west and south of the current motel.
This petition was heard by the Planning Commission.
There really wasn't any objection voiced in the Planning Commission,
but there was some -- I would say misunderstanding on the part of the
representatives of the condominium association. They somehow or other
construed this application to be an application that would actually
have some parking -- some additional parking spaces created, and their
argument was we don't want any more cars coming in here. It's noisy
enough basically. So it was really -- They weren't really objecting
to it. They were -- They were -- They simply didn't understand what
the variance request was all about.
I've received a call -- a call from a Mr. Mitchell who I
believe is represented today, and he has some concerns about -- about
the -- an issue that I think is unrelated to the petition. Other than
that, the -- the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval
of this petition to you to place into reservation 88 spaces pursuant
to the agreement that we have developed as a part of the resolution of
adoption, the reservation agreement. Do you have any questions you'd
like to ask?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions for staff? Commissioner
Constantine, I hope you can clear this up because I'm thoroughly
confused.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We started out with 294 spaces
and somehow got 122. We only needed 117 and we gave away 44.
MR. NINO: They owed -- They owed us 294. There were
177 there. They, therefore, were short by 117. They built 122 and
immediately diminished the effect of the 122 by a mistake in action by
putting some of that parking in the wrong place, by the effect of
developing -- putting tennis courts on part of it, and then part the
Florida Power and Light. That took away 46 spaces from the 122 that
brought -- that initially brought it up to the 294. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. NINO: They're still short 71 spaces.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think I follow it now.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The 1989 agreement called for
a total of 294 spaces; is that correct? MR. NINO: Correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On what formula did we come
across 294? Was that based on the number of hotel rooms, on the
restaurant seats, on the convention facilities, on the outside tavern,
on -- What was that based on?
MR. NINO: I have not been able to determine how that
294 figure was arrived at. Perhaps Mr. Cuyler can respond to that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When -- When -- When was the 294
-- Forgive me, but when was it? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: '89.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 1989; is that right?
MR. NINO: 1989 agreement.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what -- The regulations of six
years ago don't show --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what I'm asking, is --
MR. CUYLER: That was -- That was how it was arrived at.
An issue came up about the parking, whether enough parking had been
planned as part of the construction of the hotel. I called Building
and Zoning at that time, and there was a controversy as to whether
they had enough parking. I said, tell me what the appropriate parking
is, and the 294 is as a result of what I got from Building and Zoning
as to the appropriate figure based on the uses. Now, there's going to
be some allegations, I think, today that there's some additional uses
that weren't there at the time.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's -- That's my next
question, is 1989 when -- and maybe Kevin or someone back there can
help me with this. But is 1989 when the renovation and the additional
building were built?
MR. DURKIN: '88, '89.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: '88 -- The record reflects
Mr. Durkin says '88, '89. That's what I'm -- I'm trying to figure out
is -- I'm assuming it's -- this number was based on hotel rooms with
the new -- what was then new renovations and additions, and I don't
know if that takes into consideration -- Does a place that has
convention facilities, does a place that has a hotel that has
convention facilities or has restaurant facilities or bar facilities
or whatever, additional things, are they figured differently than,
say, a Hotel Six or a Super Eight?
MR. CUYLER: I -- I --
MR. NINO: Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the Land
Development Code with me.
MR. CUYLER: The general answer is yes. There is
additional parking that's required.
MR. HULHERE: Yes. It's based on the square footage of
the convention space. I don't -- I can get a copy of the code and get
that specifically to you just in a couple of minutes. But, yes, they
are required to provide additional parking for convention space, for
retail uses, for restaurants. I mean, any accessory use beyond the
rooms themselves they would be required, and it's a lower percentage
than would normally be required for that use.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we know if in 1989 the
chickee hut was in existence in its current form? MR. NINO: I -- No, we don't.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: According to our code, there are
certain bar facilities allowed as ancillary as long as the square
footage does not exceed a certain amount.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what I'm wondering
because it's --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Now I'm remembering
exactly what I did on this. I was supposed to come up with more
parking on site than they could get on their existing plan. That was
what my job was, and they didn't like my answer so it never came to
the board.
I'm sorry. Go ahead. I just wanted to point out then
-- I'm sure Bob Felix of the code will find that -- in fact, this --
this is unique in that it has so many uses on one parcel that there is
kind of an overlay, that someone who uses the golf course may also be
staying in a room and eating at the restaurant, and there's what's
called a capture rate of people that -- that use the site.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's where I'm trying
to lead with this is -- is there are so many facilities there. The
golf course is open to the public. You're going to get some people
in. I've got to assume the majority of those, particularly this time
of year, are indeed hotel guests, but you'll have some public come.
I'm trying to figure out what our formula is, and where I was going
with the bar is with square footage with -- was that included at that
time; if not, why not, and I'm just trying to --
MR. NINO: With all respect to your concern,
Commissioner, I -- you know, staff's position is that the '89
agreement was an informed decision-making -- it went through some
informed decision-making process. Two hundred ninety-four spaces were
determined to be the number of spaces for the uses that were there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, I'm sure it was an
informed decision in 1989; however, if -- and I don't know if this is
the case, but if the chickee hut was built in 1990, then it was
informed in '89, but the picture may have changed since that time.
MR. NINO: I was getting to that. There has never been
any citations that we know of that would indicate that anything was
added to the development. We have to assume that the 294 spaces
reflects the requirement for what's there today. So with all respect,
the requirements in the code --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe you have to assume that
but --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We don't.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: With a little leap, I need
help. Take it.
MR. HULHERE: I would also like to state there were some
preliminary discussions between Mr. Pickworth and myself prior to this
petition actually being submitted. You know, it was suggested by
myself that we look at all of those uses and that we take a look at
what today's parking requires and we see how the parking that exists
compares to what's required. If that hasn't happened, it's not as a
result of not being asked for.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Has anybody done that? Has
our staff done that? Mr. Pickworth, have you done that?
MR. HULHERE: I think what we assumed -- In talking to
Mr. Pickworth, we assumed that the settlement agreement took
precedence. Am I correct? That was the assumption, that the
settlement agreement took precedence.
MR. PICKWORTH: Yeah. The -- The -- What was shown on
the plans at the time -- and I was not involved in that, so you
probably know more about this than I do. I was not involved at the
time, but I am informed by the representatives of the resort that
everything that -- that the time that agreement was done, all the
things, the chickee hut and everything else was shown on the plans, so
I assumed that when they counted the parking -- Now, the chickee hut
may not have been actually built until later, but it was on the plans
that were there at the time. So I'm assuming that when the -- when
the number of exclusive spaces was determined, it took that into
account.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just interrupt for a
second. This does not -- This is not rocket science. It seems to me
we can look at what's there now and what I assume was on the plan then
which should be the -- those two should be the same thing, and we
should be able to look at what the code was in 1989 and see if -- and
Mr. Nino is taking the leap that we did indeed cover that. But just
for the sake -- because I know this has dragged on forever. For the
sake of our edification, I would think that would be a very simple
formula to plug in and see do those numbers match or don't they.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If they do, we've got a
match. If they don't, whoops, we've got a problem. But rather than
sit here and go through all the details -- well, it might have been;
well, so and so says we had this in -- why don't we just look?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Basic questions.
MR. HULHERE: The only -- The only -- The only thing
that I would say from staff's point of view as far as we were
concerned whether or not -- and maybe we were incorrect -- But whether
or not the number of parking spaces compares to what either today's
code or the old code required, we were under the impression that there
was a settlement agreement and that we as staff cannot alter that
settlement agreement, that it called for 294 parking spaces, and
that's what they had to provide. The only way they can get around not
providing that would be to come to the board and ask for parking
reservations. So we really didn't look at how it compared to what
today would require or what was required in 1989 and that's -- that's
all I'm trying to make you understand, is from our point of view we
didn't feel as though we could go in and change the settlement
agreement.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Got you. Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If the petitioner were to make
any additions to existing buildings, a complete, full, and total
parking review would have to be performed; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. When was the newest motel
section built, what year? The -- There was an old -- an old portion.
MR. DURKIN: '89.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Built in '89. Obviously
the stipulated agreement occurred because of that addition; is that
correct?
MR. DURKIN: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I kind of see what's
happening here and that no one can agree on -- there's no need to go
back to point zero if that had already been done but I -- I can tell
you that --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Extra facilities.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can tell you as any addition
occurs, a full review will have to be done then, and my question now
looks at two things. First of all, we have tennis courts on top of
parking. If someone determines that parking is needed, what happens
first? Do we remove the tennis courts first or do we construct a new
-- do we construct new areas or is that up to the -- MR. NINO: It would be up to them. They have the --
They have the option of removing the tennis courts -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. NINO: -- and -- and -- and supplementing whatever
we feel the -- If we feel the entire 71 spaces are required, they have
the option of leaving the tennis courts there and building 71 spaces
or taking the tennis courts off and they've already got 46 spaces
there and supplementing them with another 25 spaces --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My second --
MR. NINO: -- as a reserved area.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My second question is, just on my
review, these parking spaces that are shown don't appear to meet code.
You're supposed to have a landscaped island every ten spaces.
That's not shown. In addition, the number of 88, if you put those
islands in where they're supposed to go, will be reduced.
MR. NINO: Commissioner, are you talking about the
reserve spaces?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
MR. NINO: Because we don't -- we don't construe that to
be a site-specific plan, simply a generalized area.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason --
MR. NINO: They would come in with an SDP for that and
that SDP -- we would ensure that those spaces are designed according
to code.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No question, but we're going to
get a number here such as 88, and if what is shown says 88 and 88
physically can't be done on what is shown --
MR. NINO: Then they will expand the area.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just saying there's a
potential for discrepancy down the road, and if I were drawing these
in, I'd draw them into code, and I just want to make sure that that
count is correct, and what I see is correct is a reduction in eight
spaces due to the requirement of islands. In addition, reduction of
additional four spaces due to the access to the reserve parking area.
That would eliminate four spaces just to be able to access it.
I just want to make sure if we're going to agree to a
number today, that the number we agree to matches what physically can
be done on this site plan so that down the road we don't have another
board saying where did 88 come from or why can't we get it. I just
want to make sure it all matches.
MR. PICKWORTH: We have -- I mean, as you'll see in a
minute when we point out on the diagram, on the photo where this is,
we have -- it was drawn that way, but clearly if it became necessary
to pave it, we are required under the agreement to go the farthest, to
put in all the islands. There is almost unlimited amount of room for
this. There's no problem with -- with creating whatever number is
necessary.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No question, Mr. Pickworth, and I
understand that fully. I just don't want a numbers problem if this
comes back.
MR. PICKWORTH: I agree. And if -- if the -- if the --
if the agreement needs to say that we'll put all the islands in, I
assume we'd have to do that in any event, but if we need to say that,
we'll say it. There's no problem with that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's just that 88 is incorrect as
what is shown. You can't get 88 per what's shown, so I want the
number to gel with what's shown here on this plan.
MR. PICKWORTH: We would expand the area big enough so
that it will easily accommodate it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think we all understand
how we got to where we are right now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The -- It seems to me that what we
need to do is decide whether we're going to approve this as the
Planning Commission suggested or make some alteration. I think that's
-- that's where we ought to go right now. As far as I'm concerned,
this is a development. Of course, it's been in place for -- since the
'50s; is that right?
MR. PICKWORTH: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And, you know, they do have some
physical constraints to them, and whether or not the -- the'89
agreement was lived up to completely to the letter, at this point I
guess it's not as important as what we're going to do about it. And,
like I said, I'm fairly satisfied with -- with just going with the
Planning Commission's recommendations on this one. That's fine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think before we get too
convinced to that, we've got a couple of public speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if Mr. Boyle is
here or not but -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Pickworth has a presentation
to make.
MR. PICKWORTH: Yeah. I guess as the petitioner, I
would like the opportunity to address the board a little bit. I -- I
-- I think that -- that it has been my feeling from the time I got
involved in this -- I say some of you have a longer history on this
than I do. But at the time I got involved, it -- it appeared to me
that -- that trying to deal with, you know, how many parking places,
what was shown on plans, I mean, it's almost a fool's errand because
when you get all done with that, I'm not sure you're really any closer
to the solution. So we have simply worked with the number that was in
the agreement.
Let me point out something because this has not been
stated yet, and maybe everyone understands this and I don't need to.
But what we are talking about is the requirement in the agreement that
there be 294 parking spaces for the exclusive use of the hotel country
club. That is exclusive of these areas which are shared parking
areas. There is, in fact, an old shared parking agreement back in the
'70s at the time when the restaurant was sold, and, again, there are
people here who could talk all day on all the facts, and I'm not sure
any of that is relevant, other than in 1989 when the questions come
up, the board and the owners of the inn entered into an agreement
which said, okay, let's figure out how much parking do we need out
here. We know that both parties have the right to use this, but the
agreement says that while we share the use of this, we do not have the
right to count this as part of our required parking, and the agreement
requires us to have 294 spaces exclusive of this area. And so in
conformance with that, the -- and there were already -- I think Mr.
Nino went over some of the numbers -- 177. We had to do 117 more.
The condo, just to correct one thing, were not part of it. It was
actually -- We ended up -- Some of the spaces end up being put into
the exclusive area so it simply raised the amount of that. And that's
how we got to where we are.
And I think at the point where we're at today, as
Commissioner Norris stated, this facility has been here a long time,
and I think the real issue here is what is -- what's the solution.
The Land Development Code says where a property owner deems the
parking to be excessive, he can ask for it to be put into reserve. In
other words, what we're really here to talk about today is not to
argue about how many spaces are required. The real issue is how many
of them do we need to pave. And I don't think I need to point out
that avoiding creating additional pervious areas -- impervious areas,
is not a goal to be sought after. The ideal would be to have all the
parking you need and not one bit more because we -- you know, extra
asphalt doesn't do anybody any good, and that is why the code has
those kind of provisions in it so that when you have the situation
where you otherwise would be just creating additional and unnecessary
asphalt, you -- you -- you have the opportunity to simply put these
spaces into reserve.
And so I would suggest that vis-a-vis the Land
Development Code and what we're here to determine is you need to
satisfy yourself that, in fact, the -- the parking is excessive, i.e.,
that given -- that the amount of parking which we have in asphalt
right now is adequate to serve the needs of the inn and that,
therefore, there is not a need at this time to create more blacktop
parking area with the understanding, as Mr. Nino said, that the area
where that additional blacktop parking would be put if it becomes
necessary is going to be designated, and there's an agreement that's
part of this which says that if the Planning Services manager
determines that we need to -- to put it in, then we have to install
that parking.
So with that having been said, the only other thing I
think we need to say is for me to ask Kevin Durkin who is the general
manager of the inn to come up here and tell you what the parking
situation is so that you will be satisfied in your minds that, in
fact, the existing parking out there is more than adequate for the
needs of the inn right now without the need of creating any more
asphalt parking. And I think with that, we'll be happy to answer
questions, but I think that really satisfies what the -- what the code
says.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions for the
petitioner?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will when Mr. Durkin does
his thing.
MR. DURKIN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Kevin
Durkin. I'm the general manager of the Quality Inn Golf and Country
Club and have been for seven years. This is not new to me. One of
the purposes -- functions of my position is to inspect the facilities
on a daily basis as well as supervise the staff, and under that
function I have several department heads, about eight, that report to
me directly on the facilities including, of course, myself. I have
the advantage of being out there daily. And this -- If I may point
out an area, part of the agreement in 1989 was to build this
additional parking area. Of course, this, again, is the shared parking
area. And if I just may stress that this particular area in here --
there's an FPL station in here -- is never ever used. The only time
that we will use that parking area is to put a motor coach bus coming
in just for the unsightliness of having it in front of the property,
but it is never ever used.
We have a photo that was taken on February 21 at 10:15
in the morning, and the reason we picked that, it was the height of
our season. The golf course is at full capacity. The hotel is at
full capacity. The guests do not check out until 12:00, 12:30 in the
afternoon. So we figured it was a perfect time to show you the
maximum. And if anyone wants to take a look, I can get this closer.
Again, this is the parking part of the agreement of 1989. Again, this
is additional parking for which is -- now houses Rib City. Nothing
there. This is the shared parking, not full. There's parking in
front of both the east and west building, also not full. And, again,
this is never ever used. On New Year's Eve --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't suppose you had a
Shriners convention or anything that day. I'm just asking about
convention facilities too.
MR. DURKIN: Convention facilities have a maximum of
approximately 150 persons. I mean, we are not a Ritz-Carlton or
Registry in that aspect where we have parking for five, six, 700. I
think maybe -- Commissioner Constantine, I think we've had one
situation in my tenure there that we housed a Chamber of Commerce
Oktoberfest that I think was one time that I could remember that the
parking area was to capacity. That is it, and that was a special
event.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine, you had
a question.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had a couple of questions.
You pointed out as you went down through there the parking area used
for Rib City, there's no one parking in there. MR. DURKIN: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I suspect at dinnertime that
area is probably filled up. Rib City probably is not serving a lot of
ribs at 10:15 in the morning.
MR. DURKIN: No. I -- No. Good. Of course, Tim. At
occasion in the evening, 5:30, six o'clock, the spaces around the
restaurant, there's no question it's going to be -- those spaces will
be full, needless to say when the hotel is full, spaces in here.
There is never ever a time when they're still -- when there is a lack
of spaces in the shared parking again without this.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just north -- That last area
you pointed at -- Bring your -- MR. DURKIN: (indicating)
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There you go.
MR. DURKIN: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Over in that area, that
building just above the gray or whitish roof just above the
restaurant, those are -- that's not a hotel; correct?
MR. DURKIN: Those are two hotel units. There's 28
units in this building, and there's 12 in this, and this is the
restaurant off this.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. And then on the far
side are no longer --
MR. DURKIN: These are golf course --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those aren't your property.
MR. DURKIN: These are golf course condominiums --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
MR. DURKIN: -- not part of our property.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those are actually residents
HR. DURKIN: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and -- and -- Full-time
residents. It's safe to assume the majority of those people probably
work during the day.
MR. DURKIN: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So any spots they may have
over in their little neck is --
MR. DURKIN: Again, it doesn't really show. There's all
this vacant parking in here, and there's sufficient parking for each
of the units.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. The chickee hut
entertains at night.
MR. DURKIN: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's in the back. I'm
assuming while there may be some guests using the pool, that those who
come for libation and musical entertainment probably don't come at
10:15 in the morning.
MR. DURKIN: No, sir. But golfers at that point are
generally not out playing golf at that hour either.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have played a night
tournament.
MR. DURKIN: Yes, sir. I know you do.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Speaking of the chickee hut,
when was -- when did musical entertainment start regularly appearing
at the chickee hut?
MR. DURKIN: Hay I ask why that has any relevance to the
-- to the parking?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It will.
MR. DURKIN: 1989, 1990.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many nights a week do you
have it now?
MR. DURKIN: Four. Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and
Sunday.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you have it four nights a
week in 19897
MR. DURKIN: I believe so. It may even be at five. It
might have been Wednesday through Sunday.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm trying to get a feel for
whether or not that was included in the parking agreement or whether
there are -- there's some change in use since 1989.
MR. DURKIN: From -- From the time that the first
building which was the west building was built, the pool area was in
construction at the same time and the chickee was built at the same
time. When that opened in '89, there was entertainment at that point.
Yes.
Amplified entertainment?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE:
MR. DURKIN: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE:
you.
Okay. Just checking. Thank
MR. DURKIN: Yes, sir.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: But no karaoke?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Worst invention of our time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you finished?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, I am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Durkin --
MR. DURKIN: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- I have one question. Have
there ever been complaints from the shopping center across the street
from you of overflow parking or anything like that due to what's going
on at your establishment?
MR. DURKIN: Absolutely not.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Want to finish up whatever
you -- whatever else you intend -- MR. DURKIN: I have -- I have nothing else unless
anybody has some questions.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's your favorite color?
MR. DURKIN: Blue.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, are there public
speakers?
MR. CUYLER: Yes, there are. The first is Louis
Erickson.
MR. ERICKSON: Thank you, Commissioners. I'm Louis
Erickson, an attorney here on behalf of Mr. Hitchell, my client
sitting to the side who will also be speaking to you to confirm what
I'm -- or to answer more of your questions because he's more familiar
with it than I am. I'm familiar with the situ -- with the area in
that my law office is almost directly across the street. It's about
right here. It's not quite in the picture but it's -- and our concern
-- My client's concern is and what he tells me is that the chickee is
what bothers him, and it was constructed in 1990, and that's when the
music which he has complained of since 1990 or 1991, and for that
reason he is requesting that the variance not be provided to these
people. I don't know why they would be given a parking variance that
nobody else seems to get.
One of the things that has not been explained to me
during these proceedings is who owns what at this place. We know we
have a golf course. There's a motel. There's an inside restaurant,
and there's an outside restaurant. We do not know who owns each of
these entities, whether or not they're owned by the same people and
whether or not they were owned by the same people at the time the 1989
agreement which I -- you know, quite frankly, I was not aware of many
of these facts until today. I was not contacted by Mr. Mitchell on
this particular issue until yesterday. So I came here to learn much
as y'all are learning today.
Mr. Mitchell explains to me that there was a shed built
on the -- a shed used for dining purposes built just last year out by
the tennis courts, I believe it is. They -- The end of it -- You
know, the actuality of it is that these people have maintained an
establishment either -- Whether it's singularly owned or collective
organizations, they've maintained an establishment since 1990 with
improper parking, and the county has never done anything about it, and
now the county comes in and says give them a variance or give them a
reservation, whatever they want to call it, and Mr. Mitchell
concededly does object to the place. He was there before the chickee
was there, and his objection is -- and I don't know what the relevance
of it is here but I will -- I want to be honest with the
commissioners. His objection is the noise from the chickee. He lives
on the tenth hole, and during those hours that were brought out that
they have outdoor music at the chickee, it interferes with his use of
his property.
Now, I know you're not a court to make a determination
as to nuisances and that's not what we're here for today, but I want
you to understand that that is Mr. Hitchell's major complaint, and
that's why he objects along with -- I believe he'll testify or he'll
tell you -- I don't know if we're testifying here, but he'll tell you
that his neighbors object to the situation. And, quite frankly, they
don't want to give the Quality Inn a break for -- I think it's the
Quality Inn. They don't want to give them -- They don't want this
commission to give them a break for anything because the place is
already growing and growing; and, therefore, they want to put as much
financial pressure as they can on them to keep them from growing
further. Maybe it's selfish. Maybe it's community-oriented. I
suggest it's community-oriented. They feel that this Quality Inn is
destroying their -- their community life. They were there before the
chickee. They were there before much of the expansion at Quality Inn.
And that's why they want to put an end to it. And now I'll let Mr.
Mitchell speak.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Erickson, what's your
suggestion that we should do with this item then? MR. ERICKSON: With the what?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: With this item before us.
MR. ERICKSON: I suggest that -- This may sound -- I
don't know. I suggest that they be -- that it be denied, they be
required to build the parking areas that they're required to build.
And, quite frankly, it's in hopes of the possibilities that some
settlement can be reached between the neighbors and them that --
regarding the outdoor music.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. ERICKSON: Okay.
MR. CUYLER: Your next speaker is Mr. Mitchell.
MR. MITCHELL: Madam Chairman, I'm impressed with the
job here. You commissioners are very fine. Thank you very much for
it. I was here in -- in -- December the 26th, 1991, and presented a
petition of the neighborhood for the noise from the chickee hut. This
commission grant -- changed an ordinance for these people in 1993, but
it hasn't worked. They have no respect and no regard for the
neighborhood. They played karaoke out there on Mon -- on Mondays --
on Thursdays and Sundays at nights, and it carries right over into our
home.
I had this morning three witnesses that came here. Maybe
you saw them in the wheelchair when they came up. They left. That
was Barbara Batulli, a registered nurse, and her companion who were
there and they were -- but they could not stay this late, to tell you
what the influence of this has on our home.
You know, I first went to these people. They ignored
it. They ignored it. I called the sheriff. The sheriffs leave.
They're right back doing it. The management has no control over the
outside of this --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hr. Mitchell, I'm going to have
to ask -- Here in front, sir.
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Mitchell, the chair.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to have to ask you to
link what you're talking about to this parking agreement, not to
noise. The noise is covered with the noise ordinance.
HR. MITCHELL: Thank you very much. Then maybe I will
go back to the chickee hut then. When I called your planning staff, I
says, what provisions have they made at the chickee hut. Mentioned
none. But the chickee hut is the problem. If there's no provisions
made for the parking at the chickee hut, then their number is wrong.
The number was wrong too. There's a place right here that they have
developed.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sir, what we're trying to do is
address a 1989 parking agreement that was signed before the chickee
hut was built.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And if more parking is required,
which I'm not sure it is at this point -- we haven't addressed that.
But the noise from the chickee hut that you're alluding to doesn't
seem to be a part of this.
MR. HITCHELL: Ha'am, I believe that when you take it --
take the chickee hut and if it was in -- in to it without any, these
people have had a violation of the code for all this time and haven't
addressed it. This idea has been -- This is a sham and a way for them
to get out and get their way. It's -- It isn't fair. It's confused.
Now, there is a new construction that just finished last year or
they're still working on it, that part in the back of this building
right here.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hay I -- Hay I just interrupt to
ask staff -- how would that happen without the parking lot having been
brought up to code?
MR. HITCHELL: Thank you, ma'am.
MR. NINO: We've been advised that the chickee hut
occurred at the same time as the agreement.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not the chickee hut, Mr.
Nino. But the convention facilities were expanded, Mr. Durkin?
MR. DURKIN: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You didn't add anything --
any room on? You didn't --
MR. DURKIN: No, sir.
MR. NINO: We have no --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Durkin, you have to come
forward.
MR. NINO: We have no knowledge of any --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There was some construction
activity in there when I was meeting in there, so maybe I was
hallucinating.
MR. DURKIN: The only -- The only thing that we did last
year is we redid the roof and we extended the porte-cochere over to
give a little cover. Instead of the patio being open, it's covered.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Since 1989, have you extended
the indoor convention facilities?
MR. DURKIN: Since 1989, no, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you sure?
MR. DURKIN: 1989.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because I am absolutely
positive you did. When you go into your convention room, your meeting
room '-
MR. DURKIN: The carpet -- Tim, I apologize. The -- From
the -- The space from the end of the window, right, it had moved out I
believe six feet. Right. There are columns there. I do apologize --
when the roof was put on.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which would be probably an
extra four, 500 square feet.
MR. DURKIN: I think it was added six feet, six feet --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Times 80.
MR. DURKIN: -- 80 by -- No -- by 40, 45, somewhere
around there.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Whatever the number, wouldn't
that be enough to trigger -- How could the building permit -- MR. DURKIN: I do apologize.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- be approved without bringing
the whole project up to code? It couldn't be. Can't be.
MR. NINO: I can't answer the question. I am unaware of
these activities.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, the answer is it can't
be.
MR. HULHERE: Well, yes and no. Let me clarify. I'm
sorry. I don't mean to confuse things, but the Land Development Code
does not require that the whole site be brought up to code. The Land
Development --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Parking.
MR. HULHERE: The Land Development requires that for an
addition, that you provide the parking generated by that addition for
nonconforming use. That's what the Land Development Code reads today.
If I have -- If I need 50 spaces and I only have 25 and I'm going to
put an addition on and the addition requires ten spaces, I only have
to provide the ten spaces.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So can we get some -- some
evidence that -- I'm -- I'm -- I'm suggesting that I'm not going to be
prepared to vote on this item until we see some -- some indication
that when that expansion was made -- Somebody needs to do an
investigation of what, if any, permits have been issued since 1989 and
whether or not as a result of the issuance of those permits the -- the
code has been complied with with regard to parking and any other
applicable issues, and it sounds like that's an open question.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It seems -- It seems to me that
in 1989 if 294 parking spaces were required and they expanded their
facility by another even 400 square feet, that more parking should be
required and 294 parking spaces is no longer adequate. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MR. NINO: You're correct. But we -- we were unaware of
that. And if that's the case, you know, perhaps you would be well
advised to table this and we will investigate --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would like a motion to table.
MR. NINO: We will investigate whatever is applicable.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll move to table to
continue.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to add one more item to
this checklist.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's obvious when you build a
parking area and it gets done and you come in a week later, paint it
green, slap a fence around it and put some nets up and begin playing
tennis that there -- those were parking spaces. All of a sudden they
become tennis courts. I don't think there's a question that areas for
parking that weren't being used have been sacrificed for other uses on
this site, and I know that's not what we were here originally to
revisit. But if we're going to look at convention areas that may have
been extended and what parking was associated with that and what
decisions were made, I don't think we can ignore the fact that a
parking area has been painted green and is being used as a tennis
court. That's just kind of stuck with me through this whole thing,
that we're looking at a parking area and they just slapped a fence up
and started playing tennis on it after an -- after an agreement was
settled requiring a certain number of spaces. So I think there is the
need here for an overview and a current update before I can be
comfortable just saying, okay, reservation is fine and --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we're all concerned.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, how much time do
you need to do that?
MR. NINO: The next two weeks will be fine.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Two weeks?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we
continue the item for two weeks. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Mr. Pickworth, you're looking --
MR. PICKWORTH: I just have a question or two just so I
understand so what we can be prepared for in two weeks. I have -- We
have no problem --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're going to re-evaluate the
whole parking situation based on permits issued after 1989.
MR. PICKWORTH: But I -- I just -- I -- I just want to
emphasize so that we know what -- where this is going -- I mean, the
fact remains that -- that the parking that's already there, the
asphalt that's already there is more than what's needed. So if -- if
-- I guess what I'm trying to get a feel for is let's say that --
that there should have been ten more parking places when they -- when
they added that -- what Kevin just talked about. Are we going to pave
another ten spaces?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We want to find out what's
needed. Two weeks to do that.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Pickworth, would you
bring that photograph up closer for me?
MR. PICKWORTH: Sure.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: May I make a comment while we're
sort of pausing here?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- Just that I think this is
the kind of research that we should have gotten from staff, you know,
as a result of this petition coming in. I can see why you would have
made the assumption that there's an agreement and you've got to work
with it, but it is the kind of background that would be useful in any
event for us to have. So I just wanted to generally make that
comment. And particularly with -- with -- with what's being talked
about at Development Services right now, it's very troubling to hear
that we have permits issued and nobody knows if the parking was ever
-- you know, if those permits required the code to be complied with
with regard to parking issues. So that -- that seriously needs to be
addressed as far as I'm concerned.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're going to --
MR. PICKWORTH: I hope just on one last comment that,
you know, like these petitioners, like anyone else -- and maybe
something was missed, but when you apply for a building permit, I
think they -- I think they review whether or not the parking will
support it. So I just wanted to emphasize that, you know, we got
permits in good faith, thinking that it was -- that it was the proper
amount.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
continue this item for two weeks. If there's no further discussion,
all those in favor please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5-0. And, Mr. Hulhere,
we're going to get a complete analysis of the parking requirements?
MR. HULHERE: Yes, ma'am. You'll have a complete
analysis.
Item #13B1
RESOLUTION 95-291, RE PETITION CU-92-17, DR. NENO J. SPAGNA, OF FLORIDA
URBAN INSTITUTE, INC., REPRESENTING FIRST HAITIAN BAPTIST HISSION,
INC., REQUESTING A SECOND EXTENSION OF A CONTITIONAL USE FOR A CHURCH
AND ACCESSORY USES TO A CHURCH FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF U.S. 41 - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Next item on the agenda is
item 13B(1). It's Petition CU-92-17. This is a second continuation
or second extension of a conditional use.
MR. HULHERE: All right. This is the second of a
maximum of three requests for an extension to a conditional use on
behalf of -- or Dr. Neno Spagna on behalf of the First Haitian Baptist
Hission Church is requesting this extension and advises they have had
some difficulty in obtaining necessary state and federal permits.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Hulhere, let me -- let me --
Is there anything in particular we need to get on the record for this,
Mr. Cuyler?
MR. CUYLER: For this?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
MR. CUYLER: In terms of approving it?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. CUYLER: The staff report should be sufficient.
There's no conditions that are attached to it as part of the
continuance. Now, the staff report if you want to approve it should
be sufficient.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's a simple continuance of an
existing conditional use?
MR. HULHERE: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I'll close the public
hearing. Is there a motion --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the Petition CU-92-17 extension. All those in favor please
say aye.
Opposed? He's out there. He said aye.
Motion passes 5-0.
CONTINUATION OF ITEH #8F1
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Now we go back to the morning
agenda.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess so. We do. We're back
to the tower leases from the morning agenda. Mr. Norris Ijams.
MR. IJAMS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Norris Ijams,
for the record, Emergency Services administrator. Mr. Dotrill is here
now. I -- I suggest that we go ahead with this. We have researched
the minutes that Commissioner Hac'Kie had asked us to do. I apologize
for not having done that first. That's my responsibility, and we had
researched them to a point that I was satisfied, but your question was
a good one, and we have accomplished that now. I would ask Mr. Daly
to address this. He has talked directly today with Mr. Milk who was
involved in this originally. So I think we have the information that
you really need to go ahead with this.
MR. DORRILL: Let me give it to you in real quick bullet
fashion if you've got any questions for the staff. There were two
workshops. They were never board workshops. They were staff
workshops that were held to assist in preparing the tower
proliferation ordinance, and they occurred on June the 6th and June
the 24th of 1991. They were done, and then recommendations were made
to the Planning Commission. As part of that, there was a
representation made by -- at the staff meeting at Development
Services. There was a representation made by a GTE official that
county use on their towers would be at no charge.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hay I interrupt you just to ask,
is this based on a recollection, or was there a record, a written
record?
MR. DORRILL: There -- There were no minutes or a
tape-recording of the staff meeting that was held. There was a
sign-up sheet of those who were in attendance, and that is in the
file, I'm told, the people who were at the meeting and specifically
the gentleman from GTE corporate offices in Tampa. Mr. Daly can give
you that gentleman's name in just a minute.
Subsequent to that, on June the 16th of 1992, is the
note that I have, there was a consent agenda item for a pre-existing
use for a tower agreement that was done in conjunction, I believe,
with the sheriff's existing radio system. That particular agreement
also referenced that there would be no charge to the county
commission.
The staff has prepared some cost information on what the
-- a normal lease would otherwise be. I think we've determined that
the $10 per year is, in fact, a nominal fee when otherwise we had
quotes that were up to $3,000 per month for other tower site
alternatives that were explored. The $1,000 charge or execution fee
was not intended to be a lease or a rental but was to recover a cost
that they are going to incur for engineering purposes to make sure
that our microwave dishes and antenni do not conflict with their
cellular telephone transmitters.
Mr. Hargett has been in touch with GTE officials today
and said this appears to be an issue because it is being confused with
a rental or a lease. They have said that if it is a problem between
us and the county commission, they would remove that $1,000 fee. They
are still going to incur that engineering cost for the reasons that I
stated.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: And it seems to me appropriate
that they do remove that -- that fee because if -- and I wish we were
quoting but from -- from what you just said, there will be no charge
for the county's use. No charge doesn't mean a thousand bucks.
MR. DORRILL: The confusion arose over the difference
between a rental or a lease and access to the enclosed building for --
There's the tower but then every site has an enclosed building where
the hardware exists with the transmitters and receivers. Their intent
was that there would be no rental or fee, but they also agreed that if
this is a point of contention or a concern, that while they still will
incur that cost on our behalf, that they're willing to waive that for
the three towers and the total of 3,000 bucks.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. Save the taxpayers
$3,000.
MR. DORRILL: Did I miss anything?
MR. DALY: No. That's it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. The second was
withdrawn. The motion was to approve. The second was withdrawn. Is
there a second?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, did the motion
include -- or would the motion maker include the information Mr.
Dotrill just stated that stipulates the waiving of the $1,000 fee?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I would be more than happy to save
the county 3,000 additional dollars and include that in my motion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second the motion.
MR. CUYLER: And it also includes the indemnity language
that I talked about this morning.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, it did. It included that
this morning.
MR. DORRILL: One final thing Mr. Rodinsky had alluded
to last week and I just wanted to make sure that we cover all of these
things, there was an individual who was working on that tower during
the time that we were under a tornado watch. That individual was
doing commercial work. It was not work as part of this agreement or
any work as part of the sheriff's existing facilities there. They did
not have a proper permit to do that work, and we are pursuing a Code
Enforcement action and will require them to get an after-the-fact
permit and pay the associated fee for installing the antennas on top
of the tower during that day in question that he brought to our
attention.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good news.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one comment before we
vote, and that is to thank Mr. Rodinsky. If we had more people who
would come in and point out details like this to us -- $3,000, as I
said earlier today, in the big picture it may not sound like a lot of
-- a lot of money out of 300 million, but $3,000 is $3,000, and thank
you very much for bringing that to our attention and also for the Code
Enforcement violation, and I think I'm a little more comfortable. I
know you still have some questions on the water, but I'm more
comfortable with that. So I want to thank you for bringing it up.
MR. RODINSKY: Excuse me. I just want to thank the
commissioners and mainly thank Mr. Dorrill for his help in getting my
point across. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Rodinsky. There's
a motion and a second. All those in favor please say aye.
All those opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5-0.
Item #15
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I believe we have two
communication items.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So close.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So close but yet --
MR. DORRILL: The second one has resolved itself. In
talking to one other commissioner in receiving a piece of
correspondence concerning the rebate of the south area B taxing
district funds and the issue with respect to interest earnings on
those, I didn't know whether the board was desirous of reconsidering
its direction on that or if you want either Mr. Cuyler or I to be
doing anything about that and I'm just -- The issue came up over the
last several days and I'm asking the board for a little direction.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler.
MR. CUYLER: I can probably solve that for you. Before
we do anything, you're going to have another public hearing on this
matter. I personally don't care about this issue. I just want it out
of my office. I don't care whether the interest goes back or whether
the money goes in the general fund. That will be your decision, not
my decision.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we -- we can make that
decision at the public hearing.
MR. CUYLER: At the subsequent public hearing, we'll
give you an opportunity to reconsider that. Whatever you -- Whatever
you want to do on it is fine with me.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to me the public
hearing is obviously the right place. Hopefully we will opt to give
that interest back as well. I think that --
MR. CUYLER: There's --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Certainly held the money long
enough.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
MR. CUYLER: There's some other requests that the
additional money not go back to the people, it go to some other thing.
You're going to look at all that as part of it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Communication. Commissioner
Nothing further.
Commissioner Hancock.
Nothing.
Commissioner MAc'Kie.
No, ma'am.
Commissioner Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One quick item. Mr. Cuyler,
back in about November at one of the public hearings we had, the
people from -- some people from Golden Gate had inquired about the
possibility of rental or temporary housing inspections and so on and
so forth. We had hoped to have that back by January. I don't need
that today, but can we maybe get a report back on that next week where
we are?
MR. CUYLER: I'll check on that immediately. That's
still a pending request with our office. I'll check on that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's it? Miss Filson, are we
done?
MS. FILSON: You may -- You may adjourn.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're adjourned.
***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner
Hancock and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 95-277, AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS IN RUSTLING PINES, RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE
SECURITY, AND ACCEPTING THE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ROADWAY
AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
Item #16A2
See Pages
CHANGE OF STATUS OF EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.513 FROH "DEVELOPHENT" TO
"COHMERCIAL" AND REMOVAL OF 533,000 C.Y. OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL FROM
VILLAGE WALK
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 95-278, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS "THE VILLAGES AT
BARFIELD BAY"
Item #16A4
See Pages
FINAL PLAT OF "TRACT C AT WINDSTAR REPLAT" - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS
AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Item #16A5
See Pages
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR WEST CROWN POINTE, PHASE
TWO AND SOUTH SHORE VILLAS - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
See Pages
Item #16A6 - Continued to 4/25/95
Item #16A7
RESOLUTIONS 95-279, 95-280 AND 95-281, AUTHORIZING WAIVER OF ROAD
IMPACT FEES, LIBRARY SYSTEM IMPACT FEES, PARKS AND RECREATIONAL
FACILITY IMPACT FEES, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES SYSTEM IMPACT FEES AND
EDUCATIONAL FACILITY SYSTEM IMPACT FEES FOR THREE (3) SINGLE FAMILY
HOUSES TO BE BUILT BY IHMOKALEE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, INC. IN THE
GEHMER LANE SUBDIVISION AND TO FUND SAID WAIVERS FROM AFFORDABLE
HOUSING TRUST FUND (191)
See Pages
Item #16A8
REQUEST TO MODIFY PURCHASE ORDER NO. 500930 BY INCREASING THE PURCHASE
ORDER AMOUNT BY $6,000.00 TO COVER THE COSTS OF REQUIRED ADVERTISING
FOR LAND USE PETITIONS
Item #16C1
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE APPROPRIATION OF UNSPENT SENIORS PROGRAM AETNA
FUNDS - IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,935.83
Item #16C2
RESOLUTION 95-282, APPOINTING LOU HOEGSTEAD, HANK DOUGLAS, PAT COOKSON,
JOHN YONKOSKY, HOLLY CHERNOFF, JOHN BEGEHAN, LEO MEDIAVILLA, JIM
HANSBERGER, AND LETICIA GROSS AS OFFICERS TO COLLIER COUNTY AGRICULTURE
FAIR AND EXPOSITION, INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS
See Pages
Item #16C3 - Moved to Item #8C2
Item #16El
RESOLUTION 95-283, APPROVING THE PRICE INCREASE AT THE LAKE TRAFFORD
MEMORIAL GARDENS CEMETERY LOCATED IN IHMOKALEE, FLORIDA
See Pages
Item #16F1
A REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS THAT THE LEASE AGREEMENT
WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY FOR THE EHS HANGAR ADJACENT
TO AIRPORT ROAD HAS BEEN TERMINATED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISION INCLUDED
IN THE CURRENT LEASE AGREEMENT
Item #16F2
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF EVERGLADES IN ORDER FOR COLLIER COUNTY
TO UTILIZE EVERGLADES CITY'S EHS/FIRE FACILITY TO ACCOHMODATE THE
OCHOPEE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
See Pages
Item #16G1
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR SEA TURTLE MONITORING ACTIVITIES, RECOGNIZING
ALLOCATED REVENUES FROM THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX - IN THE AMOUNT OF
$50,900.00
Item #16H1 - Deleted
Item #16H2 - Deleted
Item #16H3
WORK ORDER UNDER THE CURRENT ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH WILKISON & ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO
DISPOSAL OF WASTEWATER FROM THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT
PLANT
See Pages
Item #16H4
WORK ORDER CEC-6-S WITH COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. TO
PERFORM THE ANNUAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WIGGINS PASS
DREDGING PROJECT - IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,400
See Pages
Item #16H5
STAFF REPORT ON THE WIGGINS PASS OUTSTANDING FLORIDA WATERS (OFW)
PETITION
Item #16H6
FORMAL BID PROCEDURES WAIVED FOR RESTORATION OF A HIGHLY ERODED PORTION
OF RENOURISHED HIDEAWAY BEACH AND AUTHORIZATION TO USE SOLICITED BIDS
FROM THE HIDEAWAY BEACH ASSOCIATION
Item #16J
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #16J1
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1993
NO. DATED
212 4/03/95
146 & 148
1994
1994
TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
128 & 129
Item #16K1
3/30 & 4/03/95
4/03 & 4/04/95
SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUHENTS FOR ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCES
See Pages
Item #16K2
APPROVAL FOR THE USE OF CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS TO PURCHASE SPECIALIZED
EQUIPMENT BY THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE - IN THE AMOUNT OF
$7,500
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 4:57 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Shelly Semmler and Christine E. Whitfield