BCC Minutes 08/15/1995 R REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 15, 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 following members
present:
ALSO PRESENT:
CHAIRPERSON:
VICE CHAIRMAN:
Bettye J. Hatthews
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager
Kenneth B. Cuyler, County Attorney
Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant
Deputy Paul Canady
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's convene the August 15
meeting of the Board of County Commission for Collier County.
Mr. Dorrill, would you lead us in an invocation and pledge.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks this
morning and on this particular week, the 50th anniversary of the end
of World War II. We certainly lift up, especially within our
community, the many, many veterans who served very ably this country
during World War II. We give thanks for them. We lift them up and
their testimony to you this morning on behalf of this nation.
Father, also, we give thanks for our community, the
wonderful quality of life that we enjoy in Collier County. We always
pray and give thanks for our elected officials who work so hard to
make the important business decisions for Collier County, and we'd ask
that you bless our family here this morning, and we pray these things
in your Son's holy name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, I don't see a change
sheet. Could it be?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. There is one item that is an
add-on item, and it will be under the Board of County Commissioners.
It will be item 10E, and that is a request to declare an emergency and
waive certain bidding requirements for the construction of security
facilities associated with the Smithsonian's Marco Cat Exhibit, 10E.
The county attorney has -- has asked me for purposes of
the record and our recording secretary to indicate that item 16D(3) on
the consent agenda will need to have a resolution number reserved in
conjunction with that item; but, otherwise, it can remain on the
consent agenda.
And I also want to advise the board this morning that
under communications, it is my pleasure this morning to announce to
you my intent to nominate Tom Conrecode to be your next public works
administrator and to tell you a little bit in advance of that and how
pleased I am to have that opportunity this morning, but I'll -- I'll
discuss that further under communications. And that is all that I
have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Norris,
do you have any changes to the agenda?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No, I don't.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. I have a discussion
item that may require board action regarding the possibility of
declaring an emergency on Royal Cove to wastewater treatment options.
Our utilities staff will be here ready to discuss that. And rather
than putting that under board communications, there may be the need
for action today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
MR. DORRILL: 8D(1).
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
So we need that --
8D(1).
D(1). Royal Cove, you say?
Yes, ma'am.
8D(1).
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just under board discussions, I
think we ought to have some discussion in response to the city
council's action yesterday on the bridge.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We agree. Next.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In case there's, again, action
that needs to be taken, that probably needs to be 10F, or do you want
that under transportation, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: I think 10F is fine.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 10F.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I also would take this chance to
tell you that I have a conflict on two items on the consent agenda,
16A(1) and 16A(3). So I'll abstain from voting on those issues.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A(1) and (3)?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would like to move 16H(5),
especially if we're going to be discussing the bridge, from the
consent agenda to the regular agenda.
MR. DORRILL: Which will become 8H(2).
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And I would ask the board that we
discuss that after our discussions on the bridge because this is the
design and construction contract for the bridge.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Chairman, I'll make a motion
that we accept the agenda and the consent agenda with the changes we
noted.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the agenda and the consent agenda as amended. All those in
favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 4-0.
Item #4
MINUTES OF JULY 18 AND 25, 1995 REGULAR MEETINGS - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I will move that
we approve the minutes of July 18, 1995, regular meeting and July 25,
1995, regular meeting.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve minutes for July 18 and 25 regular meetings. All those in
favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 4-0.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING ANDREAS KERTSCHER'S CONTRIBUTION TO COLLIER
COUNTY HISTORY - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is proclamations and service
awards, and I think we have a series of proclamations today, all that
are interrelated, so this is going to be interesting and fun to do.
The first proclamation I will -- I will read. Is Mike
McNamara -- You want to come forward? Mr. McNamara is going to be
accepting this proclamation in place of Mr. Andteas Kertscher. So I
-- with pleasure, I will now read it.
A proclamation, whereas, information and material of
great archaeological value contained within a state, 8CR48, known as
Marco Midden, was imperilled by imminent construction; and,
Whereas, there was presented the possibility of a
volunteer salvage excavation; and,
Whereas, the owner of the property, Mr. Andteas
Kertscher, granted permission for archaeological exploration of the
site.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed that the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, does hereby
congratulate and commend Mr. Andteas Kertscher for having materially
assisted a successful undertaking which resulted not only in a
discovery of much information of scientific value, but also served to
educate hundreds of citizens on part of the history of Collier County.
Done and ordered this 15th day of August 1995. Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida. Bettye J. Matthews,
Chairman.
I move that we accept this proclamation.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
All those in favor please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 4-0.
Mr. McNamara, you want to come up and I'll give this to
you. We have a series of these for different people. So if you want
to kind of hang out because other people want pictures and stuff. MR. MCNAHARA: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
Item #5A2
PROCLAivLATION RECOGNIZING RANDOLPH J. WIDMER'S CONTRIBUTION TO COLLIER
COUNTY HISTORY - ADOPTED
The next item on the agenda is another proclamation.
Commissioner Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Chairman. Is
Randolph J. Widmer here?
MR. WIDMER: Yes.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Widmer, would you come
forward, and I'll read your proclamation for you.
Whereas, a site, 8CR48, known as Marco Midden,
containing information and material of great archaeological value was
imperilled by imminent construction; and,
Whereas, there was no existing institution or facility
in position to perform a timely salvage excavation; and,
Whereas, Randolph J. Widmer, Ph.D., volunteered to
devote two months of his time to designing and supervising a fruitful
excavation of the site.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed that the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, does hereby
congratulate and commend Randolph J. Widmer, Ph.D., for having carried
out a successful undertaking which resulted not only in the discovery
of much information of scientific value, but also served to educate
hundreds of citizens on part of the history of Collier County.
Done and ordered this 15th day of August 1995 by the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida.
And, Miss Chairman, I'll make a motion that we accept
this proclamation.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
accept the proclamation. All in favor please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes 4-0. Thank you.
MR. WIDMER: Thank you very much.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Dr. Widmer.
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING REBECCA STORY'S CONTRIBUTION TO COLLIER COUNTY
HISTORY - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is a
proclamation. Mr. Hancock, you want to do this one?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why certainly. Is Rebecca Story
-- Dr. Story here? Right there.
Whereas, a site, 8CR48, known as Marco Hidden,
containing information and material of great archaeological value was
imperilled by imminent construction; and,
Whereas, there was no existing institution or facility
in position to perform a timely salvage excavation; and,
Whereas, Rebecca Story, Ph.D., volunteered to -- to
devote two months of her time to serving as field supervisor during a
fruitful excavation of the site.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, we do hereby congratulate
and commend Rebecca Story, Ph.D., for having contributed materially to
a successful undertaking which resulted not only in the discovery of
much information of scientific value, but also served to educate
hundreds of citizens on a part of the history of Collier County.
Done and ordered this 15th day of August 1995. Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida.
Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we accept
this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
accept the proclamation. All in favor please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, passes 4-0.
Item #5A4
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE MARCO CHAPTER, COLLIER COUNTY HISTORICAL
SOCIETY'S CONTRIBUTION TO COLLIER COUNTY HISTORY - ADOPTED
We have another proclamation. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is Betsy Perdichizzi here? And
did I come close to pronouncing it?
MS. PERDICHIZZI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: She can be seen locally on
channel two.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you might want to turn and
face the camera and wave to the kids at home.
Whereas, a site, 8CR48, known as Marco Hidden,
containing information and material of great archaeological value was
imperilled by imminent construction; and,
Whereas, there was no existing institution or facility
in position to perform a timely salvage excavation; and,
Whereas, the Marco Island Chapter, Collier County
Historical Society, undertook to serve as sponsor for the excavation
of the site, arranging for the donation of thousands of dollars of
goods and services and the work of hundreds of volunteer workers.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, does hereby congratulate and
commend the Marco Chapter, Collier County Historical Society for
having contributed materially to a successful undertaking which
resulted not only in the discovery of much information of scientific
value, but also served to educate hundreds of citizens on part of the
history of Collier County.
(Commissioner Constantine entered the board room.)
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Done and ordered this 15th day of
August 1995. Board of County Commissioners. Bettye J. Matthews,
Chairman.
And I'd like to move we accept this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
accept the proclamation. All in favor please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes 5-0. Thank you.
Item #5A5
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY'S
CONTRIBUTION TO COLLIER COUNTY HISTORY - ADOPTED
Another proclamation, Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: To put the last piece of this
archaeological puzzle together -- is Mr. Jack Thompson, treasurer of
the Southwest Florida Archaeological Society here? Mr. Thompson.
Whereas, the site, 8CR48, known as Marco Midden,
containing information and material of great archaeological value was
imperilled by imminent construction; and,
Whereas, there was no existing institution or facility
in position to perform a timely salvage excavation; and,
Whereas, the Southwest Florida Archaeological Society
volunteered to assist in a volunteer exploration of the site, lending
equipment, making a contour map, and establishing a grid of the area,
and devoting hundreds of hours of volunteer work at the Craighead
laboratory.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed that the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, does hereby
congratulate and commend the Southwest Florida Archaeological Society
for having contributed materially to a successful undertaking which
resulted in not only the discovery of much information of scientific
value, but also served to educate hundreds of citizens on part of the
history of Collier County.
Done and ordered this 15th day of August 1995. Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida.
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 in favor please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes 5-0. Thank you.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want that shirt to show on TV.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Isn't that a nice shirt?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's great.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's really nice.
Next -- Did -- I thought we might have somebody that
wanted some pictures of all of these people together. Have you got
it?
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you do --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, you do.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why don't we -- For all the work
you've been doing, there's a lot of clean fingernails out there.
MR. WIDHER: You haven't looked closely.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much.
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Next item on the agenda is service awards. Commissioner
Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. The first service award I
have -- Is Julio Ordonez here? Mr. Ordonez. I would like to
recognize Mr. Ordonez with the Office of Capital Project Management
for five years of service to Collier County.
Is Mr. Carl Shea here? There, he is. Mr. Shea is with
water distribution. I'd also like to recognize Mr. Shea for five-year
service to Collier County.
Today's recipient of the decade award for ten-year
service with Parks and Recreation, Gary Franco.
I can attest to Gary's work. I spent yesterday dragging
infields and mowing infields at Golden Gate Community Center. So
they're -- they're working hard out there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Did you have fun?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Nothing like good healthy work,
huh? It's great.
Item #5Cl
THOMAS N. BRAUN, ANIMAL CONTROL/PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION, EHPLOYEE OF
THE MONTH FOR AUGUST 1995 - RECOGNIZED
Next item on the agenda is presentations, and it gives
me pleasure, as I'm sure it does every commission chairman each month,
to recognize our employee of the month. This month, Thomas Braun from
Animal Control. Tom, you want to come up and turn around a little bit
so that all of our citizens at home can see what you look like so when
they go adopt an animal they know who to call on.
MR. BRAUN: That's when we like to see them.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. That's when I like to see
them. You want to turn around so that -- Okay. Thanks.
MR. DORRILL: Smile a little, Tom.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Smile.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: He is having fun. Leave him
alone.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Braun began work for the
county in 1982. He began as a kennel worker. He -- and over this
period of time, he's cared for some 60,000 animals. The board has
presented him with a ten-year perfect attendance award, and he
continues to this date to maintain perfect attendance. He has risen
in the period of time since 1982 to achieve the position of Animal
Control officer, and he receives excellent to superior performance
appraisals and merit pay bonuses. He contributes well to the morale
of the department. He's loyal to the county. And it is without
reservation that he was nominated and selected for employee of the
month for August 1995.
Mr. Braun, I have a letter for you, and it simply says
it is indeed a pleasure for us to announce your selection as Collier
County's employee of the month for August 1995. Along with that
letter is a check for $50 which we can all use; right?
MR. BRAUN: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I can too. And we have a plaque
that says Collier County Board of County Commissioners, Collier
County, Florida, employee of the month, official recognition and
appreciation is tendered to Thomas Braun for exceptional performance,
August of 1995. And that doesn't mean you did it just during August
of 1995 but for 13 consecutive years. Thank you very much.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You'll be able to see Tom coming.
It will be the Animal Control truck with the plaque in the
windshield.
Item #5C2
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD ABOUT THE COHMUNITY TRAFFIC SAFETY TEAM -
PRESENTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The last item under presentations
and awards is a presentation this time to the board. Is Mr. Kant
here? He's here.
MR. KANT: Good morning, Commissioners, Mr. Dotrill, and
members of the public. My name is Edward Kant. I'm the senior
engineer of transportation services, and I wanted to thank you, first
of all, for inviting us to join you this morning, and I want to take
this opportunity to introduce to the community the community traffic
safety team.
What I've handed you is a little package with some basic
information and an agenda for our official kickoff this afternoon at
two o'clock over in the county museum building, and everybody is
invited to be there. It's not going to be very fancy, but we hope it
will be very interesting.
And I wanted to just make a couple of brief prefatory
remarks. People may not be aware, but in 1994 Collier County had over
5,200 vehicular crashes. That's better than 100 a week. Of these,
over 4,000 were on streets and highways, and the remainder were in
parking lots or other off-highway locations. Now, those figures do
not include any in the City of Naples nor do they include any with
property damage less than $500. That will give you an idea of the
scope of the problem as we see it.
The community traffic safety team program started in
Florida as a unified multi-agency effort to reduce vehicular crash
rates. Our mission is to try to reduce both the severity and the
number of crashes. To do this, we -- we have tried to utilize a team
approach, and we combine what we call the four Es, enforcement,
education, emergency services, and engineering. These agencies are
involved in traffic safety and can address road improvements, driver
education, and enhanced response times. This task force approach
brings a variety of perspectives into play when solving mutual traffic
safety problems. Collier County is very fortunate in being able to
participate in this program because several of the local agencies --
our agency, the sheriff's department, and the emergency services
department particularly, learned of the success of this approach in
other locales, and participation has been made available through the
auspices of the Florida Department of Transportation.
Let me give you just a few highlights of what this
multi-disciplinary approach brings to safe traffic management.
Engineering is probably the most obvious in that road improvements are
usually the first step in decreasing crashes. In determining what
road enhancements are necessary, crash information is reviewed to
identify the location of crash cjusters, road deficiencies, and other
contributing factors of the crash problem. Road enhancements within
the scope of this program have several distinct characteristics.
First of all, they must be safety-related. They must be
cost-efficient. They must not require some lengthy design or study
time, and they must be able to be implemented in a very short time.
The public education component of the program is
designed to improve driver performance. Data collected over the past
decade is very clear in indicating that most crashes are caused by
driver error. Public education targets not only the individual
driver, but shopping and business centers by placing educational
materials, such as fliers and posters, in stores and other
establishments. Typically the topics covered include safety belt
usage, drinking and driving, speeding, unsafe driving practices,
bicycle/pedestrian safety, et cetera. In addition, we're also working
to develop materials and methods to extend this component into the
school system.
Emergency services is the third leg of this four-legged
stool, if you will. Through public awareness, education efforts and
multi-agency cooperation, the safety team approach works to identify
means to reduce response time for emergency vehicles. In addition, a
portion of the educational effort is directed toward making drivers
more aware of the rules of the road with respect to emergency
vehicles.
And, lastly, the enforcement aspect. The main objective
of law enforcement agencies' efforts in Collier County is to reduce
traffic crashes and fatalities through increased training of traffic
officers and the use of selective traffic enforcement tactics and
programs. Data collected with respect to selective enforcement
programs has demonstrated a direct correlation between increased
enforcement and decreases in crash rates.
I have a lot of statistics which I won't bore you with,
but I did also try to look around to see what we could do to help make
this program more approachable to most people, and I found that I have
a couple of friends that I asked to come along with me that might help
to bring this message home. I wonder if they're here. Oh, yeah.
They just got here. I'm sure you'll recognize my friends, Vince and
Larry.
CRASH TEST DUMMY VINCE: I know you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm surprised that they're still
intact. I thought they lost their heads many a time.
MR. KANT: Somewhat -- Somewhat the worst for wear.
MR. DORRILL: Larry.
CRASH TEST DUMMY LARRY: You don't have a seat belt on?
MR. DORRILL: No seat belts here. Thank you.
CRASH TEST DUMMY VINCE: Do you wear your seat belt?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, I do.
CRASH TEST DUMMY VINCE: How often?
MR. DORRILL: 90 percent of the time.
CRASH TEST DUMMY VINCE: 90 percent.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I tried to wear one in here, but
they wouldn't let me.
MR. KANT: They were very disturbed they didn't find
seat belts on all these chairs out here considering the action that
goes on in this room.
I might point out that the vests were one of the
handouts that we used earlier in the year that Anita Chapman had come
up with for the Bike To Work Day, and we thought that because they are
a lovely color guaranteed to clash with anything in your wardrobe,
that they would be somewhat appropriate for this presentation.
Ladies and gentlemen, Commission, Mr. Dotrill, guests,
I'd like to thank you very much for inviting us to make this
presentation, and I would like to, once again, invite everybody to our
kickoff which will be at two o'clock at the county museum over on
Harrison Road. If there are any questions, I'll do my best to answer
them.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. I -- Since you gave us
these bibs, I assume we're having spaghetti dinner over there. Is
that --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Lobster.
MR. KANT: We have more on the order of oatmeal cookies
and Kool-aid, but one never knows. Thank you again.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Kant.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie is out
of uniform.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry, guys.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What a party-pooper.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Private joke up here. Next item
on the agenda is approval of the clerk's report, and I note we have
new information this time which is interim financial information
regarding the investments. Ordinarily we don't have any input with
the clerk's report, but if there are questions, I see Miss Hankins is
here to answer them.
Apparently there are no questions. Thank you, Miss
Hankins.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry. We're playing with our
toys.
Item #SA1
RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD REVIEW THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL
PLANNING COUNCIL EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT, REVIEW DELEGATION
AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COHMUNITY AFFAIRS AND FORMALLY REQUEST
DELEGATION OF SUFFICIENCY REVIEW OF THE COLLIER EVALUATION AND
APPRAISAL REPORT TO THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL -
DELEGATION AGREEMENT APPROVED; STAFF AND CAC TO PREPARE ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION FOR WORKSHOP MEETING OF 8/22/95
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is into
the county manager's report, 8A(1), under community development, and
this is a recommendation that the board review the Southwest Florida
Regional Planning Council evaluation and appraisal delegation
agreement. Mr. Litsinger.
MR. LITSINGER: Good morning, Madam Chairman,
Commissioners. As you're aware as we notified you previously, the
regional planning council has been attempting to enter into a
delegation agreement with the Department of Community Affairs --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Easy for you to say.
MR. LITSINGER: Yes -- to -- to receive delegation of
the review -- sufficiency review of the county and municipal EAR
submittals within the council's area of responsibility. We were
recently notified and received a copy of that delegation agreement
which is attached. Staff has reviewed the proposed delegation
agreement, as has the legal staff, and we would recommend to you that
you transmit the attached letter to the Department of Community
Affairs requesting that the regional planning council coordinate and
do the primary review activities on our EAR.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions?
There are none. Mr. Dotrill, can we get some input from
Mr. Litsinger -- or I see Mr. Simpson's here. He's chairman of the
CAC -- as to what the progress is on this, and are we going to meet
our deadlines?
MR. DORRILL: Either -- Either one or both. We're at
your discretion on that. Mr. Simpson said he'd be happy to answer
questions if asked.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a great looking tie
Mr. Simpson has on.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It is, isn't it? Mr. Simpson,
could you tell us a little bit about what the CAC is doing and -- and
what the prospect is? I know when we first entertained creating the
CAC several months ago, there was a question whether we could finish
on time, and we were assured at that point that we could extend if it
was necessary and we were showing decent progress. So I'm -- I know
we have a lot of work ahead of us on it.
MR. SIMPSON: Right. The one thing I'd like to mention
to the county commission and to the members of the public is that on
the various governmental committees and volunteer committees that I've
volunteered to work on in the past, this has been the most devoted,
hardest-working committee that I have had the privilege to work with.
The members of these committees and each subcommittee is spending
hours and hours each week preparing for their meetings which takes
hours and hours of discussing the material which they have prepared
for. I -- I am very impressed with the group of people that you've
chosen to work on this, and I really appreciate the opportunity to
work with such a community-minded and devoted group of individuals.
One of the issues that has come up for discussion in our
meetings is the time frame in which we have to complete the tasks.
The original schedule that I have right here shows that the work
products by staff were originally assumed to be complete and submitted
to the CAC to begin their review in MAy of this year. Last night we
had a report on when we would get the final packages submitted to us,
and it appears that this time that the actual completed work products
will be submitted to us sometime in mid September.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. Can I interrupt you
for a second?
MR. SIMPSON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what you have -- This is news
to me, and I'm trying to be sure I'm getting it right. What you've
been reviewing for the months that you've been reviewing so far is not
the final product?
MR. SIMPSON: We have --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're going to get the final
product in September?
MR. SIMPSON: We have -- We have received portions of
the goals and objectives. We have not received the narratives which
is really in many cases the bulk of the material that outlines the
intent and the philosophy in which those goals and objectives are to
meet. So the work that they have had and the time they have spent has
been productive. But being able to -- to start out with a complete
picture and understand how each of those components need to be
evaluated and measured and where the good quality recommendations
would come from has really not yet been able to -- to be achieved, and
I think it's critical, and with a committee like this, they really
care about the product and the quality of the work. So their devotion
to a commitment to generating that quality product is definitely
there. The problem is, is that our assumptions were that we were
going to be able to start with a complete picture in May.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I thought too, and so
I'm wondering from our staff -- Mr. Dotrill, I don't know who to ask
but isn't that -- I understood in May when we appointed this committee
that we had staff's documents, their recommendation ready for this
committee to review, and now we hear they don't have it yet? That's
not -- doesn't make sense.
MR. DORRILL: I think what he said was they have -- have
parts of it. I'll ask Mr. Cautero to provide a little more complete
response. And my understanding is our deadline is January?
MR. CAUTERO: January 1st. Vince Cautero, community
development administrator. It's my understanding, Madam Chairman and
Commissioners, that when the committee was established, which I
believe was late last year, that the staff met with you last January
and discussed the timing on the issue. The staff has been preparing
documents and forwarding them to the Citizens Advisory Committee as
they're completed, and I believe what Mr. Simpson is talking about is
complete documents that create a synopsis, if you will, of all of the
-- the elements, not just the goals, objectives, and policies, but
these narrative documents that really talk about how the element is
working, whether it's been successful, whether it's failed in certain
areas, and those documents have been forthcoming slowly, and they
would not be produced until the middle of September.
What I spoke to the committee about last evening at
their meeting was that we were still trying to meet the deadline, that
we were concerned that we did not want to show the Department of
Community Affairs that we were working in bad faith, that we wanted to
meet that deadline, and we proposed a program that we could meet that
deadline. The committee found that -- I believe the committee found
that discussion on my part unsuccessful or not palatable and made a
unanimous recommendation to ask for an extension. I believe Mr.
Simpson -- I don't want to take words out of his mouth, but I believe
he's going to -- to present that to you so that we -- so that the
committee can have more time to discuss the issues.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What we were hearing in January
when we created the committee and the manner under which it was going
to work, that if we needed additional time and we were working in good
faith toward getting the EAR completed, that that would not be a
difficult thing to accomplish. And it's my understanding, again,
based on the information in January that the only penalty for not
completing it on time is not being able to make any growth management
plan amendments until it is completed, and I don't know why we would
want to make any if it's not completed. So -- I'm sorry, but is the
horse before the cart or the cart before the horse?
MR. CAUTERO: Well, I believe your assessment about the
penalty, if you will, that DCA might assess is correct. We don't
prefer to look at it as a penalty. It's just submitting your report
late. There's no way to extend a deadline. Your deadline is your
deadline. It's really a policy decision as to whether you want to
meet that or not and accept the fact that you would not be able to
amend your comprehensive plan, at least for the EAR-based amendments,
until such time as that EAR report is accepted by the Department of
Community Affairs. My only intent was to try to produce a work
product on time for the board because I do not want the board to be
left with the impression that the planning staff is not doing their
job.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I wouldn't want the
planning staff to think that we think you're not doing the job. I
think -- I think we agreed when we went into this in January that this
is a very comprehensive project and quite a large project, and that
we've had this plan now for five years, and we are now assessing what
we have and whether it works or doesn't work and what changes we need
to make. And if -- if our committee that we formed can't get all of
the information to make that assessment until four months after they
expected to have it, I don't see how they can complete it on time.
MR. CAUTERO: Well, again, you know, I -- I have no
basis to disagree with the committee's opinion, and if that's their
opinion, fine. I just was trying to come up with a program that --
where we could meet the deadline and they felt that there was more
time needed for public participation and to look at the document.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't know how my colleagues
feel, but I would be more interested in a good assessment and a good
report rather than simply meeting it on time for the sake of meeting
it on time. I mean --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I absolutely think that we've
asked some very busy people who don't have time but for, you know,
their willingness to give it up to work on this, and I have no
interest in sending it to the state until our committee tells us that
they're -- they've thoroughly reviewed it and are happy with it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other comments? Mr. --
Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's important to note
that -- that, in essence, we've been working on both fronts. Mr.
Simpson and the committee have been trying to do the valuable review
that we so much want. Mr. Cautero has been working as hard as he can
to make sure it's on time. So I don't think there's any -- any lack
of effort out there. But if you're asking for direction, rather than
just meeting the deadline and coming up with something that's well
short of what we expected, I would rather go for a rather complete
review and -- and take the valuable time that has been spent by the
committee and continue to use it effectively as opposed to -- If we
just meet the deadline, we may be throwing those efforts away, and I'd
hate to see that happen. So that's the direction I'd like to come
from.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I make a suggestion since
next Tuesday our workshop will be on growth management and land
development, that we ask Mr. Simpson to prepare a better report and
talk with us in a workshop environment where we can brainstorm a
little bit more about what the CAC is doing and -- and when they
expect to finish the project and when development services expects to
be able to bring it all together so that we know and they know that
we're all working toward a common goal?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that would be
appropriate. One thing we may want to remind ourselves is we don't
exactly have all the staffing we'd like to have when a project like
this comes before us in -- in long-range planning. So that's a
hindrance, I think, also --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, yeah.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in getting the proper
information.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Certainly. And -- and -- and --
and I'm sure that's part of the problem. I mean, when the product was
due to the CAC, Mr. Cautero wasn't with us yet. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So -- and -- and -- and I'm sure
everybody is making every effort, but we -- we need to get to a common
goal.
MR. SIMPSON: I in no way intend to -- to communicate to
you that I think that the staff has been negligent in any way in what
they've done. That is -- is not our intent. It's just that we've had
certain limitations, and as -- as we have limitations in getting our
information, the staffing and the full responsibilities of each of
their jobs I'm sure has great impact on that.
MR. DORRILL: Could you -- Could you share with me, Mr.
Simpson, just because I hadn't really heard much of this before -- are
there particular elements that -- that you're waiting to see that are
a higher priority, to give me an idea of where we may be able to
teassign some staff because I think Mr. Hancock's point is a good one.
We -- We didn't staff up to undertake this particular project. Your
staff is trying to do this on top of all their other work that they
have. But if there's some particular elements that you feel need to
move forward a little bit, I'd like to hear that today.
MR. SIMPSON: I don't have a -- I don't have a complete
assessment to give you right now, but I'll give you kind of a synopsis
from a discussion that the committee chairmen had last week. The
public facilities -- we still haven't received some of the goals,
objectives, and policies and evaluation on the parks and rec and solid
waste. The narratives for the natural resources, public facilities,
future land use, and housing haven't been reviewed yet. I'm not sure,
but I don't even think housing has even received the narrative yet.
They may have, but I'm not sure which of these have received it. I
just have in my notes which ones have not reviewed the narrative. So,
you know, that's just some brief notes, but I'm sure that -- that Mr.
Litsinger can give you the correct answer. He may not have it with
him, but I'm sure that he track --
MR. DORRILL: I have the following question for Mr.
Litsinger or either Mr. Cautero. Could you just at least explain to
the board the importance of the narrative. And forgive my -- my
innocence here, but I always thought that, frankly, a lot of the
narrative was, in effect, boilerplate, and I hate to use that word,
but I will for lack of a better one, where the specific goals,
objectives, and then the enabling policies were the real meat of the
document and I just -- I'm trying to get a sense of priority and
importance. I understand there's no impending crisis here. We're
talking in August about something that's not due for another four or
five months in January, and I understand that. I'm trying to get some
relative priority of what is important in the total scheme of this
committee's work, given the coordination that you're doing.
MR. SIMPSON: After Mr. Litsinger, I'd like to respond
also to that but from the point of view of the CAC.
MR. LITSINGER: The -- The rule which governs this
process called 9J-uh-oh-53 calls for any number of work products.
MR. DORRILL: That's my son's latest new word, is uh-oh.
MR. LITSINGER: Uh-oh.
MR. DORRILL: Everything is uh-oh with him.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-oh.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that when he's swirling his
hand in the toilet, Neil?
MR. DORRILL: Yeah.
MR. LITSINGER: Uh-oh-53. And it has a rather extensive
list of work products, everything from items which are not clearly
defined such as a complete inventory of all your commercial and
industrial property and the condition thereof. We haven't quite been
able to define exactly what that is yet. It obviously calls for the
evaluation of the successes and failures of all your goals and
policies. It also goes on to require what we call the staff's
dissertation, if you will, with input from the CAC of the condition of
each element at the date of adoption compared to the condition of each
element at the time of the EAR which in some cases is many hundred
pages thick. It is a daunting task, as I noted to you back in
February, and we have had some staff shortages. We did hire some
temporary staff this summer who were very helpful. I believe that we
will have all the work products in their final form certainly no later
than the next meeting of the CAC. The subcommittees are receiving
most of the final work products probably before the end of this month,
and I apologize in that the original staff deadline was Hay 31.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I think we need to talk
more about it Tuesday at the workshop. Mr. Simpson.
MR. SIMPSON: Just one comment. The narratives set
forth a philosophical statement as to how each of the goals,
objectives, and policies should be implemented. That's really the
critical part that sets the quality of what's being done for each of
those components. That's probably, at least from our perspective, the
most important component of the entire plan, is what's in that
narrative. So it -- it's -- it's -- it's -- it's very important that
the narrative be presented at the same time goals, policies, and
objectives are presented so that they can see if they actually match.
So we'll go into that at a later date.
MR. DORRILL: We'll have a little spreadsheet to -- to
make a little more sense of this Tuesday as one of your workshop
items.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Simpson, can -- can you
attend Tuesday's workshop?
MR. SIMPSON: I believe so.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd appreciate that if you can to
help us through this.
MR. SIMPSON: I would need some preparation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to make a request
for Tuesday. Let's go in with the mindset that, one, we've got the
resources and depth on the Citizens Advisory Committee to -- to do a
-- an excellent job for this community. Let's go in with the mindset
that -- what is the best and easiest way to approach this thing and
enable you to do the work that you have volunteered your time to do.
On the other side, on the staff side, I would like to
see what can we do to make sure they have everything they need and
assist them through the process in the most efficient manner.
Anything outside of those two questions seems to be a waste of time.
And if we can just approach it from that tack and be very aggressive
on Tuesday on how we're going to move ahead on this, you know, that --
that's really I think would the best use of our time then and -- and
I'd like to see us focus on that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler.
MR. CUYLER: I know the board's aware of this, but just
to keep things in perspective, I think everybody needs to realize this
is the most work that's been put into the comp plan since the adoption
of the comp plan --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And Lord knows, it needs a lot of
work.
MR. CUYLER: -- and that was a big project. I think
"daunting task" is probably an understatement but --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think with all the concern that
citizens in Collier County have had in the last two or three years
with the bridge; with rock quarries; with road widenings, four lanes
versus six lanes versus eight lanes or what have you, that this is a
real important tool. So -- So we'll see you Tuesday.
MR. SIMPSON: I do recommend that you go forward with
the regional planning council, the review vehicle. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Litsinger, is that something
we need to do today?
MR. LITSINGER: A motion and a vote to request formal
delegation to the regional planning council, sufficiency review of the
EAR.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So moved.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second
that we move forward with the delegation agreement to the regional
planning council. All those in favor -- I'm sorry. Is there further
discussion?
There being none, all those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 5-0.
MR. LITSINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Litsinger.
Item #8C1
RESOLUTION 95-465 AUTHORIZING THE COHMERCIAL PAPER PROGRAM FINANCING
FOR THE LAKE AVALON PROPERTY - ADOPTED; AND STAFF RECOHMENDATION
APPROVED
Next item on the agenda is item 8C(1) under public
services. This is the closing documents on Lake Avalon.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For the record again, I need to
make a record of my conflict of interest since I represent the option
holder in this matter, so I won't participate in these discussions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there still a conflict, Mr.
Cuyler, for her? We've already agreed to buy it.
MR. CUYLER: Yes, there is still a conflict.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good morning.
MR. OLLIFF: For the record, Tom Olliff, your public
services administrator, and this item is a recommendation that the
board approve actually a long list of things necessary in order for
your staff to be able to close on the Lake Avalon property, including
some closing documents for the property and agreement between Mr. And
Mrs. Herbert J. Sugden, a resolution authorizing commercial paper
program and some budget amendments in order to move county funds into
appropriate cost centers.
I suppose I've dealt with more complicated projects and
closings, but, frankly, I couldn't tell you when. This is an
extremely complicated item, primarily because of the number of
different funding sources and the fact that the property is owned by
an option holder. So we're dealing with pretty much a three-party
single closing, and there are just a lot of details to be worked out
in order for this property to close. I believe in the executive
summary we have outlined all that needs to happen in order for the
county to be able to secure this property on or before August 31, and
I'll walk you through those very quickly.
Initially, the county had some concerns about the
environmental issues associated with the lake itself. The staff had
some environmental assessments done and a bottom survey. We had
initial water quality testing done which came back and -- as well as
the bottom survey indicated nothing that would cause any concern at
all. And, in fact, interestingly enough, the bottom survey, rather
than pointing out some of the folklore about cranes and things being
at the bottom of the lake, instead pointed out a lot of snook and bass
and lot of weeds, and that was about all that we got back on that
report.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's not bad at all.
MR. OLLIFF: The necessary resolutions for the
commercial paper program are attached. There are resolutions
necessary in order for the county to draw down on that commercial
paper program. There's also an agreement between Collier County and
the Sugdens and -- and this is done primarily because the Sugdens are
unavailable to be able to actually make that transfer until after the
date when the property would need to close. So what we've done is, in
order for the board to feel comfortable about that commitment as it
was contingent, the property closing on us having that funding in
hand, we've executed an agreement and -- and yesterday I received by
-- by Federal Express an executed copy of that agreement with the
Sugdens securing that money for us. But because of timing, I think
we've -- we've noted in the executive summary that the original plan
was to actually use the donated funds as part of the property
purchase. But rather than that, because of the timing, we're
recommending that we use total county funds to purchase the property,
and we use the donated funds for that initial development. The actual
money amount is exactly the same on the part of the county. It's just
simply a timing issue in terms of what funds we use when.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Quick question, Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The money we received from the
Sugdens, would it then go into the regional park impact fee account?
MR. OLLIFF: Correct. We would --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: It requires a couple of moves of money, but
it eventually ends up in a regional park impact fee fund and costs are
spent out of there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we will be putting it back to
the same place that we borrowed from to purchase the property? MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That was -- That was
critical because the staff report said to use it for initial
development. We haven't decided specifically on dollar amounts or
phase and how that occurs, and I wanted to make sure that -- Okay.
Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: In addition, under number four on page two,
all of the closing documents are indicated which are necessary, and
there's a whole list of those. Some of those are still due from the
current option and property owners, and we have a contract which will
outline specific dates when those have to be received in order to be
reviewed by your county attorney's office prior to a closing. What
we're asking for in this particular action is that the board allow the
county attorney's office to review and approve those prior to any
signature by the chairman, and those include the contract of sale
documents and will outline when -- and all of these issues when those
documents need to be received.
The only other issue in terms of the actual property is
there's a grant of drainage easement. The original property was part
of a total PUD where the commercial property on U.S. 41 drained into
Lake Avalon after being treated. That drainage easement exists. It's
permitted and, in fact, for the most part is constructed, but it does
require that we grant an easement to that commercial property owner so
that they can continue to drain into Lake Avalon as was originally
approved.
Signature Communities requested that taxes and
assessment charges beyond June 30 be paid by the county and one month
base rent on their current option. All of that has been included in
the closing documents.
All the costs are shown on the closing statement that
are on the attachment to this executive summary. And the total cost
of the closing statement -- if I can find it real quickly -- ends up
being $2,170,169.63.
In addition, a lease agreement needs to be executed
between the county and the Gulf Coast Skimmers. That will be on your
agenda next Tuesday, but because that is a -- primarily a consent
agenda only agenda, we tried to at least highlight some of the issues
about that lease agreement for you here today. It is primarily an
agreement of three 30-year terms which allow for the Skimmers to
continue to hold and conduct their water ski show. Improvements on
their plus or minus two-acre property will be their responsibility,
and they will also provide a great deal of the cleanup and policing of
the area as part of their responsibility. The county's responsibility
towards the Skimmers will be to provide that shared infrastructure in
terms of parking and rest room facilities which we would normally have
as part of the park. It will probably require a little addition in
terms of parking. Peak season they're running somewhere between 750
people per show which is a large number of attendance, and we'll have
to make sure that we have parking to accommodate that so that we don't
have an impact on the adjacent neighborhood.
The good news in addition to what we've already listed,
number six there indicates that several firms in the area have agreed
to donate some services in terms of the design and all of the soft
services prior to construction on the park, and we're simply asking
that we be allowed to draft some letter agreements with those
appropriate firms who wish to donate their services so that we can
outline exactly what we're going to get from them and just have an
understanding clearly of how that is going to work. It's just simply
a donation of both engineering design and permitting services for us
and -- and it's an amazing project in that regard, that there have
been a lot of firms that have sort of come out of the woodwork and
want to be a part of it, and I believe we are right now in the process
of having a firmer site plan being developed, all at no cost to the
county, being put on a CAD system for us, and there are a lot of -- a
lot of local firms who have stepped up and -- and offered to help with
that.
Lastly, you asked that the staff submit a Florida
community trust grant. The deadline for that was August 16, and that
was submitted on time. So we have a grant application there. Those
funds are available for purchases of property that are environmentally
worth securing, and as well they are putting some emphasis on those
that have to do with juvenile programs. The Gulf Coast Skimmers helped
us tremendously in that regard because their program does focus a
great deal on the youth of the area and trying to provide some
preventive and some recreational-type activities for those -- those
neighborhood youths, and so we included them as part of our grant
application, and I think we stand a pretty good chance of receiving
some funding in return to the county for the purchase cost of that
property.
Fiscal impact, again, the impact is $2,170,169.63. The
resolution for the commercial paper program will actually draw 1.6
million. The balance of the monies will come from regional park
impact fees, and that's in the amount of $572,970. And the fiscal
impact statement indicates types of budget amendments and where those
funds will need to be moved from fund to fund in order to be able to
-- to make those expenditures.
With that, I'd go ahead and close, and I'll also close
with the recommendation that the board does approve -- and I'll
specifically run through these seven different items -- that they
approve the attached resolution, borrowing $1.6 million for the
commercial paper program with the repayment schedule providing for
annual principal payments of $250,000; that the board approve that
agreement between Collier County and Mr. And Mrs. Herbert J. Sugden;
that the county approve the attached closing statement; that the
county approve, execute, and/or accept those necessary closing
documents once they are approved by the county attorney's office
necessary to close on the property; five, that they authorize the
chairman to execute a grant for the drainage easement that was
discussed; six, that you direct the staff to record all those
appropriate documents necessary to conclude the transaction; and,
lastly, to approve those budget amendments that we indicated before
you before in the executive summary.
With that, I'll answer any questions that you might
have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Take a deep breath. Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First and foremost, thank you
very much, Mr. Olliff, for undertaking and successfully completing
what has been a very complex endeavor. I think everyone appreciates
that. Obviously, great thanks to Mr. And Mrs. Sugden for
participating. And, finally, while I intend to support staff
recommendation, I think what I'd like to see us do is yield to
Commissioner Norris for a motion. It's through his efforts. He's
really spearheaded the project from day one. And I want to say thank
you to you, John.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock was next.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree. I have some -- I have a
couple of quick questions. On item number five, Mr. Olliff, we have
right of first refusal on concessions within the park, including the
rental of non-motorized boating equipment to go to the Skimmers. I
understand the concessions. Does that apply to other parks we have
vending machines? Because the Skimmers have a show one day a week and
-- you know. So I'm -- Is that separation clear?
MR. OLLIFF: I believe it is. If it's not, we -- we've
still got some time to look at that lease agreement, but I believe
that what we were intending was either a food and sundries type
concession where they might sell prepackaged snack foods, hot dogs,
suntan lotions, those kind of things, and perhaps paddle boats and
canoes. Those were the two type concessions that we were looking at.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But any type of launch
facility that people bring their own boats to or own canoes to, that
would not be under the control of the Skimmers?
MR. OLLIFF: Have not contemplated that at all.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But that will be worked
out in the later lease agreement? MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Before Commissioner Norris makes
his motion -- and I'm sure he wants to -- I've -- I've got two -- two
questions. One is that the executive summary here says that we'll
make annual payments of $250,000. I thought the motion was minimum of
$250,000 per year; that if some future board chooses to make higher
payments than that, then they're certainly --
MR. OLLIFF: Absolutely. We can -- The way -- You go
ahead and pick a debt service amount that you include as part of the
resolution. If the county chooses to make additional payments -- if,
for instance, our regional park impact fees come in greater than we
anticipate or budgeted or we have projects that fall off the table,
then we have the opportunity to be able to pay in addition to that,
and I think we would be back here recommending we try and pay that off
as quickly as we can.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. And the other comment that
I have -- has anyone been in touch with the botanical society to -- to
see if they might want to lease some part of this property to -- to go
with their project and help us in the buildout and the enjoyment of
the neighborhood?
MR. OLLIFF: We haven't since they've formally told us
by letter that they weren't interested, but we'll always talk to
anyone interested in any type of a public benefit at a park location.
If they're interested, we're more than willing to sit down and talk to
them again about that or any other group that's interested in doing
that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will mention that I made a
comment as we approve this to someone in the media that, you know,
we'd like to -- you know, it may be an opportunity for the botanical
garden society to come back, and the comment left in the paper by Dr.
Reed was they'll have to come to us. So I think if -- if -- you know,
if that's the sentiment, we may not have a working relationship there
which is unfortunate.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, that -- that may be, but
Dr. Reed I know is president of the society, but there may be some
other members who -- who may want -- I mean, they -- they were putting
forth a good reason and explanation as to why this area would make a
good garden. So I -- I -- If their reasons are that sound, then it
would still make a good garden, and, you know, possibly we ought to
look into that a little bit. Commissioner Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Do we have public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: We have none. I have just one technical
question, and perhaps it's for Ms. Ashton or Mr. Olliff. I'm not
sure. In this case, in reading the backup information I see, we're
not actually receiving cash. We're receiving certificates of stock
for one or more companies traded on the New York Stock Exchange. I
don't know that we've ever done anything like that. My specific
question is, who and what are the mechanics associated with us selling
that stock within ten days, and do we have to pay commissions
associated with the sale of that stock and -- and you ought to
elaborate a little bit to the board as to the underage and overage
mechanism that's built into the purchase contract. But who
specifically is going to broker the sale of the stock?
MR. OLLIFF: We've actually been working with the
finance department, and they will be pricing out from local financial
firms the sale of the stock at the lowest commission price available.
But, yes, there will be a commission price paid. What we are trying
to set up is -- is a -- an opportunity where we actually receive
transfer of those stocks to the county and then turn around and sell
those stocks the same day. The -- The average price of that stock
high to low on that day will be the price that we receive. In
addition, if there's any underage or overage from the $500,000
commitment from the Sugdens, the Sugdens would go ahead and pay cash
to the county of the difference if it is under, and the county would
pay within a certain number of days back to the Sugdens if the actual
receipt of revenue is higher than the 500,000. So I think we've tried
to protect the county from any fluctuation of stock price by making
the sale as close as we can to the receipt of the stocks.
MR. DORRILL: Thank you. I just wanted that on the
record. That's all.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: One last thing I do need to point out for
the record -- and I'm sorry. I know this is long and complicated.
But the way this agreement -- I need to make the board aware of this.
The way this agreement has been structured -- and it has not been --
been easy, but the way this agreement is structured is, if the county
does not close on the 31st, it will be liable for some additional
costs, and we have no reason to believe that we cannot close on the
31st as long as any of the delays are the result of the county. The
real properties and the attorneys department and finance are all
working together to get us to that point and are extremely confident
that that's not a problem to reach the 31st. But if there is a
problem on the county's side in preparing documents or closing
statements or those kind of things, the way this is written up, there
are some back leases the property owner has requested that the county
pay. I just needed to make the board aware of that, but I do not see
that as a possibility. And as long as the county attorney's office
has the ability to review all of those documents prior to the board
executing them, I think I would still recommend the board approval.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Olliff.
Commissioner Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. I'd like to also
commend our staff for working so diligently on this project. I know
there was a lot of behind-the-scenes maneuvering that we're not always
aware of and it -- it has been a fairly difficult process, but we're
-- we're finally here to this point and ready to go forward. We need
to also thank the members of the community that are helping us with
this, the engineering firms that are going to help us on a gratis
basis to develop plans and all that. That's quite a nice gesture from
the community. And, of course, we all owe special thanks to the
Sugdens, the Sugden family, for their contribution to this, without
which, of course, I don't think we would be going forward.
So it's going to be a great thing for our community, and
I'd like to make a motion that we accept staff's recommendations on
this.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
accept staff's recommendations on the agreement authorizing purchase
of Lake Avalon with Mr. Sugden and the commercial paper program.
MR. CUYLER: And that includes all of the things that
were listed by Mr. Olliff.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
discussion?
All seven.
All seven of them; correct?
That's correct.
Okay. Is there further
There being none, I'll call the question. All in favor
please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 4-0 with Commissioner Hac'Kie abstaining.
Thank you, Mr. Olliff.
Item #SD1
RESOLUTION 95-466 AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER TO ENSURE THE
OPERATION OF A FACILITY FOR UTILITIES FOR ROYAL COVE SUBDIVISION -
ADOPTED AND STAFF TO PREPARE AGENDA ITEM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
Next item is 8D(1). This is an add-on item for Royal
Cove. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, Madam Chairman. I'm going
to try and put things in a nutshell and leave the details to Mr.
HcNees. We have discussed this -- this particular issue previously,
and to refresh your memory, Royal Cove subdivision consists of two
phases. Phase one is closest to U.S. 41 and consists of about 40
manufactured homes. They're on a septic system. Phase two to the
rear of phase one is about 24 manufactured homes and operates on a
package plant due to cap rock that made a septic system too expensive.
The owner and operator of that package plant, Mr. Richard Vetter,
has been fined by DEP for several violations and is currently in
litigation with DEP and has announced his intention on the 25th of
this month to abandon the system, just to walk away from it. The
problem is that he owns the property it sits on. What we are quickly
approaching here is a situation where we may have county residents
that possibly will have no service unless we can work out an agreement
with Mr. Vetter to operate the system on an interim basis until a
final solution can be brought forward.
Mr. HcNees, Mr. Clemons, and others graciously met with
the Royal Cove residents last night to discuss options, and I thought
it was important this board understand what options exist because
there may be the need on the time line to declare an emergency and to
begin a remedy to the situation so that the Royal Cove residents both
in the second phase are provided adequate service, and the first
phase, that their fiscal considerations are taken into account. With
that, I'll let Mr. HcNees give us the details of what his
recommendation will be.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. HcNees.
MR. HCNEES: Thank you. Mike HcNees from your utilities
division. We need to talk about short term and long term, what will
happen up at Royal Cove. And I think probably first I'll talk about
something that we're going to propose is the long-term solution, and
then we can deal with the short term.
Staff has been kind of walking a tightrope here. You
directed us when we last spoke about this item not really to solve it
because you didn't want the county walking in and taking Mr. Vetter
off the hook, so to speak, for his responsibilities up there, but at
the same time to continue to work with the residents and see if there
was some sort of a way -- either to leverage him into essentially
doing the right thing or to find some solution, and at this point he's
walking. He's notified the Florida Power and Light to turn the power
off on August 25, and we believe he has every intention of shutting
the thing down and walking away. DEP tells us there's absolutely
nothing at this point they can do about that. So it brings us to the
situation we're in today.
I guess I'll talk about the short term first. The
absolute worst case scenario would be 24 portable toilets installed in
the front yards of the folks at Royal Cove that they would contract
with the service for until some long-term solution can be provided.
Now, that -- Nobody believes that that's probably what is the best
thing that could happen, but the worst case that would be the bailout
for those folks for the short term.
Another alternative for them will be to contract with a
private agency to operate that plant, assuming Mr. Vetter will give
permission to have electricity restored to it and it is in some sort
of operable condition. And the residents last night were going to
attempt to get ahold of Mr. Vetter to see if they could obtain that
permission. There is at least one vendor who has expressed an
interest in giving prices on that. And if we as county staff can help
grease the wheels in that process, then that would be -- we'd be glad
to do that. We'll continue to work on that.
So the short term -- I guess the last option would be if
the county staff were to get permission from Mr. Vetter because -- as
Commissioner Hancock said, he owns that property. We can't just go up
there and run the plant because we don't have any right to be there.
He could grant us permission in the short term to in some way run that
plant and bill those residents -- continue to bill those residents.
That would be probably a workable option, probably not a preferred
option, but it would at least provide service to those people.
For the long term, we've come up with an idea, and we
haven't had any chance at all to talk to the attorney's office about
it because it's kind of a unique concept, but the problem we have is,
if we put an assessment district in up there to put a sewer line from
one end of that street to the other, there are 40 people who would be
in the assessment district who don't need the service. And if we
force them under our mandatory connection ordinances to connect,
they're not going to be real pleased because we're going to cost them
three to $5,000 a head for something they really don't need.
So our proposal is that the water sewer district create
an assessment district in that neighborhood, that we allow the 24
people on the far end or the package plant end of the system to
connect immediately. We would then allow the remaining 40 folks or,
shall I say, would require the remaining 40 properties to connect
either as their septic tanks failed or at some specified deadline
date, either five or ten years down the road, whatever the board felt
was appropriate. We would calculate all of the assessments up front,
and essentially the sewer district would build the line, pay for the
line, and then the people as they connected would buy in. If their
assessment was $4,000 or $3,000, when it came their time to connect,
as their septic tank failed, they would pay the assessment. They
would pay their impact fees, and then the service would be available
to them. Probably another provision we would build in there would be
if the properties were sold, at any time there was a change in
ownership, we would require the septic tank to be taken out of service
and the connection to be made and the assessment to be paid before the
property could change hands. And it's a different type of an
assessment district than we've ever done before because similar things
are often done with commercial development where there will be a large
force main built and developers will buy into that force main. I am
not familiar with a project like this. It's relatively small, and I
think it's manageable. If this were a five or 600-property
subdivision, I'd be -- I wouldn't be so sure, but there are only 20 --
or 40 -- I guess 64 residents -- properties total. I think it's
something we could do, assuming that we can get the legal
technicalities worked out and find the mechanisms and build that in.
So long term I think that's at least a potential solution. The
problem is, all the other solutions that we've looked at, there are
either legal or technical or financial constraints, and this is really
the only one we can come around to that's even halfway fair to
everyone in that neighborhood that would also provide service.
We spoke to a couple of the residents who came to the
meeting last night who are actually on septic tanks, and they felt
like this was a very fair solution because if they need the service,
they'll have it, but we're not making them pay today for something
they don't need. So as a long-term solution, we would propose that.
If we actually had that direction, we would ask you to declare an
emergency, have a schedule as soon as it can technically be done.
And, as I said, I haven't had any opportunity to work with the
attorneys yet to schedule a public hearing which purpose would be to
create this assessment district, notify those residents. We would
probably suspend the purchasing policies so that we can get this thing
bid and constructed as quickly as possible.
The total cost of the project is probably under
$200,000. So it's not a huge, massive project and something I think
we could probably get in the ground within 60 to 90 days if we don't
have to jump through all the purchasing hoops, which in this case I
think raw sewage running in the streets probably could be justified as
an emergency.
So with that, I -- I -- I know this is a little
complicated. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have or
take direction.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is the advantage to
delaying the inevitable as far as the other 40 homes? And help me how
that -- You mentioned how that would differ from a larger subdivision,
and I'm just thinking as far as East Naples a couple of years back.
What are the differences in there?
MR. HCNEES: The difference between this situation and
the East Naples situation is that in East Naples we had documented --
at least documented by HRS, water quality problems directly related to
failing septic tanks. We don't have that here. I say since this is a
small project, this would work a little better just for administrative
simplicity. This is not going to be an easy thing to keep track of in
terms of who's connected; who should be connected; in fact, who might
connect when they haven't paid their fees. It's very simple to go out
there with a shovel and some PVC and the ladder will be there and, you
know, do a midnight connection and not pay the fees. That's something
we're going to have to have some enforcement mechanism on. There was
one other question.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is the advantage of
delaying the inevitable?
MR. HCNEES: The advantage --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm assuming if we don't
delay it, it avoids the midnight hookups.
MR. HCNEES: There is no advantage to us. The advantage
to the residents is you have to have a public hearing to create this
assessment district, and what you have then will be 40 people who
don't want any part of it and 26 people who need it desperately, and
they're all going to come up here, and it's going to be 40 to 26, and
you're going to have to make the decision, do you force it down the
throats of the 40 to save the 26. So the down side of that is
probably to you as much as anyone and then to the 40 who have to pay
three to $4,000 for something they don't need. So this is a way of
trying to find some sort of middle ground now that -- The down side,
again, is to the water sewer district who's going to provide
essentially interest-free financing to build that system until
everybody buys in, but that would have to be the -- That's --
Something has to give here for this to be resolved, and it would be
the district then that would say, okay, we believe this is enough of a
public purpose that it's a fair deal.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Final question. Do you have
a recommendation -- You said there would be some time frame, some
deadline. Do you have any recommendation, or that would be
forthcoming at some future point?
MR. MCNEES: That would be forthcoming. We'd put that
together ASAP, and we would schedule a public hearing as quickly as it
could be scheduled. We just hatched this little idea last night, so
we haven't really had an opportunity to flush it out, but I believe we
can probably make it work and we -- The next step, I think, for you
would be for us to find out how quickly a public hearing can be
scheduled and people can legally be noticed and get that established
and have all the information at that time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, what is that time
frame to legally notice people?
MR. CUYLER: I'd like to sit down with Mr. McNees and
discuss this whole situation. We're going to have to think about this
a little bit. We're in the very early stages of this one.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One quick point. There's -- The
reason for also having kind of an extension on time frame of hookup is
that this particular subdivision is approximately 20 years old, right
at the edge of life of a septic system. Some people have replaced
their septic systems, so they have a brand new system they just paid
for. Others may be needing to replace it, and those are the people
that probably would not object, you know, to this type of system. So
that -- that age difference in there kind of solidifies things a
little bit. And the second item I forgot so --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It will come back to you.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. The --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Old age.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've aged ten years in the last
six months. I don't think Mr. McNees necessarily is looking for us to
declare an emergency today, but the bottom line is we do need to move
ahead in a rapid -- at a rapid rate with the discussions of the county
attorney, and I think this is a situation in which we are going to
have to -- It may require declaring an emergency to find the
flexibility to tailor this to the situation, and I think that's what
people are looking for, is for local government to be able to tailor
itself to the needs in the community, and this one has a lot of
positives to it, and I thank the utilities department for the work
that they've done on it.
But I guess I'd like to kind of wrap it up by asking
Mr. McNees, other than giving -- this board giving direction to move
in that -- move in that direction with the county attorney's office to
look at what has to be done in addition to, you know, working with Mr.
Vetter to try and get someone to come in and operate that facility if
that's feasible, if we could give direction on both those fronts, is
there anything else you would need from us today to sufficiently
address this?
MR. MCNEES: On the long-term solution, no. Just to get
Ken and I to work on it to bring it back to you as quickly as possible
in some hearing format. And I apologize for putting him on the spot,
but we just didn't really have another option.
MR. CUYLER: I think what we'll do is we'll sit down,
and then Mike can give you a memo as to exactly what's going on, and
we'll get it back to you as soon as we can.
MR. MCNEES: For the short term, I'm really uncertain as
exactly what direction to ask for. I think we are going to need some
-- call it administrative leeway or operating leeway as a staff if we
actually get into, you know, the switches turned off up there
situation and the folks are just unable to come to any practical
solution. And if we can get some permission from Mr. Vetter, we --
with your permission perhaps in advance to enter into that and to run
that plant if we have to and if we can as an absolute last resort, and
we may not have another opportunity to ask for that permission.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Cuyler, should Mr. Vetter
walk away and those people not have any service available to them, can
we get a judgment from -- from a court here that says, you know,
something's got to be done. We can obtain -- Can we obtain the legal
right to operate that system --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Temporarily.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in Mr. Vetter's absence
temporarily?
MR. CUYLER: One way or another. I thought there was --
Mike, I thought there was a statutory provision that said if somebody
walks away from a plant, that the county does have the right to go in
and do it. We'll have to -- We'll have to research that.
MR. MCNEES: Everyone seems to think that -- did seem to
think that, and everyone is saying now there is no such provision.
MR. CUYLER: Okay. Well, that may be county folklore
that I've gotten caught up in too but --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We -- That's a critical question
because the immediate need on the 25th is what we have to be
tremendously concerned with at this point.
MR. CUYLER: We'll -- We'll take a look at that
immediately. That will be the first thing we do. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If -- If it begins to look like
Mr. Vetter is willing to allow the county to operate the plant after
he walks away from it, so to speak, we do have a consent agenda next
week and that a temporary operation of that plant might be appropriate
on the consent agenda. Is there further direction?
MR. MCNEES: What I need is your permission, I believe,
to enter into some sort of short-term contract with the property
owner, which would be Mr. Vetter, if we have to go up there and
operate that plant. So I might -- I guess I need to be delegated or
Neil to be delegated because we won't be able to get to you in that
situation.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I would like to make
a motion to authorize the county manager's office to take reasonable
and prudent steps to ensure the operation of the facility until such
time as a long-term solution can be obtained. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we need a resolution on that,
Mr. Cuyler?
MR. CUYLER: Yeah. Let's save a resolution number. And
if worst comes to worst, this will include Mr. Dorrill's ability to
act in that capacity. We can always bring it back to you for
ratification after the fact if there's any concern about it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We -- We have a motion and
a second; is that correct?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
grant the authority to the county manager's office to act on this
issue in a timely basis for the short -- for the short term. Is there
further discussion?
Is that adequate direction, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. If there's no further
discussion, all those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 5-0.
MR. HCNEES: As part of our follow-up information, the
county has intervened in the lawsuit between the owner of the plant
and the DEP and will be providing you information. Hopefully we'll be
able to share in the fine revenue to pay some of these costs. I
understand that one of the residents is here and has asked to speak.
I know you've already acted. It's at your discretion if you want to
hear from him.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that the slip you just got?
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Boyce.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Boyce, certainly come
forward and speak. We have decided to act in the short term -- MR. BOYCE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- on this and get a proposal
from our department for the long term.
MR. BOYCE: Everything he brought is pretty well up to
date. I think I can shed some light on the fact that Mr. Vetters -- I
talked with him this morning. He's wanting to be compliable. We've
also talked with --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He's wanting to be complied with?
You mean, he wants '-
MR. BOYCE: Well, in a private manner, yes. He's not
wanting to get involved with the county. We all know that he can
walk. He's willing to listen to our counter-proposal in the interim
to work this thing out. At the llth hour, S.T. Environmental Services
stepped in yesterday. They -- We've made arrangements for him to get
onto the facility to take a look at it to make his assessment to see
how he can best get this thing working. He understands this is
probably for the interim, that we are looking for a final resolution
to this. So my wife and I have both talked with Mr. Vetters, that he
will keep an open channel with us, and we're working towards that
right now. We've already talked to S.T. Environmental Services this
morning. If possible they're going to try and get out there tomorrow
morning. So if we can in our own way help this situation while all
the other issues are being contemplated, we'll see if we can forward
this and keep the plant up and running.
The biggest issue at this point is how to enforce
collection from all of the homeowners in that interim period. We have
no association. It's a dire situation at the llth hour. Just meeting
everybody has been difficult enough. So we're looking for maybe
outside help to help enforce collection to pay for the service while
we're looking to get this squared away. We don't have a problem with
the hookup. I've been in Florida 40 years. I understand what the --
what the ultimatum is and what the goals are here. I don't think a
lot of the other people are so clear-cut that live on the street which
are a lot of snow birds and so forth, but given a little time, it will
be abundantly clear that in a round-about way, we think the county's
objectives and ultimatums are that the street be hooked up on a sewer
package arrangement with the county. That's it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BOYCE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would you -- As a favor to our
staff, would you keep Mr. HcNees informed of your discussions with Mr.
Vetter just so he understands what's going on there as we try and make
sure the short-term solution -- MR. BOYCE: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- keeps you guys in --
MR. BOYCE: Sure.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- what I'll call flushability.
MR. BOYCE: Any way I could be of service, we'll be glad
to do so.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
MR. BOYCE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Okay.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. Why don't
we take a break for 15 minutes until ten minutes of.
(A short break was held.)
Item #SH1
EMERGENCY DECLARED; PURCHASING POLICY WAIVED; IMPLEMENTATION AND AWARD
OF STRUCTURAL REPAIR OF CONCRETE PROCESS TANK #1 AT THE SOUTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the Board of County
Commission meeting for August 15, 1995. Next item on the agenda is
under -- still under the county manager's report, item 8H(1), to
declare an emergency and waive the purchasing policy. Mr. Conrecode.
MR. CONRECODE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Tom Conrecode from your capital projects office. The item
before you is to declare an emergency. We've had problems with a
number of tanks at the south water plant. We had the engineer -- the
structural engineer out to review that, and he has found that tank
number one is in substantially worse condition than we had ever
anticipated, and as a result, he as a professional engineer is
recommending some immediate action to effect repairs. We would also
like to have that tank repaired and back on line prior to the
high-demand season so that we have maximum capacity of our water
supply system. So the OCPH staff is asking that we have a number of
specific authorizations in order to make those repairs as timely and
as immediate as possible.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions?
There doesn't seem to be. Is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, are there speakers
on this?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve. Does that motion encompass all four --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
recommendations.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Yes, it does.
-- of the items covered?
Hotion to approve staff's
The second agrees.
Thank you. If there's no further
discussion, all in favor please see aye. Opposed?
Motion passes 5-0. Thank you, Mr. Conrecode.
MR. CONRECODE: You're welcome.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 95-467, APPOINTING HICHAEL BRUET TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COHMISSION - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is 8H(2).
That's the discussion of the bridge consultant. We have agreed to
delay that until after our discussion on the bridge.
Item 10A is an appointment of a member to the CCPC.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I've enjoyed the
opportunity over the last few weeks to meet several of the folks who
have applied for this position, and I think we're fortunate to receive
several well-qualified appointments. I would like to make a motion
that this board appoint Mr. Michael J. Bruet to the Collier County
Planning Commission by virtue of his experience, both in the private
and public sector, a former county employee I believe. So I'd like to
make that motion for this board's consideration.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Is there further discussion?
There not being any, all those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 5-0. Thank you, Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, Mr. Bruet I think would
like to address the board.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Bruet.
MR. BRUET: Thank you. Madam Chairman and fellow
members, just to introduce myself once again quickly, Mike Bruet, and
I truly appreciate the opportunity you've given me to serve on the
commission. I have experience in the public and private sector, as
Commissioner Hancock pointed out, and I have been in development for
13 years in Naples with a lot of upscale, quality projects, and I look
forward to bringing my experience to the commission and helping to
ensure the quality of life we all enjoy here. Thank you again very
much.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 95-468 REAPPOINTING MARVIN COURTRIGHT, GEORGE BARRON, SR.,
AND MICHAEL WILLIAMS TO THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the
agenda is 10B, appointment of members to the airport authority. It --
I'll wait for a motion, but it seems to me we have three qualified
people and three openings so --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, we have a
waiting team in place. I think we've all been pretty favorably
impressed with the way the airport authority has worked and how it has
unfolded, and while I'm sure the two folks who are new applicants to
the board are -- are good people, I just -- neither are electors, so I
guess they're not qualified anyway. It makes it even easier. But I
was going to say, I think the three folks who have been on there
really have done a great job and deserve to be reappointed. So I will
recommend -- I'll make a motion we reappoint Marvin Courtright, George
Barton, and Michael Williams.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. Third.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
reappoint Marvin Courtright, George Barton, and Michael Williams to
the airport authority. If there's no discussion, all those in favor
please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 5-0.
Thank you, Miss Filson. You did an excellent
presentation.
MS. FILSON: You're welcome.
Item #10C
EXTRA GAIN TIME FOR INMATE NO. 90463 - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is 10C.
This is extra gain time.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Tried my deciphering technique.
Operation of motor vehicle with suspended driver's license.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. That's what I figured out
it meant too.
DEPUTY CANADY: I think that's correct.
MS. FILSON: They had already submitted this one before
last week when you asked for no more acronyms.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Is there discussion on the
item before us?
Is there a motion?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, motion to
approve.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve. I'm going to oppose the motion for the same reason I opposed
last week. The person has already disobeyed the law, got an
additional sentence. I can't -- I can't agree with it. Any further
discussion?
All those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 3-2 with Commissioner Constantine and
Matthews being in the opposition.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, may I suggest --
we may want to have a discussion at some time, and I have taken a
position in the past on serious offenses that gain time seems to be
unfair in virtue of the actions that the individuals have taken.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think if they come forward for
serious offenses, I don't think he does it --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have had some in the past.
But my question is, if the jail is going to use gain time as an
incentive for, you know, behavior that is complimentary, shall we say,
that maybe we want to have a discussion with the sheriff about that
because if this board is continually going to vote 3-2 on things such
as this, I think we just need to have an understanding.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If we can talk well enough, it
might become 2-3. I -- I think Mr. -- I think Mr. Cuyler has
something to say because he and I discussed this a couple of weeks ago
dealing with the STOP program and the 85 percent that the DOC is
reviewing extra gain time.
MR. CUYLER: Yeah. We've -- We've done some research,
and, frankly, the answer we're coming up with is not the one the
board's going to want to hear, and the one we've given you the memo on
in the past I don't think you're going to want to hear, but the one
thing I told the chairman -- and I think I told Commissioner
Constantine this too -- is that because of the new legislation dealing
with the 85 percent serving of the sentence, my understanding is the
department of correction is revamping. To what extent, I don't know
at this point, but they are revamping the guidelines for gain time
which is the Florida Administrative Code which is then supposed to be
picked up by the local sheriffs. So there may be some changes in
that, and the change may be as little as gain time shall not exceed 15
percent of the sentence, or it may be more comprehensive in what they
do as far as their changes, but we're sort of waiting to see what
happens.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The only reason I bring that up
is I feel the need after, you know, approving one of these to state a
position because it's not that I'm for people who break the law by any
means but it's -- the sheriff has determined that there is a method by
which they want to promote exemplary behavior, and they've chosen gain
time as that and if -- you know, I just -- I hate going through a
position statement on this every time, and I just thought it would be
something helpful for discussion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if we had this
discussion before November or after November, but we've had this
discussion similarly, and there is -- it's important to note there is
a difference between gain time --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And extra gain time.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and extra gain time. And
extra gain time is on the policy of the board which is why it comes
before us. The sheriff has the ability and the authority to grant
gain time without any -- any -- anything from the board. The extra
gain time is a policy, and that's something we had talked about
reviewing as a board as a whole whether or not we wanted to alter that
policy. So I think your discussion or your suggestion for discussion
is appropriate because we may want to look at the overall policy.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't find myself disagreeing
with either of you but I -- maybe it's the vehicle, that I'm just not
sure of all the nuances.
MR. CUYLER: I think it's important to have the sheriff
at whatever that policy setting, either before or during that policy
setting so he can tell you what his procedures are.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: When do you -- When do you expect
the DOC to complete their analysis of this?
MR. CUYLER: My understanding is October.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: October?
MR. CUYLER: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Our next five-Tuesday month is
October.
MR. CUYLER: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And possibly that would be an
appropriate discussion for the workshop then.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I hate to see us disagree all the
time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Disagreeing is healthy.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I try to tell my parents that.
Item #10D
DISCUSSION RE THE RECRUITHENT OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY - DAVID WEIGEL
APPOINTED AS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO REPLACE MR. CUYLER EFFECTIVE
10/3/95 AND THAT A ONE YEAR CONTRACT BE NEGOTIATED WITH AN OPTION
CLAUSE AND A FORMAL REVIEW PROCESS
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Hy daughter used to tell
me that too. Next item on the agenda is a discussion regarding the
recruitment of the county attorney, item 10D. Mr. Cuyler or
Mr. Dotrill, or is human resources going to present this?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. I essentially discussed with
you and received a memo that I told the board last week as to what I
think your three options are. We are not recommending option number
one which was retaining a head-hunting firm, and I think at your
discretion you can look locally, regionally, or within the state, or
at a national level, and we feel that we have the ability in resources
in-house to assist you in whatever recruitment effort that you may be
interested in, and I know there has been expression by Mr. Cuyler
concerning the appointment of the interim county attorney being Mr.
Weigel, and I can only say that I would support Mr. Cuyler's
recommendation to you, and I can tell you from the manager's side that
Mr. Weigel would certainly be a capable interim appointee for that
position. But aside from that, we're just here to answer your
questions. Mr. Cuyler may have some unique insight or advice beyond
that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know when Commissioner
Hancock suggested a couple of weeks ago that we have this discussion,
and there was a question whether we wanted to search statewide or
search nationwide, whether we wanted to have an outside executive
search firm or have our human resources department, and I think
regardless of what we decide there, I think probably there are some
real basic things we are looking for, obviously someone honest and
respectful and professional. Particularly in this position, though, I
think we need to have someone who can offer clear and concise
opinions, both written and verbal; perhaps most importantly,
considering the size of our staff now, someone who generates respect
with the rest of the county attorney staff, and there are appropriate
management skills and understanding how government works and so on.
What I would suggest is beyond the two options that were
outlined or three options that were outlined, there's one more, and
that is I think we have someone right under our nose that fits all
those descriptive things, and that being Mr. Weigel. I'd like to see
us go a step beyond appointing him just as interim and not spend -- or
I would even categorize it as not waste a lot of time and money
searching for someone when we have someone who is right here. He has
done a number of things. I know he's the first line when Mr. Cuyler
hires new people in. He acts in the management capacity as far as
making some of the things happen that do happen within the office. I
think we can have not only a smooth transition, almost a nonexistent
transition if we have Mr. Weigel take over the position. I think we
can very smoothly and easily go October 2 or whatever the date is Mr.
Cuyler has told us. So I'd like to see us go ahead. I think
Mr. Weigel possesses all the skills and attributes we are looking for,
and it's always a benefit certainly to promote from within, and so I'd
like to see us not waste the time or effort, and let's go ahead and --
and I'd go so far as to make a motion that we appoint Mr. Weigel as
the successor of Mr. Cuyler.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hold on to that motion for a
second. Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I agree with all of those
things that you just said. I think Mr. Weigel would be a very capable
person. I think the one thing that you omitted in your discussion of
Mr. Weigel was that he's been here for ten years and the -- the
knowledge of the history of -- of what has happened and what is
ongoing and that sort of thing is very valuable as well. So while I
totally agree with you, I think it's important to note that too. Of
course, I'm sure you meant to say that although we will miss Mr.
Cuyler, the transition should be -- should be a smooth one and that we
would hope that there will be no -- no -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Who?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's just great.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Out of sight, out of mind.
MR. CUYLER: I'll take the nonexistent --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So I will second that as well.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I certainly agree that Mr.
Weigel would be a wonderful choice for an interim and probably a
wonderful choice for a new county attorney. I think, though, that it
would be imprudent of us to miss the opportunity to evaluate the
operations of the county attorney's office. My perspective -- and
I've said this directly to Ken so I'm not talking out of school. My
perspective on the county attorney's office has changed night and day
since I came to the -- to serve on the board because as to the offices
-- the county attorney's service to the board, I think it's
impeccable. I think it's perfect. I think they're extremely
responsive. They do a wonderful job in responding to us as their
client. I think, however, that -- that my perspective before I joined
the board -- well, frankly, we referred to the county attorney's
office as a black hole. From a consumer perspective, from -- from the
perspective of those who have to have permits and -- and PUDs and
other -- you know, any other questions reviewed by the county
attorney's office, they tend to go away and not come back for a long
time. Now, that is one small part. I used to think that that was the
most important part of the county attorney's office; however, I've
come to understand that it's not the most important part. It's a
small part, but it's a very significant part.
My point being that there's room for improvement even in
a very well-run office. And as much respect as I have for David
Weigel, he will continue, I expect, to run that office as it has been
run for ten years that he's been there and -- and forever, and it's --
it's fine, but it could be better. And so I wish that we would
appoint Mr. Weigel as the interim county attorney and examine the
possibility of having a blue ribbon committee look at the county
attorney's office operations and give them a wide berth of
opportunities to make recommendations to us, that either we hire Mr.
Weigel as the permanent county attorney or we hire someone else or
that in working with Mr. -- With Mr. Cuyler and looking at the
operations of the office, that they make some recommendations perhaps
about how the office might be better run to serve the public. It
serves the board beautifully. It could improve its service to the
public. So I wish that we would take this opportunity to absolutely
endorse Mr. Weigel, give him the interim position, but not lose the
opportunity to examine -- We only have two employees, guys, the county
manager and the county attorney. Let's not lose the opportunity to
examine the possibility of improving the good service that the county
attorney's office provides. If we had a blue ribbon committee, we
could at least review those improvement possibilities.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other discussion? Commissioner
Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A couple of things come to mind.
When Commissioner Mac'Kie said we only have two employees, it brings
to light that this board collectively does not do a lot of hiring and
firing. We talk about it a lot, but in reality we don't have a lot of
personnel approach us. But there's something that is -- if I put
myself in a management capacity, it's important to me, and that is
someone who spends ten years working within a department under my
control or partially under my control, if I can put myself in that
position, that has served well, that has done by all accounts -- and
I've heard no other -- an excellent job, deserves the right for this
board to look primarily at an internal search. And if those resources
are not available internally or there's a question about those
resources, then we should broaden the search beyond there. And I
think if you put yourself in a management position or you put
yourself, better yet, in an employee's position, you would expect that
for the people that hire and fire for those positions.
Likewise, Hr. Weigel has done a good job as an
assistant, but we don't know how he's going to perform as a county
attorney. We know -- have a better idea of him than we do of someone
outside of the county manager's office, I would guess, and I think
that brings us to a question of, if we are going to appoint Mr. Weigel
-- and I think there's no question he'll be appointed either as
interim or as the county manager, but if he is to be appointed as
county manager, we may want --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
Attorney.
County attorney.
Attorney.
Sorry, Neil.
Guess what? Surprise.
We're really going to talk
personnel -- as the county attorney, then we may want to look at a
one-year contract with a six-month review clause to look at job
performance.
I have to disagree with the concept of a blue ribbon
committee for the simple reason that a committee outside of this board
that's being asked to review and make recommendations on the practice
of hiring a county attorney that this board interacts with on many
times a daily basis, I think is deferring the decision-making outside
of the body that it impacts the greatest, and I think we look to that
seat and probably should have a heck of a lot better feel for what it
takes than maybe someone outside of this body would have. I certainly
hope that would be the case. So I'm inclined to support the motion
but would ask that in -- in pursuing it, that we look at maybe a
one-year contract and a review clause. I don't know if that's logical
or not, but it would seem to make sense and that -- that would be my
preference.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of thoughts.
Commissioner Hac'Kie, to suggest that Mr. Weigel will simply run the
office the same as it has been run for the last ten years I think is
probably inaccurate, and I think I'd go so far as to call an insult to
Mr. Weigel. I think each individual would have their own touch on
that. He has certain professional abilities, and I'm sure he will
make changes as he sees appropriate.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait and see.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Frankly, I think Mr. Cuyler
has been very responsive in the last couple of years. I know each of
us has had some specific concerns and complaints as we've come on the
board, and I do thank you. You've done a wonderful job in responding
to those. I think very much differently of the attorney's office than
I did after my first few months on the board, and that's thanks in
great part to Mr. Cuyler.
I think we can do both. I think we can bring Mr. Weigel
on, but I think there's a great deal of merit in what you're saying to
review the policies and procedures of how it work, but I think the two
can happen concurrently. I think between the board and whether we
bring some outside help on that or not I think is fine, but I don't
think that has to be exclusive of bringing Mr. Weigel on as county
attorney. I think it's healthy to go through a process and see if
there's a better way to do it, but I don't think we need to hold up
the process of bringing on who I see as the best candidate in the
meantime.
Commissioner Hancock, I think maybe that's -- would be a
fair suggestion. Are you saying, like, to have a contract but have it
for a one-year period at which time we'd review it as opposed to with
Mr. Dotrill we did it initially for a two- or three-year period and
Mr. Cuyler we've done for a time frame? So you're suggesting one
year, and a year from now we would review the performance of Mr.
Weigel?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I am, but I lack the background
and history to know how it has been handled in the past, but I think
when we -- you know, one, we have the responsibility to offer
internally to a well-qualified person; but, two, we need to be
cautious in doing so, that we don't tie our hands into a long-term
contractual obligation when we have yet to see what type of job
performance will be forthcoming. So I would recommend a one-year
contract as -- just as a suggestion to your motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me ask a question before this
goes much further. Mr. Dotrill, our human resources requirements, are
we within the boundaries of those requirements to make an appointment
today to a permanent position?
MR. DORRILL: My understanding is that -- that you are,
given the contractual nature of the position. I presume that if the
motion is successful, then one of you historically would be designated
to act on the board's behalf to negotiate a contract and then have it
brought back for ratification. That's historically what you've done.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Our current county
attorney has given us notice effective -- what? October 2 or 37 MR. CUYLER: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And so the negotiation of this
contract, if we were to move in this direction today, it would give us
about 45 days to complete the negotiations and have his contract in --
in place to pick up where yours leaves off.
MR. CUYLER: Correct. As -- As a maximum. I mean,
obviously the other concern is the office needs certainty at some
point, but that -- I guess you will give them that if you proceed in
that direction. But, yes, you'll have that period of time, and the
contract would be effective the day after or whatever.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Now, on -- on the -- on the
question of -- of the blue ribbon committee, I -- I'm not sure that I
think it's a good idea nor do I think it's a bad idea, but I would
think that whomever we appoint to the county attorney's position, if
-- if they felt a need or through conversation with -- with us
individually to form such a committee to help them reorganize the
office, if they felt a need to do so, I would think they would do
that. It's the county attorney's office that we have a contractual
agreement with that he manage it, and if -- if we want to in our
one-on-ones with the county attorney on a weekly basis or bi-weekly,
whenever we have them, make a recommendation that they form such a
committee, I'm sure they can do it.
So, Mr. Constantine, would you restate your motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I'm going to amend it
slightly, so I'll restate it. I'd like to make a motion that we
appoint Mr. Weigel to succeed Mr. Cuyler as county attorney effective
October 2 -- is that correct?
MR. CUYLER: It would be effective the 3rd.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- effective October 3, 1995;
that we negotiate a one-year contract with Mr. Weigel; and obviously
at the conclusion of that contract, review that, and either offer a
new contract or search elsewhere but -- rather than have the extended
year contracts we have had otherwise. I will -- The chairman may want
to do that. If you don't want to, I'll be happy to. I've done those
in the past so --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have no problem. I have no
problem doing that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Whatever the pleasure of the
board is.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I guess what I would like
perhaps you to entertain in your motion is that, yes, the contract be
for one year and that we review the contract, but perhaps it might
have an option clause in it for another year or two years, what have
you, so that we are not fixed and firm into a full contractual
negotiation a year from now, that all we need to do is exercise the
option should -- should we choose to do so.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that's fine as long
as there's a formal -- formal review process for us to look at, at the
end of the year.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There would be, yeah.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The second amends.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
appoint Mr. Weigel as the county attorney and enter into a contractual
negotiation that would take effect October 3, 1995. Is there further
discussion?
All those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 4-1 with Commissioner Mac'Kie being in the
opposition.
MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, let me just mention one
thing since I'm going to read black hole as the headline in tomorrow's
paper. We've tried very hard to -- particularly over the last couple
of years -- Mr. Hart, please don't put that as a headline. You know,
we've tried very hard to -- A lot of those problems were internal, and
some were external. We've tried very hard to shed even the
perception. I never agreed that that was a fact, but we've tried to
shed the perception. I have talked to Pam about that, and she underst
-- I think once you get on the inside, it's easier to understand how
hard it is to work for the inside and try to please the outside and
please everybody at the same time and still get your job done and give
legal advice. So I think we've improved significantly and -- and
hopefully David will get rid of whatever's left of that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I -- I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I was just going to comment
that I -- Ken and I have had some very serious discussions about the
county attorney's office, one of which took place probably about three
-- three weeks or a month after I was elected, and I must say the
improvement I've seen has been very, very good.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Just quickly, I would like to
just affirm that it's the board direction to have the chairman
negotiate the contract with Mr. Weigel; is that --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Good.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's fine.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The way it should be.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Schedule an appointment, Sue.
Get this done.
Item #tOE
EMERGENCY DECLARED; BIDDING REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MARCO CAT
WAIVED
Next item on the agenda is tOE which is to declare an
emergency regarding the Marco -- the Key Marco Cat exhibit.
Mr. Dotrill -- or Mr. Olliff, are you going to handle this one?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am. Real quickly, just because of
the timing of the tourist development council's review of that use of
funds for the Marco Cat expenses, there are some items that would
require normally under our purchasing policy that they be bid, and
simply because the item is going to be here in November and some of
those events are sequential, one has to happen before the other, we're
asking that we declare an emergency and waive the bidding process for
certain items associated with the Marco Cat and allow staff to do
those based on quotes. We will still get competitive pricing through
telephone quotes, but we won't go through that formal bid process on
some of those. And I'd like to list as I work this through Steve
Cornell specifically those items, and they would be exhibition and
interpretive materials, some printing, advertising, and certain
building modifications and security expenses. Those are the four --
four particular items that we would need to waive those processes for.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Just so I understand, you will
obtain quotes --
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- a minimum of three on each if
available just to make sure it is competitive.
MR. OLLIFF: Absolutely.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. I
have one question. Mr. Olliff, what's our -- our current minimum for
not going through the bid process? I thought it was higher than most
of the parts of this.
MR. OLLIFF: It was just recently amended.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're probably not the right
person.
MR. OLLIFF: It was just recently amended, and I don't
want to tell you something wrong.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: It was changed from five to
15,000.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what I thought, 15,000.
Yeah. Okay. So I just want to be sure that -- so we have something
in this process that's more than $15,000. MR. OLLIFF: (Nodding head)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a
second. Okay. Is there further discussion? All those in favor please say aye.
And that motion is to declare an emergency, I believe.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Motion passes 5-0.
Item #10F
DISCUSSION RE THE GORDON RIVER BRIDGE - BCC TO JOIN WITH THE CITY AND
REAFFIRM NORTHERN ROUTE AND SUPPORT FOR REFERENDUM
Next item on the agenda is 10F. This is a discussion of
the second Gordon River Bridge subsequent, I presume, to the workshop
at the city council yesterday. Mr. Conrecode, or do we just want to
discuss this amongst ourselves?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I have one thing that I want
to -- that I was hoping to get an opportunity to say. So maybe this
is -- this is it.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: This is it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Most -- Most of us attended the
long meeting at city hall yesterday, and I certainly came away with
the impression that there's nothing -- that there was nothing new,
that we didn't learn anything in that meeting that we hadn't already
known. Unfortunately, however, I think that an already confused
elector is probably more confused as a result of the continuing
discussion. One of the most useful bits of information that came out
of the meeting for me yesterday was a memorandum that the city manager
read into the record. It had been directed to our county manager from
our transportation director, Mr. Archibald, and I thought that it very
succinctly and -- and clearly set forth the reasons why this location
for the bridge is the right one. And so I would -- I'd just like for
that to be made a part of the record, or, Mr. Dotrill, if you could
get copies of that memo for all of us.
MR. DORRILL: We're already doing that. You spoke to me
earlier this morning, and I've asked that those be made available this
afternoon.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great, because it very clearly
and succinctly supports the choice that was made and that the city
council, in fact, by a majority vote endorsed again. I will -- I will
say that I'm concerned about the probability of success on this
referendum for a lot of reasons, most of which are confusing
information that's been made, you know, public, and for that reason
I'd very much like for Mr. Archibald's memo at least to get out
because it's as clear as a bell.
I -- I personally think that the probability of success
on this -- on this referendum would be greater if -- if we could delay
it and have more time to get information out to the public. For my
vote on MPO, when we decided to have the special election, the -- the
justification for the expenditure of the $120,000 was that the FDOT
told us you've got to give us an answer by fall or we're -- or you're
risking your $80 million. We might spend it in another county. Now I
understand or I heard at city council yesterday that FDOT could work
with us. If -- You know, if we didn't get them an answer in the fall,
they probably still could jockey their budget so that we didn't risk
losing that money. I'm uncomfortable relying on that because they're
the same people who told us the opposite a few months ago.
If I could get some confidence level -- and I'm -- I'm
asking has anybody else spoken to FDOT, and does anybody have any
confidence level about their willingness to delay because I think that
we have a huge education curve still ahead of us with the public and
that if we could delay this vote to March without risking our FDOT
budget, that we probably would have a greater chance of success. I
just put that on the floor for discussion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First, I think it's important
that we don't sell the voters short. I think while -- whatever
information we've tried to disseminate, we may have not done as
clearly or concisely as we'd like. I think the voters have a pretty
good idea of what's going on and have followed this. The media has '-
I've been joking with Carl Loveday and Steve and the others. The
media has had no shortage of information put out on this. This is on
the radio virtually every day, in the newspaper virtually every day.
You're right. There was no new information of any
substance offered. I did talk with DOT Friday and again yesterday,
and my level of confidence is not strong that we're guaranteed that
we're -- we're not going to end up losing a substantial amount of
money, maybe as much as eight and a half million dollars if we delay
this, and not because DOT isn't cooperative, just because of the way
the process works.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They've consistently been
trying to work with us. And over and above that, I worry a little bit
about -- we've spent 80,000, and it will cost if we put the brakes on
now, at least 20,000 more. I think we need to be very careful in the
next three weeks, four weeks, whatever it is, to continue the
education effort on the issue, but I think it would be a mistake to
throw that money away and delay until March at this point.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think it's right that
there's a lot of confusing information out there. I -- Obviously,
that's -- that -- a lot of that confusing information is simply the
opponents of the bridge running their political campaign, and they're
doing a fine job of -- of perpetuating some of these misconceptions
and confusing information.
Really, though, for the average motorist who drives in
and out of the City of Naples on a regular basis, it's really a very
simple question. The question is -- can be boiled down to this.
Would you rather pay an extra cent sales tax for a period of nine
months, or would you rather suffer through traffic jams that
continually get worse over the next ten or fifteen years? That's as
simple as it gets. I mean, that's all -- that's all the question is.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that the average cost is
under $100. With the Sunset, it's 80 or $90 a household.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it just depends. You know,
that -- that's going to be very hard to figure --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Average.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- but that's -- everyone can
figure that up by how much money they spend, but that -- that's really
the basic question. There -- There's nothing more to it than that for
most people, and I think the figures that we saw yesterday show that
-- I guess you're going to have a hundred and -- plenty of trips in
and out of the city here within the next few years, 120,000 a day, and
is it better to have those going on two routes or three routes. I
mean, figure it out. It's not very complicated at all.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think the number I was hearing
yesterday by the year 2000 was 174,000 trips between Golden Gate
Parkway and U.S. 41, and it's not hard for me to say I'd rather have
three routes than two but -- as it -- as it be. Commissioner Hancock,
do you have a comment?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just quickly. I won't belabor
this. There are a few things -- and the reason I would like to see
this board make a decision to continue with the referendum is that a
few things have not changed. One is the undisputable fact based on
traffic studies, that another Gordon River Bridge is needed in the
next ten years.
Second, the Florida Department of Transportation is not
going to develop a bridge fairy that's going to build it for us. No
one is going to come down and build that bridge for us from FDOT.
It's not going to happen, and you only need to pick up the phone and
talk to Secretary David Hay to find that out, and you can also check
the record of our HPO meeting.
And the third item is that this referendum needs to be
focused on how do we want to go about paying for it. That's the key
question. That's -- That's what the referendum is all about. Those
three things have not changed, and my support is still well within the
court of proceeding with the referendum and concentrating on speaking
to the facts of the issue, not the rhetoric and trying to avoid and
diffuse some of the confusion that's occurred.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I -- I have a question for
the county attorney, and you and I talked about this when this first
came to light a couple of weeks ago because of the fact sheet that the
county mailed out in June, the question and answer of almost precisely
where the bridge will be located and a map included in it of a
straight line. I would presume then that should the referendum pass
and -- and I for one feel that it should -- this board is pretty much
locked in to the Ninth Avenue alignment; is that correct?
MR. CUYLER: I would say that's correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And in your -- And in your
estimation, the only way -- or at least what you explained to me, the
only way we could unlock ourselves from that would be to put some sort
of notification in the mail to the -- to the voters which would only
further confuse them that the Ninth Avenue alignment may not be the
final solution.
MR. CUYLER: Correct, prior to the election -- the
referendum.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Prior to the 25th. Okay. I -- I
just want to make it clear that --
MR. CUYLER: Yeah. That's -- I can't point you to a
case that says that, but you've given that indication. The voters,
certainly they could say that's what I voted for.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have said enough about the
Ninth Avenue alignment, that unless we publicly make notice, that it
may not be that, we are pretty much committed to it.
MR. CUYLER: (Nodding head)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. Do we have speakers
on this?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. You have two, Mr. Lee and
then Mr. Barton.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Lee.
MR. LEE: For the record, my name is Arthur Lee, and
I've been asked this morning to -- by the citizens against bridge tax
organization, to present their willingness, their accord to go along
with the election at this time -- in other words, not to present any
opposition to the elections continuing. The reason for it is that
we're pretty confident that we've got this thing licked, that it's
going to be voted down.
The other reason -- At the same time, I've been asked to
state these positions, that there have been all sorts of studies up
and down and crosswise on traffic, and very little thought has been
given to the demographics that are involved. There is a serious
amount of evidence that there are several communities, business as
well as residential, within the City of Naples that are going to be
affected in any number of ways. I mean, traffic control is part of
it. Another part of it are the things that -- that go along with it,
noise and air pollution, and that sort of thing, which have not been
incorporated into the -- into the study.
The other part that has come up has been a little bit of
a broader issue, and that has to do with a lot of evidence that's
coming up that there is going to be increased -- an increase in the
speed of urbanization as a result of the second bridge construction.
Those are the points -- the principal points with which
they are in opposition to this, and one would urge that if at some
future time in the odd event that this election should succeed, that
any other attempt for an -- if, indeed, it fails, any other attempt
would incorporate these demographic and socioeconomic considerations.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Lee. Mr. Barton.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While Mr. Barton is coming up, I
just wanted to read a little bit out of Mr. Archibald's memo, and I
know you guys have heard it but -- but, frankly, especially in light
of what Mr. Lee was just saying, I -- I wanted to be -- the record to
be made, that the transportation services administrator for Collier
County says the following. Only the northern alignment has been the
subject of county/city consensus. Here's a real critical point. The
northern alignment has no direct connections nor direct impacts to
residential areas. The other alternatives do. That was my comment.
The connection with Livingston Road currently exists without any cost
via Enterprise Avenue. Enterprise Avenue has existing capacity to
handle network traffic into the near future, the early 2000s. To
date, the community has only received information on the down side of
the roadway issue. There are groups prepared to provide public
information on the issue if given the opportunity. Such public
information may, in fact, give credence to the northern alignment.
The basic cost of the referendum has been incurred, as you were
saying, Commissioner Hancock. And it goes on. But the one that is
the most persuasive to me is the fact that the northern alignment has
no direct connections nor direct impacts to residential areas, and I
just wanted to make the record that our transportation services
administrator has given his professional opinion that the northern
alignment is the right one. So I just wanted to get a chance to put
that on the record.
MR. CUYLER: Commissioner Mac'Kie, you can submit that
if you wish to --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I will.
MR. CUYLER: -- to the record.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Barton.
MR. BARTON: Madam Chairman, for the record, my name is
Bill Barton, and I wanted to take a few moments to express some
thoughts. Firstly, let me tell you I agree with you that if --
although I wasn't at the city council meeting yesterday, there was
nothing new that came about in that city council meeting. The fact
that there has always been a desire to have a connection on the
Central Avenue route to Livingston, it's always been there.
I spoke to each of you last week about a route that
would take that from Airport Road to Livingston if the Central Avenue
were used that we thought was a pretty good route. And let me give
you a few minutes on -- bore you with a few minutes of chronology how
-- how and why we even looked at it. We didn't take any look at that
until Thursday of the week that the city council decided to rehear the
workshop issue. Our motivation for looking at it was not -- and I
emphasize it was not in an effort to find a route better than Ninth
Avenue. Rather, it was to see whether or not we could support Central
at all because from our point of view, if there were not a viable
means to get from Airport Road connection with north over to
Livingston, then we were going to be -- we were going to give our
recommendation to you that Central would not work in the long term.
As -- All -- All that did is tell us, well, they probably are both
viable, but I think that the -- the actions of the city council
yesterday were very appropriate. They -- They kept us on course.
They were positive in their nature, and I -- I think that's what I
hear from you all today, and I would simply tell you that George
Archibald and I have discussed Ninth Avenue corridor on many
occasions, and he and I agree that that corridor will work. It will
do what is needed to be done to get our traffic in that urban area
more efficiently moved east/west. So if it is the decision of the
board to go in that direction today, it is a project that is sorely
needed and one that will work quite well at the Ninth Avenue location.
So I just -- I thought it would be worthwhile for me to make you
aware of those feelings so that there wouldn't be any misconception
about why we even looked at Central.
And I know I'm preaching to the choir now, but I grew up
in Sarasota County, and if we want to look at an occasion where there
was thought given by a board of county commissioners two decades ago,
that if we delay or slow down infrastructure, we can delay or slow
down urbanization, just drive up there and look, folks. And they
passed their one cent infrastructure sales tax four years ago, and
it's not even a drop in the bucket trying to get them back where they
-- where Collier County is today as far as staying up with growth.
Thank goodness we've been as smart as we have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. I don't know that we
need a motion or anything to continue the path that we're on. I think
if we were to change that path, we would need a motion but --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Chairman, let me -- let me
just suggest that I'll make a motion that the county commission join
with the city council and -- and reaffirm our support for the northern
route and reaffirm our support for the referendum going forward.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second
that we join with the city council and reaffirm the continuance of the
referendum and our support for the referendum. Commissioner
Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to clarify, we're
supporting the referendum, meaning the voters' right to choose? We're
not supporting a particular side of the issue right now?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: The motion -- I believe I said --
I meant to say -- If I didn't, I meant to say, we support the
referendum going forward as scheduled.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So the motion is we
support the referendum, that we're joining with the city council to
support the referendum continuing on the path that it's on.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: As well as the choice of the north
-- northern alignment.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, that's part of it. Okay.
We have a motion and a second. All those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5-0. Thank you.
Mr. Conrecode.
Item #8H2
RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE SHORT LIST AND AUTHORIZE
STAFF TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE TOP-RANKED FIRM FOR FINAL DESIGN OF THE
GORON RIVER BRIDGE PROJECT - STAFF TO NEGOTIAET WITH TOP-RANKED FIRM
AND COME BACK TO THE BOARD
MR. CONRECODE: Commissioners, item 8H(2) was pulled
from 16H(5).
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. This is the --
MR. CONRECODE: Do you want to discuss this in
conjunction with the last one?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Right. I -- I pulled that for
the primary reason of not knowing what this board was going to do
regarding the bridge and -- and -- and just a safety aspect. It was
pulled for that reason. I have no problem if -- if one of my
colleagues want to make a motion that we direct staff to negotiate
with the number one ranked company.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My assumption is we won't
actually expend money until either the issue has been approved or not?
MR. CONRECODE: That's correct. We can bring this item
back to you for formal adoption subsequent to the election, but we get
a 60-day jump on the RFP process, 40-day on the construction or the
contract.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: With that in mind, I'll
second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Mr. Conrecode, then the contract you're going to negotiate will have a
commencement clause that will be linked to the passage of the
referendum item?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. We have a motion
and a second to direct staff to go forward with negotiations for the
number one ranked consulting company. And without further discussion,
all those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5-0.
MR. CONRECODE: Thank you.
Thank you.
Item #11A
GUY L. CARLTON, COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR RE THE BEACH RENOURISHHENT
PROJECT - TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX - COUNTY ATTORNEY TO REDRAFT
AGREEMENT
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Where are we? We're almost
finished. Next item on the agenda is -- Oh, I'm sorry. We're at
public comment. Mr. Dotrill, is there any public comment today?
MR. DORRILL: Not today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not today?
Next item on the agenda is item 12C(1). This is an
amendment -- I'm sorry. I did miss it. llA. This is from other
constitutional officers. Mr. Carlton. It's discussion of the tourist
development tax. I think he's looking to lower his fees.
MR. DORRILL: During -- During the board's recess, I had
the privilege of working with Mr. Carlton concerning the reduction in
his fee that he is entitled to, to collect this tax, and in
conjunction with the imposition of the third cent of the tourist tax
from beach renourishment, he has offered to reduce his administrative
fee and charge from 3 to 2 percent and will maintain that during the
time that that third cent of the tourist tax is in place for beach
renourishment. It will go back to 3 percent at the time that you
cease to collect that, and I thought that was a very magnanimous
offer, and I have attached a copy of the memo that I asked just to
confirm our understanding, and Mr. Haynes is here who is a deputy tax
collector in the event that you have any questions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is -- I have one question. Is he
offering to reduce his fee for the entire three cent tax or only for
that additional penny?
MR. DORRILL: I'll ask Mr. Haynes to elaborate on that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just wonder -- If it's for the
whole thing, I want it on the record.
MR. DORRILL: My understanding is it's the entire
amount, but I don't want to misspeak. That was what the intent was.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Haynes.
MR. HAYNES: The entire tax.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The entire tax.
MR. HAYNES: For the period of time that the additional
1 percent is being collected to -- towards -- for beach -- beach
renourishment.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think it's a fantastic offer.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Kudos to our thrifty tax
collector.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume you're not looking
for any action today. This is just pending our decision on tourist
tax which is going to come before us in another month, two months? MR. CUYLER: Early September.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Early September. Then --
MR. CUYLER: 5 or 12.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I hope I'm not jumping the gun on
this, but perhaps we could direct Mr. Cuyler to include in that third
-- third cent ordinance a clause agreeing with the tax collector that
the fee will be 2 percent during the collection period for the third
penny --
MR. CUYLER: We will bring you --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and that it will flip back.
MR. CUYLER: We will bring you something. We do that by
separate agreement. I think probably what we'll do is redraft that
separate agreement and have it contemporaneously with your ordinance
review.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that -- It's my understanding
the tax collector wants some assurance that it will flip back when the
-- when the tax is Sunsetted.
MR. CUYLER: We'll give the tax collector whatever he
wants.
HR. HAYNES: This is one of the few instances where
we're able to do this because our base of income will stay practically
the same. And if we revert back after the Sunset, we'll still be in
the same position, and this also enables more money to go in the
account for beach renourishment.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Hr. Haynes, for you and Hr.
Carlton and all your staff, thank you. HR. HAYNES: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: I might add just because it's timely and
to update the board, Mr. Carlton's office has been having some
space-related problems in both of his property tax section, which is
something that should be near and dear to your heart, as well as
fishing licenses and motor vehicles, and I went over and I met with
Mr. Carlton last week, and we're trying to determine a projection and
get him to assist us by decreasing some of his expenses the last two
months of the fiscal year and a way to help pay for a fairly small
expansion to that building, and I just want to update you that we're
-- we're trying to work to accommodate him, but he is working to
reduce some of his operating expenses to assist you in paying for that
expansion, and I hope to have something to offer back to you maybe
within just a couple of weeks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sounds fair. Hr. Haynes, thank
you very much --
HR. HAYNES: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and -- and I -- I think the
taxpayers are very appreciative of the offer to do this.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I assume there's still no public
comment.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I assume there's still no public
comment.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
Item #12C1
AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE 86-67 PERMITTING SUBHETERING - CONTINUED TO
9/19/95
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is item
12C(1). This is an amendment to Ordinance 86-67 pertaining to
submetering. Mr. HcNees.
MR. HCNEES: Good morning. Again, I'm still Hike HcNees
of your utilities division. This is an item that's a response to a
public petition, so I'll keep my -- my remarks fairly brief here. You
will recall a petition was submitted to allow the Arbour Walk
apartment complex to submeter or individually meter the apartments
within the complex after the master meter through which the county
bills this project. The county attorney's office has drafted an
ordinance to make that allowable. They had ruled originally that it
wasn't allowable under our existing ordinances.
The staff's position essentially is we're somewhat
indifferent as to whether this happens, given certain caveats. One is
we don't feel like the county commission wants to put itself in a
regulatory position between the landlord and the tenant, and we would
caution -- and Mr. Pettit from the attorney's office indicates that he
has written this ordinance in such a way as that relationship would
not be created. You don't want essentially to have to have an
apartment meter police section in your utilities division and the
administrative burden of that and -- and there are remedies -- other
remedies which Mr. Pettit will be happy, I'm sure, to explain to you
if you'd like to hear them, bill ten of the ordinance in terms of the
Code Enforcement Board and some of those kind of things. Other than
that, I think that the petitioner may have comments to make. I
believe he's here, and we're here to answer any of your questions on
this issue.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. HcNees, one of the things
that's mentioned in the staff report is staff remains concerned over
the potential for abuse of the practice. I share that concern, but I
wonder if you could just elaborate a little bit on that.
MR. HCNEES: Well, abuse would come in two areas. One,
the potential for the landlord to bill more to the tenants than he
actually pays for the water. That would be the one major area. The
other area would be inaccurate meters and -- and that sort of thing
where people actually would not be getting a fair billing, and there
will be mechanisms for them to resolve disputes with the landlord and
then not just be at the mercy of the bill that they get from the
landlord every month. The major abuse potentially is to collect more
than you actually pay on the landlord side, and we would be concerned
that that be clearly not permitted.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there any advantage to the
customer in this?
MR. HCNEES: That depends on whether you're a customer
who uses a little water or a lot of water. If you're a customer who
uses a little water, then there's an obvious advantage to you if it's
more fairly apportioned. If you're the guy that uses a lot of water,
obviously your bill is going to go up somewhat, or your portion of the
whole is going to go up somewhat. So I guess it depends. Folks who
advocate this type of submetering will tell you that they believe it
leads to a large savings in water conservation. I personally haven't
seen factual evidence of that, but they believe pretty strongly that
it does so --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Other than the potential to
save a few dollars along the way for an individual customer, is there
any advantage -- I'm trying to weigh that out against the potential
abuses, and it sounds as though the likelihood for abuse or the
possibility for customers to have difficulty may outweigh that. I'm
just -- I don't know if I'm right.
MR. HCNEES: I think enforcement will be difficult
without some -- again, I call it the -- sort of the submeter police,
to verify accuracies and to -- that sort of thing. Enforcement will be
difficult, and it will be difficult for a tenant if he has to deal
with the Code Enforcement Board or whatever that -- you know, it may
be illegal for the landlord to overcharge, but there are practical
mechanisms for following that through and enforcing that. It won't be
easy.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who would ultimately be the
enforcer, be responsible for enforcement?
MR. HCNEES: I think I'd probably turn that over to Mr.
Pettit.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I'm a -- and, Mr. Pettit,
I'll ask you a more specific question. If I'm a customer and I think
perhaps my landlord's meters aren't working correctly or he is
overcharging me or something is inappropriate, to whom do I go? How
do I get relief?
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner Constantine, for the record,
Hike Pettit from the county attorney's office. The ordinance -- I
want to backtrack a little bit to respond to your question. The
ordinance that we drafted -- I tried to address staff concern that was
expressed here before you on June 6 when this matter first came up,
that we not create a large regulatory body to deal with relationship
between the landlord and the tenant. At this point, the ordinance
provides that the tenant may within five business days obtain
documentation from the landlord and a written explanation from the
landlord of any charges on any water bill that that tenant receives
from the landlord. If the tenant believes based on that documentation
or other evidence collected by the tenant that there is a problem,
there are a variety of remedies the tenant has under the ordinance.
First and foremost would be to look to our Code Enforcement Board
proceedings probably. The land -- The tenant, I believe, also might
have a private cause of action against the landlord for a breach of
lease agreement, assuming this is built into a lease which is what I
would expect would happen. In fact, ordinance -- the ordinance we're
amending today provides that the county itself could bring an action
to enjoin a violation of the ordinance or for damages. And, finally,
the ordinance also provides for remedies under Chapter -- I think it's
125.69 which would subject the landlord to a county court proceeding
and a potential $500 fine or 60 days in jail if it was found to be in
-- the landlord was found to be in violation. How does that affect
county staff? Obviously code enforcement people would be involved
upon a complaint by the tenant just as though they would in any
complaint about a violation of a county ordinance. There are specific
county ordinances -- and I want to make this clear -- that our county
-- our code enforcement procedure applies to most of the county
ordinances. There are a few that are exempt, and this one is not one.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if I am a tenant and I
have some sort of question or disagreement with my bill and I cannot
get satisfaction directly from my landlord, my choices are to go
through code enforcement which will likely take a minimum of roughly
60 days by the time it comes before the Code Enforcement Board and is
advertised and so on, take a day off from work, come down and stand in
front of the Code Enforcement Board and argue my case, or hire an
attorney and pursue it through the court system?
MR. PETTIT: Those are the two -- Those would be two
principal remedies. The other remedies would be -- I suppose in the
case of an egregious violation, although the ordinance plainly
provides that the county can enforce this ordinance by court action
itself and for violations of the ordinance. And, finally, there is
the option of county court and prosecution by the state, state
attorney.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. McNees, is there any
advantage -- It appears that all the opportunities for us to spend
more staff time and more effort on this -- Are there -- Is there any
advantage to the county in this scenario?
MR. MCNEES: No. And -- And I'd like to go back to your
earlier question because I think Mr. Hargett's kind of given me a
better answer than the one I gave you to the question of who benefits
from this. The situation that I described where if you use less water
you might benefit would only apply in the case where the landlord
actually lowered the base rent to start with to deduct whatever that
allocation he has in there for the water bill. If the rent's going to
stay the same, which I don't know which -- what's being proposed here,
but if there's no change to the base rent, essentially everybody will
pay more. It's just a question of how much more, and I don't know what
the proposal is by the landlord.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where I'm going with this is
it seems as though it has the potential to be more burdensome upon the
end user. It seems as though it's going to be more burdensome upon
our staff, and I'm not sure that any benefits there -- You know, if we
can conserve water, great, but any potential benefit doesn't seem to
outweigh those two things.
MR. MCNEES: And in the long run, whatever dispute there
is probably will end up here to be resolved, and so you're -- what?
No matter how hard we try to stay out of it, I think you're -- you're
correct. It -- It ends up here, and it ends up being an
administrative problem.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems like we're
complicating a system that's already working.
MR. MCNEES: I won't argue that with you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think, in essence, we are
looking somewhat at uncharted waters that we haven't -- haven't
ventured into before, but I -- I will argue that I think there's the
potential for some benefit but not -- not as directly as maybe the
line Commissioner Constantine was following. Currently if apartment 60
wants to run the bath eight times a day, they can do it, and their
rent's the same. The entire complex, all -- everyone who lives in the
apartment complex picks up the tab on water regardless of their
individual use. I think that it does promote increased use of those
resources because they're not individually responsible for how much
they use. We've talked a lot about water resources and availability
and so forth. So I -- I -- I guess I, in a way, would like to see
people be individually accountable for the water that they use, and
I'd like to find a way to make that happen, provided it doesn't result
in a cost borne by the balance of the tax base, and that seems to be
the question here. Is that what we're setting up?
My question -- and maybe Mr. Pettit can answer it. If
we were to venture into a test case per se with -- I guess Arbour Walk
is the one that's currently looking at this or Arbour Trace. I think
it's Arbour Walk, isn't it? If we were to venture into a test case to
see how it works, see how it operates, see if there was truly a
reduction in consumption that was beneficial to the balance of the
county residents as far as a resource perspective -- if we saw that
that wasn't happening, would we have the ability to rescind the
ordinance without penalty or significant difficult from, say, Arbour
Walk trying to come in and recoup expenses they went to in the
placement of meters and so forth?
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner Constantine, you put me on the
spot with that question.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would be him. That would be
him.
MR. PETTIT: Pardon me, Commissioner Hancock. Mike
Pettit again, for the record. You put me on the spot with that
question. My sense would be that you could rescind this ordinance in
any way that you would ordinarily rescind an ordinance. As to whether
there would be a right of somebody to come in after the fact and
reclaim recoupment, I would have to research that.
MR. CUYLER: There -- There may be more than one project
that's looking at this too, I think.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, because at the center of
this lies a good idea, and the problems are arising in the -- the
fulfillment of that idea or how to bring it to fruition and-- and I
just hate to throw the idea away. If this isn't the vehicle, it isn't
the vehicle, but I -- I -- I would like to find a way to make it work.
MR. PETTIT: There clearly are more than one project
looking at this. I've been called by a number of companies who are
interested getting into Collier -- the Collier County market because
this is done in -- Hillsborough County is the one where it's very
widespread, and I'm told there are other jurisdictions.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have a track record from
Hillsborough County on problems and difficulties and lawsuits that
have occurred in the history of their operation of this manner?
MR. PETTIT: I have spoken to the Hillsborough County
director of the utilities, and I've also spoken to the county attorney
up there who drafted the exceptions to their ordinance to allow the
practice which are somewhat different than what we presented. I was
told that they've -- they've dealt with a complaint-by-complaint
basis, but there have been very few complaints from anyone about the
practice. I also was told that there has not been a rigorous effort
by the county to enforce some of the regulatory requirements that are
built into their ordinance which is one of the things -- we -- we
don't want to pass an ordinance I don't think, and it's something I've
talked with the utilities staff that we're not going to enforce. And
the suggestion I got from Hillsborough County was that maybe they
don't do much to ensure that there aren't problems.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have a track record how
much water has been conserved in Hillsborough County?
MR. PETTIT: My conversation was -- was general. I
think the utilities division fellow felt that there was some
conservation. He couldn't give me any figures. I have been given
figures by private companies who do the -- do the work for the
landlord but obviously they have --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A little bit of an interest.
MR. PETTIT: -- a little bit of interest.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It -- It -- It -- It just seems
to me that where I'm a tenant in an -- an apartment development where
submetering was occurring and I got a bill that I thought might be in
error and my options were to pay an extra $4 a month in water or to
spend a day off work to come to code enforcement or to fire -- or to
hire an attorney, it's not a hard decision. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I -- The only interest I
have in considering this is if there is data to support that water
conservation is a result. I'm disappointed that there's no data in
our packet, and I don't know whose -- whose fault that is, but there's
nothing here except for a proposed ordinance and some underlining and
strike-through. Maybe the petitioner can fill that gap, and I'd like
to hear from him before we vote. MR. GOODLETTE: I hope so.
MR. MCNEES: If I could, while he's on his way up,
there's a couple of things I'd annotate. First of all, there's no
data because I've seen no data. I keep hearing this 40 percent
number. Let me add some what -- fact from our side to what is the
theory here. Our average customer uses anywhere from eight, nine,
10,000 gallons of water a month average. As a rule, 40 percent of our
water usage is for irrigation which nets down to five or 6,000 gallons
which is probably four to 6,000 what the typical apartment would use,
and what we're talking about is a major change in people's behavior
for that marginal two or 3,000 gallons a month which equates to them
three or $4. That's -- That's certainly a question that's open for
debate. If -- If it -- the board were to decide that individually
metering is -- is a good idea, there isn't any reason why you can't
change your regulations today and not encourage master metering, but
actually in our system require individual meters for every apartment
or condominium. Now, condominiums are -- at least they have an
association that writes the checks, and they're a little more attuned
to usage. But we could require beginning today or beginning whenever
an ordinance could be adopted that new apartment complexes have
individual meters. You have that mechanism available to you without
the administrative burden of the submetering. So I'll just throw that
in.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Goodlette, you're
representing the petitioner?
MR. GOODLETTE: Yes, Madam Chairman. Dudley Goodlette,
law firm of Cummings and Lockwood, for the record, representing
Cronacher Development Corporation who is the developer -- owner and
developer of Arbour Walk.
First of all, the proposed amendment that Mr. Pettit has
drafted and -- and briefly reviewed with you will have the benefit to
three different components. It will have the benefit to the owner
from the operating side, and you'll have someone talk with you about
that in just a moment from Arbour Walk, the manager; to have a benefit
to the tenant who conserves water which is the objective of this
approach. And I might add that there are very few counties in the
state that don't have ordinances permitting this approach to
submetering. And it will have a benefit to the community from the
standpoint of water conservation and -- and you'll hear some speakers
this morning or this afternoon about that.
Now, there are two separate issues. I want -- I want to
digress for just a second because what -- what Hr. HcNees just
indicated to you going forward in requiring individual meters rather
than permitting master meters as you have in the past, you can do that
and -- and -- and -- and I would suggest and encourage you to consider
doing that.
On the other hand, the other side of that equation is
retrofitting existing buildings that have master meters, and that's a
different subject, and that's where this ordinance comes from. That's
where this amendment comes from. That was the genesis of our public
petition to you back in June, and that's what -- Based upon the
direction you gave the staff at the time, that's what this ordinance
seems -- attempts to contemplate which is -- which is outlined in the
ordinance, and again Mr. -- Mr. Pettit or Mr. HcNees or others can --
can go through that with you.
First of all, resident accountability, tenant
accountability generates reduced usage and conservation. There's no
doubt about that. There will be people here who will speak to that
issue from the -- from the Conservancy. There are someone who will
speak to you this morning from the South Florida Water Management
District on those issues.
Also, if -- if residents are motivated to report leaks
in their faucets, that's going to have an impact because repairs are
going to be made, and that's another overriding consideration here.
There is a benefit to the community as a whole as well as the
individual tenant who is -- who we're seeking to encourage to conserve
water by being held accountable for the amount that they use that will
benefit the tenant. And in response to the -- Mr. HcNees's response
to an earlier question is that for those who conserve less -- who
consume less I should say, or who conserve water, their rates will go
down. Their total rent, including water, will go down. For those who
do not, it is not unlikely that their total rent, including water,
will go up. So it's a fundamental philosophical question. Going
forward, yes, you can prohibit master meters. However, going backward
because of many of the communities that are in existence have master
meters, the more palatable way to deal with those is through the
program that's permitted under this amendment that's before you today.
To the extent that there are concerns, Commissioner
Constantine, that you addressed, we -- we certainly have no objection
to incorporating additional provisions in any amendment to your
existing ordinance to ensure that -- that the burden upon this county
is not increased by virtue of this amendment if you accept our
philosophical approach that conservation of the precious resource,
water, is important to this community. That's the issue.
Furthermore, the landlord/tenant act addresses some of
the issues that -- answer some of the questions that you raised. And
landlord/tenant litigation, if you will, is not necessarily one where
you have to have a lawyer representing you in those forms. There are
provisions -- self-executing provisions in the landlord/tenant act
that address some of those questions.
Let me just -- Let me just digress because the real
answers to your -- your important questions are going to be provided
to you this morning by -- by -- by two speakers, Jerry Baker. He
happens to be the president of National Exemption Services, and he is
here this morning for the purposes of telling you a little bit about
how submetering works, to give you a comfort level with that if you're
not already familiar with it, how -- where the meters are installed,
how you do not need to invade the tenant's privacy in order to read
those meters, and to just give you a little bit of a feeling for how
that works.
Importantly also, Linda Tate, who is the manager of
Arbour Walk, is here, will tell you how it is contemplated that this
will benefit the tenants in that particular project as well as the --
as the owner themself because the operating expenses -- This is
designed to bring those operating expenses down.
Those are my comments, Madam Chairman. I will try not
to belabor this, but if I could ask Mr. Jerry Baker -- and I turned
all of those slips in to your manager earlier.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: While they're coming --
MR. GOODLETTE: Any questions?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: While they're coming up,
Commissioner Norris, you had a question?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll save my comments until the
speakers are done.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
MR. GOODLETTE: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Baker and then Miss Tate. We have
about seven speakers.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Seven?
MR. BAKER: Good morning. My name is Jerry Baker, and
I'm the president of National Exemption Service. We're the company
that's been contracted to perform the submetering at Arbour Walk.
Collier County is considering a pretty bold move toward an issue that
is very important to all of us within the county and nationally, and
that is the conservation of our precious resources which Dudley has
already alluded to. Collier County is, as well, one of the few
counties in the State of Florida that does not already allow for
submetering. It is certainly, as has been pointed out, a trend that
we're gravitating to. It's frightening in the absence of conservation
with the number of people that are entering the State of Florida and
moving about and all, that while our water is quantity-wise a finite
situation, we're having more and more and more people, if you review
your building permit requests, moving into the area. It's a difficult
situation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry to interrupt. Just
a quick question. Both -- Both you and Dudley have said we're one of
the few counties. Do you know exactly how many counties in the State
of Florida do have this ordinance?
MR. BAKER: I know that there are very few that do not.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Very few is what? Five?
Ten?
MR. BAKER: As a matter of fact, to our knowledge there
are not many that do not. As a matter of fact, Dade County recently
passed it and will begin submetering there. That's the most recent --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That doesn't mean we should do
it.
MR. BAKER: Oh, no, no, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There are 67 counties in
Florida. I mean, are -- When we say very few, is that 30 of them
don't have this? Three of them don't have this?
MR. BAKER: I can ascertain that on your behalf and
provide that information at a later date.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The answer is you don't know?
MR. BAKER: At the present time, I know of none, is the
answer.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know of none that don't
have this?
MR. BAKER: I know of none that do not allow us to
submeter. All do that I'm aware of.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does Brevard County have it?
MR. BAKER: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Seminole County?
MR. BAKER: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Citrus County?
MR. BAKER: I don't know.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: This could take a while.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. The point is you don't
know? When you say, I don't know of any, well, you know, I don't --
I'm assuming you don't know all 67 counties. MR. BAKER: No, sir.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So just --
MR. BAKER: Lee County, yes; Hillsborough County, yes;
Pasco County, yes; Pinellas County, yes; Orange County, yes; Dade
County, yes, and so forth so -- but, again, that's -- that's
irrelevant to some extent but relevant to some extent. It appears that
rather than the counties going away from, they're obviously going
toward. Moreover, a community nearby Arbour Walk, Bear Creek,
submetered. There are other areas not within Florida that I'm aware
of that require submetering for COs who do not build without
submetering.
Now, that aside, what I was asked to do was to present a
bit of an overview as to how the submetering process works so that you
gain an understanding of that. And to that end, let me explain. What
we would propose to do would be to install a meter inside of each
apartment and by way of, in this case, a wire, not unlike a 22 gauge
which is similar to a lamp cord in size brought outside of the
apartment to a central location similar to the banking of electric
meters would be or telephone service, and at that point there would be
sensors placed there thereby allowing us to read the meters which are
in each individual apartment and knowing precisely how much water was
used within that apartment at the time that that meter is read. The
resident who is in that apartment as well has an opportunity to
because there is what I would call an odometer, if you will, on the
meter, and they can read it, and it's the exact same number. Thereby,
if the bill is rendered -- if the bill is rendered, they can check it
and compare -- compare it to what we have billed and see that the
quantity of water that goes through the meter is identical to what we
have billed.
A question arose as to the accuracy of the meters. The
meters are the exact same ones that -- I'm almost afraid to say this
-- many communities purchase in the State of Florida and use, and
among them are the City of Clearwater. Dade County does also, and I'm
aware that Lee County does also the same brand of meters; thereby,
we're buying the same meters that they do. They could have been sold
to us, or they could have been sold to a municipality such as Collier
County to place in the ground -- are the same ones.
The meters are read once per month. The bills are
rendered once per month. The rates that are changed are exactly the
same as those which are charged by the municipality supplying the
water service to what would be considered the master meter at the
front of the property.
As an additional check and balance on the system -- I
don't know if I restarted this. As an additional check on the system,
the public service commission does have the ability to enforce to some
extent and -- and are available for protection of the consumers. As
an example, on an annual basis, we have to file a petition which
outlines the charges that we have, the charges that the master meter
is being charged on a per-unit basis, and they have to be identical or
less.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Considering how well the
public service commission has represented the consumers on Marco
Island and Golden Gate, that's probably not a big confidence booster
for me.
During construction, the addition of meters -- You
mentioned an individual meter would go in each place, and it would be
wired similarly to, like, FPL does?
MR. BAKER: It will be wired to a central location
whereby allowing us to read the meters without entering the apartment
each month.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much additional cost
would that be? What -- What -- What's the value of that metering and
wiring when you actually put that in? How much does that add to the
construction cost of a unit? 100 bucks? 500 bucks?
MR. BAKER: I would guesstimate approximately $200 per
meter.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Including wiring and
everything?
MR. BAKER: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BAKER: It can be higher than that if you enter into
an arrangement where the meters are read by telephone or other
mechanisms, but the system that we're advocating would be about $200
per meter.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Hiss Tate and then Mr. Gore.
MR. PETTIT: Commissioners, if I could -- Hike Pettit
again. There was a reference to the public service commission. I
think you may all know this, but I want to make sure the record is
clear. The public service commission has no jurisdiction here. In
this matter, the public service commission does have some specific
regulations of this practice which we looked at when we considered the
amended ordinance.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Hiss Tate.
MS. TATE: Hi. I'm Linda Tate. I'm manager at Arbour
Walk. Our main objective in our submetering issue is to conserve
water. That is the bottom line. We get calls for repairs. Somebody
will call in, well, my toilet's been running for a week. Okay. Why
didn't you call us? We do all repairs within 24 hours, usually within
four hours. I -- When I was first approached with this submetering
issue, which was about a year ago, I was totally against it too.
Since then I have visited several properties in Sarasota County, in
Hillsborough County, talked to managers, talked to developers who have
since submetered, and just again -- I know everyone wants written
statistics, but I have been told that communities are saving from 10
percent up to some as much as 40 percent after they have gone to a
submetering process.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just comment? I -- I don't
-- I don't want to be too -- This may not be appropriate for you, but
I want to go ahead and say this so that whomever in the group it might
be appropriate for could respond. I'm concerned when I don't have
those facts and pieces of paper and statistics. If -- If -- If the --
If the people who sell the meters are telling you that communities
have saved 10 percent, with all due respect, they're making a living
and -- and so I'm going to review that with just a slight bit of, you
know, skepticism. If the utilities themselves are saying that their
records show that there's been a 10 percent savings, then I'm going to
be ecstatic about that and be real interested in supporting something
that -- that could result in a savings like that. So just on that
point, I just wanted to try to make that point, that we have to review
it with some skepticism if it's somebody who's trying to sell you a
submeter is telling you how much it's going to save. So if you have
more information, I'm going to want to see it.
MS. TATE: Yes. I can -- I can understand that because
I was skeptical, you know, myself at first. I think I am now looking
more at it from a marketing issue also. When we were first told that
there was going to be mandatory recycling in multi-family, I mean, I
just cringed. You know, we said, how can -- we can't even get people
to take a bag of garbage to the dumpster, much less how are we going
to get them to put them into separate little bins. Well, because
waste management started sending us a bill on a monthly basis which,
of course, increased our expenses, we were going to make this work one
way or the other, and it's worked out wonderfully. We installed a
beautiful recycling center, and we almost have to have it emptied more
than our allotted once -- once a week now. So we're real proud of
that. I think the same thing is coming with submetering. We -- It is
a conservation effort. Water is our most natural precious resource,
and I think if there's any way -- I don't care if it's three or $4 per
month per person, when you're talking about 400 families, I think it
adds up over the long run.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Miss Tate.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Gore and then Mr. Pratt.
MR. GORE: For the record, my name is Jim Gore. I work
for the Conservancy, and I just want to reiterate a few things that
have been said already. Commissioner Hancock pointed out that there
are some problems, or at least there's an issue of fairness having to
do with the neighbors down the hall using the bathtub eight times in a
day and things like that. That, of course, is true. If you -- if you
figure that metering has to do with the common usage, say, for
irrigation and landscaping plus whatever the most abusive person in
the -- in the unit uses, that determines the base rate that everybody
pays. Even if every individual uses it per capita the same amount,
those units which have, say, six or eight people in them determine the
rate for the people who have one or two units in them, even if they
use the rate -- use water at the same rate. When you consider then
that the expected population in Collier County may double or more in
the next two decades and the amount of water available in Collier
County is going to remain essentially the same, it may be located in
other places, so it's more convenient if we consider, say, surface
water storage or aquifer recharge and storage. That's an expense to
the county in order to make the water more available. Certainly any
kind of activity that's going to make conservation something that is
desirable is going to forestall the expense to the county to come up
with ways to store water in a more convenient form to make it more
readily available. So that should say something for submetering, even
if the savings are only a few dollars.
When I was asked to -- to come here and comment on this
today, I called some associates at the Electric Power Research
Institute which is located in Palo Alto, California. They do a lot of
research on -- It's an independent agency that does research on
everything from hydro power to electricity to gas and water
consumption. And those people told me that on average, individual
metering which simply gives a conservation incentive based on what
comes out of the pocketbook, their indication is that on average the
savings in a unit is around 10 to 20 percent over previously -- over
previous consumption levels. So if it's 10 to 20 percent, I
understand around here -- even if you take a look at that and say that
it's a half a gallon -- or excuse me. Say, for example, it's ten
gallons a day which is not a great amount of conservation. Ten
gallons per day, that's 30 gallons -- or excuse me, 300 gallons a
month per individual unit. That's a considerable amount of water
conserved over the year. That may not translate to a huge amount of
monetary savings, but in the long run as water rates go up -- and I
can almost guarantee that they'll go up, and I can almost guarantee
that they won't go down. That in the long run may be a tremendous
savings to both the individual and to the county in terms of what it
may have to invest in the future to re-allocate an essentially
constant resource.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any questions?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one. Are you able -- Could
you get for us anything in writing to maybe back up this -- this
independent institute?
MR. GORE: I can attempt to do that. I -- I didn't
request it at the time. I was just talking with these people about
some other matters also.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this an organization that
you're familiar with? I mean, you would endorse -- you'd support what
they say?
MR. GORE: Yeah. Electric Power Research Institute is
-- is considered to be sort of the authority on -- on utilities and
conservation of utility-type resources, water, gas, and electricity.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it the Conservancy's position
that submetering is a good idea because of -- MR. GORE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- its water conservation?
MR. GORE: Because it conserves water. It -- It has a
tendency to cause people to become individually responsible for their
water usage, and it may be that I -- I know that the Electric power
Research Institute's survey was done on cities in which not as great
amount of water is used, say, for irrigation and landscaping as in the
communities or in the condominium and apartment complexes around here,
but even if the savings are less, they are there, and that's -- that's
what the objective is.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said the institute is
kind of considered the expert in utilities. Considered by whom?
MR. GORE: I don't know. Paul Harvey references them
all the time. No. Generally there are -- there are a number of --
You listen to Paul Harvey sometime. He talks about Electric Power
Research Institute all the time. In -- In -- In scientific meetings I
have gone to, the Electric Power Research Institute is the -- the
authority that's cited as far as utility consumption research and --
and statistics for research or for utilities consumption. That's just
in the scientific societies that I've -- I have participated in.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Dr. Gore, I've got a question.
Are you here supporting the concept of submetering or individual
metering?
MR. GORE: Well --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're different.
MR. GORE: Yes. I understand that. Submetering is as
-- as a step in water conservation, certainly. Individual metering
would even be better if I could -- if we could approach that, but
submetering is certainly a step towards conservation. So anything
which will lead us in that direction is what we're here supporting.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. HCNEES: Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? Mr. HcNees.
MR. HCNEES: I just -- In terms of magnitude here, I --
I don't want to give the impression here that anybody in the room
thinks saving water is not a good idea. Everybody believes in the
room that saving water is a good idea. The issue here is not quite
really that simple. When you look at the magnitude that we're talking
about -- and -- and I know where the water goes in our system, and I
know where the potentials are for savings. What we're talking about
is if we buy the 10 to 20 percent, which I'm not arguing that, talking
about, can we save 10 or 20 percent of the non-common area rental
apartment unit water usage which when you boil that down would get to
be a pretty small portion of our -- our flow. So we're not talking
about, can we save 10 percent of our water across the board. The
tradeoff is, what's the cost to the consumer and -- and to the county
and -- and directly to the consumer. Either way, whether the county
meters it or whether the -- the apartment complex themselves meter it,
there's a cost there. There's a couple hundred dollars more per unit.
There's the cost of -- of if it's the county, of reading those
meters; if it's the apartment complex, of exactly the same
administrative costs. So is that marginal saving worth the cost? And
I'm not prepared to tell you what you think the answer to that is
because you haven't seen really detailed numbers on that, and,
frankly, neither have we in terms of what the savings are. But
there's kind of a picture being painted here that -- that, you know,
saving water is a good idea so let's submeter, and I'm just trying to
point out, it's not quite that simple. This is a marketing tool as
well as a water-saving tool, and in that -- but there are some costs
and some issues, not just as simple as, is water saving good or bad.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How is this a marketing tool?
MR. HCNEES: I am not the one who represented it as
such. So I would ask the -- The apartment folks said it's a marketing
tool.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe somebody will explain that
to me when they come up.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, who's next?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pratt was next and then Mr. Verona.
MR. PRATT: Good morning. My name is Ben Pratt, and I'm
the area manager for South Florida Water Management District. I'm
here representing the district and more especially filling in for my
boss who happens to be out of town. Because water supply and
conservation of water resources is very much a part of our mission, we
would like to go on record as supporting the amendments to Ordinance
number 86 -- 86-67 that is currently under consideration, and we view
it as a water conservation measure.
Now, all public water supply utilities applying for
water use permits are now required to develop and implement water
conservation plans, and we're in the process of reviewing water use
plans in the district, and this submetering is one feature that should
be incorporated in the good water use and conservation plan. When you
apportion a true cost share of actual cost to users, usage tends to --
to be reduced. So we would like to go on record as supporting the
amendments under consideration. If there's any information that I can
get for you that you think you would like to have, I would certainly
be very happy to do it. Just let me know, and I will have it back to
your county manager. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. PRATT: Yes, ma'am?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just don't want to miss that
opportunity if there's any information because if I'm -- I'm going to
beat that horse to death, I need some data to support the theory, and
if that's something that the district could provide, I'd be very
interested in seeing it. And it may be -- I'll say so far I'm finding
myself leaning toward wanting to wait on this issue to get some data
to support the theory. And if it's available -- and everybody keeps
saying that it is -- I'd like to hold it in my hand. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Verona.
MR. PRATT: I'll make that request, Mrs. Hac'Kie, and
bring it back to you, what I can find out. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Verona.
MR. VERONA: For the record, my name is Pat Verona, the
general manager for W.R. Anderson Engineering. We're a firm out of
Chicago. I do not know anybody else that has spoken here today nor am
I associated with them in any manner whatsoever. We've been in the
business since 1975. We've done pretty close to 200,000 meters,
concentrating mainly in the midwest down to Acapulco, in an area where
water is, I think, more valued, more expensive, and conservation is
higher on the list. We found that Florida is quite backward in the
water conservation, and many of your ordinances are actually
anti-water conservation. And I point out the fact that when you
develop a property here, you charge the developer an impact fee, say,
for a four-inch meter or $40,000; whereas, if he were going to meter
each individual unit, it might cost him a million dollars. Obviously
the developer is forced to do the single meter approach.
We are presently working for the City of Naples and the
-- in Lee County we're working for Florida Cities where we're taking
over the water meter section, and that's a big portion of our
business, is in the municipal -- municipality works where they are
looking to privatize. I might like to give you a commercial, that I
think that privatization of the water systems is becoming prevalent
throughout the country, and you should take a look at it. Lee County
has reduced their cost by $16 million ST and I think will be part of
that. They have reduced it down.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thanks for the advice.
MR. VERONA: Well, it's a -- you know, a --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: First you have to get elected.
Then you can come up and make the decisions.
MR. VERONA: Well, we want to promote a little bit if we
can privatize. On your ordinance, you were looking for documentation.
I did not come here today prepared to give you documentation, but I
can direct you in some areas if I knew this was the case. For
instance, the EPA, clean water through conservation publishes a study.
I'd be glad to get it for you. It states in here that -- of the
abstract, that although the installation of monitoring raises costs
for utilities, submetering is typically reported to reduce water usage
20 to 40 percent. Another study here talks about that. Clean water
conservation talks about water being reduced 30 percent. A study from
the City of New York is talking about in the same range. Another
study by the American Society of Civil Engineers, American water
resources, American water works, national water -- It goes on and on,
that there is no doubt about it, that there is conservation of water
by water metering.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. The EPA was the first
study that you referenced?
MR. VERONA: I'll get you copies of those.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great.
MR. VERONA: There isn't any doubt about it. We had the
same situation with Lee County. We represented the facts, and on June
the 7th due to my testimony and evidence that we presented them, Lee
County utilities does allow individual metering within the development
that is served by a single meter. We got that. In Orlando Utilities,
they actually encourage you to do submetering. I don't think that
there's a problem in getting the American water works, the Department
of Community Affairs obviously swift mud, anybody that you're looking
for to give you information that submetering is advantageous and
conserves water.
I think that the situation is accountability where an
individual pays for what he uses. Plain and simple. Whether the
apartment owner reduces his rent, I can't be involved in that. We
encourage them to do that. What seems to be so funny?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your testimony.
MR. VERONA: I see. But I can't be responsible for the
apartment owner. Condominiums -- We do a lot of work with
condominiums where they are actually the owners, and they do reduce
the rate that they're charging. It's a fairness issue, and I think
that the free market takes charge, and I see really no advantage, and
I would encourage you in my last moment here to -- when you issue a
permit or let somebody have a permit, encourage them to have
individual meters which is really the only way it should be. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Verona.
MR. DORRILL: Miss Rautio. Miss Rautio is your final
registered speaker.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MS. RAUTIO: Good morning. For the record, my name is
J.A. Rautio. I'm a licensed underground utility contractor, and I'm
also a consultant. I'm a person who's very concerned about water
conservation, and as someone said earlier, I don't think there's
anyone in this room that's concerned -- or not concerned about saving
water. So with that, I just want to hit a couple of points we had
here.
One of the issues here is savings of water by
individuals in apartments, tenants. I don't think that it's a
responsible approach not to have figures on those. The last gentleman
at least gave us a number of studies that are -- that can be looked
at, but I question what the savings really will be for individual
tenants. The burden here is cost to a consumer. I have a real
question about that. I'm not satisfied with the information I've
heard, that the tenants aren't going to end up paying more and we're
going to have any real tradeoff with water savings. We are talking
about existing construction versus new construction. The individual
meters can be installed at the time of construction when you do your
utilities, but that's very expensive. So that's usually why your
developers choose to go with master meters. You have another level
down where you could have, say, a building is metered, and you only
have, say, maybe eight -- item -- eight units in that building, but
we're talking also about individual meters, and that would really
create I think some individual responsibility on behalf. But you've
got an existing area here that's going to be retrofitted, and I didn't
expect to look at these cost figures, but $200 to retrofit. Who's
going to pay that $200? How does it actually get recouped by the
developer?
One point I want to make sure is very clear is that
you're only talking about Collier County water customers. You have
Southern States Utilities. You have Florida States here in this
county and, of course, the City of Naples. So for this issue, we're
not -- when the gentlemen were saying counties, counties, counties,
we're talking about counties that could have as many as 10 or 12 or 13
water systems. So we're only talking about one water system here, and
I just wanted to make sure that that was clear.
My final comment is that instead of -- maybe if you're
not pleased with the concept of submetering today, to maybe delay this
to actually have more figures. There are some benefits, I think, from
listening to the last gentleman speak, but if I had to choose today,
the packet that you were given does not have enough documentation
really to make a solid decision because you're looking at water
conservation, you're looking at burden to your tenants. And another
thing is, where's the cost to the staff? If we put this ordinance in,
what would it really cost our utilities department to be -- I don't
know -- water cops or submeter people to look at this? What would we
really spend here for Collier County an added burden to us? So I
wouldn't feel comfortable with the information provided today to make
a decision, at least in the affirmative.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. That was our last
speaker?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I will close the public hearing.
Commissioner Norris, you had some comments you wanted to make.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I just want to make a couple of
comments. I think we've heard a little bit of issue from both sides
of the perspective here, and I think one thing that I see is I would
have to surmise that this is from the developer's point of view an
economic issue more than it is a conservation issue, because by doing
this, they will be able to shift the cost of paying the water from
themselves over to the tenants. And there's always, of course, the
potential then that they're going to either not lower water rates
commensurately or next time they raise -- I'm sorry -- lower rents
commensurate to the water rates or next time they raise rent, they can
certainly factor that right on in. So I have to feel that, rather
than being an altruistic conservation issue from their perspective,
it's got to be economic.
The other thing is there's really -- as Commissioner
Hac'Kie has been quick to point out, there's really no evidence to
support any of these claims about conservation. And in any case, even
if there were, there's a couple of problems with that argument to
justify submetering, and I want to make clear that I think that
individual metering is a totally different subject and has some merit.
But to use the claim of conservation to support submetering, then I
see two problems. One of them is, if conservation is your goal, the
top of the list of things to -- measures that could be taken, of
course, as we've heard here from our utilities director is the
irrigation. That's where the bulk of the water goes, and he also
pointed out to us that apartment water usage would have to be near the
bottom of the list of measures that you could take to conserve water.
So that's one of the problems. And the other problem is that there's
very little reason to assume that an apartment occupant who is not
responsible enough to understand the value of conserving water would,
indeed, be the same person who is going to be persuaded to do so in
order to save two or $3 a month on his water bill. It's just -- It's
just -- It's not a logical assumption. To me, the preponderance of
the argument in this particular case is to go against the -- the
change -- the amendment to our ordinance and not to allow submetering.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As everyone has indicated,
obviously the conservation of our resource being water is important.
It's very important. But I think Commissioner Norris has hit on a
number of important points. First, to assume the mindset of the
apartment or condo dweller is water supply be damned, I'm just going
to use all the water I possibly can because everyone is paying anyway,
I think is a misperception. And as you pointed out, if that is the
thought, to save two or $3 is not going to turn them around. So I
think both of those are inaccurate.
Also, we've heard about studies. We've heard about
theories. What I want to see is some real numbers. And if there are
counties or cities in the State of Florida that have similar
situations as Collier County and they have implemented this and they
can show us via real life statistics that there has been a lowerage of
the usage, great. Let's look at how they did it and how they achieved
it. But to depend on a theory or good intentions I think is
irresponsible. I think we're all trying to move forward with water
conservation, but we need to do that in the real world, not just with
good intentions.
And, finally, the thing that kept being referred to is
as though the dollar is going to be the incentive. If people are
responsible themselves for their own water, then that dollar is going
to be their incentive not to use as much. Once you start looking at
the costs that everyone has mentioned -- it's going to be $200 for the
meter plus whatever the labor is to install it. There are going to be
expenses as far as reading the meter. There's going to be some sort
of administrative cost to go and actually physically read the meter.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You've got to bill it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You've got to bill it and --
and obviously those costs are going to be passed on to the user. So
are they actually saving money there?
The -- The rent issue, I think, is a very fair one
because if you're fresh out of school and you move to Collier County
and you've got your first job and you're wandering around looking at
apartments and you see a $500 apartment that looks one way and you see
a $500 apartment that looks the other, the first thing that pops into
a kid's mind, or anybody's mind for that matter, is not going to be,
gee, I wonder if that $500 includes my water each month too. Perhaps
it should be, but I don't think that's a conscious thought, and so are
they truly saving money. If they're -- one place does and one place
doesn't, and they don't know, they may not be comparing apples to
apples. So, again, they may not actually save any money there.
So I think conservation is very important, but we're
looking at an unproven theory. Until we see statistics otherwise,
it's unproven to me, and we do have to weigh that against the burden
on the tenant, the burden on the county and the county's staff, and
the potential for abuse, and right now the scale is not leaning toward
the conservation because it's not proven.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Initially I obviously liked this
idea for the simple reason that the end result would, in fact, be some
level of conservation, but I have to agree with my colleagues, that
what we have been presented today leave probably more questions than I
had coming into this. We can't really determine the specific impact
on residents that are going to be affected by this. We haven't been
shown that impact. And, you know, there still lingers the question, is
there truly a conservation element to this, and nothing I've been
given shows that.
I think maybe I'd like to -- You know, if this is such a
big cost-saving measure, that maybe the apartment complexes want to
look at providing meters and crediting those tenters that use low
water amounts, reduce their rent commensurate with their reduction in
water that they use because you're, therefore, not paying for that
water. There may be another way to do it that doesn't put the county
in a regulatory enforcement position, or there may be a way to bring
this back that is more clear that the counties outside of that
regulatory framework -- You know, I was looking for a way initially to
-- to make this happen, but I just -- I find myself with more
questions than I had an hour ago, and I really don't want to spend the
next three hours to come up with the same result. So I just -- I
really can't support this now. I think it's got some merit and
potential, but there are just too many questions out there that don't
have good positive answers for me at this time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Short -- Short comment is, as
smart as we all are, the EPA and Mr. Pratt and Dr. Gore from the
Conservancy and the South Florida Water Management are smarter than us
about water issues. So if, in fact, the data can be proposed, can be
-- can be produced to support that this is water conservation and
it's a wash from a cash perspective, then I'm for it, absolutely.
So I don't know, Mr. Cuyler, Mr. Dotrill, what the
appropriate procedure would be, but I would like for us to table this
or postpone the decision on this pending receipt of data to support --
because, frankly, if it weren't for the Conservancy and -- and Mr.
Pratt being here today to say that they support it, then I'm ready to
stop the discussion. But with -- When those credentials come forward
and say unquestionably it's water conservation, then I want more
information before I vote no. So I'd like for us to postpone it
pending more information.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I -- I appreciate your
comments. The -- The thing I would like to point out though is that I
think all of us are interested in water conservation, and certainly
none of us are going to advocate wasting water and squandering water,
but at the same time we need to recognize that this is not Arizona.
We get 55 inches of rainfall a year. We're not in a water shortage
situation. We're never going to be in a water shortage situation. If
we're willing to build water plants and pipe it out to people, you
know, it's not a problem if people are willing to pay for it.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So conservation is not quite as --
as important in Southwest Florida as it might be in Phoenix, Arizona.
We need to recognize that. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't
attempt to do it, but here's -- here's the crux of the problem which
Commissioner Constantine alluded to, is how many dollars are you
willing to save -- or spend to save a few gallons of water? I mean,
at some point, it's certainly not going to be economical. And when
you -- As he very astutely pointed out, if you're going to put in all
the administrative costs, the billing costs, the equipment costs, all
of that, I mean, you're -- there's -- it's -- it's probably going to
be impossible to save any dollars even though you may be conserving a
few gallons of water.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Is there
further comment on the board?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had a question for the
attorney.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner MAc'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I asked it already it. What's
the procedure --
MR. CUYLER: The two options are -- you -- Since this is
a public hearing, you can't really table it. You have two
alternatives, one of which is to continue your existing public hearing
that's been advertised for today for a period up to five weeks, or you
cannot take any action on it and have it re-advertised at such time as
staff tells you they're ready to come back with the information, or
you've seen the information or whatever.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: MAdam Chairman, I'll make a
motion we decline the petition. Obviously the door is open on the
issue itself. This is for a particular petitioner, a particular
location. This is not for Arbour Walk. Okay. I'm going to -- still
going to make a motion to decline the petition, and if someone comes
forth with statistics, real live statistics from somewhere else,
obviously we have the opportunity and the authority to retake the
issue at that time.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Is there further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Question. Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Cuyler, does the petitioner
have the ability to bring this back at any time, or is there a
six-month period in which they cannot bring it back? I'm trying to
recall that -- that particular procedure.
MR. CUYLER: I guess the only thing that would affect it
is a reconsideration, but I guess that as long as you understand at
some point the petitioner may -- I mean, if a commissioner says, we
just heard this two months ago, do I have to listen to this again,
somebody may be able to invoke the fact that they're outside your
reconsideration time lines, but generally these types of ordinances I
consider policy matters, and if they want to bring them back, the
appropriate thing may be to come to you and say we're going to
advertise this again. Do you understand? As long as you know that,
that's fine. Staff may not want to do it again unless they understand
you want that to happen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just another question --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner MAc'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- for Commissioner Constantine,
I guess. Is there -- If there's something that I'm missing, I want
you to help me -- point it out to me, that -- What's the harm in
leaving the door open since everybody has cited studies that they
promised us, continue this for a couple of weeks and see if we get the
information and then shoot it down if the data is not there, but I
have questions, pending questions right now I want to know. So what's
wrong with leaving it open for a couple of weeks and letting them
provide the data they said is available from South Florida Water
Management, from Conservancy, from EPA, and then let's just shoot it
right down if the data is not there to support the question of, is it
-- is it a balance between the dollars and the water.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. McNees, how long have you
been working on this?
MR. MCNEES: Well, we -- since the public petition was
submitted, whenever that would have been --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Five or six weeks ago.
MR. MCNEES: -- a couple of months ago, I guess.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It just seems to me if the
information was readily available, the petitioner had some
responsibility to bring that forward. Certainly that's what this
forum is for.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I believe the public hearing is
closed.
MR. GOODLETTE: Madam Chairman --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The public hearing is closed, Mr.
Goodlette.
MR. GOODLETTE: I understand that, but the petition --
I'm not the petitioner here, Madam Chairman. We were -- We were the
people who came here asking that -- in a public petition that this be
considered. Your staff is the one who -- I'm the one who asked the
people from the South Florida Water Management District to come. I'm
the one who asked the Conservancy to come, not your staff. They
didn't -- They didn't -- They weren't going to give you any
information, apparently, today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My question was just not how
long our staff alone has been working on it. The point was that there
has been ample time since the request for public petition came to
gather that information, and it was not gathered. I've got to assume
if it was readily available, it would be here for us. MR. GOODLETTE: Ask Mr. McNees that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It sounds like there's a question
of who's driving this train, and there's been some confusion.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to go back to my
motion. I'm going to go back to my motion -- that is, to decline the
petition, and I think there's a second for that. There's two reasons
for that. One is there isn't enough information to pass it. It is
very clear. Secondarily, the motivater that every single person has
stood up in favor of this has indicated is money. Well, if the
individuals can save money, they will conserve water. And then the
scenario that has been described here, it does not appear people will
save money. They may save money on their water bill, but it's going to
end up costing them more money elsewhere. So if that is the
motivater, it apparently is not going to work in this scenario. But I
-- That's my motion and I --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, how many votes are
needed for this?
MR. CUYLER: Three.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Three votes. I don't think I'm
going to support the motion, and the reason is not that I disagree
with the motion, but that I don't want to close the door on this
thing. I -- I think there's some merit here somewhere and I don't --
and Iwm not sure how long itws going take us to get there. It may
take six months or a year to finally work out all of the problems of
the potential abuse that our staff talks about to get to the data of
the conservation savings that may be available but -- but I want to
explore those things, and I donwt want to shut the door, so to speak,
and --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I donlt think
supporting this motion is going preclude us from looking at this
issue.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, does this prevent
us in any way from researching --
MR. CUYLER: I would say whenever you want to either
direct an ordinance be prepared or accept another public petition for
an ordinance to be prepared, that would be at your discretion as far
as timing.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, see, Iid like the motion to
include direction to staff to continue to explore it and -- and --
and, like I say, it may take six months to get to the end of the abuse
that theylre concerned about and so forth. But based on someone else
having to take a proactive role to have this board look at it again,
based on that, I donlt feel comfortable about the motion. I --
like us to continue to explore it, but anyway Iim not going to beat it
to death.
MR. MCNEES: Madam Chairman, I feel a little bit of a
need to rise to staff defense here. We were directed and the
attorneyls office was directed to draft an ordinance which would allow
what the petitioner had requested to happen that incorporated what we
had identified as staff concerns about what the countyls role would be
here. Thatls what welve done. We were not directed to go about the
business of selling you on submetering and -- and I didnlt feel like
that was appropriate for us to even necessarily take a position
against submetering. We tried to bring you the ordinance to do what
you asked, and we tried to just do what we were directed to do.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I appreciate that.
MR. MCNEES: If you want us to do more research, we can.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I appreciate that and -- and I
understand whatls going on. Commissioner MacIKie, with all due
regard, I think Iid like to call the question.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Please do.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If therels no further discussion
MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, just one -- This is a
denial of the ordinance? When you say a denial of the petition,
youlre talking about denial of the ordinance? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So a vote in favor of the
motion is to deny the -- MR. CUYLER: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. All those in favor of the
motion please say aye.
All those opposed?
Motion fails 2-3, Commissioners MacIKie, Matthews, and
Hancock being in the opposition. Is there a substitute motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Iill make another motion, and
that is to deny this. And, Commissioner Matthews, your suggestion was
to ask our staff to further research, come back with some examples for
us at some time in the distant future.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Rather than -- Rather than
placing the burden on our staff, I think the burden should be placed
on those that stand to benefit from this. And -- and with all
respect, Mr. Goodlette, your -- your clients would not have hired you
if they don't have something to gain in this process. So what I think
-- What I would prefer the motion to be is to continue this item
indefinitely until such time the staff's presented information.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We can't continue it
indefinitely.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Then I won't make that
motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hancock, the intent of my
original motion was exactly what you've said there, and that is to
turn down the ordinance today and put the burden back on those who had
brought it to us. If there is more information available, to bring
that to us again. That was the intent of my original motion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It may have been the intent. It
was -- It was not embodied in what you stated clearly for me to
support the motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you can word it to your
satisfaction that --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I believe --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- does that same thing, I'll
be happy to second the motion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe that's what I was
attempting to do. If we cannot continue indefinitely and we have to
either deny or approve at this point --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can continue for a fixed
period of time up to what, Mr. Cuyler?
MR. CUYLER: Five weeks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Five weeks. That's not very
long.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Continue for a month.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a motion to continue
this item for a period of four weeks, and at such time I would hope
that information will be presented to our staff and to this board when
we rehear this item that -- that gives answers to the definitive
questions that have been posed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll withdraw my second
motion so you can make that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's no point in continuing
this. Do we have a specific proposal here along with the ordinance?
There's no point in hearing this entire specific proposal. The thing
is if we deny the petition that's in front of us today, that in no way
precludes anybody from coming up in the future in two months or six
months or whenever they want to and present us with more information
on this broad subject. We have a specific proposal here today that
needs to be denied.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: MAy I?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner MAc'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just on that point, I think that
is exactly what -- what's confused us. We don't have a petition in
front of us today. We did have -- We had a public petition, and then
we directed our board to -- I'm sorry -- directed our staff to bring
this forward for our review. The confusion is -- is because this
ordinance amendment was -- was engendered by a public petition. We
think that this is the Arbour somebody's petition. It's not. It's an
ordinance amendment. And I would like to continue the discussion on
the ordinance amendment, and if these people who do have something to
gain for it are willing to do the research to provide the staff to
give us information, it's not their petition, and that's how this, I
think, got confused today. Staff did exactly what we asked them to
do, so they didn't do anything wrong, but this petitioner -- get in
their petition. So they didn't know they were supposed to drive this
train either. So let's just continue this for a period of time to
allow us to get the information.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to call the question in
just -- just one moment. Hr. HcNees, if -- if this motion passes and
we continue this for four weeks, can we in four weeks' time either
have a new draft ordinance which addresses the abuses that staff is
concerned about, includes information regarding how much water, what
percentage of use of an overall complex we can look at conserving,
what the additional cost to the tenant may be and administrative
costs?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, I
thought you were asking the -- excuse my term -- the petitioner who
had asked for this amendment to bare that burden and not our staff.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was. Staff did their job.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He's got to work with the-- He's
got to work with them though.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My opinion is staff brought
forward an ordinance that they thought provided the best protection
possible. What I'm asking for is, one, I don't know what this does to
the guy who's living in the apartment or the families that live in the
apartment. I don't know what it does to them. I want to know what it
means to them financially. And, you know, that's one bottom line.
The second is we've heard conservation numbers. I want
some real tests. I want a complex that wasn't metered that is metered
in some other county. Give me the occupancy. Give me the flows.
Show me that it works. If you can't do those two things, I'm not
going to support it. But today I haven't seen the information that --
that solidifies either a positive or a negative on either of those.
MR. HCNEES: Let me propose some information that I
think we can provide that would help in conjunction with whatever
information you've asked for from the petitioner. First of all, the
ordinance itself, I think, as it stands does meet or does at least
deal with the concern staff had. Mr. Pettit's written in such a way as
to deal with our concerns. What we can bring you is, first of all, how
much water are we talking about for rental condominium units
countywide. We should be able to get to that through our billing
system, I believe. Mr. Newman had a suggestion that we look at some
of our mobile home parks because there are some that are
master-metered and some that are individually metered, and if they're
of similar size, we may be able to find some where we can at least
draw some information about does the individual metering of the
similar use actually lead to a significant consumption pattern
difference in our situation. We can dig through some of those kind of
things and see if there's some information there that's useful to you
if you want to continue this and have us go through that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's my focus, is if this
is a bunch of hogwash, it really isn't going to save anything, I want
to know that, but I want to see the information that shows me that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, personally I'm willing to
stipulate that the figures 10 to 20 percent or 25 percent savings are
accurate. I mean, fine. Let's stipulate that. We still can -- You
know, we can count up the other costs that it's going to cost to
administer individual meters, and it's going to cost the occupant
more. I mean, how can -- You know, if you're going to save two or $3,
$4 a month in water and pay the administrative costs, it's not going
to be a savings. It's not going to be a net savings. I mean, I don't
need the figures to see that. I mean, you can calculate that in your
head.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if it's a financial wash and
saves a gallon of water, then I'm for it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The question right now is
simply whether or not we're going to continue the item. Can we get
along with that?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. That's the motion. I -- I
would -- I'd like to ask the motion maker if he would ask for one
further piece of information when this comes back, and this is the
question of submeter versus individual meters. If it's our impact fee
ordinance that causes apartment developments -- Wait a minute. That
was the suggestion here. That was the suggestion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If it's our impact fee ordinance
that causes our apartment developments to master meter, and perhaps in
order to conserve the water, we should be individually metering, I'd
like to know that and -- and -- and if -- if we could have some of
that information if this passes.
MR. MCNEES: I don't need four weeks to tell you that.
No, it is not.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I'm going to call the
question. The motion is to continue for a time certain in four weeks,
and that would be, I believe, September the 12th.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
shouldn't we?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
like a very busy day.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
five-week continuance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
I think you better make it five,
Yes. September the 12th sounds
Hideaway Beach.
I'll amend the motion to a
Second.
The second --
Yes.
-- accepts the amendment. Okay.
That will be to September the 19th then and the maximum time that it
can be continued. All those in favor of the motion please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 3-2, with Commissioners Constantine and
Norris being in the opposition. Thank you very much. Thank you,
Mr. McNees.
Item #14
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
That concludes our agenda for today. We're at
communications. Commissioner Norris, do you have anything?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just a reminder that as we move
ahead on Lake Avalon and get to the development stages, I think it
would be appropriate for the board to find a way to individually
recognize the Sugdens on -- at Lake Avalon. So I just wanted to
mention that for the record, that I hope we'll pursue that as we look
at the phase one of the park development.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would think we would.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now that the board has
communicated so clearly and effectively already today, I don't think
we need to do anymore.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't have anything else.
Mr. Dorrill?
Item #15
STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS
MR. DORRILL: Just two quick items. We were advised
earlier today that Florida Power and Light may go into some emergency
type of load sharing later this afternoon, and because we're a primary
customer and we have the ability to go to certain auxiliary power
countywide, we would do that as part of our agreement with them to get
a cheaper rate. We've already coordinated that possibility with the
sheriff's department because our biggest concern is that in the event
of a -- what they call a rolling blackout, it would cause your traffic
signals to go to a standby flashing and backup mode, and so in the
event that that happens, we've already communicated that to the
sheriff.
The other thing, what I told you this morning is I was
pleased to announce the nomination of Tom Conrecode to be your next
public works administrator. I just wanted to briefly share with you
what I feel to be his credentials and background. In addition to
having come here and having been a captain in the United States Army,
he was also a management consultant with Peat MArwick before he came
to Collier County about seven years ago. And Tom has a master's
degree from the University of Southern California and a bachelor's
degree from Youngstown State. And he is -- in addition to his
experience and success here, is both a licensed general contractor and
a registered civil engineer, and I think both the combination of his
background and his experience and success with Collier County makes
him an ideal internal candidate for promotion, and as part of a career
path opportunity, I think sends a very strong signal to the rest of
your staff that we have people that can come up through the ranks and
attain a senior management status here, and so I'm pleased to announce
that today, and we'll seek your confirmation of that next Tuesday.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next -- Next Tuesday?
MR. DORRILL: That's what I would like to do in the
event that there are any particular questions. It would be my intent
to put it on the consent agenda, but if you want to pull it off for
formal vote, you will have an executive summary and a copy of his
resume. I did not want to do it today as an add-on item because I
thought that -- that he deserved the opportunity to be part of a
formal confirmation process, and that's what I intended to do next
week.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Conrecode, does that resume
include your high school wrestling record?
MR. CONRECODE: (Shaking head.)
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No? Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, do you have anything?
MR. CUYLER: Nothing additional.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Filson, we're done?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're adjourned.
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 1:10 p.m.
***** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Constantine,
that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or
adopted 4/0 (Commissioner Constantine out), with the exception of Items
#16A1 and #16A3 which was approved and/or adopted 3/0 (Commissioner
Mac'Kie abstained) *****
Item #16A1
LETTER OF CREDIT FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER 59.420 "BREAKWATER AT
PELICAN BAY" LOCATED IN SECTION 33, T485, R25E
See Pages
Item #16A2
WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR SHERWOOD PARK, PHASE I - WITH
STIPULATIONS
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 95-463 RE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER
AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "LEXINGTON AT LONE OAK,
UNIT ONE"
See Pages
Item #16C1
LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND NAPLES OFF-ROAD RACERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., FOR THE PURPOSE OF UTILIZING A PORTION OF THE GOLDEN
GATE COHMUNITY PARK
See Pages
Item #16D1
SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND
PAYMENT OF SEWER IMPACT FEES FOR RAYMOND AND DIANE CAPRARI, MERLE AND
HELINDA GUNTLE, JEAN JANTOLAK, KENNETH AND GENEVIEVE MARTINDALE, AND
RICHARD AND MARY RICHARDSON
See Pages
Item #16D2
SATISFACTIONS OF CLAIM OF LIENS FOR ANTHONY ZOCCOLILLO, JOSEPH DAWSON,
AND PETER FERRIS; AND RICHARD LOVE
See Pages
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 95-464 RE PETTY CASH EXPENDITURE
See Pages
Item #16F1
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COHMUNITY OF COHMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THE REVIEW AND UPDATE OF HAZARD
ANALYSIS AT FACILITIES POSSESSING EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AT OR
ABOVE THE THRESHOLD PLANNING QUANTITY WITH COLLIER COUNTY
See Pages
Item #16F2
AGREEEMNT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMHUNITY AFFAIRS FOR RADIOLOGICAL PLANNING FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR
RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDENESS RELATED TRAININ, EXCERCISES AND
MAP PURCHASES FOR FY 95-96
See Pages
Item #16H1
SOVEREIGN SUBMERGED LANDS EASEMENT AT CLAM PASS PARK FOR THE PLACEMENT
OF UTILITY FACILITIES
See Pages
Item #16H2
CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL AGREEMENT INCLUDING ITS ADDENDUM NO. 1, AND A
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA COMHUNITIES TRUST FOR ACCEPTANCE
OF PRESERVATION 2000 FUNDING TO ASSIST IN THE ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR
MITIGATION/PRESERVATION PURPOSES
See Pages
Item #16H3
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 95-394, 95-434, 95-439, 95-440 AND 95-447
Item #16H4
APPROVAL OF COMPENSATION AMOUNT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 AS CONTAINED IN
THE AGREEMENT WITH GARY L. MOYER, P.A. TO PROVIDE FOR CURRENT CONTRACT
MANAGER SERVICES FOR THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION - IN THE AMOUNT
OF $53,000.00
Item #16H5 - Moved to Item #8H2
Item #16H6
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR MASTER PUMP
STATION 1.02
See Pages
Item #16H7
ADDITIONAL DEFENSE COSTS FOR THE GREAT MONUMENT VS. COLLIER COUNTY
LITIGATION - IN THE AMOUNT OF $300,000.00
Item #16J1
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
Nos.
134
135
Item #16J2
Date
07/27/95
07/25/95
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
See Pages
Item #16J3
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been referred to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #16K1
INCREASE OF THREE SWORN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN THE 1995/96
SHERIFF'S OFFICE BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
THREE-YEAR COPS GRANT PROGRAM
See Pages
Item #16K2
USE OF CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS TO PURCHASE SPECIALIZED EQUIPHENT BY THE
COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE - IN THE AMOUNT OF $90,000.00
Item #16K3
CERTIFICATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE SUBGRANT AWARD FOR THE CAREER
CRIMINAL APPREHENSION AND PROSECUTION PROJECT GRANT
#96-CJ-3S-0921-01-036 IN THE AMOUNT OF $168,571.00
See Pages
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: Christine E. Whitfield, RPR