BCC Minutes 09/05/1995 RREGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 5, 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 9:10 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
CHAIRPERSON: Bettye J. Hatthews
VICE-CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris
Timothy Constantine
Pam Hac'Kie
Timothy Hancock
Neil Dotrill, County Hanager
Bill Hargett, Assistant County Hanager
Ken Cuyler, County Attorney
David Weigel, Assistant County Attorney
Item #3 &3A
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to call to order the
board of county commission meeting for Tuesday, September 5, 1995.
Mr. Dotrill, would you lead us in an invocation and pledge?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, I'd ask you also
include in our prayer this morning Commissioner MAx Hasse who checked
into the hospital over the weekend.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, as always, we give thanks
this morning for your wonder and your glory and especially your
grace. We give thanks for the privilege that we have to live and
enjoy retirement years and raise a family or run a business in Collier
County.
We're especially thankful for the people of this
county. We do pray this morning for our friend and colleague MAx
Hasse who is in the hospital and that you would touch him and support
his family while he is hospitalized.
Father, as always, we ask that your hand guide these
important business deliberations of the county commission here today
and that you would bless our time together and that it would be
fruitful and beneficial for the people of Collier County. We pray
this in Your Son's holy name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, looks like we have a
fairly short change list.
MR. DORRILL: I do have a couple of items that I'll run
through. Good morning, Commissioners. We have two items I'd like to
move off of the consent agenda and onto the regular agenda for a
discussion presentation. First one is item 16-C-2. It is moving and
will become 8-C-1 under public services which is a recommendation that
the board authorize staff to negotiate an agreement with Captain's
Cove Concession for the Cocohatchee River Park.
The other item is 16-B-4.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sixteen which?
MR. DORRILL: B as in boy 4 under public works which is
moving and will become 8-B-4. That's the award of a contract to
develop a facility at the south county regional waste water treatment
plant. Request to pull it? MR. CONRECODE: Yeah.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. We have some people here who had
asked to speak. Are they aware that it's -- it's going to be
withdrawn?
MR. CONRECODE: No.
MR. DORRILL: I was told they wanted it put on the
regular agenda.
MR. CONRECODE: The attorney's office has some
problems.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. Then for those people who are here
on 16-B-4, it's going to be withdrawn. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Withdrawn?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Apologize for that.
I have three add-on items. The first two are under
proclamations and presentations. The first one is 5-C-1 which will be
a presentation by Mr. Luntz concerning the 50th anniversary
celebration and memorial on the end of World War II, C-l, the request
of Commissioner Hac'Kie.
And the second one is a presentation and expression of
thanks on -- as it pertains to Lake Avalon, and that's at the request
of Commissioner Norris. That's 5-C-2.
The third add-on item will be ll-A under constitutional
officers which is a request and presentation to the board by the
sheriff pertaining to attrition. And it's requested that that item be
heard as close to 11:30 as possible. And that request was received
through the chairman's office.
I have one agenda note today. Items 8-E-7 and 8 as they
pertain to beach renourishment financing are a companion to and should
be heard following the adoption of the item 12-C-1 which is a public
hearing. So we need to approve public hearing item first before we do
the two companion items, E-7 and 8.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we -- we'll hear those after
-- after 12-C-1.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. And that's all that I have.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, I think you need to
check with Mr. Cuyler on item 6-B. I believe we're going to continue
that also.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. I've been advised that the item
under the clerk's report, item 6-B, it's requested be continued for
one week. Apparently Mr. Brock has had some discussions, and that
item will be continued for one week, 6-B.
MR. CUYLER: That's our request. Mr. Brock's agreed to
that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. Any further
changes, Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Nothing further.
Commissioner Hancock?
No, ma'am.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
No.
Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, if I could just note a
couple things, we do not need to remove anything from the consent
agenda. But on 16-A-1 I'd like a resolution saved for that which
we'll prepare after the fact and 16-D-1 which are some interlocal
agreements. I'd just like to note for the record that those need to
be filed with the clerk. And whatever the appropriate department is
that's involved in that interlocal agreement will pay those costs.
And that's it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I have a couple of
changes. One, I'd like to move 16-C-1 from the consent agenda which
is the master meters for beach parking.
MR. DORRILL: That will become 8-C-2.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 8-C-2, okay. And then I'd like
to add under the BCC because it's going to require action a staff
request to appoint Skip Camp as our designated community partner
representative to the BCC. That form requires the signature of the
highest elected official, and I need this board to direct me to sign
that.
And item 14 on the agenda is legislative lobby
strategies. That was added on because we didn't cover it in our
workshop, and I -- and I think that we probably should cover it at
some later time than today. This day looks like a heavy day. And --
and it also covers the same thing Commissioner Saunders has asked --
Commissioner/Representative Saunders has asked.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you suggesting to withdraw
that?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve
the agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that to include the consent
agenda?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That certainly includes the
consent agenda.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a
second to approve agenda and the consent agenda. All in favor please
say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #4
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 1995 - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
Next item is approval of minutes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make a
motion we approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 8,
1995.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the August 8 regular meeting minutes. All those in favor
please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF SEPTEHBER 10-16, 1995 AS LEGAL
ASSISTANT AND PARALEGAL WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED
Next item is proclamations and service awards. The
first proclamation, Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I am especially pleased and
privileged to be able to read the legal assistant and paralegal week
proclamation. And I'd like to ask Ernestine Cousineau, Julia Berish,
Cindy Crytzer, Deborah Allen, Sharon Soule, and Danielle Stewart to
please come forward while I read the proclamation.
From a lawyer's perspective, these are the people who
run law offices. They're the ones who make things work. I cannot
tell you the level of professionalism and -- and expertise that these
legal assistants have, and I will read the proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And they're paid how much?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In my office they're paid rather
well, thank you.
Whereas, legal assistants and paralegals assist
attorneys in delivery of legal services through a concept that
developed in the late 1960s to address the growing volume of work
generated -- generated by the pursuit of legal remedies; and
Whereas, in this time of escalating fees for legal
services, the employment of legal assistants and paralegals has
operated to keep these costs in check; and
Whereas, legal assistants and paralegals work to
maintain integrity and a high degree of competence throughout the
legal profession while striving for professional enhancement through
education to facilitate the availability of legal services; and
Whereas, legal assistants and paralegals are encouraged
and required to commit themselves to continuing education available
through the national and state certification programs; and
Whereas, a number of legal assistants and paralegals are
employed in the legal profession in Collier County.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of September
10 through 16, 1995, be designated as legal assistant and paralegal
week.
Done and ordered this 5th day of September, 1995, Board
of County Commissioners, Bettye J. Matthews, Chairman.
I'd like to move we accept the proclamation.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
accept the proclamation. If there's no discussion, all in favor
please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero. That's great. You guys do
such good work.
Next proclamation -- excuse me.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, she was going to say
something.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, she's not going -- Ernestine,
did you have something that you wanted to --
MS. COUSINEAU: Yes. I would like to say on behalf of
the legal assistants in Collier County it is with great honor I accept
this proclamation for all of them, and I hope their bosses remember
them next week. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 1995, AS CHILDHOOD
CANCER AWARENESS MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED
Next proclamation, Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a proclamation on
childhood cancer awareness month. And with us to accept that this
morning is Michael Constantine. Michael's little girl was diagnosed
almost two years ago but, however, is doing very, very well. And this
one hits near and dear to my heart. I lost a brother when I was a
boy, and I am pleased to see the progress we've made in the meantime
and so that others can do well. The following proclamation:
Whereas, the month of September has been proclaimed
childhood cancer awareness month; and
Whereas, dramatic progress has been made in the early
diagnosis and treatment of cancer. And, as a result, young victims
and their families no longer need to relinquish their dreams for the
future; and
Whereas, the number of child deaths from cancer in the
United States declined 60 percent since 1950. Despite such
encouraging progress, cancer deaths -- cancer deaths continue to be
the leading cause of death by disease among children between the ages
of 1 and 14; and
Whereas, families facing the specter of childhood cancer
need the best possible medical care and emotional support that can be
provided; and
Whereas, young cancer victims need financial help,
understanding and compassion, and the opportunity to express and
pursue the fresh, unjaded dreams that are the hallmark of childhood;
and
Whereas, many private organizations and government
agencies throughout the United States are working to meet the needs of
children with cancer, and hundreds of private agencies throughout the
United States are working to meet the needs of children with cancer.
And hundreds of private volunteer organizations at both national and
international level, including the Leukemia Society of America, the
American Cancer -- Cancer Society, the Candlelighters Childhood Cancer
Foundation, and the Ronald McDonald Foundation, are helping parents
and children to cope with this tremendous problem; and
Whereas, recognition should be given to the dedication
and hard work of scientists, healthcare professionals, and volunteers
who are working to overcome childhood cancer, to assist its victims,
and to express admiration and support for the courageous youngsters
and parents who struggle with this disease; and
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, recognize the concerns, needs, and special efforts of
all who are affected by childhood cancer and the persons who serve
them.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of September
1995 be designated as childhood cancer awareness month.
Done and ordered this 5th day of September, 1995, Board
of County Commissioners, Bettye J. Matthews, Chairman.
Madam Chairman, I would like to make a motion to approve
this proclamation.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Accept -- I'll second it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the proclamation, and with pleasure I'll call the vote. All
those in favor.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
MR. CONSTANTINE: I'd just like to mention that there's
a organization, local organization, Candlelighters, that's having
their first annual golf tournament, and I'd like to invite the board
and the public to attend. It's going to be September 16 at
Worthington. If you have any questions, you can call the
Candlelighters. Unfortunately, I don't have their phone number with
me because I wasn't really prepared to do this. Thank you, though.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks, Mike.
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING LAURA PIERCE ALTARATZ AS THE 1995 RECIPIENT OF
THE PAT TURNER AWARD - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda,
Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I'm pleased to read a
proclamation recognizing the Pat Turner Award recipient. Is Miss
Laura Pierce Altaratz here? Let me ask you to come on up this way.
Stand right here and face the camera if you would. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Face the music.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Whereas, the Pat Turner Award was
created in honor of the memory of Mrs. Pat Turner who served as a
legislative aide in the Florida House of Representatives and was the
primary staff who researched and developed Chapter 427, Florida
Statutes; and
Whereas, a nominee for this award should be a person who
has expertise in staff analysis, working with people, patience, and
perseverance, advocacy, and who is committed to better utilization of
tax dollars; and
Whereas, Laura Pierce Altaratz as the executive
director/vice president of TECH of Collier County oversees various
programs such as Step-By-Step, STRIVE, and Community Transportation
and has worked in various other positions of responsibility at TECH
since 1979; and
Whereas, Laura's expertise in staff analysis enables her
to see each staff person as a multi-dimensional employee with
knowledge, skills, and abilities to do not only the job they were
hired to do but to help in the visioning, development, implementation,
and maintenance of other TECH programs; and
Whereas, Laura's expertise in working with people brings
her in close contact with people from all ages and walks of life; and
Whereas, her open-door, open-ear philosophy makes her
willing to listen to what others have to say, whether it be
complaints, compliments, ideas, instructions, or advice; and
Whereas, Laura's patience, perseverance, and advocacy is
evident whenever she writes or speaks on behalf of the program she
represents; and
Whereas, Laura has been recognized by the Florida Tax
Watch as being committed to a better utilization of tax dollars by
designing programs that implement, maintain, and oversee the saving of
tax dollars.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed that the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, does hereby
congratulate and commend Laura Pierce Altaratz as a 1970 -- 1995
recipient of the Pat Turner Award.
Done and ordered this 5th day of September, 1995, Board
of County Commissioners, Bettye J. Matthews, Chairman.
Madam Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we
accept this proclamation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
accept the proclamation. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
You were on vacation when it was given.
Item #5A5
PROCLAMATION COMMENDING STEVE ELSAESSER AS THE 1995 RECIPIENT OF THE
DRIVER OF THE YEAR - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Chairman. This
proc -- do we have Steve Elsaesser in? There you are, Steve. Would
you come forward, please, and face the camera so the folks at home can
get a good look here at the recipient of this next award?
Whereas, each year at its annual conference, the
Transportation Disadvantaged Commission appointed by the Governor of
the state of Florida presents a driver of the year award to a driver
who has shown exceptional skill, adaptability, and compassion for his
clients; and
Whereas, Steve Elsaesser demonstrates the ability to
drive in a safe and professional manner each day; and
Whereas, Steve has logged over 200,000 miles without an
accident since becoming employed in TECH's community transportation
program four years ago; and
Whereas, Steve is -- is certified by the National Safety
Council as an instructor for their defensive driving course for which
he has held classes for all employees of TECH on a regular basis; and
Whereas, Steve has also been certified by the state of
Florida as a third-party testing for TECH and serves as chairman of
TECH's community transportation safety committee, accident review
subcommittee; and
Whereas, Steve's positive attitude, friendly demeanor,
and continuing efforts to maximize transportation safety make him a
model for other drivers; and
Whereas, Steve is kind, compassionate, alert to the
special needs and comfort of those he transports and always aware of
the hazards of the road.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Steve Elsaesser be
congratulated and commended as the ninety -- 1995 recipient of driver
of the year.
Done and ordered this 5th day of September, 1995, by the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida.
Miss Chairman, I'll make a motion that we accept this
proclamation.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
accept the proclamation. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Congratulations, Mr. Elsaesser. I really appreciate
what you do.
I want to say that was a surprise at the TD meeting in
August in Orlando to -- to finally have two representatives from
Collier County receive an award. Of course, it's only what? The
third annual? But it was great.
Do either of you have something more you want to say
or '-
MS. ALTARATZ: I just wanted to add, Madam Commissioner,
that -- Madam Chairperson, that we are very pleased and honored on
behalf of all of the employees at TECH's community transportation
program to receive this recognition. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're pleased and honored to have
people working with us and -- as you are.
MR. ELSAESSER: Yes, I always -- Commissioner, I always
thank you. I'd like to say a couple words. I accept on behalf of our
two dozen drivers this proclamation and thank you for enhancing our
efforts in Collier County.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Might I mention that Miss
Altaratz's other community contribution is a terrific son by the name
of Ethan that's a heck of a basketball player at Naples. And if you
get a chance to watch a game, he's -- he's enjoyable.
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Next item are set --
service awards, and I have two today to present. And it's with great
pleasure, one -- the first one is a five-year pin to Linda Fasulo who
has been with our public relations department for five years. That's a five-year one, isn't it?
MS. FASULO: It might be the wrong person. I don't have
my glasses.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Linda.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the next pin is something
that we're having more and more employees achieve. But still it's a
long time, and that's a 20-year pin for Denise Blanton.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She started when she was 11.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Eleven? No, I think younger than
that even. There you go, Denise. And thank you very, very much.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's no way.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Twenty years.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wow.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have next
presentations. Mr. Luntz.
Item #5Cl
UPDATE RE THE PARADE COHMEHORATING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE END OF
WORLD WAR 2 - PRESENTED
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This -- while -- while Mr. Luntz
is coming up, I -- I asked him if he would mind coming just to say a
few -- few words about the parade and the celebration that took place
this weekend. I was just so touched by it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was -- as I'm sure all of you
were. It was just wonderful. So I wanted to take just a minute.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It was one of those things that
causes the hair on the back of your neck to --
MR. LUNTZ: Yeah, right.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, for days.
MR. LUNTZ: Yeah, right. Madam Chairman, members of the
commission, Mr. Dotrill, enough has been said about how the parade
went and how the 82nd did, so I'm not going to belabor that.
My main concern is to thank all of you and the Tourist
Development Council for giving us the seed money that it took some
four months ago so that we could make the commitment to the 82nd
Airborne Division because they were the -- the -- the magic that
brought this whole thing together.
I'm also pleased to inform the board -- and I think that
you may have this in front of you already; I gave it to Mr. Dotrill.
These are the individual copies. The -- the board had authorized a
$10,000 expenditure to take care of putting this event together which
included the drop and the parade. And I'm pleased to tell you that
the total expenses look like they're not going to exceed $4,371.96.
So we're going to be able to release at least $5,628 of this $10,000
that you authorized.
And there are some individual matching funds that I
think need to be at least made public today while you folks are here
and while the cameras are rolling. And I'm going to take that liberty
if I may, Madam Chairman.
The city of Naples spent at least $4,000 toward putting
this event together; the Collier County school system, $500 for the
use of the buses and the transport for Junior ROTC, et cetera; the Lee
County school system, the same thing, for bussing their couple of
bands and some of their folks down from Lee County; American Legion
Post 135 for providing a breakfast to the 82nd on Saturday morning at
$500; the VFW Post 7721 at $700 for a luncheon that they gave on
Saturday afternoon.
The Naples Daily News marching band, every time the
cordon puts in the street, it costs at least $1,000. So we're putting
matching funds down of $1,000 for that; the Naples Women's Club, at
least $500 for that luncheon that most of you were at that hosted the
82nd after they came in dirty and wet direct from the field; the
Vietnam Veterans of America, at least a hundred dollars for providing
drinks and refreshment to the 50th anniversary band when they were
setting up at the band show.
Subway Restaurants, believe it or not, they hosted the
advance team on Thursday night down at one of their restaurants for
dinner for $50. Rotary Club of Naples picked up the tab for the
rental trucks that we needed to move the equipment around, and that
was $84, and Bob Motz was instrumental in putting that together for
Mr. David Piper, I can't say enough about him. Mr.
Piper was the one that provided us with the drop zone. And if we
wouldn't have had it, even though it was like a rice paddy out there
that morning, if we wouldn't have had that drop zone to be surveyed a
couple of months in advance of that, we would not have had the 82nd
jump in. The Witch's Brew on Friday night hosted six of the key
players from the 82nd Airborne Division for a full dinner. And that
was at least $200 worth.
And there was a guy that I put on the bottom, and you're
-- and you're going to be getting a copy of the video. We'll present
that to you. A gentleman by the name of Rocco who has a company
called the Video Guy here in town gave us two days of his life and was
out there on the drop zone and everyplace else that we needed him
during this two-day period. And he's putting this video together.
And after we edit it and get it squared away, I'm going to see to it
that the board gets a copy and also want to have the Tourist
Development Council get a copy so that they can show the world what
Naples is all about.
We also found out that -- and -- and -- and I gotta do
this before I go any further. There's a gentleman sitting in this
room that needs no introduction to you, but I think everybody needs to
know the part that he played. I'm going to ask Jack Pointer to please
stand up in the back. Jack, would you please stand up? If it wasn't
for this guy running around taking care of everything that I needed
done, it wouldn't have come together. And, Jack, I publicly thank you
for your help.
And Lou Schulz who's my boss in veteran services, if we
wouldn't have had the support from him and from Tommy for the past
five months, this event would not have come together.
I found out that the military expended in excess of
10,000 man hours in putting this whole package together to fly down.
And one of these days if we ever have a chance to do it, I'll tell you
what happened at the meeting on Thursday afternoon at the Beach Club
Hotel because it was just like a combination of the Middle East and
Bosnia and everything else put together. We had two and a half hours
of a horrendous get-together with calls back and forth to Fort Bragg.
Those of you who know Don Hogan from mosquito control,
if it wasn't for Don and the people that he's involved with, we
wouldn't have had the air boats, the swamp buggies, and the
ground-to-air communication and everything else. And your EMS people
were just absolutely outstanding. They were there. The chopper was
in the air. The people were on the ground.
So I want to thank the board again and thank the Tourist
Development Council and the city of Naples and everybody else for
helping put it together. Naples was on front page all across the
country. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. I think this board
wants to thank -- I think this board and the people of Collier County
want to thank you, Mr. Luntz, for organizing and keeping this thing
held together as well as you did. It was a very nicely run affair.
MR. LUNTZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. LUNTZ: Thank you, members of the commission.
Item #5C2
DEED FOR LAKE AVALON PROPERTY - PRESENTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the next item is a
presentation of Lake Avalon. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Never seen you from that
perspective, John.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, he looks different.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I thought if I was making a
presentation I might as well get down here in the presentation hot
seat.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Like your tie.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We all are very familiar with what
it took to put --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: High time somebody said
that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- Lake Avalon together, the work
of a lot of people. Our staff worked long and hard on the
negotiations. A lot of -- a lot of private citizens came together.
The Gulf Coast Skimmers with John Gutsoy leading that group and Jeff
Street was very instrumental in, as you well know, lobbying the county
commission from time to time, like every day for six months.
But it's finally come together. I kept warning people
as the news came in that we had approved it and so forth that don't
get your hopes up until the ink's finally dry on the paper because
this deal can fall through. There's too many people involved.
There's too many intangibles involved. And -- and I said just wait.
Let's -- let's see when the ink's dry on the paper. Then we can -- we
can feel that we finally have an official Lake Avalon.
And we've -- we've discussed many times the benefits
that this is going to bring to the community, especially out in that
area, the -- the thought of having 160 acres of green space with that
lake in -- in that particular area, in the urban area, is going to be
a great benefit to our community for decades to come.
And so with that, I have in my hand the official deed
signed, sealed, and delivered.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the ink's dry.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And the ink is dry, so it is
official.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Keep holding it up. Jeff's
got that camera.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just while they're doing that,
since I had the experience of being a representative of one of the
sellers in this deal, I have to commend the staff for the outstanding
job. They did a wonderful job, and they were great to work with.
MR. DORRILL: I think Mr. Gutsoy would also like to say
something, and Mr. Street registered to speak. Good morning, John.
MR. GURSOY: Good morning. For the record, John Gutsoy,
president and founder of the Gulf Coast Skimmers. And, Commissioners,
it was back in 1986 that I first discovered Lake Avalon and was
introduced to it. And ever since then, I always thought it would be a
neat place that we could possibly save as a community park because
there was always this possibility of 372 condominiums being developed
around it. And it was just too beautiful for that in the urban area.
And, of course, as we know the events that transpired
through the eighties as the Gulf Coast Skimmers had an opportunity to
introduce Lake Avalon to over 20,000 visitors and residents of Collier
County over the last 3 years, then we had an opportunity to share that
with you.
And I just on behalf of the kids -- they're in school
today. As you know, they've been a big part of this process in coming
here to this room to do business with all of you and learn the process
in which we feel's been very educational for them. That's one of the
most exciting parts about it. And they would've liked to have been
here, but we thought with school just starting, it might be a good
idea if they get a good foundation in regard to a few tests and
quizzes and grades.
So on their behalf we wanted to extend an invitation for
you to join them as Gulf Coast Skimmers. So they've asked us to
present some of the team hats and T-shirts to you which I'll do at
this time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this a great job or what?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does this mean I -- can I get
waterski lessons now?
MR. GURSOY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I never could do that very well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it me?
MR. GURSOY: It's all in the instruction.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good color.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks, John.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thanks, John. Good color.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hey, it matches my suit. I could
wear it with this.
MR. GURSOY: And I, too, just cannot say enough about
your staff starting with Lieutenant Riley and Don Hunter when we
initially got together with them back in '91 as to how to take control
of the property and also with the code and compliance department such
as Wayne Arnold and then, of course, working with Steve Brinkman and
Tom Olliff. And, again, on behalf of the East Naples Civic
Association, too, as a board member, I'd like to thank you for your
commitment, but then also as a Collier County resident for the entire
county I just want to thank you for this wonderful opportunity that
we're all going to be so grateful for 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years from
now. Thank you very, very much.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: John, again, the show times
are -- MR. GURSOY: Sunday at three o'clock starting October
1. And then we have two more shows that will be scheduled Saturdays
at 6:30, and you're all more than welcome to come and participate. We
have costumes for you. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, where do we pass this
deed off to so that we don't lose it? We certainly don't want to.
MR. GURSOY: We'll take it.
MR. CUYLER: I'll hold it for you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Street had something for you as well.
MR. STREET: Hello. Jeff Street, just very, very
thankful. And there's -- there are a lot of people to thank. Of
course, the commissioners, you all were so great. Just it's really
neat to see how government can work so well when you just get all your
ducks in a row and find out what everybody's question is and what
potential problems would be and find out what really -- reality is and
answer questions and work together and make something really wonderful
happen that's going to be here forever.
And on behalf of the kids and everybody involved and all
of Collier County, we have some certificates of appreciation which is
just a small token of our great appreciation for everything that
you've done. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thanks, Jeff.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I got a book here I need for
you to pass on too.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Jeff.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thanks, Jeff.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. STREET: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Teach those boys and girls to
ski. Thanks.
Item #8B3
CHANGE ORDER WITH BETTER ROADS, INC., FOR ADDITIONAL GOLDEN GATE
PARKWAY SIX LANING CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, (JCT. GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD TO
JCT. C.R. 31) CIE NO. 05; BID NO. 94-2263 - APPROVED IN THE AMOUNT OF
$337,353.09 AND AUTHORIZATION FOR A NEW 10e CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT
We move into the county manager's report, and the first
item on the agenda is 8-B-3, a recommendation to approve and authorize
a change order.
Hi. How are you?
MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning. I'm Adolfo Gonzalez with
your office of capital projects management. This item is to request a
change order for the Golden Gate Parkway improvement project which is
currently underway. The change orders are to reflect existing site
conditions and also to upgrade the signal at Goodlette-Frank and
Golden Gate Parkway. Staff's recommendation is for you to approve and
authorize the change order and also authorize the 10 percent
reauthorization limit. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to
answer them at this time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Gonzalez, I noticed on the
subsoil for $171,000 -- can you just explain to me why we're spending
$171,000 on additional subsoil?
MR. GONZALEZ: The majority of that item has to do with
muck removal. When we started the construction, there is a wetland
that is immediately adjacent to the north side of the Parkway east of
the Bear's Paw entrance. That -- the embankment that we're putting in
there had to be stabilized -- we're leaving the existing sidewalk in
place. If we would have excavated the muck without stabilizing the --
the edge of that material, we were concerned that the sidewalk was
going to be undermined.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand that, but didn't we
take corings? I mean, didn't we -- you know, didn't we do some
subsurface investigation to find out what was there, how extensive the
muck is? I guess I'm asking what went wrong because obviously before
we do a project like that, we do take samples to find out how deep the
muck is. We estimate what we're going to have to excavate and what
we're going to have to backfill and compact. And I'm just wondering
where we went wrong to the tune of $171,000.
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, we did do geotechnical testing
during the design of the project. Unfortunately, it was not
discovered as far as the limits of the muck during the design. It
wasn't until we actually started removing some of the embankment north
of the sidewalk that we realized the extent of it. And again, if we
would have left it in place, it probably would have been stable enough
for us to continue construction. But when we added an additional four
feet of fill, we couldn't add the fill on top of the muck.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. GONZALEZ: So we had to remove the muck. But to do
that, we had to stabilize the edge of the sidewalk, and that
complicated the matter. And unfortunately, it wasn't found out until
we started construction.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
had some questions.
Okay.
Commissioner --
Motion to approve.
Commissioner Constantine I think
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was just going to ask the
-- I think Commissioner Hancock covered most of it. But the
embankment, subsoil, the additional detention pond and so on are all
part of that?
MR. GONZALEZ: That was a consequence of negotiating
with some of the property owners after we had awarded the contract.
We had a pond and an outfall system already designed. We went through
some negotiations with one of the property owners adjacent to the
roadway, the Barton Collier Company. It required us to modify the
outfall to the pond. We actually extended it to be more consistent
with their overall watershed management plan for Grey Oaks.
So that was an addition we had to do after the
negotiations were complete, but it was subsequent to contract award.
It also involves some additional traffic control for the intersection
work.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not that we had any control
over this probably but -- so we're spending an additional $30,000
there on the detention pond so that it will work better for Grey
Oaks?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. GONZALEZ: No, it was to accommodate their off-site
drainage to -- from their property onto the lakes and off of their
property to the wetland next to the Gordon River.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I may just --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- follow up on that, why isn't
that a part -- why isn't that Grey Oaks' responsibility as a part of
their permit?
MR. GONZALEZ: It was. Actually if you look at their
development order, they were required to accept our storm water in one
of their lakes. When we went through the design process, we initially
had a lake that was isolated from their system. That didn't work. It
wasn't the most efficient way of putting together our lake because we
needed a lake; they needed the same lake. So we did some redesign to
incorporate our storm water needs with their storm water needs. That
saved them on land. That saved us on some additional cost, but there
were some redesign costs as a consequence.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it sounds like if it -- if it
saved -- if it saved us something, I'd be all for it. But if it cost
us an additional $30,000 and it saved Grey Oaks some -- it provided
some benefit to them, is there something I don't understand about why
this shouldn't be their financial responsibility?
MR. CONRECODE: Well, I need to clarify in terms of the
financial responsibility. Whether they convey -- convey the property
to us without an expense and we incorporate some additional expense
for drainage considerations or whether we pay them the $30,000 for the
property and then we otherwise incorporate it in there, I think it's a
wash. It simply shows up at this point, and so the property
conveyance is part of the complete package for -- for drainage and the
easements and excavation of the lake.
So there's -- whether we pay them for property or
whether we pay in terms of the cost of redesign and the -- and
handling the storm water, it's really a wash.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see that. I see that. But my
question is -- and I'm sorry if I'm being slow about this. I just
want to be sure that -- if the change is to benefit the county, I
understand paying for the redesign or paying for the property or
both. But if the change is to benefit Grey Oaks' system, then they
should bear the full cost including the redesign.
MR. CONRECODE: But it's not an exclusive benefit to
Grey Oaks. It just accommodates their drainage through the project.
And whether we paid them for additional acreage or whether we simply
consider that as a part of the drainage through our system, the -- the
cost issue is a wash. It's not as though we're making a $30,000
contribution to them. It's just a coordination, their work and our
work together.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if -- if we -- if we wanted
to make our system work, we would have to pay them $30,000 for a piece
of land to make it work? Is that what you're saying?
MR. CONRECODE: More or less. That -- that's
oversimplification, but that's generally right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't quite get it. I mean,
I'm sorry, but I don't quite feel comfortable with it. I guess I need
more information to understand how the two work together.
MR. CONRECODE: We had a couple of options when we were
going after the right-of-way for this project. We had identified the
easement that we needed to build the roadway and the sidewalk, and we
also had additional property that we needed for drainage.
During the negotiation process with them, we talked back
and forth about how much we're willing to compensate them for
property, how much they're willing to give, whether or not we go to
order of taking on this and do an -- an eminent domain proceeding.
The end result was we negotiated a settlement that
included the conveyance of their drainage through this. This is the
cost of that. You would have paid it otherwise in land cost if we had
gone to order of taking.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. CONRECODE: And it simply shows up here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just real quick, Tom, who was
responsible for the subsurface? Was that county, or was that a
private consultant?
MR. CONRECODE: I don't know right off the top of my
head. Do you know?
MR. GONZALEZ: That was a private consultant, a
geotech. I don't recall which one.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And they basically put the
-- the substrata map together showing us what was there, and we found
out later that that wasn't totally reliable or wasn't totally
accurate?
MR. GONZALEZ: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So are they helping us with any
of these costs?
MR. DORRILL: I doubt it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or are they indemnified from
being incorrect in costing us $171,0007
MR. GONZALEZ: Either way I think we would have paid for
it. If -- if they would have done the test up front and noticed that
the extent of muck was what it is now, we would have paid for it
anyway because we had to stabilize that edge of sidewalk.
Unfortunately, we always take a risk with how many
samples -- how many corings can we do -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. GONZALEZ: -- to find the exact limits where we're
going to end up paying for it anyway. We may have saved some on the
design costs, but we would have paid for it in the construction costs.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I assume there's a good
mental note here of who that consultant was and what the result of the
project was. Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Further questions?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, one last one. If we did
not do this redesign, this $30,000 expenditure, what would the result
be to the county, not to Grey Oaks but to the county?
MR. GONZALEZ: Without having any exact numbers, we
probably would have paid more in right-of-way costs because it was a
trade-off between our storm water management needs that they were
obligated to accommodate under their development order and the
right-of-way we needed to build -- to construct the storm water
facilities. So it was an exchange there. I think if we would have
paid more in right-of-way costs, it would have been much greater than
the design that you have -- that's going in place right now.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Is there further discussion?
There being none, I'll call the question. All in favor
please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez.
Item #8C1
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZE STAFF
TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WITH CAPTAIN'S COVE CONCESSION RELATING TO
THE COCOHATCHEE RIVER PARK SITE - APPROVED
Next item on the agenda is item 8-C-1 which is formerly
16-C-2. This is the award of the bid for Captain's Cove or
negotiations with Captain's Cove. Mr. Brinkman.
MR. BRINKMAN: Yes. Hello. I'm -- good morning. I'm
your -- Steve Brinkman, your parks and recreation director. And this
morning we're taking a look at the bids for the Cocohatchee River Park
boat launch area. And we did receive bids for that project. The
bidder indicated that they were willing to pay us 7 percent of gross
or a hundred and -- or 1,500 per month, whichever is greater. But
that bid was based also on the sale of fuel which wasn't in the
original bid that we had sent out.
So what we would like the commission to do today is to
give us some guidance on two items in this bid. The concessionaire
wants to sell fuel. They also want to rent boats. They would have a
couple boats there for rentals. These are things that are in addition
to the bid, and we would like to get the consensus of the commission
as to whether you want us to consider both those items when we go back
and negotiate this with the concessionaire.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
MR. BRINKMAN: Also the attorney's office has indicated
that if we do add fuel to this bid at this point in time, they would
feel safer in going back out and rebidding -- rebidding the project
so '-
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Brinkman, do we currently
have any other county facilities that sell fuel for marine use?
MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, sir. The Caxambus Park down in
Marco Island does have fuel down there at that location.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's a -- that's a boat
ramp?
MR. BRINKMAN: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And what revenues do we receive
off the fuel annually from that? Any idea?
MR. BRINKMAN: We probably -- I think the total
operation down there is probably about 300,000 to $350,000 gross. We
receive a percentage of that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is -- would you say that what's
being proposed here with the exception of the boat rentals is fairly
similar to what's at Caxambus?
MR. BRINKMAN: It would be fairly similar to the
Caxambus operation, yes, sir. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions?
MR. DORRILL: You have a number of speakers when the
board's finished.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. One of the
concerns about this that was raised to me was the boat rentals and the
possibility of extending the word boats to include jet skis. Is -- is
it our intention or would it be your intention to ex -- specifically
exclude those in the contract?
MR. BRINKMAN: Yeah. We -- we -- they gave a couple
examples of boats in their bid which was a 19-foot boat and a 22-foot
boat.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, I read that.
MR. BRINKMAN: Those are the types of things that we
would allow them to do. We wouldn't consider jet ski rental as a part
of the operation, no.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll mention now just so the
speakers can address it, I have concern about boat rentals in that
particular area for the simple reason that is one of the toughest
passes to negotiate for people who are non-experienced on the waters.
You know, like I said, I've -- I've towed boats in with the Coast
Guard several times into there when I was stationed out of Fort Myers,
and that's not an easy pass. And putting inexperienced people in a
boat that they're not terribly familiar with and sending them out that
pass is, you know, asking to, you know, give some revenues to the --
the tow boats. So I have some concerns about that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're saying it's good for
the economy?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's great for the local salvage
companies, but that -- that's just a very tough area for that type of
operation. I'll just mention that as -- as what I would issue as a
caution.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there any more immediate
questions? Why don't we move to the speakers.
MR. DORRILL: I'll say we have about five or -- yeah, we
have five speakers. First is Mr. Williams, David Williams. And then
we'll have Mr. Stier. Mr. Stier, are you still with us? Why don't
you come on. We'll wait for Mr. Williams for just a second.
MR. STIER: Good morning. Thank you very much for
letting us reopen this. I'm just going to read a brief note here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Would you -- would you state your
name for the record?
MR. STIER: I'm sorry. Red Stier, Wiggin's Pass, Marco
River Marina. I'm going to read a brief statement here which we feel
has a lot of merit. The request for proposal issued on June 1995 and
open on July the 21st, 1995, covered only bait, tackle, and sundries
concession activities. No mention or reference was made to the sales
or dispensing of fuel, the rental of power boats, or the sale of
cooked foods.
Now, probably the reason only one RFP was received is
the fact that sales and profits from those specified activities are
very limited. In response to two prior RFPs for the same activities
at the same location, no agreement was reached with the responders
including Marco River Marina.
It is our belief and understanding that the
commissioners may authorize the staff to negotiate an agreement with a
-- a sole responder to an RFP only on the items proposed in the
original agreement.
Since the only responder to request for proposal number
952394 has greatly expanded the concession activities and the county
is apparently now willing to consider such additional activities, the
original RFP has been changed to such an extent that it should be
revised, in other words, reissued. A potential proposer who decided
not to respond to the original request may enthusiastically respond to
the new request specifying the additional activities to be included.
I'm a little nervous because I'm not behind a camera. Maybe I am
behind a camera.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, you are.
MR. STIER: But anyway, if you have any questions
pertaining to this, I'd be glad to come back and talk to -- or respond
to your questions. I think we ought to let the other speakers speak
first. But you brought some good points up about the impact to the
ecology and everything up there. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, you had a
question?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, just quickly
following up on -- on his comments regarding the issuance of an RFP
and the ability to award things that were outside of the original
scope, how does that stand?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, an RFP, request for proposals,
is a little different than a request for bid. Typically it's a little
less restrictive in regard to the response. However, when there is a
change in -- in RFP qualifications or things that you're looking for,
the county -- legally it's probably defensible from a business
standpoint. The county may find that it hasn't had the benefit of
other entities that may have responded to a changed request for
proposals to look for the best deal and arrangement.
So legally I think it's defensible, but it may not be
the -- the business decision of the board to go forward.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Next speaker.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Williams, are you back? Ms. Straton
and following her, Dr. Stallings, if I could have you be ready,
please, sir. Thank you. Morning.
MS. STRATON: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Chris Straton. And the reason I'm here is because of concern about an
additional fueling location. I apologize that I've not had an
opportunity to gather all of the facts relative to county code on
fuels -- fueling and marinas. But it is my understanding the addition
of fueling at the boat ramp would make this a marina and that certain
conditions would be involved.
The concern I have is that there's already an existing
fueling station there. And the question that comes to mind, first of
all, is that at Caxambus, while we may be getting $300,000 gross, I
wonder if there's an alternative within just feet of the Caxambus
fueling location which is the case up at the Wiggin's Pass area.
So my particular concern with this is that -- a couple
of things: Number one, in talking with the project review people here
in the county that are involved in environmental review, they were
unaware of this request. And obviously care would be needed to make
sure that there's not any environmental impacts and also that the
appropriate permits and all of the permitting agencies have an
opportunity to provide input on this; and secondly, to take a chance
of additional fuel spills at a location where within feet there's
already an existing fuel station in an area that is seeing severe
environmental degradation, I have to raise the question, is it in the
best interest of that entire system to try to put in an additional
fuel location?
So that's my particular concern with this particular
project. And I do share Commissioner Hancock's concern about renting
boats that are designed to go in and out of the pass which is
different than what some of the other boat rentals are because it is a
system that people that boat there, if they're smart, they check on a
daily basis to see what the conditions are. Otherwise, there's
serious damage done to them, their boats, and, heaven forbid, human
damage as well. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Miss Straton.
Commissioner Constantine.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Stallings and Mr. --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick question -- two quick
questions, Mr. Brinkman. I assume we would require all the
appropriate environmental permitting -- permits before we'd allow
anyone to pump fuel.
MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, sir. We would -- we would require
all of those permits as well as any liability insurance or whatever
risk that risk management would be concerned about as well.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One other quick question, and
that is, how many substantial fuel spills have we had at marinas in
Collier County?
MR. BRINKMAN: I'm not sure. I couldn't answer that
without talking to the environmental folks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Have we had any?
MR. BRINKMAN: I'm not sure of any.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Dr. Stallings.
MR. STALLINGS: Fran Stallings representing Florida
Wildlife Federation. I've spent quite a bit of time up there recently
for one reason or another. I've noticed that on busy days the place
overflows and you have rigs parked all up and down the right-of-way on
the sides of the streets. And I was just thinking that you're going
to be taking space up for this facility that people could be using who
are bringing in their boats from outside. So in that sense, I wonder
if it's even needed.
But moving on to other issues here, this system is one
that's being increasingly loaded with pollutants. Irrespective of how
our legal challenge goes, the boat slips at Pelican Isle are all going
to be rented out eventually. Island MArina has on request before the
state plans to expand their boat slips and their submerged lands lease
to put larger vessels in there. We have the so-called drainage
improvements in North Naples that are going to aggravate the pollution
problems in this system. And then we have the Barton Collier mega
mall coming along, the run-off from which is going to load the system
even more heavily. So we're quite concerned about anything that's
discretionary as far as adding to the system.
Now, Commissioner Constantine was asking about spills,
and I don't recall any major spills at fuel facilities. But what does
happen is you get a lot of minor spillage there. I think anyone who's
spent a lot of time with boats at one of these facilities knows that
it's inevitable you're going to have these little small spills on a
daily basis.
Two, most of the rigs coming in are transported by
trailer. And I think most individuals, myself included, are going to
stop at the local service station where the fuel is cheaper and fuel
up as opposed to waiting until you get to the ramp and having to use
valuable time there when you could be out on the water, you know,
fueling.
So I just very seriously question the need for really
the overall facility as well as the fueling facility. You've got the
Wiggin's Pass MArina right next door which has adequate fueling
facilities as well as rental boats. So we would hope that you would
give these factors careful consideration in your deliberations. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Kilgore and Mrs. Kilgore. Good
morning.
MS. KILGORE: Good morning, Commissioners. There's a
lot of things that I would like to cover today. First of all, as far
as the RFP, the proposal for fuel is not a new idea that we --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss -- Miss Kilgore, could you
identify your full name for the court reporter?
MS. KILGORE: Yes. Hi. Lisa Jean Kilgore from
Captain's Cove Concessions, my husband Cecil Kilgore.
Getting back to the -- the foundation of the fuel
proposal, it was laid out in a ordinance, number 91108 back from
August '91, that specified for the proposal of fuel then and in the
future. And that's where we got the basis of our fuel proposal.
It was also discussed at the pre-bid conference at the
site that -- and they covered for the allowance of fuel in the
proposal. So anybody who was interested at the time in any operation
there would have found out that fuel could have been proposed.
And we are here, too, to ask for no further delays in
this. We've been working on this since January. It was Marco River
Harina's personnel at Wiggin's Pass that sent us over to find out
about the concession at the park and see what was going on. And it
was at that time that we found out there was a need for fuel in the
area and more overly an affordable fuel, that it's time that the
community benefits and not has to pay the higher price that the
monopoly has given them to charge.
And in doing so, in bringing fuel, one of the things
that we're look -- one of the things that we're looking at right now
is only two-thirds of the area is currently being used for fuel and
boating. This whole area over here is sitting vacant most of the
time. Trailered boats that are coming in and are launching here are
trying to get out through this way down to the pass. There is boats
being launched from Marco River Marina in this area. This is their
fueling dock. So people that are coming to get fuel here sometimes
have to harbor out in this area to get up to the fuel docks. There's
always usually a congestion on busy days, people waiting to get in,
get out, their rental boats.
If we add the fuel dock to this area, people will have a
choice. If this is full, they can come over here. If we're full,
they can go over there. We're not trying -- we're just adding to the
convenience of the fuel. There's a need. There's a high volume of
traffic there. There's going to be a higher volume in the future. So
instead of just using the two-thirds of the area, we'd like to open up
the whole area and make it benefit. It will aid into the -- the
launching of the boats, getting them out instead of harboring and
sitting causing additional problems to the environment.
As far as our fuel proposal, we have proposed to bring
in the fuel tanks at our own cost. We have gone with a Convult
above-ground storage tank that will sit on the north side of the
property. It is the newest in technology. It's the tanks that the
Coast Guard are now using for all their facilities.
The piping that we have -- first of all, this shows as
they just bring the tank in. There's no damage to the -- the ground.
We don't have to dig up. It gives us the ability for visual
inspections.
We'll have a secondary unit for containment, one piece.
We are given the opportunity because the length to cover is 145 feet
-- these come in sheets or lengths of 500. We'll have one continual
piece from the tank to the pumps with the connections out of the
ground where visual inspection can be made on a daily basis.
This is the actual primary -- Enviroflex it's called.
It's UL, ULC recommended for gasoline. Would you like to -- I mean,
it's really -- it's flexible. It's retractable. At the end of our
term, it can be pulled out without further damage or construction
problems. It's very easy to add additional pieces later on in the
future.
Okay. And then once again, as we talk about the pumps,
this whole area over here is not being utilized. We would lay
concrete pads on this grass piece away from the seawall but secure the
pumps at that space and then just give the opportunity to fuel at this
dock.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Go ahead.
MS. KILGORE: Sorry. One of the -- one of the things
that we're trying to concentrate on -- and it's our commitment not
only to the community but the environment -- boats, marinas, the need
for fuel for boats is not going anywhere in the state of Florida. But
we need to start addressing the environmental issues. Like the doctor
said, it's not the large spills. It's the small spills that need to
be addressed, cleaned up. That is one of our commitments, no matter
how small the spill, that we are going to clean it up.
We have a commitment from a spill response team, the
Florida Spill Response out of Hiami, and they're going to come over,
do testing of all our personnel. We would like to try and work with
the -- the environmental agencies, the people in the community to get
a response co-op.
It's not time to point fingers when a spill happens. We
need to contain it, first of all, provide for safety. And then as
it's contained, we have time to clean it up. But it's not just
something that we're going to use at the Cocohatchee River Park. If
there's a spill in the area, we would be available for all people.
The environment is a big issue too. One of our ideas as
far as our commitment to the environment, instead of selling bags of
ice, we call it our bagless ice. We're going to have an ice maker
like they have in hotels, provide a scoop, let them scoop out the ice
that they need, that way eliminating the bags that usually end up in
the water.
But the big thing is the environment, the benefit to the
community as far as fair market value. The people that use the park
are not only the people that have the luxury of a trailered boat.
It's also the people in the community that have to come to that area
to buy fuel. They have been paying a higher rate. When we first did
our market analysis in June, there was a 20 cents difference that they
would have to pay.
And one of the things we're committing to do is bring
the fuel in at gas station prices. The people who have trailers
should not have to go out of their way to a 7-Eleven to buy the fuel.
There's also business people in the area that are using the park to
try and make a living. The -- and not so much the park but just the
small businesses in the area, charter captains. We have Vanderbilt
Beach Rentals that has a tank on the back of his truck at this time
and carries his fuel into the park to use because he cannot afford to
make a living paying the fuel that Marco River Marina has.
And one concern about that as far as the bid itself, I
would be concerned if Marco River Marina would get the Cocohatchee
River site and the site next door at Wiggin's Pass. They could
basically have the monopoly again and charge what they want, and I
don't think that's right for the people.
MR. KILGORE: Okay. I would like to -- my name is Cecil
Kilgore, and I would like to address Mr. Hancock's concern about
rental boats coming in and out of the pass. Okay. I agree with you.
Some days the pass is rolling, and it is very hard to negotiate. That
is why we have planned to bring in pontoon boats and deck boats, limit
them to the back waters. They're easy to operate, easy to maintain,
and all would be U.S. Coast Guard equipped. And that's about it.
I don't really see the basic concern for the rental boats so -- and
also we will not rent any jet skis.
MS. KILGORE: One thing I would like to add about the
boats, we have -- because of the operation, we have concentrated on
the environmental and the fuel aspect. We have gotten a person
involved, a business involved, in the North Naples area, Pine Ridge
Boat Center, who will be supplying the boats, overseeing the whole
operation. He has chosen to bring deck boats in and pontoon boats
that are what are being rented in the area already. He has overseen
the rental programs at Disney World. He has a lot of experience in
this area. We feel really confident with it.
And once again, we are committed to the environment.
Through our day-to-day actions at the park, we plan to bring awareness
and education as far as minimizing spills, getting equipment that
could contain or catch fuel as it's coming out of the vent tubes --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hiss Kilgore, I'm going to have
to ask you to wrap it up. MS. KILGORE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You are the -- the responder to
the RFP, so I've given you a little extra time.
MS. KILGORE: Okay. Thank you. Basically that's it.
We'd like the opportunity to answer any questions anybody would have.
And, like I said, we are looking forward to working with the
environmental groups in the area to provide the best service
available.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner
Constantine, did you have questions?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Mr. Brinkman, let me
just run through my little mental checklist here and make sure I
understand. Negotiations have been going on in some form since the
RFP process since January?
MR. BRINKMAN: We have -- I'm not sure when the bids
went out originally, although there's somebody here from purchasing I
believe.
MR. OLLIFF: We've not actually been negotiating. All
we did was we put out a -- an RFP. We received the responses, and
that's what we're here for today to see if -- before we went into
negotiations and spent the time to develop a contract that would
include fuel, that would include boat rentals, we need to know what
the board's direction on -- on those particular two issues are because
I also need to let you know that we've been told from the
concessionaire proposer that without those two they don't know whether
or not this particular concession is economically feasible for them.
So this is sort of a if you decide to go this way, there's two
decisions: Either we go back out to bid, or you can tell us to
negotiate with this proposer. And if you decide not to do that, then
we probably don't have a contract to go negotiate.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I assume that the RFP or
particularly in the negotiation sense that you've determined there are
clearly -- there is clearly a need for these services. That was the
purpose of issuing the RFP in the first place.
MR. OLLIFF: Generally we look to try and provide public
service type items. And in this particular location, we are trying to
provide the public convenience of having on-site primarily bait, food,
sundry-type items.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the county saw a need. We
issued an RFP. The Kilgores responded to that RFP. And you all came
and sat down at the pre-bid conference and at that time were told what
the various options of this would be. We've spent -- they have spent
somewhere in the neighborhood of nine months getting to the point
we're at today, I assume spent a pretty good piece of change in the
process.
MS. KILGORE: Worth it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And apparently anyway gone
out of their way not only to respond to the RFP but to make sure it
goes above and beyond the environmental requirements we have all in
the effort to try to build their own business.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Like the American dream.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sounds like the American way.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What bothers me I guess is
some of the naysayers would -- Tim -- Commissioner Hancock just said
it sounds like the American dream. Some of the naysayers would crush
that dream based on a bunch of hypotheticals. And I'm not very
comfortable with that. It seems fairly clear that they have responded
to what we asked for. They have been very responsive and very
responsible as far as environmental concerns in particular all in an
effort to build that American dream. Seems fairly -- like a fairly
simple answer to me.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's see if there's more
speakers. Mr. Dotrill, are there others?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Mr. HcGilvra, and then Mr.
Harvey is your last registered speaker if I could have you ready to
go, please, sir.
MR. HCGILVRA: Good morning, Commissioners. Doug
HcGilvra.
Just a few things to say. First of all, I like boats.
Second of all, I like marinas because you gotta have them if you're
going to have boats.
Thirdly, however, we've got a problem with the
environmentalists, particularly in Vanderbilt Bay or Vanderbilt Beach
area, who say that the Naples Park drainage is giving them a big
problem. Well, I see more of a problem from water, gasoline leakage,
oil leakage from boats than I do from the Naples Park drainage.
And I just wanted to bring this in front of you to say
that I like both, but you've got a problem. One person's -- one group
is saying you got a problem with Naples Park drainage which discharges
rain water into their lagoon. And you got another group that's
saying, well, yeah, but we got little boats, and we've got little, you
know, places that feed these boats gasoline that are a problem too,
and we don't like that.
Hay I remind you that there happens to be a marina right
at the very, very end of Vanderbilt Beach also and a lot of boats in
Vanderbilt Beach. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Harvey is your last registered
speaker.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. HARVEY: My name is Paul Harvey, and I'm the other
little marina at the end of Vanderbilt Beach.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Kind of forgot about you, didn't
we?
MR. HARVEY: I have two problems with this. One is I
don't believe that the way this was bid out -- I've been talking to a
couple -- Tom Olliff and Gary Franco and Gwen -- and I can't remember
her last name. The way this was bid, at $1,500 if you're going to
allow fuel and rental boats, this is a steal.
We had contacted the county in the beginning when the
park was first being developed when we were negotiating the trade for
the Blueville property for this piece of property about negotiations
as far as running a commercial enterprise on those docks. We were
told that that wasn't going to happen, that those docks would not be
used for commercial application. It takes away from the parking for
the boat rentals -- or I mean for the boat launch, and it just wasn't
going to be.
The bid has come up I believe twice in the last couple
years on this. We've stayed out of it because we didn't see it as
economically feasible. If it was put to us that we would be allowed
to do a fuel concession and a boat rental concession or any kind of
commercial concession there, then I'm sure that we would have been in
the bidding as well as Marco River Marina. I'd love to be neighbors
with them even closer, and it would make it more competitively.
Some of the other things I think are kind of misnomers,
I'm not sure where they plan -- the Kilgores plan on buying their
fuel. The fuel prices -- I don't know if you've looked at the
proposal sheet, but it has three little fountains coming out of a
boat. We're the smallest fountain. We charge the lowest price for
fuel. I wish I could charge less, but we can't buy fuel on two -- we
have a 2,000-gallon tank. We can't find anywhere to buy fuel and sell
it for what you could sell it for in a gas station that takes 100,000
or 50,000 gallons. We buy our fuel locally from Combs Oil. I wish
they would sell it to me a lot cheaper, but they won't.
The only thing I'm here to request is -- is if this is
going to be approved that I think that it should be put up for -- for
-- for a re-bid in the sense that I think for -- number one, I think
that the fuel and the rental boats was not included. Whether it was
mentioned at the pre-bid I don't know, but I know that it wasn't
included in the original document. And number two, I think that the
county would be losing money by renting -- if they are going to do
this by renting this this cheap. Just the dockage on the -- on the
rental boats alone would easily be worth 1,500 a month. And I think
it's the county commissioners' responsibility if you are going to do
this to derive the most money you can for the general public out of
this. And I think a re-bid is in order. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick question. Mr. Brinkman
or Mr. Olliff, was it or was it not mentioned at the pre-bid
conference because if it was, I don't have a problem with that? If it
wasn't, then yeah, we got a problem.
MR. BRINKMAN: It was mentioned -- the concessionaire at
that time mentioned that they were interested in that, and we
indicated to those people at the pre-bid that they could include it in
a bid in addition to any other items that they would like to put in
there because we could always consider those. We don't have to allow
it, but we could at least consider it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Anyone who showed an inkling
of interest and showed up to the pre-bid conference would have been
aware of that.
MR. BRINKMAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me ask a question in
follow-up to that. The -- this is the second or the third time this
-- this RFP was put out?
MR. BRINKMAN: Second time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And it is a proposal. You know,
you put it out. And people come back and say, well, yeah, I can do
what you want, but in order to make a reasonable living, I have to add
these other things to it. Other than that, the likelihood of getting
a concession at Cocohatchee River Park without these things -- and
we've heard that from both Marco River and Vanderbilt -- it's not --
it's just not likely to happen; is that correct? MR. BRINKMAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And these people who did respond
had the foresight to say, oh, but I -- can I include and came to the
conference to ask that -- that question. Is there any further
discussion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I just have one question for --
for Mr. Weigel. I --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm really not going to be moved
by a last-second attempt to -- to change the bid to -- in order to
suppress competition, but there is a legal issue involved, and I need
to be comfortable that we -- we can legally award this bid today as it
stands.
MR. WEIGEL: Two things come to mind. One is because it
is a request for proposals rather than a request for bids, arguably
there is a negotiation to be had based upon the proposal and the
proposer selected, and the negotiations always come back to the
board.
With a pure bid arrangement, the specifications are
generally tighter. If there are changes at a pre-bid conference, they
are made known to everyone who's participated that far in the
process. But from that standpoint, it's really no different for a
request for proposals either.
We believe that it's probably defensible, the procedure
that's been utilized up to this point should the board go forward and
make the award. There is a lesser likelihood of having to defend the
action that the board may take if there were to be a resolicitation.
Again, the request for proposal is a little bit different than a
request for bid. And some of the, quote, secrecy that occurs prior to
a bid opening is a little bit different from request for proposals. I
won't say the word lax exactly applies, but the fact is that from the
proposal comes a negotiation which is often significantly broader than
it is from the bid response.
So, again, to respond a little more succinctly, there is
-- it is probably legally defensible if the board were to go forward
and make award today. If the board were to direct staff to resolicit,
this issue would go away and the board would have the opportunity for
potentially other proposals or no other proposals to come in with the
interested respondent that's already provided its proposal.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: There's a risk.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock was next.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a couple questions of the
respondents for the bid. If we are to move ahead today into the
negotiation stage, there are a few things regarding the fueling
operation. I'm familiar with the type of tanks you're talking about.
I'm familiar with the tubing. It's some of the best in the industry.
I understand that.
And if I could ask one of you at the microphone there a
couple questions I have, will you have -- would you have an attendant
at the fueling station for all hours of operation? In other words,
this isn't self serve? Someone will be there fueling the boats; is
that correct?
MS. KILGORE: Yes. Well, we won't be fueling the actual
boats. We will be overseeing, handing the boat owner the -- the fuel
or the hose to pump.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But you will have a -- a pump
attendant at all hours of operation -- MS. KILGORE: Yes, and they will --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that can witness any spills
and so forth.
MS. KILGORE: They will be trained. And even the
smallest of spills would be cleaned up with the absorbent materials.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. There are two things that
-- that we had talked about previously that I'll ask you to look into
as far as fueling. The first is there is -- most of the fuel that
ends up in the water comes out of the -- an overflow. People don't
know when their tanks are full. They wait for it to spit out the side
of the boat and then stop fueling. There are devices made that can
catch that. I would have to -- to see those in operation.
MS. KILGORE: We've already checked into it, and there
are several different types. You can even make a homemade device.
But it's really important that the boat owner knows that they have the
vent problem. And if they're not aware of it, I mean, we would be
there to -- to catch it as it happens.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the third is having something
immediately on hand to either contain or to pick up small spills. And
we called them diapers in the Coast Guard. You can basically drop
them on the surface of the water, and they absorb the fuel with the
water in small, localized spills or some type of -- of boom that's
located at the dock that contains anything larger. Are those things
part of your proposal?
MS. KILGORE: They're a very big part. We will have
a self-deploying boom for large spills. We will spare no expense as
far as the absorbent material for even the smallest of spills. It's
-- I mean, it's a big part of what we've committed to because the
boating and the fuel is not going away.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Brinkman, are any of the
things I just mentioned a part of our Caxambus operation?
MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, sir, they are. In fact, all of
those are part of the operation down there, right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve
the item and approve the contract.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
Hiss Chairman, let me --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
Let -- before we call the vote,
We have further discussion?
Yeah, let me just --
Commissioner Norris.
-- ask if we can include that
direction to the staff that any rental boat be preapproved before
being put in service, and that will take care of not only the -- the
concern about jet skis but any -- any other type of -- of boat that
may not be appropriate for that operation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
no jet skis.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
the future.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
I would hope we could stipulate
Well, that will do it.
But there may be something new in
But yeah, I am concerned about --
and I want staff to take a careful look and get some input from, you
know, folks in the industry on the types of boats that may be
appropriate for back water because I've run the waters north of there
before, and there's just not a lot of room up there. And, you know,
I'm still concerned about the -- the rental boats. And we will see
this back again if something is negotiated. So there will be
hopefully constraints and -- and limitations at that time. MR. BRINKMAN: Right, yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any further discussion?
All those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Thank you, Mr. Brinkman.
MR. BRINKMAN: Thank you.
Item #8C2
RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS APPROVE A REQUEST
FOR THE PURCHASE OF MASTER METERS AND THE ASSORTED COIN CHANGER
MACHINES RELATIVE TO THE BEACH PARKING FEE PROGRAM - CONTINUED TO
9/26/95
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is -- it
used to be 16-C-2 I guess, but it's now 8-C-2. It's the master meter
purchase for beach parking.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
MR. BRINKMAN: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
16-C-1, Miss Chairman.
16-C-17
Uh-huh.
Okay. Mr. Brinkman.
This --
I pulled -- let me start this
because I pulled this from the agenda. And my feeling on this since
we have not formally approved beach parking fees, this is premature,
and that -- that's my comment on it.
MR. BRINKMAN: Yeah. Actually July 25 there was an
approval of a budget amendment at that time that allowed us to go
ahead and start the process of hiring staff and purchasing equipment
for this next year so that we could get these people on board early
and have them actually up and operating by October 1 so we can
actually get the revenue starting October 1.
So this is just following up on the last -- and I think
that was approved on July 25. So this is just a part of that package,
bringing this back to you for the purchase of this type of equipment.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. But now you're talking
about spending real dollars for real assets and not just budget
approval for salaries and so forth that may be out there that are
rather soft expenses.
MR. BRINKMAN: Right. But -- but we are also in process
of getting the staff on board to operate all these locations. And
without the master meters and the coin changers, we wouldn't be able
to really open those beach areas October 1 and start collecting
money. So we would have to open maybe in November or December
after --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I share your concern
that it's premature. I'm also -- I need a little help here. What's
the purpose of the coin changer machines, the master meters and coin
changer machines as opposed to having a -- having a body do that?
MR. BRINKMAN: There will be two locations that will be
manned. That will be Barefoot Beach Preserve and Tigertail. Those
are the two largest beach areas that we have. All the rest will have
a master meter system. What you'll do is come in, pull into the
parking lot and park. You'll go to the master meter, put in $3, get a
ticket out of the meter. You'll put that ticket in your windshield
and display that so that our rangers when they come by and patrol, if
you don't have a ticket in your windshield, you'll receive a ticket at
that time. So that's the system basically.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the track record on
equipment? I ask this because there was just an article in the paper
a week or two ago about vandalism on these. And my understanding is
it can be kind of expensive to replace. Do we have insurance on that
type of thing? Or do we end up defeating the purpose of trying to
bring money in through these if we keep replacing them and having them
robbed?
MR. BRINKMAN: Actually the track record with Lee County
is very good with the meters that they have. They have had some
occasional vandalism, but we would -- we would have enough parts on
order or in hand when we start this operation so that if there is some
damage to the machine, we would be able to change that out very
quickly or have one of our park rangers actually there collecting
money that particular day.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have any -- what will it
cost to maintain an inventory of spare parts, or what will -- and what
will the spare parts themselves cost?
MR. BRINKMAN: Yeah. Probably we're talking in the
neighborhood of three or four thousand dollars as far as parts.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just a question for my
colleagues. When we discussed beach parking fees as part of the
budget process, I believe the vote was -- was five-zero in favor, or
was it four-one?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was never in favor.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Four-one.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, but there were two provisos
on that and that -- that be that the revenues from that go toward
additional beach parking and/or access.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That -- I'm sorry, but that was
never formally approved.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I know. The whole thing wasn't.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I mean your -- your
proviso. You were the only one who ever mentioned that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, no, no.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I certainly -- I have also said
that I don't want to see the budget balanced on the back of -- of
beach fees. I want to charge beach fees, but I want them to be user
fees that go toward the use. And whether it's specifically --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: And what do you mean by that?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I mean by that is I don't
want it going into general revenues. I want it to be a user fee
that's -- that can -- perpetuates the use and that would be by
providing more parking or something related to beach access and beach
use, not that just goes into --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
rangers --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
Such as paying the salary of
Right.
-- clean-ups.
Yes.
You're saying types of associated
-- that's kind of -- we spend more than $600,000 a year on -- on
rangers and so forth, don't we?
MR. BRINKMAN: Yeah. The way we calculated the beach
fees is if we establish a three dollar fee at the beaches and at the
boat ramp areas, that will cover the costs of our beach and water
budget and -- cover the entire cost of that, you know. And we do have
some additional maintenance that our park maintenance folks do in
those parks as well on top of that. But the three dollar feel will
cover the cost of the beach and water budget.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's what I'm looking to
confirm in the budget process which I look forward to tomorrow night.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
premature as well.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
or '-
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
So this is in your estimation
Absolutely. It's just a day
I think so too.
-- so premature, but it's -- I'm
not ready to approve this until I get that.
MR. OLLIFF: I need to make the board aware that you
have already approved and given us the authority to move the money and
hire the staff in advance of October the 1st. And, I mean, we have
been in the process of interviewing and hiring people already for
those beach parking programs. And -- and we -- we have to rely to a
certain extent on the approvals as they come along, especially for a
program that begins on October 1.
And we presented this two different occasions through
the budget process and then on July 25 on a separate agenda item
asking for that advance authority which you -- you granted us. This
-- this is just the final step in that process. And if there is some
-- some consideration, you know, of -- of doing something different,
you need to let us know that quickly --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well --
MR. OLLIFF: -- because we are moving in that -- that
direction.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- it's my belief that quite a
few -- that the majority of the members of this board at the line item
budget hearings did give you notification that they preferred to see
the -- the -- the proceeds from this handled in some other way than
going into the general fund.
MR. OLLIFF: Right, and because --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And -- and on July 25 on the
consent agenda was an item for $141,000 worth of salaries and so
forth, that that was approved at the beginning of the day and before
we heard later that afternoon that when the manager told us that was
his intention all along, so things are different now.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: MAdam Chairman, I think we just
heard that this, in fact, is doing exactly what you've asked for which
is it covers the cost of the beach and water-related portion of our
budget. And if there are, in fact, monies in excess of what is -- was
predicted to be collected, that may be the only money at issue as to
where that goes.
The balance of it, if you want to create a -- a
completely separate fund solely for these fees to go into that
everything gets paid back into something, that's kind of a -- a -- a
monster creation. But it sounds to me like what you're asking for is
exactly what has been done. The fact that we don't have it another --
a different name on a totally separate fund I think is -- is really
academic.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't -- I don't think so at
all, and the reason that I say this is that number one, beach parking
fees we are not charging right now. We are providing all the ranger
services, all the maintenance services, the clean-up services,
whatever we're doing. And the only thing the beach parking fees is
going to do is generate X numbers of dollars a year. And, again, we
have no idea what that is. And we are going to be buying master
meters and hiring attendants for two of the beach parking areas plus
attendants to go around and empty these master meters. Obviously --
my feeling is if there's money left over from the revenues after
having paid the parking lot attendants and the money collectors from
the master meters, that money should be being used to perpetuate
additional parking and access.
MR. OLLIFF: We may be talking about a moot point
because the primary issue that the board said yes to as a contingent
of this whole parking program was that county residents be free. For
us to set up a beach parking fee program where county residents are
free, then the only out-of-county residents is that that's solely
associated with beach related and beach park activities.
So when I charge a three dollar fee, I can't use those
funds for anything outside of those beach parks. I can't take that
money and siphon it off to go to the Golden Gate gym or someplace
else. Those have to be used for --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good idea.
MR. OLLIFF: -- beach and beach related function even
though we would love to. That's just not allowed if we're going to
have that kind of differentiated fee schedule. So that's the way this
whole thing has been structured so that those fees would be used only
for those -- those type of activities.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, I
understand your point. I think you're going to be right. When we've
completed the budget process, the money is going to be a wash. It's
going to cover those things anyway.
I think Commissioner Matthews' point is that until the
budget process is complete, that is -- that question isn't officially
answered. We all suspect pretty strongly that that's where we'll end
up, but there is a possibility through tomorrow night or two weeks
from tomorrow night that something could change. Unlikely, but -- but
there is that possibility, and so I think -- maybe I'm mistaken, but I
think that's all you're saying.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Premature. That's all I'm
saying.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my only --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- question was what -- what
damage might result if we delay this a couple weeks.
MR. OLLIFF: It will delay the beginning of the beach
parking fee program a couple weeks. We may be mid October or whenever
it is that the board finally makes that decision from this point. I
think that that's -- that's the downside.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. I -- I pulled
this from the content -- consent agenda. I'm not going to move the
item. If somebody else wants to make a motion --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion that we
continue the item for three weeks because we will have completed the
budget process at that point and can have a clear answer. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
continue the item for three weeks until after the budget process is
completed. Is there further discussion?
All those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes three to two -- three to two,
Commissioners Hancock and Norris being in the opposition.
We'll see you back on this in three weeks. Thank you.
Item #SD1
REQUEST BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION DISCUSSION TO CONSIDER A STRAW
BALLOT QUESTION FOR PROPOSING A UNIFIED FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM FOR
COLLIER COUNTY TO BE SUPPORTED BY REVENUE OTHER THAN THE PROPERTY TAX -
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK TO STRUCTURE A COMMITTEE AND COME BACK IN THREE
WEEKS
Next item on the agenda is --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Break.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- break. It is quarter to
eleven, isn't it? Why don't we take a short ten-minute break. Five
minutes of.
(A short break was held.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I want to reconvene the Board of
County Commissioners' meeting for September 5, 1995. Next item on the
agenda is item 8-D-l, a request of the board of county commission to
discuss a straw ballot. Hr. Ijams, are --
MR. IJAMS: Madam Chairman, members of the board, Norris
Ijams, emergency services administrator. I had such a heavy wager on
that we weren't next that that's why I paused for a moment.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're next.
MR. IJAMS: We're next. On Hay the 16th you'll recall
that you had -- you entertained an agenda item, and representatives of
the Collier County taxpayers for public safety spoke and had asked and
-- for you to consider certain things. Your direction to the staff
was that -- to prepare an executive summary for early August which we
did. On August the 1st that meeting -- or the agenda item was
continued until today, September the 5th. The same executive summary
still applies for this meeting. There's been no changes.
The only additional information that we have provided
for you was a white paper from Mr. Griffin who is on your staff to Mr.
-- at Mr. Dorrill's request, and it gives you kind of a historical
view of past consolidation efforts and other -- some other vital
information that we all thought that you would probably benefit from.
Other than that -- and Mr. Griffin is here today. If
that paper generates any questions or anything of that nature, he's
here prepared to answer those questions. And I know the members of
the committee -- I see some are here, and I would urge you to see what
their presentation is. I think your questions probably are directed
more to them than they are to us. And my understanding is that Mr.
Davis, Mike Davis, will be their spokesman for this morning.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Davis.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. Before Mr. Davis
starts, Miss Chairman, have you asked for a legal opinion on whether
having your husband on the committee that's bringing this forward
causes you any legal or ethical conduct -- conflict?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, I've not asked for legal
opinion on that. There's no monetary value coming my way out of it.
Therefore, I would believe from what the attorney has described in the
past to each and every one of us that we're required to vote. Is that
not correct, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I believe that's correct for all the
reasons you state.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I just wanted to make sure.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Davis.
MR. DAVIS: Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners.
Mike Davis for the record, the one standing here with the sweaty palms
and the dry mouth. I don't know what it is about this podium. It's
one of the more difficult places to speak here in town.
As Mr. Ijams indicated, I am representing kind of an
unofficial group of concerned taxpayers that have been meeting for
very many months and have brought this question to you previously and
here for the discussion today. Most of the members of that committee
are present, and I believe each of them want to come forward and speak
to you about this issue. They all have different concerns and
different areas of expertise to bring to you.
In particular, Mr. Chuck Mohlke's here who I think
you're well aware is long associated with this topic and certainly can
answer any historical questions or technical questions you may have.
One item that I wanted to address is -- is a plan. Our
-- our endeavor was to bring forward the ballot question simply to
ask the voters whether or not they favored a consolidation issue. But
along with that, as Mr. Ijams pointed out, you've been supplied some
background information as part of the staff report. And in addition,
we provided copies of the plan authored by Ed Finn and James Fitzic
dated August 12, 1993, which has -- was a previous agenda item at some
previous discussion. Once again, Mr. Mohlke I think can speak with
some knowledge to that plan.
As far as the ballot question's concerned, there's also
been some discussion about and including a funding mechanism. I'm
here and speaking personally for myself now to say to you it's my
concern that the ballot question be put on in the March preference --
presidential preference primary to ask the question concerning voters'
will as far as consolidation. Whether or not it includes a funding
mechanism I don't think matters. The more important issue is to find
out what the voters think about this.
I think the voters deserves the opportunity to express
their wishes on this longstanding emotional and controversial issue.
Interestingly, with such a straw poll, the BCC will get a
precinct-by-precinct count from Mary Morgan's office which allows you
to really see how it broke out within the county and more particularly
within the fire districts. Case in point, if one fire district
overwhelmingly was either for or against such an issue, you'd be aware
of that.
I think independent fire districts 20 years ago when I
built my home in Golden Gate Estates were a vital entity and very
important to our community being as fragmented as it was. Today we
live in a metropolitan Collier County by and large. And, therefore, I
think it's time for a consolidation issue to go to the voters so that
they can express their will to you, the Board of County Commissioners,
so that you can begin the process of consolidation. How that process
occurs, I don't know. I don't think anyone in the room really knows
today. That will be something decided by you once the will of the
voters is tested.
And with that I'd like to -- I promised brevity, I
believe, so I'd like to close and allow some of the other people from
the committee to speak to you unless you have some questions
particular for me.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a quick question, Mike.
MR. DAVIS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said you don't know what
form it would take, consolidation.
MR. DAVIS: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Griffin had put together
six possible methods of taxation beyond ad valorem. Obviously any one
of those six may have a different impact on a resident, homeowner, or
commercial property than any of the other five. How is it possible
for a voter to make an informed decision if they don't know which of
these methods or some other they'll be -- they'll be asked to decide?
I think -- I passed out a copy this morning -- very --
very rare do I do this, but I passed out a copy this morning of John
Lunsford's column which I'm sure everyone in this room never misses.
And it says the referendum does not mandate anything. It's merely a
straw ballot to tell commissioners the lay of the land which is
essentially what you just said. The vote, if it gets on the ballot,
will simply indicate whether there is any serious interest in reducing
the cost and improving the efficiency of services. And is that what
-- is that a correct statement? Is that what you all are asking
for? Do you think consolidation can save some money and can improve
efficiency, and you want to see what the public input on that is?
MR. DAVIS: Since you're not exactly asking me,
Commissioner Constantine, to agree with John Lunsford, I would --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's putting you on the
spot.
MR. DAVIS: -- I would say in general terms yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because what I'm wondering is
why would we waste six months then? I think it's pretty clear the
public would just as soon reduce costs and would just as soon be more
efficient. And if there is a way to do that, I would think that the
fire chiefs and the firefighters and your group who has done all the
research on this should all sit down now. Let's not wait till March
and wait for the public to say yeah, we'd like to save some money.
Let's sit down now and save the time and try to come up with a plan
that does that. And if we can, then let's put that plan before the
voters or let's implement that.
But to simply ask the voters, do you want to do it more
efficiently and do you want to do it more cost effective, of course
they're going to say yeah.
MR. DAVIS: And that may very well get us to the same
place that I speak for myself only now am concerned about getting
which is at a table where a consolidation plan is organized for our
community because it -- it may -- it may very well be any number of
things. I've had people comment to me that it means we're going to
simply consolidate all the fire districts in Collier County. That may
or may not be. There may be a consolidated district. There may be
dependent districts. There may be independent districts due to their
proximity to the metropolitan area. It may very well be many
different things. And at this point in time I -- I certainly can't
say. I don't know that anyone can.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I'm more than happy to -- if
that was a suggestion, Commissioner Constantine, that let's skip the
vote and acknowledge that the public does want this and let's go
forward with the investigation, I'm happy to skip the vote if it means
we go forward. There are people in the room who have more perspective
and can talk more about the history of this project than I can. But
I'm afraid that there's a sense that we don't have the political will
to do what the public wants us to do and that if that we get this
straw vote that says, you know, shall the commission do it, then we
will be forced to do it.
So if there -- if there's a majority on the board that's
ready to go forward to examine it, politics aside, then I'm -- I'm
ready to do it without the vote. I'm just afraid that it will fold
like it did before without that show of broad community support.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I think we may be
saying something similar. I -- at the risk of getting too far off,
I'll use the bridge as an example. One of the concerns with our
ballot on the bridge this year was confusion, and there was an article
in the paper this past week about all the reasons to say no and all
the reasons to say yes, and we won't know which is the reason people
voted and so on.
And hopefully through that process we have learned a
lesson in that you have to be fairly specific if you're going to ask
the voter to make an informed decision. They have to know what it is
they're voting on.
And I think to simply say a generic vague idea of would
you like to do something cheaper and better, of course they'll vote
yes. So yeah, I think it'd be a great idea to get the fire chiefs and
get everybody involved and look at it. And if there is a -- do
exactly what you said, examine it and if one of these methods -- I
don't know which one. Maybe Bill would have some recommendations.
But one of these or some of the -- combination of some of these may be
a way to do that. And certainly the people who are at the fire houses
day in and day out are going to be the people who are going to tell us
firsthand what works and what doesn't, and -- but let's not waste six
months asking the public if they'd like to save money and be more
efficient. I think everybody will say yes to that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The -- the only other comment
I'll have and then I'll hush is -- is I hope that someone who's
speaking -- maybe it will be Mr. Hohlke, maybe someone else who was
more involved in this issue when it came up the first time. As a --
as a disinterested, frankly, observer, I was merely watching when this
happened before and not very carefully. It was my impression that
this got bogged down in politics and that the facts were sort of
hidden by the politics of the situation. So that's my fear if we
don't have the referendum is that again politics will rule and
whatever happened wrong the last time will happen wrong again. So I
hope somebody can give us some perspective on that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that's a valid
concern. I think probably the mistake that was made last time was the
initial question did not go to the fire chiefs and the fire
commissioners and the firefighters who are more familiar with this
than anyone. And -- and if they aren't included in the process, the
process isn't much good.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree with that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have other speakers, Mr.
Hargett?
MR. HARGETT: Yes, ma'am. You have 14 additional --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fourteen?
MR. HARGETT: Yes, ma'am. Karen -- Karen Acquard
followed by Robert Laird.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Might I suggest we attempt to
hold questions to the end? It's going to be a very long day.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good idea.
MR. ACQUARD: Good morning. I'm Karen Acquard. I'm a
resident of the Big Corkscrew Island fire district, taxpayer,
registered voter. And I'm one of those people who believes that if
you can't improve on something, you should leave it alone. I don't
believe consolidation can improve on our fire department.
The residents of the estates have been treated as second
class citizens for as long as I can remember. We've been told that
there aren't enough of us to warrant having an ambulance. There
aren't enough sheriff deputy to patrol our area properly. When the
security alarm went off in my house, it took a deputy 30 minutes to
get there.
Now, on the other hand, you have our fire department.
When I had a lightning strike in the backyard which started a brush
fire, it took them less than five minutes to get there. They were
there even faster when my mother fell. EHS was a little over 20
minutes to arrive on that time.
Knowing that the fire department responds rapidly and
with well-trained people is my security blanket. I don't have any
other out there. I'm not willing to give this up.
Now, according to the newspaper, if we become
consolidated, the department is going -- the unified department is
going to be run by our county manager and our county commissioners.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a scary thought.
MR. ACQUARD: It certainly is. I'd like to know how all
of you know how to run a fire department, what you're going to do if
we have a 2,000-acre brush fire, how to handle a multi-vehicle
accident, chemical spill. Do you know how to staff for all of these?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A hurricane, I mean, I don't know
how to handle an emergency like a hurricane either, but we do have
staff who tell us what to do, and we show up and do what they tell us
to do.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a rather expert staff.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I call Walt Kissel.
MS. ACQUARD: It's still a scary thought for me. Is it
possible that fire and rescue training is going to become a
prerequisite to be -- be a commissioner for the county or a county
manager? I almost think it'd be a good idea if that's the way you're
going to go.
Now, right now we all elect our own fire commissioners.
Our fire commissioners have a meeting once a month, and it's open to
the public. We can make our comments. They take our concerns into
consideration in making their decisions. Every district has
situations that are unique to that particular district. It's not the
same out in the estates as it is in Naples Park or it is in downtown
Naples. So each area is different. To put everyone under one control
group I don't think is going to work as well.
Now, as far as the -- you were talking about the
proposals for the assessments and so on. I know that that amount
sounds real good to people in high income communities. Actually
that's going to be a tax increase for some of the middle and lower
income. It's going to drop my taxes. I'm one of the ones who is
actually paying more than their projected $135.
But I realize also that you have other options and other
ways to look to fund this and that these are only projections. The
problems with projections are that when reality sets in, the
projections are out the window. Back in 1993 Mr. Ijams admitted that
the county's plan for consolidation couldn't save anybody any money.
It was going to cost more.
Now, last year when this issue came up, you were
presented with petitions from residents of just Big Corkscrew fire
district. There were over a thousand signatures on those petitions,
and these people were asking that if you're going to bring this to a
vote to put it to a vote by district. These fire districts were
created independently. If they're going to unify, then each district
should have the right to speak separately, to decide our own fate, not
-- not -- not everyone vote for everybody else. Let us each speak
for ourselves and decide what's going to happen to our fire
districts.
It is very possible that someday consolidation is going
to be a very viable option for this county, but I don't think it is
now. We haven't reached -- reached our growth potential. So I hope
that something can be done so that we're not back here year after year
wasting our time, wasting your time on this same issue. Either put it
to a vote by independent districts and let them decide whether they
want to unify or be on their own or kill it for a little while and
then have it reassessed in a few years. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. HARGETT: Robert Laird followed by James
Stankowitz.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. That's all your time
Bob. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Appreciate your remarks.
MR. LAIRD: Thanks a lot. MAdam Commission Chairman and
the rest of you, I'm Bob Laird. I am a member of this group. I'm
very happy to be a member of the group. I had some misgivings at the
outset. I'm still being accused of going to secret meetings of this
secret group. I wish it were because I've never belonged to a secret
organization, possibly a fraternity in college, but I haven't heard
anything secret so far.
I'm going to speak mostly in support of this committee
which I am more and more in favor of. I've accepted them. I think
they're great people that have given a lot of their time, certainly no
personal gain on any of their parts. We've been called a secret
group. Fine. There's an editorial in the paper recently that we were
the ten-member chicken little club. I think I read about that to my
kids and now my grandkids. I don't quite understand how that
applies. But, committee, it might be a good name for us.
I received an anonymous letter which I do not like
asking me why all the various committees and all the various things
that I do for the community that I would serve on a committee that is
hell bent to do away with jobs. I just wish that the person that
wrote the letter to me would appear.
Also I had a comment why would I think I would be
qualified to serve on this committee. I'm just going to make a few
comments about that. I have owned property in East Naples for 15
years. I've been a resident for ten years. I am a long-term
president of our condo association, also long-term member of Kings
Lake Homeowner Association and vice president of that association.
Now, with past approval of most of this board and
recommendations, I've served two terms on the productivity committee.
I'm a member of the EMS Citizen Advisory Committee. I'm a member of
the Citizens' Advisory Committee -- I had to write this down -- for
the evaluation appraisal report on the growth management plan. That
takes a while to say all that.
Going to be one of the sheriff's commissioners, member
of the Chamber of Commerce and serve on a committee for them, member
of the East Naples Rotary Club. And I'm not -- don't mean this to
sound like a job interview because I don't need any -- any more jobs.
Member of the Greater Naples Civic Association and the -- their county
government task force. Also a member of the East Naples Civic
Association, East Naples Civic Association board.
Now, at one of our lunches recently, announcement was
made that the board unanimously disapproved any consideration for
consolidation. I had that corrected both at the meeting and in our
minutes. It was not unanimous because I certainly voted against the
recommendation that they had made.
Also in my table at lunch there were two area
presidents, con -- or condominium association presidents, saying that
they were certainly in favor of consolidation and wanted to commend me
for serving on this committee.
Enough of that. I just feel that I am qualified to
serve on this committee. As you see, I am busy, but I felt it
worthwhile to take time to do it.
I want to praise the members of this committee. They're
really not trying to overthrow the government. That's not been the
intent of the committee, and I just ask for the support of the Board
of County Commissioners today. Thank you. Any questions?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Bob, it's -- it's nice to hear
you enjoying your retirement years. MR. LAIRD: Thanks a lot.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But regardless of what
correspondence you've received and I think regardless of the action
taken today, the folks in your committee are notables in the community
and people that are truly concerned. And I don't think you should
take any of that to heart personally. That's just my personal
feeling.
MR. LAIRD: Well, I don't really. I'd just like for
them to come forward. And I hope they're here today. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. HARGETT: James Stankowitz followed by Dr. Biles.
MR. STANKOWITZ: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is James Stankowitz. I'm a registered voter. I live
in Big Corkscrew controlled fire district.
This is not the first time I've been here, but this is
the first time that I've asked to speak to the commission. It seems
like the subject of fire consolidation keeps coming up on a regular
basis. I don't know who is pressing this issue because all the people
that I know and I talk to, either they have no idea what's going on
about this issue or they're against it.
I have been told there are ten people on a committee
that are responsible for this. Who are these people? Who are they
representing? I don't know who these -- they are not representing me,
my family, or my friends. And I do have a -- I have friends all over
this county.
I resent the fact that people are trying to speak for
other people on what they feel should be done in this county. I have
my own opinions. I can voice them myself.
I'm against both consolidation and the straw ballot. I
understand the straw ballot is a vote by everyone, not by independent
districts, but they were formed. I feel the people in each fire
district should have the right to choose themselves what happens to
their fire department. I do not know what it's like to live in
Immokalee, Port Royal. I do not think I have the right to decide what
happens to their fire departments. In the same note, I do not feel
they have the right to decide what happens to my fire department. My
opinion, what is best for me is what we have now. Consolidation will
not improve this.
Each fire district has elected their own fire
commissioners. In turn, the fire commissioners hire fire chiefs. In
my district, the hiring of a fire chief is an open public meeting.
The public is asked for their comments. Commissioners do take that
into consideration. The fire commissioners and the chiefs are both
chosen by the residents of that district.
A county board that governs our districts will not allow
involvement by the residents of the fire districts to be involved. I
feel our fire department is made up of well-trained personnel. The
system works the way it is. The old saying, if it's not broke, don't
fix it. I'm asking the commissioners, please leave this subject
alone. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Miss -- Miss Biles,
Dr. Biles.
MR. HARGETT: Dr. Biles followed by Dorothy Fitch.
MS. BILES: Would you see that they all get one of those
charts, please? For the record, Fay Biles, and I'm president of the
Marco Island Taxpayers' Association which I'm representing almost a
thousand people, so there are more than ten people. Our board and our
membership has voted definitely that we would like to see the straw
ballot put on -- a referendum put on the ballot, and there are many
reasons why. You are represented by your constituents, and we think
it's time to give the public a chance to say how they feel.
If you'll look at the chart that I gave you, this is a
condensation of all the facts and figures for all the dis -- all of
the independent districts in Collier County. If you'll look at the
bottom line, the operating budget of these districts amounts to almost
16 million dollars. If you look over at the right-hand column, that
is what we spend for 1,143 fire calls. That amounts to almost $15,000
per fire call. So cost is a problem.
I think we -- I think the fire departments do a
wonderful job. Their service is great, and they do save lives. But I
do think there could -- the -- the -- the straw vote would open the
door to study what is actually going on in Collier County. Sixteen
million dollars for eleven forty-three fire calls? That's
ridiculous. Also -- cost then is a problem.
Tied to cost also is the duplication of administration,
equipment, and buildings. Do we need 15 fire chiefs at the total cost
to the taxpayers of almost a million dollars? The two highest paid
chiefs have a total package, including salary and fringe benefits, of
around $100,000. And isn't it ironic that those two chiefs also have
two deputies? So they have three fire chiefs in those two areas where
they own -- where they earn the most amount of money.
Yes, the taxpayers do see a problem with costs. How
many county employees earn that kind of salary? All I'm saying is
that perhaps the system is out of control. And so cost is a matter.
Most of the calls that the firefighters make are medical
calls. Our EMS service has gone up -- the demand has gone up 40
percent while fire calls have actually stabilized and have gone down.
If you'll look at that chart, you can see from 1989 how they have gone
down in -- and look at the EMS and what has happened to them. They
have gone sky high.
So it seems to me that where we need the more amount of
money would be for the emergency medical services, and I can see a
system where the firefighters and the EMS can get their heads
together. I think there's some crosstraining there. There's some --
making more of the skills that some of our EMT paramedics have that
could answer that need. So I can see a real value in consolidation.
I brought with me -- since 1994 -- since -- I'm sorry,
since 1986 there have been numerous studies asking for consolidation,
a unified fire district. Look at -- look at them. If you look at
them, they all have plans. They all have indepth analysis of how it
could be done.
One plan called in the International Association of Fire
Chiefs. They came here to the Collier County. They did an indepth
analysis. Their recommendations are very pointed. They say exactly
how it can be done, what it would cost. Ed Finn's study is included
in here saying it would save a million two dollars. And now I talked
with him, and he said at this time maybe 2 or 3 percent even more
could be done.
So we're talking about a tremendous savings in money.
But look at all the plans. And former commissioners have just not had
the courage to take it on and say, let's give the public a chance to
say what they would like to see done.
And these groups, by the way, talked to 50 groups, 18,
20 groups. They went into detail. They spent a month -- they spent a
year looking over all of the facts and figures. Our group did not
want to duplicate that because it hasn't paid off. So we said maybe
the way we should go -- and I'm a member of the task force -- is
maybe we should go the route of saying, let's give the public a chance
to say their piece, and then let's see what happens.
We're not saying that we have the plan that it would
take. In fact, it would take some time I think to sit down and go
over all of the facts and figures.
Jack Snook who was here from the International
Association of Fire Chiefs met with all the commissioners, fire
commissioners, and all the fire chiefs and, in fact, recommended
strongly to them that they take the lead in going to a unified fire
district. It makes sense. It would mean that all -- everybody would
have to sit down -- all the fire chiefs, all the commissioners,
everybody would sit down to work out a plan that makes sense.
The other thing that's kind of scary -- and I'll finish
-- there is a bill ready to be introduced again into the Florida
legislature that would take a complete control away from the local
officials. That bill would supersede anything that the local people
could do asking for a tax cap of 3.75 mills, increasing costs all over
the county.
So all we're asking is that you people who answer to the
constituents of Collier County please give the public a chance to vote
on this issue.
Here are the incident reports. I have -- this is just a
little bit of the data that we have collected. We have the incident
reports of every fire district. We can tell you exactly what the
fires were, what they amounted to.
On Marco Island, I hate to tell you, but sometimes a
very minor fire that was put out before the fire company gets there,
they send out three trucks, six vehicles in all, and nine firemen. We
have twice the number of firemen that Golden Gate has. Now, a unified
district I think would maybe make a little more sense out of making
everything fairer for everyone. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. HARGETT: Dorothy Fitch followed by Chuck Hohlke.
MS. FITCH: Good afternoon almost.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Almost.
MS. FITCH: Dorothy Fitch representing the League of
Women Voters. The League has long supported the idea of fire district
unification, and we have participated in past discussions. We are not
a part of this current group, however. We feel that it's very timely
to bring this to the attention of the public, especially since there
seems to be much misunderstanding about the entire subject including
the pen -- the pending proposal, as Mrs. Biles said, of the
legislation, possible legislation, coming up in the Florida House and
Senate during this next season.
Previously this effort was hampered by a lack of
financial data and of communication to the public. Mrs. Biles has
summarized studies that her group has made, and I think this is the
sort of information that we need to get out to the public before any
kind of a vote is taken. It would go a long way to resolve the
question of whether or not unification is needed.
Matters that still need to be clarified such as separate
elected administrative body versus the county commission control
should be fully debated. Let's have a series of community meetings
and then take this project forward to some kind of a vote. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. HARGETT: Chuck Hohlke followed by Chris Straton.
MR. HOHLKE: My name is Chuck Hohlke. I stand here
before you, Commissioners, if it please this honorable commission, for
really only one purpose. I had the opportunity for service on a prior
committee which you or your predecessors had appointed that had its
first meeting on September 22 of 1988 and its last meeting on July 11,
1991.
Over that period of time there were a number of, I
thought, forthcoming opportunities to advance this issue for
consideration by elected officials and by the voters of Collier
County. For a variety of reasons that -- that's really not necessary
to go into at this time, those efforts were unavailing.
If I can add one little piece of history here that may
be entirely consistent with the remarks made by the prior speakers and
by the sentiments expressed by Commissioner Mac'Kie and Commissioner
Constantine, the issue normally in all of these circumstances got down
to essentially one thing: What is the factual situation?
We came very close to establishing what that factual
situation was when after considerable discussion, energized discussion
it could be said, over a period -- my recollection is 14 months that
brought a highly qualified group of four fire chiefs or battalion
commanders under the auspices of the International Association of Fire
Chiefs to Collier County, they reported in a report dated Hay 24,
1991.
On June 24 of that year, the chairman of this group, Ron
Coleman, who was then the immediate past president of the
International Association of Fire Chiefs, stood at this podium and
reported his findings. The result of that was that the committee of
which I had the opportunity to serve then met on July 11 of 1991 and
resolved that the only remaining issue -- this is a tad of an
overstatement, but essentially it's -- it's -- it's -- it's accurate
-- the only remaining issue was what is the factual situation in
respect to the finances of the respective districts and what can be
determined reasonably to be the costs of fire service and what can be
determined reasonably to be the cost of having a merged, unified, or
consolidated fire protection service for Collier County?
That was the last meeting of the committee because it
was then reported to the board subsequently that the -- this being the
pending issue, that the hope was that through the board's auspices or
the auspices of the clerk that this report will be forthcoming.
Finally on Hay 3, 1993, Hay 3, 1993, nothing had
happened. There was not an analysis completed, and because of the
requirements that the board has for evaluating periodically the
viability of the committees which you appoint, that at the request of
Mr. Ijams, acting in his capacity as administrator, the request was
made to no longer pursue this issue because it did not appear that the
committee had sufficient bases to make any recommendations to the
board, and that's where it stood.
So I'll conclude my remarks in the next 58 seconds as
follows: Whatever it is that this board judges is appropriate in this
case, I would urge you to take the following into consideration: That
if you make a commitment to study this issue which I sense will always
be with us until there is some reasonable analysis which persuades you
and the general public that this proposal to merge, unify, or
consolidate the fire districts is worthy of consideration, nothing
will happen.
And if you do whatever your wisdom is here and decide to
pursue this issue, you will be forthcoming as Mr. Finn and his
colleague were in developing in cooperation -- I cannot emphasize how
important this is -- in cooperation with the independent and dependent
fire districts a reasonable analysis of the viability of the financing
of the districts.
If you do that and nothing more, whatever your decision
is in regard to the straw ballot matter, I think you will have done a
considerable public service. Thank you for your consideration.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Hohlke.
MR. HARGETT: Chris Straton followed by Richard
Gibbons.
MS. STRATON: Thank you. My name is Chris Straton, and
I am also a member of the committee. I hope not to get any of those
threatening letters.
But anyway, I've lived here for ten years, and I live in
the unincorporated portion of the county. We have one sheriff
system. We have one EHS system. We have one hurricane protection
system. And I always wondered why we didn't have one fire protection
system. And as I've watched from the sidelines every attempt to try
to unify fire protection so that we have those basic public services
that government provides us unified, I've always felt that it's been
sidelined and there's been this aura of -- of politics.
So when the committee was formed, I was hopeful that
bringing this issue before the public that the public would have an
opportunity to say, hey, we think this is important, and we would like
the county to work with the appropriate people to put together some
plan that makes sense for this particular community.
Now, there's been talk that, well, you know, why -- why
consolidate because this area's different than that area. Well, you
can still have a unified system but set up local conditions. We have
different services at different locations of the county relative to
the sheriff's department. The same sort of thing can be done in terms
of a unified fire department.
Another thing that was talked about, well, if it's not
broken, why fix it. This community is involved right now in the
beginning of a visioning process to look at where we want to be in
five years. And we are unique in that most communities that engage in
this do it because something's broken. Nothing's broken in Collier
County relative to our vision. We just want to make sure that things
don't sneak up on us. We want to be proactive. And that's the same
sort of thing that the committee is talking about with respect to fire
consolidation.
As a member of -- being served through the North Naples
fire district, I was shocked to discover that my millage rate was
being proposed to move up from one percent to one and a half percent,
and the reason was not that we needed more money to build fire
stations. That we had lots of through impact fees. But we didn't
have money to -- to pay for firemen and that we had to have oodles of
firemen to man one more station.
And the thought was, well, jeez, if there was a
unification, a way of moving firemen between fire stations to take
care of vacations and things like that, maybe you wouldn't need 18
firemen for 1 fire station.
The League of Women Voters I'm a member of. I'm the
cochair of the local government committee. The League very carefully
studies issues. And when Dorothy Fitch says the League's looked at
this and they've come out in favor of consolidation, that, you know,
is more reason for me to -- to continue to be strongly in support of
this moving forward.
The Second District Association at a board meeting
talked about fire consolidation. And we argued about both sides of
the issue. And while there were not enough members there for us to
feel that we could take a -- a vote, the general consensus was that it
just makes sense to look at unification.
And then the other thing is with respect to what
Commissioner Constantine's talked about, yeah, nobody wants to put
things to a vote or go to -- go to that effort if it's not necessary.
But the feeling on the part of the -- the committee is is that this
may be the way of beginning the public debate is by asking for the
straw ballot.
The League of Women Voters has always been an
organization that is very non-biased, always looks for opportunities
to educate the voter looking at the pros and the cons. And as the
co-chairman of the local government committee and with the support of
the -- the board of directors of the League, I can assure you that we
will pursue the necessary forums as a member of the Second District
Association which has taken many opportunities to have forums to give
the -- the public an opportunity to hear both sides of things. We
will work to make sure that this issue is adequately debated before
the public.
So in summary, if there's a reason why we have one fire
station and one department handling emergencies as they relate to
hurricanes and emergency medical service, as my husband says, it just
makes sense to have one fire service. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Gibbons and then Mr. Taylor.
MR. GIBBONS: Richard Gibbons. I'm representing myself
and my brother who is a businessman in -- in Naples since 1969. I'm
also one of the firefighters that Mr. Lunsford said washes the dishes,
polishes the truck, and then solicits the county commission's vote.
First of all, I don't polish trucks because I'm a lieutenant. My men
do that. Wash the dishes I do.
The reason -- I was going to address Mrs. Matthews, but
she answered my question before, but I thought because her husband is
on this board, she said she has to vote anyway, but I thought morally
she shouldn't, but that's her choice.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me interject something right
there. My husband's an adult. MR. GIBBONS: I know that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And -- and he's a former fire
commissioner.
MR. GIBBONS: I know that too.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're right. He could be. And
it -- it seems to me that as an adult he's -- he's free to involve
himself in whatever issues he chooses to. And I fail to see what the
point is in objecting to his serving on this. He's -- he's
knowledgeable about it.
MR. GIBBONS: I don't object to him serving on it. I
object to the fact that you may vote on the straw ballot.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, what --
MR. GIBBONS: That's my own opinion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, I'll vote -- if it goes -- if
it moves to a straw ballot, I can assure you I as a voter will cast my
ballot.
MR. GIBBONS: I will -- no. I mean vote on -- as a
board member I'm talking about, not on the -- the straw ballot itself.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just have to say --
MR. GIBBONS: But, anyway --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, let me just -- I just
wanted to say this in -- in Commissioner Matthews' defense as somebody
who has had to carefully review this issue about when you can abstain
from voting. It's not a question of people might talk bad about me if
I vote on this. It's a question of the law requires you to vote
unless you have financial gain. And so it's unfair to raise an ethics
question when she doesn't have a choice.
MR. GIBBONS: I apologize, Miss Matthews.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. I accept it.
MR. GIBBONS: But what was in the paper the day before
yesterday about the plan to -- how to get the money to run a fire
department, the -- the square footage on commercial would cost my
brother well over $2,000 to run his business to get the fire
protection per year. And I imagine like K-Marts and Wal-Harts who
have a tremendous amount of square footage in their buildings will
cost them a lot more than $2,000.
So, I mean, the straw ballot -- straw ballot is a good
thing, but let's have a plan with it first, not $135 for somebody.
And this is one -- and -- and three hundred and some odd dollars per
thousand square foot for a commercial. That's pretty steep. And my
-- my two nephews are running that business right now, and they're
struggling. So $2,000 is going to really hurt them if they do. And
this -- and this consolidation thing and before is one of the reasons
when I retire in February is why I'm leaving Collier County after 25
years. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Taylor and then Mr. Carpenter.
MR. TAYLOR: Good morning, commission. For the record,
my name's John Taylor, and I am the author of the chicken little
editorial.
And I come to you today to let you know that the $135
assessment is going to raise my taxes four times. Someone in a
million dollar home, it's going to cut their taxes eight times. Where
is the justice in this? People who purchase their homes -- and I'm
sure -- I'm -- I'm positive that they did a study, and they said,
well, gee, this is what my taxes are going to be. Why are they
changing it?
I really don't feel that these people coming to you care
about the level of service. They only care about saving money. And I
will tell you this: When I have a problem or my wife has a problem, I
want the world to be there. I don't want to see the manning on fire
departments cut. I want everyone there.
Now, as far as the consolidation issue is concerned --
and just -- I'm sorry if I'm nervous. I've never spoken public
before.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're doing fine.
MR. TAYLOR: Our Republican Congress of the United
States has a lot of ideas that we agree with, and I'd like to address
just a few of them. A balanced budget. We all agree we ought to have
a balanced budget. The independent districts have a balanced budget.
Enough said on that.
Decentralize government and give it back to the people.
Isn't that what an independent district is all about? Why do you want
to create another bureaucracy?
And yes, there are -- there are a lot of chiefs. But
you know what? You're going to not only need these chiefs because
you're going to have to have battalion chiefs for all the districts;
you're going to have to go out, and you're going to have to hire
another chief to be in charge of all the other chiefs. It makes no
sense.
And finally a flat tax. We play a flat tax in the form
of a millage. Flat fee is not a flat tax. A flat fee benefits the
rich and puts the burden on myself and business owners.
And in closing, we just had a wonderful parade of
veterans and the 82nd Airborne and all the other services represented,
and we had a great victory in the Persian Gulf war. And there's two
main reasons why that victory was attainable. Number one was
technology. We had the best technology. And number two, the
politicians stayed out of it. They let the people that were in the
business of war run the war. And I ask you along those same lines,
let the people in the business of fire take care of the fire. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Following Mr. Carpenter is Mr. Kissel.
MR. CARPENTER: Hi. Dave Carpenter representing the
board of directors of East Naples Civic. And yes, Bob Laird did vote
against our position as far as fire department consolidation. As a
matter of fact, all of those on the board of directors that had
anything to do with the East Naples fire department abstained, and Bob
was the sole vote in favor of consolidation. But I'm not going to
talk about consolidation.
Let's talk a little bit about straw ballots. You know,
you don't need a vote -- in fact, first of all, this commission cannot
create a unified fire district. That hasn't been mentioned. You have
to go to the legislature. I'm surprised that hasn't been mentioned
today. Technically you don't need a vote to go to the legislature.
You can go to the Collier delegation, and they can take it up as a
local bill. And they can say, hey, guys, this is what the county
commission wants. We'll give it to them.
Practically, though, that's pretty nigh impossible. You
have four members of the Collier delegation, four members of the state
legislature. And virtually all of them are going to say, hey, don't
come to me with a bill like this that's going to take away these
districts that people voted to get without a vote of the people.
That brings us up to this straw ballot and the reason
why it's been proposed. The reason why this straw ballot has been
proposed is really to circumvent democracy. They want to use a straw
ballot rather than having a ballot on an actual plan. Then they'll
run up to the Collier delegation and say, hey, look, the people
voted. Here's their straw ballot.
The only ballot that people in Collier County should be
asked to vote on is a specific plan for consolidation with specific
financial data so they know what they're voting on. It's wrong to ask
these people to give up their independent districts on the basis of an
extremely vague and poorly worded question. And I say poorly worded
because I heard Dr. Biles said EMS in is in this now. Well, according
to this proposal, the straw ballot makes no mention of EMS. Talks
about fire districts. Which is it?
We've got another problem with the straw ballot. As far
as I know, as proposed, you've got people who live incorp -- in
charter government areas of this county, city of Naples, Everglades
City, that would be asked to vote in the straw ballot.
Now, you guys can't touch city of Naples fire
department. In fact, I'm not even certain the legislature can because
you have a charter government situation there. So if you're going to
have any kind of a ballot, let's start talking about excluding anyone
who lives in the city of Naples.
I guess Everglades fire department, though, is kind of
county run, so they would probably be in, but basically we're looking
at a vote excluding the residents of the city because of their charter
form of government.
Really gets down to kind of simple. If you all want to
take and go after consolidation, you can go -- and I'd say, hey, if
you want it, give it a shot. I've got a feeling that the actual plan
with the financial specifics would probably flop out there, but that's
your prerogative.
But stay away from this straw ballot thing. My God,
we've seen enough problems on this bridge question, and that was
pretty simple for most of us to take a look and, hey, it's going to be
the north route. We're going to pay for it this way. And yet you
hear all this confusion on that. And can you imagine what a straw
ballot on a feel-good issue would come up with? You don't need it.
You all have the wisdom, and you all talk enough to your
constituents to be able to get out there and talk to your people and
say, boy, are you really gung-ho on this idea of consolidation? And
if your response of your constituents says, yeah, you're all
politicians, then you can say, hey, let's get together, and let's
maybe have the direction from the county commission and try and get
not former fire commissioners -- nothing against them. But, you know,
we've got people on that committee, I don't know how many of them ever
served a full term. They got mad. They quit. They decided not to
run again. They were appointed, decided not to stand for election.
What you ought to be doing is going to the current fire commissioners
because this thing has a lot of levels, and maybe someday we can see
unification.
Right now we have cooperation where it counts, and I
think the story that hasn't been told to this commission is the amount
of cooperation between the existing independent fire districts. And
I'm not talking about simply cooperation in response. What I'm
talking about is cooperation in purchasing, cooperation in training.
You've got more of that going on than you realize. And before you
jump into a big fancy unification plan, you might take a look at
what's happened in the last five or six years around the existing fire
departments. And hopefully some of their current commissioners will
tell you.
As for now, though, hey, you can go ahead with
unification and a plan if you want, but don't try and deceive the
voters with a straw vote. Save the vote until there's a plan put
forth with all the financial data and let them vote on that one.
Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Kissel and then Mr. Cannon.
MR. KISSEL: Commissioners, my name's Walter Kissel.
I'm a fire commissioner in North Naples. Some of the things that have
been brought up, I don't know where to start.
The information that's being handed out is not really a
true fact. And being in the fire service as long as I have, I've been
around as a volunteer fire department in the north, been chief for
over 25 years. I've been a commissioner going on seven right now.
There's a few things that I pride myself. I don't have
to lie. I don't have to stretch the truth. I give the actual. And
to answer one question, a young lady said that -- was it 1,100 calls?
North Naples is going to see 5,500 calls this year. Sixty-five
percent is rescue calls. We almost average a fire a day in North
Naples of some sort. Regardless how many pieces equipment go to the
call, I maintain if you don't have enough equipment and you find out
you have a major fire, you can make excuses why you got too much, but
you can never make excuse why you haven't got enough.
I've been involved in many major fires in my time. I've
been involved -- and I don't brag about it, but I'm going to bring it
out because it upsets me about the fire service sometimes not doing
what the public thinks they ought to do.
We had a nursing home fire. We had a pyromaniac as a
male nurse. He was mad at the director because he wanted a day off.
This was about twelve o'clock at night. I think we had about 15
pieces of equipment from the city and anywheres we could grab because
it was a wooden structure. Fortunate, it was an enclosed chute where
we had electrical wires.
I was a deputy chief at the time. I was in the -- my
job was to vacate the people to another premises. And fortunate or
unfortunate, my father was laid up in this structure with a stroke,
and he was not able to move. And if you want to get a little
frightened and say what should I do, you do what you have to do to
save all the lives and protect your own parent.
That's enough of that. We don't really need
consolidation for the simple fact we have mutual aid. For the people
that don't understand mutual aid is when somebody's got a structure
and needs help, we're there. We have an interlocal agreement
throughout the county, throughout the state because if we get into
when we have a major hurricane, we can't receive any funds back by
FEMA if we don't have it.
We have automatic aid. For the ones that don't know
what automatic aid, it's the closest fire house to the structure or
the incident that any money goes regardless of what district it's in.
Whether it's North Naples or Bonita, we don't care. We don't have
boundary lines. There's departments throughout the state that does
have boundary lines and have sit there and watch a house burn because
that guy didn't pay his taxes to the fire district. We don't have
this in Collier County.
The biggest thing we have, the steering committee. All
the commissioners and fire chiefs do relate, do talk. They're
buddies. That is a big thing. If -- communications. We work with
one another. We solve each other's problems. And it works.
We have cost saving measures. Maybe you're not aware
that we have a co-op that's not only Collier County, Lee County,
Charlotte County. And some of the cities on the east coast that find
out that we have this co-op -- last year we took bids in of this group
of $294,000 on various things like air packs, protective gear, hoses.
And we realize by buying this way we saved 10 to 12 percent. This is
cooperative. We're working together.
North and east has a maintenance program. Repair of our
vehicles, between the two of us we have better than 40 pieces of
equipment. We have two certified mechanics. We buy the parts same as
any other gas station or garage in some cases maybe cheaper. We have
fire departments on the east coast found out that we have this service
are coming over and starting to use us. Eventually this will be a
self service -- not a self serve but self cost effective department.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Kisslet (sic), you've gone on
more than a minute now after the buzzer, so I'd like you to try to
wrap up.
MR. KISSEL: Well, I've just barely touched on some of
the things that are -- we have a hiring program, not just Collier
County but Lee, and there's more coming. Everybody likes. We do have
a cooperative system here, and we don't need consolidation. I call it
the new buzz word, functional consolidation. And watch out for the
fire service in '96 because there's some things are going to come out
that haven't come out. And maybe some of you have heard a little bit
about it, but we're working on it. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Cannon and then Ms. Varner.
MR. CANNON: Commissioners, my name is Tom Cannon. I'm
going to wear two hats today, one as a homeowner and business owner in
East Naples and the other as a fire commissioner of 11 years in East
Naples.
I studied your very tentative funding method of this
non-ad valorem taxes. And I was surprised to find out between my
house and my office, my taxes will increase $800. And I got to
thinking, if my taxes increased, who else's taxes are going to
increase? I figured it out. Any house in East Naples that is
assessed at 115,000 or less will see a tax increase. Any house that's
greater than 115,000 will show a tax decrease. So we're doing a
regressive tax system here instead of a progressive tax system.
Where am I going to make up the money for this $800
increase? I'm going to have to charge my clients more. Who are my
clients? The middle class citizens. They're the ones that's going to
make up this increase. Through their houses, through the additional
cost, I figured it out, and I have one client that I figured out that
will save over $3,000 in fire tax based on this system. Their risk is
a lot greater than my risk.
Mr. Kissel touched on a few aspects of what's going to
transpire in 1996. I'll get into a few of those aspects. Mr. --
Commissioner Kissel touched on the maintenance facility that is put on
by North and East Naples. That facility has been so successful, two
manufacturing reps. of fire equipment have asked us to be their
warranty representatives. This is a very good enterprise fund that's
going to save both of our districts money in the future.
North Naples and East Naples have been talking, and
we're getting even more serious now about a joint administration
facility where we would look at combining finance department, support
staff, centralized training facility, and possibly merging fire
prevention all under one roof in a building that is owned by both East
Naples and North Naples. And we would make this a joint fire
station.
We were looking at property right now on Golden Gate
Boulevard and Livingston Road, that area where both of our districts
touch. It would be a super idea that would allow East Naples to hit
their industrial park area, and it would allow North Naples to hit
some of their residential areas such as Naples Bath and Tennis,
Poinciana.
We're looking at standardizing SOP and rules and
regulations. We're looking at standardizing union contracts. In this
proposal in the paper -- and I know it's in the paper -- it shows that
we're going to lose 34 firefighters, be them -- be it administrators,
be it firefighters. Chief officers are certified state firefighters.
You lose your chief officer, you're losing a firefighter. You lose an
assistant chief, you're losing a firefighter.
East Naples has invested 17 years and many tax dollars
into the training of their fire chief. We're 33 years old. East
Naples is proud to say we haven't had a millage increase since I
believe it was '83. And we don't expect to have one. Are we using
additional funding resources? Yeah, we're looking at user fees. We
looked at impact fees. We're touching all aspects.
Touch on briefly about this ghost bill that's in the
Florida House right now. It's been there for four years. It doesn't
allow the fire service to increase their millage up to 3.75 unless
there's a referendum by their voters. It doesn't allow the fire
departments to start their EMS system unless they get a certificate of
need. Who issues their certificate of needs? You five people.
What this bill was set out to do is standardize the
enabling acts of all 67 independent fire districts in the state of
Florida. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Varner and then Ms. Markham.
MS. VARNER: I'm Jane Varner, and I live in East
Naples. I'm going to reiterate, this isn't a question of whether the
system's broken. It's just a question of whether there is another
system that's better. And after listening to all of this, it seems we
have quite a bit of data that we could compare the two systems.
Now, I've heard a lot about cooperation. I think that's
good. But if cooperation is good, then why is not consolidation
good? I mean, you certainly would have -- in this time of where we
can see that merging can often reduce costs.
And if you're talking about costs to individuals, to
assume that they would have to be paying more, if we can reduce costs,
then everybody would -- it would advantage everyone. Of course, you
know, our main objective is to look at what is the best for all of
Collier County and how can they be served in the most efficient and
cost-effective way?
Now, one thing I found a little different here is when I
came from a metropolitan area, which I believe we are becoming a
metropolitan area now, the emergency medical calls were handled by
emergency -- emergency medical services. We didn't have a fire truck
coming out.
And when I came here and I noticed that for no matter
what the reason, it seemed the fire truck always came at the same time
or preceded the emergency medical service, and I wondered, you know,
why this was. And I guess I have heard that there is some benefit to
the users.
But then I also -- looking at the -- at the budgets that
I wondered if there was also some benefit to the fire departments for
being able to be a part of an emergency medical service and that it
seems as though the emergency medical part has been the part that's
increased substantially and that the fire calls have been relatively
level or less.
And then I also noticed -- and maybe there's a big
reason that I don't understand because this is quite complicated --
why some fire districts say East Naples' budget is 4,226,000 for a
total number of -- well, this may not be all fire calls in that but
222. And in Golden Gate for an example has a budget of 1,377,000.
They had 276 fire calls.
Well, I don't understand why some -- or like North
Naples' budget is five million. Why is East Naples four and Marco
Island two? I don't know what -- why the discrepancies there. But
unifying the system would seem that you could serve the whole area and
benefit everyone.
But I'm not asking for that we do this. I'm just asking
that maybe if we would have a straw ballot, maybe in the meantime we
could all learn a lot more about this issue and then the people could
-- could say, go ahead, because it looks like this has been stagnant
-- stagnating, on hold, nothing's moving forward. And I don't know
if there are any forces out there to impel it forward without some --
some vote from the people or some indication that we want them to look
at some other system. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Markham and then Chief Nutley.
MS. MARKHAM: Good afternoon. I'm Nancy Markham. I'm a
citizen of East Naples. I've been here for over a year. My business
is servicing senior citizens. And I am totally opposed to the
consolidation. We have a great fire department. Let's not fix
something that isn't broken.
We don't need an increase in taxes. The senior citizens
of Collier County are paying enough. We need services for them.
Let's leave things that are working well alone and look into the areas
where we do need help. And I thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Chief Nutley, Mr. Marlin.
MR. NUTLEY: Good after -- afternoon. It's about that
time. I come from Immokalee, and I'm a little disturbed in the fact
that looking at the numbers that were generated by your staff because
I paid 64 -- I live in a modest house. I paid $64 fire tax last
year. According to this, I'd pay 135. That's 110 percent increase.
Now, my fire marshal, Leo Rogers, he lives in a home for habitat. He
paid $24. His will increase 500 percent.
We're going to save money. Well, yeah, I can see where
we're going to save money. All the rich folks are going to save a
bundle of money, and us poor folks are going to pay for it. That's
the whole idea of this. This ain't got a thing to do with
consolidation. The whole trick behind this is eventually, eventually,
the powers to be with big fat pockets would like to see this whole
county with a flat rate tax and do away with ad valorem all together.
That's a horse of a different color.
But we're the most vulnerable because there's been this
so-called controversy by the chicken little department. That's the
basis behind all this. It hasn't got a thing to do with efficiency.
You haven't heard any public outcry about how inefficient the fire
service is in this county. And if you're going to make it more
efficient by consolidating, I want to know from staff, Charlotte
County and Sarasota County, you named them in your report. How much
money did they save, if any? Bill?
MR. GRIFFIN: (Mr. Griffin shook head.)
MR. NUTLEY: Didn't. No, I know they didn't. The fire
chiefs have investigated the east coast counties to try to find out
how much they saved. In most cases they didn't save any. It cost
them more. And, in fact, after seven to ten years, they are now in
the process of reverting back to independent districts.
Now, the reason we know this because most of us chiefs
are tied into the Internet. We have been -- I've been eight years
chief of -- of Immokalee, and five years I've been on Internet with
the International Association of Chiefs.
Amongst the fire chiefs, the high-paid chiefs, we have
amongst us 100 -- over 100 years of fire service experience, 100
years. That's more than Norris three times retired. MR. IJAMS: Close.
MR. NUTLEY: Now, we do this for a living folks. We
don't -- this isn't a part-time job for us. This is what I eat,
sleep, and drink 24 hours a day. The statistics that you were given
today are so out of context it's unbelievable. Immokalee alone ran
more service calls for service than the city of Naples did last year.
Now, that's hard to believe with only nine firemen, but we did it. I
ran 71 structure fires.
The numbers they gave you are for structure fires only.
We had 1,100 structure fires in this county last year. Calls for
service, I mean, every time the alarm goes off in this building East
Naples has to respond, reset the alarm, and go back, reset the alarm.
We get those. How do we know it's not the real thing, though? We
don't know.
Why do we send all that equipment? Because ISO says we
will. If you go to a structure fire, single-family structure fire,
and you don't send two engines and a ladder, ISO is going to knock
your ISO rating down. That's why we do it.
The second reason is for safety. You don't send a boy
in to do a man's job. If you got a real live fire, you better have
enough manpower and people and equipment to do the job. We have a
very labor-intensive group. Everything we do is very labor
intensive.
And it was already stated about the new house bill.
That house bill was created by -- your own legislatures demanded that
the house -- community affairs committee come up with a new bill that
unifies fire service throughout the state. It doesn't give us any
more power. Immokalee fire district as is well every fire district in
this county right now has the authority to run an ambulance service
with your approval. We've had it since '57 with their approval,
correct. How many of -- how many of us have come to you and asked for
a license? Nobody has.
We can operate very efficiently. I operate on $800,000
a year, the same budget as Ochopee. I ran 3,600 calls last year.
Ochopee run 600. We operate very efficiently. Why fix it? You don't
go to a restaurant and order a steak and try to swallow it in one
bite. You cut it in pieces because if you try to swallow it in one
bite, you're going to choke.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Marlin and then Chief Peterson.
MR. MARLIN: I'm Earl marlin. I have a couple of
thoughts about this.
There is absolutely no assurance that a consolidation
will save any money. I have been around for a long time now, and I
have been active in a number of government affairs. And it has been
my observation that you rarely save any money by making a government
item unit bigger. It just doesn't happen. What you're going to end
up with probably is another layer of supervision on top of what you
now have.
Then there's another thing that has not been mentioned
here. Sooner or later I would guess -- I feel reasonably certain that
Marco Island will incorporate, Golden Gate will incorporate, East
Naples will incorporate. How do we divide it up and get it back at
that time? I suppose that when you incorporate, you're going to have
to pay the county for the assets to get them back to operate your own
fire department as the city of Naples does now. I don't know just
what that would be, but it would give a problem.
This idea of changing from the ad valorem tax, there's
only one reason for that, and that's to try to shift the burden of the
tax from better-off areas to poorer areas obviously. A guy that pays
-- that has a million dollar home would then I suppose pay the same
as a person with a mobile home. Obviously he's going to save money.
The guy with the mobile home's going to pay more.
Actually he does gain more benefit. He's getting the
protection of a million dollar home where the person is probably
getting the protection of a much -- of a considerably smaller amount.
The only other thing that I have to say on this is that
if you're going to put something on a ballot, for heaven sakes, spell
out what it is. Don't just put it on there and say, are you in favor
of saving money? Of course everybody's in favor of saving money.
Spell out exactly what it is you propose to do and then let the people
vote on that. But don't make it some nebulous question. I thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Chief Peterson and Mr. Perkins.
MR. PETERSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, I'm Don Peterson, fire chief, Golden Gate fire control and
rescue district. I won't take too much of your time.
One of the things I want to share with you is a
consolidation policy statement that our board had adopted at last
month's meeting. The primary part that I want to share with you and
everybody is that the direction given by this board does not support
nor does it go against consolidation of the fire service. It is the
intent of this board to evaluate this issue with proper fire service
input as to how it can affect fire and rescue services to the people
in Golden Gate fire control and rescue district.
One of the concerns contrary to the newspaper and
articles driven, whatever consolidation study you do needs to have the
fire service input. You need to have local input to that.
It concerns me when again this morning emotions come
into play, politics come into play in this issue. The number of
firefighters on duty in a particular district may be more than in
another district. There's issues out there that -- that the community
certainly needs to be educated as well as our boards and -- and your
board as a whole. But in essence what we're here for is the safety of
the people out there.
You'll find that whether you combine EMS and the fire
service, whether you leave them separately, one of the things you
should do is not tie these as -- as one issue. They're two separate
issues here.
So when you put this issue on the ballot, it should not
be considered are we dealing with EMS or are we dealing with fire.
You need to have the plan laid out ahead of time.
One of the things that was alluded to this morning also
with -- Jack Snook had addressed the fire service and the public; one
of the things he shared with us that to make consolidation successful
throughout the country, he shared with us the analogy of first you
date. Then you go steady. You become engaged, and then you marry.
What he's saying, fire service in Collier County has progressed to the
go steady, and we're eluding (sic) to the engaged part. And by that
is by mutual agreements that we've created memorandums of
understanding, the sharing of resources, those type of issues.
It should not come down to an issue that if you've got
18 guys on duty in one fire house that's too many because you have to
be proactive in the fire service. When the alarm goes off, you don't
know what's coming. You don't know what's there until you actually
get there. If there's three or four trucks coming, that may not be
enough. High rises in Collier -- Collier County scare -- scare me to
death, to be honest with you, because you see these high-rise fires in
California and New York, Los Angeles, wherever they may be. If you're
on the 15th or 20th floor, 10 people or 20 people is not going to be
enough to take care of that fire. And again, these are issues that we
should not be discussing here because there's a lot of other practical
common sense issues that need to be dealt out here. And -- and that's
where we tend to separate and bring the politics into it.
So, again, I want to share that one from the Golden Gate
standpoint. We want to look at, see how it's going to affect our
people and taxpayers. I can say that a good share of taxpayers in
Golden Gate would be paying more by what was in your package this
morning. A lot of folks pay less than a hundred dollars out in Golden
Gate. There's a few that certainly would reduce there, but there's a
lot of folks out there with homestead exemption. There's a lot of
folks out with enough exemptions they don't even pay fire protection.
And that's some of the issues we want to look at as a
fire district to see how it affects out there. Folks in mobile homes,
they buy a tag for their trailer. They don't pay tax, fire
protection. So there's a lot of -- a lot of dollar issues and a lot
of fingers out there that compound the issue when we talk about
consolidation. We can't just say yes, we're going to do it and let's
put it together. So thank you for your time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins.
MR. PERKINS: Good morning, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Afternoon.
MR. PERKINS: All right. Okay. I lost a few hours in
the shuffle. The people of -- A1 Perkins, Belle Meade Groups,
Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights.
You've had a lot of good speakers this morning. They've
educated you about fires. I doubt that some of the people who have
talked about consolidation have ever been in a fire.
Now, these men have been there, and they've been singed
and burnt and stomped on and soaking wet and all the rest of it,
pulled their guts out. If you've ever pulled a fire hose, try it some
time. I think Tim Hancock has. Okay? If you've ever gotten one
loose, see what it is to try to trap that sucker. It will kill you if
you're not careful.
The point that I'm making is listen to the people who
know what the heck they're talking about. They've got the
experience. They've got the education. And they're sure staying
right with it.
A couple of issues: Each district pays for its own fire
protection, so it should be up to the individual district to dictate
their policy, what they want to do and how much they want to pay for
it. Response time to a fire, to a problem, to a hurricane, to
whatever, the response time is going to be critical.
Mobile home parks, they're -- they're too tight
together. They're a problem. The people who have to go in there have
to go in there en masse, and they've got to take and make it happen
quickly because those things go up like little tinder boxes. When we
get down to the money that's being spent, the additional money, the
people who can least afford it's going to end up getting.
Now, all of this gives me a scary thought, and the
people as far as the commission or the county manager gives me another
scary thought. You're out of your element.
Now, automatic aid was brought up. Very important
because each one of these different fire districts deal with different
things. Golden Gate deals with a dump that could blow up in their
face. Marco Island doesn't. But Marco Island deals with high rises
which Golden Gate probably doesn't know how to handle a fire on the
22nd floor because it's not in their bailiwick at the present time,
not that they couldn't or wouldn't. It's just that they're not well
versed on that because it's not pertinent to what they do.
Taking the fires out in the woods, as far as Ochopee --
and this I can give you a testimony because I've been there, and
you've got 45-foot-high fires with all of the local agencies that --
participating. I've been in it right up to my neck. Ochopee was
there. East Naples was there. Golden Gate was there. North Naples
made it.
So as far as cooperation, cooperation is there. And
these men talk to one another. And if they showed an interest as far
as pulling their equipment together and the maintenance of their
equipment and the purchasing power -- power together, they are on
their way to fixing their problems and to take and reducing the cost.
Immokalee: Immokalee is always left out. For some
reason or other they -- they -- they're off to the left hand. They
have different situations that we don't have. We don't have it in
Marco Island. We don't have it in Naples. We don't have it in North
Naples. Now, can you see the Immokalee fire chief trying to find his
way around the inside of the -- of the Philharmonic? But North Naples
know their way around that place real good. I'm not putting down
Immokalee. But you take North Naples and you put them in Immokalee,
and they're lost also because of the vast area, where the problems
are, and we're back to response time.
So in closing, I hope you people take and think about
this consolidation because the fire chiefs seem to be doing a very
good job all by themselves in pulling their systems together. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: He's your final speaker.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Dorrill.
Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We had a number of different
comments, and I just jotted notes throughout, and I'll touch on some
of them. And considering the amount of agenda we have left, I'll
leave others untouched.
First and foremost, the concept of the flat tax, I
realize there is no specific proposal. That is one of several that
are possible. But the concept of the flat tax concerns me because it
-- it does increase the burden on those who are least able to afford
it. You've got the people in Golden Gate or the people in Immokalee
or the people in Golden Gate Estates or wherever who suddenly are
going to be paying two or three or four or in some cases more than
that times for service.
But we had this debate on other issues. But when we
talk about beautification of parkways or that type thing, great.
Everybody needs to pay their own way. But when we talk about safety
and health issues, we need to make sure everyone is covered in the
county. It's not a matter of dollar or cents. These are health and
safety issues. These are trying to protect lives. And when -- when
we get into the most basic of services that the government is supposed
to provide, it concerns me greatly when we look at increasing that 400
or 500 percent.
Rather than -- a number of people said things either
similar or -- or in addition to what I had said earlier about having a
specific plan to offer the public. If we're going to offer the public
something, again, let's not say, do you want to do it cheaper and
better, because, of course, everyone's going to say yes. It's a waste
of time. It's a waste of effort.
My suggestion would be that we may be able to do it
better. We may be able to do it cheaper. But let's gather those
people who know, who deal with it everyday day in and day out who fire
fighting is their lives. Let's get a chief and a firefighter and
commissioner from each one of the districts, maybe more than that from
each one of the districts. Let's get someone from our staff, maybe
assign Mr. Griffin this on a -- as a long-term project. Get
interested parties, Mr. Laird and his chicken little group, get
everybody together to -- to sit down and look at what are the
alternatives on this, what is the impact on each individual homeowner,
on each individual business, on each individual property owner.
Let's have those -- somebody -- someone mentioned -- I
think it might have been Fay. I don't know -- mentioned community
meetings. Let's have those meetings in each of the communities, in
each of the districts and get feedback from within those districts
because clearly there are a number of people in a number of the
districts who are very happy the way it is right now.
Let's set a specific time frame. Commissioner Hac'Kie
had mentioned and I think a couple of the speakers mentioned that they
were concerned that it would get mired down in politics and get lost
again. Let's set a specific time frame. Let's set a specific
calendar in which we would like to see those people sit down and come
back with some of the answers.
Chief Peterson answered -- asked some very specific ones
from Golden Gate. What would the funding source be? What would the
governing board be? Would it be the county, or would it be
independent?
Some of the pros and cons, district by district. What
would a -- what would a consolidated department be, and what would the
cost be? I think Chief Nutley asked the question, will it really save
money; and we don't know right now.
We have -- Mr. Mohlke indicated some of the answers back
from as long ago as four, five years ago. And I think that might be a
place to start. But to ask the public to vote on a concept without
being able to answer any of those questions doesn't seem appropriate.
But it doesn't seem appropriate either to pretend no one is interested
in answering those questions.
So I would think we should step forward, use the
expertise of the people who do the fire fighting day in, day out, try
to get to the answers. And if at the end we find that it makes sense
in some districts, then let's put that on the ballot and let the
public decide if they want to do it. But let's not put a vague
concept on it.
So I would just suggest we set a specific calendar and
-- and let them take a look at that district by district, have some
public input along the way, and then maybe even by March be able to
have some answers rather than just putting the vague idea out there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A couple of comments. One is I
like the idea you're proposing, Commissioner Constantine, with -- with
perhaps some additions where we have more than those experts serve on
this panel because there is the concern about the chickens guarding
our -- what is it? The fox guarding the hen house? Is that how it
is? -- that we need to have people who don't have a vested interest to
also participate.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's okay, Chief.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But on the subject of listening
to the experts, we have done that already. And in 1991 the
International Association of Fire Chiefs said consolidate. The
experts, the people who live and breathe this, have already told us in
1991 -- the International Association of Fire Chiefs said
consolidate.
At this point where we failed or where the former board
failed is they didn't take the next step and do the analysis of the
financial repercussions of consolidation. They didn't do that
adequately.
It seems to me that this ballot question just says shall
the Board of County Commissioners be directed to propose a fire -- a
unified fire protection system. The proposal would require the study
that you just described.
The -- the fact that this ballot question can -- it
doesn't require like the bridge a special election or a mail ballot or
anything; it can merely go on the presidential preference ballot --
and that it's a useful bit of information. It wouldn't control. It
wouldn't be the end-all. It wouldn't answer all of the questions, but
it would be some useful information for this board to have as we go
forward with the study that you just discussed, Commissioner
Constantine.
And, Mr. Weigel, a question that I have is -- is we've
been told that these ballots can be counted by our commission
districts I think is what we were told. Can -- is it not possible to
-- to count the ballots by fire district? Couldn't -- couldn't we
know -- if we had this straw ballot question, could I know from the
Golden Gate fire district what the vote was and from the North Naples
fire district what the vote was, et cetera? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. WEIGEL: I won't attempt to speak for the supervisor
of elections, but it would appear to me that the demographic data
would be available subsequent to the election.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So to the extent that people want
to be able to have a voice from their particular district in a
non-binding -- in a non-binding poll question, I think that it's
useful information to have as we -- in conjunction with this scheduled
time table study as we go forward.
So I would like to move approval of the recommendation
that we have a straw ballot on the question of fire consolidation,
that -- I would not like to accept this language, that we would have
either the county attorney's office prepare a question, if that's the
will of the board, but that the question merely be should the Board of
County Commissioners be directed to analyze the financial and safety
ramifications of unified fire protection for Collier County.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's a motion. Commissioner
Norris, you had comments.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I do, several. But first I
need to have a question answered that may be pertinent at some later
point in the -- in this entire discussion. Mr. Dotrill, maybe you can
answer it, perhaps Mr. Weigel. Does any independent fire district
have currently within their ability the option to change the funding
source within that district only?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. What was the question
again? I needed to -- I didn't get it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Does any independent district
today have the ability to change their method of funding within that
district alone?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You mean leave ad valorem and go
to some sort of assessment?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's just a question that --
that will come up at some point in the discussion. Do we know that?
MR. DORRILL: I do not. My -- my hunch is that they do
not but that they could as a result of amending their local special
acts that they have.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So it would have to go
through the legislature first, and then it could be done. MR. DORRILL: That's my impression.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: And if -- if a -- if all the
voters in a district, a currently bounded district, decided that's
what they wanted to do, they could take that to the legislature -- MR. DORRILL: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- assuming they get their will
done. Okay. Fine.
Now, the question of putting this on the ballot as it is
today, here's the problem: If you put this question in front of the
voters as it's presented today with no study, no information, nothing
but this simple question and it's -- it's approved by the voters, then
we're locked into consolidating the fire system whether it ends up
being a good idea or whether it ends up being a bad idea. And that's
just not the proper way this procedure should go.
This question says shall the Board of County
Commissioners be directed to propose a unified fire protection system
for Collier County to be supported by revenues other than the property
tax.
Well, there's a lot of problems here. What do you mean
by consolidation? Do you mean functional consolidation? If you do,
we're moving towards that today.
Do you mean one single county-wide independent fire
control district? If that's what you mean, that's -- that's a
different animal that we're moving towards in functional
consolidation.
Do you mean one county-wide dependent district? What do
you mean?
Do you mean should Collier County take it over as a
Collier County department? Well, in 1993 we went -- when we went
through this exercise and this was supposed to be put to bed for the
next two or three decades, the county staff ended up saying they could
not save any money by doing it that way. So why are we talking about
that again here two -- less than two years later?
Is EMS included in this? It's been talked about, but is
it included? It's not in the ballot question. What are the voters
voting on? They don't know. We don't know. Nobody knows at this
point.
And what does revenue other than property tax mean?
It's not spelled out. There's a list of options, but it's not
specified what it is. So how do the voters know what it is they're
voting for?
I've said it before, and -- and it's still valid at this
point. I mean, you can ask the voters a simple analogy like this:
Would you like an ice cream cone? And what do you think the answer's
going to be? Well, of course they want one. Okay. Fine. Here's
your ice cream cone. By the way, today's flavor is tuna fish, and
that will be ten bucks, please.
You know -- you know, you just don't know. Until you
have a plan that specifies everything, specifies what it is you're
talking about, I am not going to support putting this in front of the
voters. Once there's a plan that -- that is detailed and spells out
what we're going to do, then that's a different story. Then we can
talk about putting it in front of the voters.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a second. Commissioner
Hancock's next.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Tough act to follow.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a cue here.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And don't worry, Chief Nutley. I
think Commissioner Mac'Kie was just calling you a fox, so that should
be a compliment, sir. I wouldn't worry about that.
I -- I have the same -- same questions. I read this
question. And as I put myself in the position of most voters that
don't sit up here and get a packet of information on a given Tuesday,
I really don't know what I'm being asked to vote for.
It's -- it's -- you know, the -- the efforts of putting
this question together and saying we want the voters to have a choice
is fine. The choice has to be clearly delineated. And in this case I
think if the question said, do you want the county to operate a single
fire district, it'd probably come back no. But if you -- do you want
a single independent fire district? Maybe. You know, it's just not
clear enough for me to support this going to a ballot question.
The thing I note that's interesting is all of our
efforts in the area of privatization has been to take things that the
county traditionally has done and send them out to the private sector
where they can be done better, cheaper, more efficiently.
By taking independent fire districts and consolidating
them into a single maybe county-run department, we're doing the
opposite of what we're trying to do in so many other areas. We're
taking a function that is occurring on a local level, a more local
level than the county itself, and broadening it and making it in
essence one single operation.
I think Sheriff Hunter can tell you. You know, he has
areas that require different coverage throughout the county. And he
has to tailor those as best he can. And it requires his field people
to respond differently in different areas.
The independent districts set up a system that allow
that to happen already. So for me to say do I want a consolidated
fire district, I need to know who's going to run it, what's it going
to cost me; okay? Those are the individual questions.
The question as a commissioner for me is who benefits,
and who is penalized? And from what's been presented here, I don't
even have those answers.
So before I ask the public, you know, or the voting
public who you want to assess for county-wide fire protection how you
want to assess them, I need to know how it's going to impact
everyone. I need to know who wins and who loses. I need to know is a
-- are individual districts going to be able to choose their level of
service if it's unified.
People who move to rural areas generally understand that
the fire station is not around the corner. It's a mile away or four
miles away or five miles away. And, you know, there's a -- a -- a
property value difference there. You know, the further out you get,
the services sometimes take a little bit longer, and people make those
value decisions.
So if we're going to have to bring the entire county up
to the same response time and level of service, that's going to
require a significant expenditure in the rural portions of the county
while probably maintaining what is currently in the urban area. That
will become the benchmark, and we then have to take those services out
to the entire county.
And I would like to see how much that's going to cost
because if everyone pays a flat fee, then everyone deserves the same
level of service. So whether I live in Marco or East Naples or Golden
Gate or North Naples, if I'm paying the same as somebody else, then,
by gosh, my response time should be the same. I can hear that coming
under a unified situation. And I fear the overall cost of that type
of -- of consolidation.
So those -- those are just concerns. And since this
ballot question in my opinion doesn't frame the question to specifics
for an individual to make a determination on what is their best
decision, I can't support this ballot question.
I do, however -- I like Commissioner Constantine's idea
of putting together a panel that's weighted, not -- you know, there's
obviously two sides in this issue, and I think putting the panel
together simply on one side will give us a predetermined answer. I
think we can figure that out. But to put together a weighted group to
see if we can work together and see if there are some things are being
answered I think is a terrific idea. But as far as this particular
ballot question today, I can't support it because it's not asking the
voter a real question.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think the motion that's on the
floor does --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- not support this particular
ballot question.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But likewise -- likewise --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'd like to because the last
of the speakers --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If the discussion was on my
motion, I realize that there's not a second. But if the discussion
was on the motion, my motion was not to put this question on the
ballot. My motion was to put this question on the ballot: Shall the
Board of Collier County Commissioners be directed to analyze the
financial and safety ramifications of a unified fire protection system
for Collier County?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Commissioner Hac'Kie, we
don't have to vote on that. Why don't we just do it. Commissioner
Constantine has already suggested it.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The political will apparently has
not existed to just do it because the recommendation has existed since
1991 to unify them, and nothing's happened. In 1993 it didn't get off
the mark. And some action is necessary to push this board into doing
it and to -- and to doing it carefully and fairly and to subtract
politics from the analysis.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hay I take issue with that?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I for one don't need a
public --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: In 1993 it was.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I for one don't need a public
ballot to give me a backbone. If we want to go ahead and do this as I
suggested, let's do it.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then where have we been since
19917
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: In 1993 we went through the
study. The staff said we couldn't save any money, and this board
voted unanimously not to do it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was in Saudi Arabia.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Commissioner --
Commissioner Hac'Kie, on the question that you've put forward or the
question that you would like the county attorney to formulate, is it
still your intention to have it a non-binding straw ballot?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely, to exclude the city
of Naples voters from it since they're unaffected by it and for it to
be informational for this board, additional information for this
board, nothing more complicated than that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Call the question.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It doesn't have a second yet.
I'm going to second it because I -- I think it's important that the
citizens in Collier County have input into this question that in my
estimation is incredibly important. It is very controversial, and
this commission to this point that I'm aware of has never withheld the
right of citizens to vote on items that are this controversial.
It is a non-binding ballot. If -- if it comes back that
overwhelmingly the county as a whole says yes, we want you to work on
a proposal, it may take four or five years to finally put together a
proposal that's workable. We don't even know that yet.
At the -- at the same time we -- when the analysis is
done precinct by precinct or fire district by fire district, we may
see that overwhelmingly within the various districts they may not want
to do that. And with that in mind, if we were to take the ballot
question, the formulated plan at the end of time, back to the citizens
to have it voted on, they're not going to support it then.
But I think in view of the time that's already been
spent on this question before we go put another ounce or another
minute of staff time, be it fire district time, be it county time, be
it anybody's time, we ought to know if the citizens are even remotely
interested in moving forward with it.
So the motion is seconded. If there's not any further
discussion, I'll call it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There is. I -- I take exception
with the idea that not supporting this motion means we don't want the
voters or I individually don't want the voters to have a voice. I
want the voters to have an informed opinion, an informed decision.
I don't see even Commissioner Mac'Kie's question as --
as embodying any form that -- that someone can make a personal
decision on what is best or not best for them. It doesn't embody who
runs it, who controls it, what does it cost, how is it financed.
You say it's non-binding, okay, but, you know, I just --
I take exception with the fact that by not supporting this motion
we're saying we don't want the voters to -- or I'm saying I don't want
the voters to decide. That simply isn't true. I don't agree with the
form of the question. I want the voters to have an informed decision
on what it is they're being asked to vote on. And until that
information is available and really available, going to a ballot
question is a waste of time and Miss Morgan's efforts in my opinion.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ditto.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If there's no further discussion,
I'll call the question.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Could I ask one quick question --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- that really is not pertinent to
the vote, but it's something I meant to ask earlier and forgot to do
it? Who can answer the question of how many other fire districts in
the state of Florida are funded by something other than ad valorem
tax? Who can answer that?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Charlotte County.
MR. KISSEL: Excuse me. Walt Kissel here. You have
three. You have one in Englewood. You have one in Manatee County.
You have one at Indian Rock, and they wished they were ad valorem
tax.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. That's all.
MR. KISSEL: That takes care of it.
MR. DORRILL: You may have one in Columbia County which
is a medium-sized county up near Gainesville.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I read in this
information, too, that the entire county of Charlotte is also on
special assessment.
MR. DORRILL: Can be.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So somebody sees it works.
Anyway, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion fails two to three with Commissioners
Constantine, Hancock, and Norris in the opposition. Is there another motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Couple of thoughts. Again,
referencing your comments that citizen input should be valued and that
a vote should not be withheld from the public, I couldn't agree with
both of those comments more. Apparently we disagree in the
application of them. But if there is a desire from segment of the
public to explore the question, then I think we certainly should do
that. If the chicken little group and --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we come up with a new name?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I like that one. I'm merely
repeating what I've heard. If you have some other name, we'll be
happy to refer to it as that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about the fire consolidation
study group?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not really that
important right now. The -- whatever that group is, the Dr. Fay Biles
group, and the fire commissioners and the firefighters and the fire
chiefs, and I don't really care what the format is. Commissioner
Hancock said I think it's important that it's weighted, but I think if
those folks want to form a group and perhaps we can put a calendar
together and have as the most important first step of that some
meetings in each fire district so we can get some feedback directly
from the public, get direct citizen input. And if at those meetings
there is little or no interest, that will answer some questions. I
suspect there's going to be plenty of interest. But we can move
forward from there, and perhaps that group can bring forward a
specific suggestion at a future date that then would be appropriate
for a ballot.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that a motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll get a little group --
I'll get a -- comments from the rest before I put it in a motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My -- my only question then is,
you know, we would need to form a structure, and I think -- I think
what may get lost in all of this is there is an interest of everyone
on this board to give to the citizens of Collier County the greatest
product for the lower -- lowest dollar available. And we need the
information to show us if that's being done or if it can be done
better. I think we all have that same interest.
I don't know if putting a study group together like this
would -- would give it to us. I see it as really the -- the only step
available other than hiring some consultant which is not a very
popular idea to -- to come in and actually form what would be the most
advantageous structure to maintain level of service and local control
while, you know, consolidating those elements that can save the
taxpayers money and may result in a reduction in ad valorem in all of
the districts.
I don't know if today we're going to be able to sit here
and structure that group, but I think it's -- it's necessary that we
at least make an effort to do that if not today that we look for input
from the group that brought this to us today on how that group could
be structured so that we can bring hopefully a unified -- if not a
unified at least a plan to the table for people to consider.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you open to -- would
you be open to revisiting the issue, say, in three weeks and have an
opportunity in the meantime to sit down with the folks that brought it
forward, sit down with some of the fire chiefs and try to come up with
a format in which we can do that?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would. And if it -- if it
takes some effort from one of us to organize that, I'd be happy to --
to -- to be involved in that because the bottom line is I think both
sides need to come together and we need to -- to look at this issue
more carefully and make sure we are doing what's in the best interest
of the taxpayer or give them the choice of what they want and how much
it's going to cost them. And if that's the unified goal of this
board, I'd be happy to pursue that by trying to -- to make a
recommendation on the type of committee and the study area. I'd be
happy to orchestrate that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd suggest we do that. I
don't know if we need a motion or not. But if we can revisit that in
three weeks, say, and allow Commissioner Hancock to try to bring the
parties together and see what format would be appropriate.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to see a motion on that,
and what I would like to remind the commissioners working on
accomplishing this is that we have from the International Association
of Fire Chiefs a step-by-step process of how to do this. We don't
have to reinvent the wheel. It's already been done and been done by
the professionals.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then how come this question
doesn't say that should be adopted?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Because this has been ignored.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that will be the
logical first step for whatever group that's drawn together then.
I'll put that in the form of a motion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the motion, by the way,
just in case you need it clarified --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, let's clarify this motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- is that Commissioner
Hancock head up the effort to decide what format that should be in and
communicate with all the appropriate parties and bring that back in
three weeks for consideration by the board.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm sorry. The "that" is a
committee, a --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll try and bring the structure
of a committee back that is -- is for the board's approval that lists
the number and personnel on the committee so that it's as balanced as
possible with a meeting schedule and a projected date of producing
some level of -- of report. Again, I'm going to have to feel it
through as -- as we do it. And I'm going to have a lot of reading to
start off with.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I want to caution you that
every time there's been an attempt in the past to form a committee or
to have meetings -- and Norris Ijams can confirm this and I'm sure Mr.
Dotrill can too -- nothing happens. But good luck with it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sounds like most of the deals I
broker. That's fine.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. So the motion is for
Commissioner Hancock to structure a committee and bring that back to
us in three weeks on a proposal of how to do this, whatever --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The group would be charged
with trying to come up with the answers to all questions that were
raised today, yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: With all the answers to all the
questions.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not all the answers. I said
to answers to all the questions that were raised today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So I'm going to try to
restate this because I want to make sure that we're absolutely clear
on what we're doing, and that is that Commissioner Hancock structure a
committee and bring it back to us in three weeks. The purpose of the
committee is to address the questions that were raised today and try,
I presume, to formulate a manner in which we can move forward in
whether we should or should not consolidate or take it to the voters,
a plan to consolidate.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you're making this
way more complicated than it needs to be.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, I think so, too, but I want
to make sure I do it right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me repeat the motion one
more time. That Commissioner Hancock be charged with organizing and
suggesting to this board a structure for a committee to review the
entire fire consolidation issue, that he'll return with that
suggestion for this board's consideration in three weeks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's been seconded.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry. Third.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm just trying to get it
clarified so that we can -- so that we know what the committee's going
to do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's all -- that's all I'm
attempting to do.
If there's no further discussion on it, I will call the
question on it. All in favor please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
MR. DORRILL: I just want to offer the support of our
office to compile -- and I also want to publicly express my
appreciation for a really nice piece of staff work of Mr. Griffin, of
your department who made as much sense of this thing in the last three
years that I've seen. Bill, you did a nice piece of work, and I want
you to know I appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would it make sense to charge
him with organizing --
MR. DORRILL: That's why I said what I said.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Once -- once this committee's
been organized, perhaps you can take this under your wing as a
long-term project.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want the Griffin hotline
installed in my office.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I know as -- as I read through it
over the weekend I thought, hmm, this makes more sense than --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
out of wherever.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
for a pow-wow.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
the agenda --
Absolutely.
-- than I have been able to pull
Teach you to do good work.
I'll be in contact with everybody
Okay. We had -- the next item on
(A discussion was held off the record.)
(A short break was held.)
Item #11A
PRESENTATION BY SHERIFF DON HUNTER RE ATTRITION - PRESENTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda --
Sheriff Hunter was going to give us an update on the presumed budget
and attrition. I think that's the message that I had.
SHERIFF HUNTER: That's correct. Thank you,
Commissioner Matthews, for permitting the opportunity. I just wanted
to give you a notice -- actually, this is just a for-your-information
item. In the next several weeks I intend to have some more definitive
material for you. I wanted to do a quick overview of where we are,
what's happening with the sheriff's office. Attrition in the
sheriff's office has been an issue, and it has been a matter of some
concern. It has become a budget issue.
Just as an aside, I want to give you a quick update of
some of the concerns I have. One is that, as a result, some of the
concerns we have been experiencing, attrition, especially in our
certified ranks, the public safety area of the agency, I've done a
number of things policy side which have enhanced our recruitment
efforts. We've made contact with the military, Department of Defense
for some of the retiring military as a result of base closings. I've
implemented a policy that will put applicants in a queue system about
three deep for each position that will permit us to select from those
applicant recruits. That should expedite the system of placing people
in vacancy positions. That will reduce our attrition numbers. We
obviously have a great area. Our recruitment efforts have been
exemplary in the sense of being able to attract people to the area.
Even that seems not to have the kind of outcome that we were looking
for.
We've got to support the public here so, of course, our
law enforcement officers in public safety don't have the same concerns
working in law enforcement like you'd see in New York or Detroit or
Cleveland. I'm not to suggest that any of these areas don't have a
fine experience in terms of enforcement, but obviously when you
compare Collier County with any of those areas, we have a better
ability to attract the right people.
On the downside we've been experiencing a couple of
things I want to make you aware of. One is that the State of Florida
has enhanced the certification process, the testing process, and the
standards to get a law enforcement officer into a law enforcement
position and a jail deputy into a jail position so that the candidate
pool has been dramatically constricted in the sense that you have to
have better credentials to get into law enforcement and into
corrections today than ever before. And with some of the formerly
depressed areas -- and I can use Cleveland and Pittsburgh as some of
those areas as an example -- being better able to come to the table
and attract people in law enforcement, we are experiencing a further
restriction of our candidate pool.
Just from a quick look, we discovered that Broward
County is paying about 40 percent better than we are on the base
salary side. We know that the Hendry County Sheriff's Office pays
better in their base salary. Miccosukee police -- just some of the
areas around us -- Lee County Sheriff's Office, Naples Police
Department are just some examples. As a result of that, I did embark
on, just as you have, a pay study. We are looking at our wages. We're
looking at competitiveness for like positions. And within the next
several weeks -- and this is the FYI side of the announcement. In the
next several weeks I hope to have some final numbers, some final
recommendations, some final judgment from the consultant, David
Griffith and Associates, as to where we stand relative to the
marketing in the region and the state of what some of our options
might be. So this, as I said, is just for your information. I hope
to be able to bring some information to you -- material to you in the
next several weeks as to what we intend to do to insure strong public
safety in this county, maintain our patrols up to status, keep our
positions filled, and to continue the good, positive trend that we
experience in Collier County. I appreciate your time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any questions? Commissioner
Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sheriff Hunter, shortly after our
last round of budget discussions we were told by Ms. Gansel that there
was no budgeted attrition, as I believe a previous board had asked, of
all constitutional officers. There was no budgeted attrition because
there wasn't going to be any. The agencies which have been able to
show that they don't have attrition rates of 3 percent or anything
close to that, they haven't budgeted for it. And what came out in the
paper shortly after that was that the commission was trying to reduce
the number of officers in the sheriff's budget or that we in some way
were saying you shouldn't have those officers.
I, for one, want to clear that up now, that the only
question was the attrition rate. There was no question for the need
of officers. I don't question it. I don't question it now. And
nothing we did that I recall said you can't have those officers or we
don't want you to have them. That was the perception that was out
there. It's an incorrect one from where I stand. So as far as I'm
concerned, the only question is what is your attrition rate and should
it be budgeted. That's really as simple as it is for me.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Great, and I appreciate you clearing up
that issue. I've learned over the last six or seven years that
perceptions mean a great deal, and I don't rely upon various public
sources other than my direct discussions with you as to what your
perception might be. Let me assure the board and the public that may
be viewing today and perhaps reading tomorrow about what was discussed
today, that I don't perceive you being anywhere different than what I
perceive for the needs of this county. We need some additional people
on patrol. I've heard that from you, and you hear that out in the
public as much as I do. Public safety is certainly a key area, and
we're going to put the people in position.
The attrition issue is a significant issue for all of
us. We did budget 3 percent on the civilian side of the agency for
this last go-around for the proposals for next year, and I think for
good reason looking back at the record of being able to attract
people, the constricted pool of applicants. I did change the policy.
As I said, I'm going to try to put people in a queue system three deep
so that we do have three qualified candidates for each available
position ready with conditional offers. You've been through all those
drills as well for the federal side, how you have to go about
retaining people. It's a concern that I believe we will be able to
fulfill all the public safety positions for this next year. That's
perhaps a discussion for tomorrow night, and I appreciate your
clarification.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For the purpose of
demonstrating the difficulty in trying to attract new people here when
there are much higher paying jobs elsewhere, how many -- I know how
many we had suggested for this year, but how many new deputy positions
did we have last year from a nonadministrative -- did we budget in
last year?
SHERIFF HUNTER: I believe last year was 10. This year
is 28.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Have we filled all ten of
those, or are we in the process of doing that? Has it been that much
of a problem trying to get those filled?
SHERIFF HUNTER: We have filled those over the course of
the year but, of course, they open back up from time to time as we
lose people from retirement -- through retirement or resignations to
go back north, separations due to terminations, that sort of thing.
But they have been filled over the course of the year. We're just
trying to keep up with that process. It's a process which never ends.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? I think one
of -- let me make a comment because my memory of what transpired at
that budget hearing is identical to Commissioner Hancock's with the
exception of one thing. It seems to me that we were all so concerned
that even though attrition had not been budgeted for the deputies,
noncivilians -- but you had also maintained overtime at a consistent
level within the last couple of years, and I think that was a concern
also. It seems like that if you're not going to budget attrition,
then overtime should be reduced or vice versa.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes. At first blush I think most of us
in the room would agree that that would be the circumstance.
Unfortunately, what happens for us is that in order to get a certified
person into the jail or on patrol, we have to get them through an
academy of three months. We have to have them sit for a state board
which is another month roughly, because you take the exam, but you
won't hear back the result for another three to four weeks. We must
get them through a field training officer program, another three
months. By the time we have hired a person and actually have that
person patrolling or securing blocks in the jail, it is six months.
it is difficult to predict not only are we going to be able to attract
the right people but get those people through the whole process. And
then in the meantime, while we're trying to staff those vacant posts
in the jail watching over a group of 52 or fewer inmates, we have to
have somebody sitting there, and that is overtime money. So we've been
While we believe we won't have attrition numbers
significant enough to account for 3 percent of the budget for next
year -- or for last year, we still know that we have to contend with
this schedule of the academy, the way that the whole system works, and
that while we're waiting for these people to come out, you have to
post the positions for public safety. And I try to focus it just on
those positions necessary. You'll note in this year's budget, as
we'll discuss perhaps tomorrow night, that there has been a
significant reduction in overtime as a result of changed policy. The
candidate queuing system, contacts with the Department of Defense all
look very promising in terms of keeping us fully staffed.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That helps me understand, and I
didn't realize it took six months to get a new hire --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Uh-huh, unfortunately.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- qualified.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Why don't we break
for lunch. Do you want a full hour? Why don't we reconvene at 2:30.
(A lunch break was held from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.)
Item #8E2
RECOHMENDATION TO AMEND THE EVERGLADES AIRPARK AND IHMOKALEE REGIONAL
AIRPORT CAPITAL BUDGET TO AWARD BID #95-2417 TO TAMIAMI BUILDERS, BID
#95-2415 TO 3RS EQUIPMENT, BID #95-2420 TO SURETY CONSTRUCTION AND BID
#95-2392 TO SOUTHERN GULF WEST CONSTRUCTION, INC. - APPROVED, SUBJECT
TO USING CAPITAL FUND RESERVES
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the Board of County
Commission meeting for September 5, 1995.
The next item on the agenda is item 8(E)(2), a
recommendation to amend the Everglades Airpark and the Immokalee
Regional Airport capital budget. Mr. Drury.
MR. DRURY: Good afternoon. My name is John Drury,
executive director, Collier County Airport Authority. The agenda item
before you today will accomplish the development of the Everglades and
Immokalee Airport terminal buildings, aircraft hangers, fuel barns,
aircraft aprons, aircraft taxiways, service roads for Immokalee, the
sewer, water, and security fence for Everglades, and the sheriff's
building for Everglades.
We are pleased to have secured an additional $266,000 in
the new airport development grants for the county, and I should add
that to date we have secured approximately $4 million in airport
grants. We're real pleased to share that with you. I believe the
executive summary really says it all, and I -- in fairness of your
time and expeditious -- to move this along, I will entertain any
questions you may have specifically with the agenda item.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is the longest presentation
you have ever made.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions?
I think I have one question. Mr. Dotrill, we've been
advancing this money from our commercial paper program. Is that --
how close are we getting to looking at budgetary problems and being
able to handle that?
MR. DORRILL: In this case it won't apply. I have one
suggested change to the executive summary. We have really tried to
keep the withdrawal from the contingency fund less than a million
dollars this year, and we did a real good job of that until this
request. This is going to push your withdrawals from your contingency
fund over a million dollars for this year. This will be the largest
withdrawal from the contingency fund at about 150,000. And assuming
that you're going to approve this so they can move forward with their
capital campaign, we'd like to approve that subject to a revision in
the 301 transfer for next year. Simply stated, that means that we
will take the money necessary for them to move forward with their
capital programs from our capital fund reserves as opposed to the
general fund reserve. We would otherwise do it that way, and I would
like to make that suggestion to you.
MR. DRURY: In answer to part of your question, we have
a payment due on the commercial loan program on December the 5th, and
we have been receiving grant dollars over the last several months to
pay that back December 5th. We have two installments, one on December
the 5th of '95 and one on December 5th of '96. We anticipate all
those grant dollars to be back into the county to pay back the
commercial loan program to keep it at the level that you were talking
about.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So we're not really
looking at a funding problem. We're looking at being able to roll
this in a reasonable time frame?
MR. DORRILL: And subject to just that one change that I
am recommending to you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And, obviously, this will be
included in the note to refund?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To the --
MR. DRURY: -- Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- taxpayers?
MR. DRURY: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a question, Mr. Dorrill.
What does that leave a balance of?
MR. DORRILL: It will leave you something a little less
than 4 million, Mr. Smykowski? I think we're at -- for the year in
terms of total budget amendments we're like 940,000. We really tried
to keep it under a million. I believe this request is $155,000, so it
pushes over about 1.1 million in reductions to the contingency for
this year. It keeps you 4 million, which is adequate.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to move approval subject
to Mr. Dorrill's change on the account.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the recommendation subject to capital reserves instead of
general fund reserves.
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 5 to 0.
Item #8E3
TOURIST DEVELOPHENT CATEGORY A FUNDS FOR DESIGN OF THE EXTENSION TO THE
DOCTORS PASS JETTY AND MARCO ISLAND BEACH CLEANING OPERATIONS - STAFF
RECOHMENDATION APPROVED
Next item on the agenda is 8 (E) (3), tourist development
category A funds for design of the extension of Doctors Pass.
MS. GANSEL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Jean Gansel
from the budget office. The Tourist Development Council reviewed two
applications for category A, the beach renourishment, at their August
7th meeting. The first one was for $15,700 to Save the Bay
Association. This project is to carry out detailed modeling to define
the design of the extension to Doctors Pass Jetty.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ms. Gansel, I'm sorry to
interrupt, but I'd like to make a motion we approve staff's
recommendation on this item.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
MR. DORRILL: You may have two speakers. Let's just
see-- subject to your recommendation to approve. Dr. Staiger, do you
still wish to speak?
DR. STAIGER: No.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. White, do you still wish to speak?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Our speakers have waived
their request to speak.
We have a motion and several seconds to approve the
item.
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 5 to 0.
MS. GANSEL: Thank you. On all of these items we do
indicate that have the contract. On the Tourist Development Council
items, we do not have those today. We will be bringing them back to
you on a consent item probably in a week or two.
Item #8E4
TOURIST DEVELOPHENT SPECIAL EVENTS CATEGORY C FUNDING FOR FLORIDA
ENCOUNTER - CATEGORY B FUNDING APPROVED IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,070.00
The next item -- if you would like me to discuss it --
it is for category C funding, special events. This item is the Naples
Area Accommodation Association which has requested $6,070 to promote
Collier County as the 1996 Florida encounter spot. They want to do
this at the 1995 Florida encounter. Specifically, Florida encounter
is bringing -- I have to start again, I'm sorry. I was watching
Commissioner Norris and hoping he was okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You notice none of us were
concerned. Just kidding.
MS. GANSEL: Are you okay?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure.
MS. GANSEL: Okay. Florida encounter is designed
specifically to building conferences and meetings for businesses in
different counties in Florida. As I said, they wanted the money for
the 1995 encounter, because the 1996 Florida encounter will be in
Naples. I do want to point out one thing, that the guidelines
indicate -- the guidelines for category C -- one of the prohibitions
is that one of -- all meetings -- all category C events need to be
open to the public. These are closed meetings by invitation. It was
recommended by the TDC to fund this event.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know that it's
appropriate that we just discard regulations. It also seems to me
this might be more appropriate as a category B item rather than a
category C item. It is marketing to the people who will likely bring
others here, but it's not -- it doesn't stand in and of itself an
event that is going to draw people here. Yes, people are coming to
it, but that is not the direction where the money is heading towards.
MS. GANSEL: I understand what you are saying.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have any objections
to spending the money; just essentially the proper source is category
B.
MS. GANSEL: The request was made under category C, but
I can understand what you're saying, and category B may be a more
appropriate use of those funds. There are sufficient funds in
category B.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There are for this?
MS. GANSEL: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought we had already
designated them.
MS. GANSEL: We have only appropriate -- they have
requested, and that hasn't been approved yet by the board for the
windfall dollars or the prior tax money. But we still have money that
we have been collecting this year that has not been allocated yet.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You might know the answer to
this. My reaction is to deny the request and send it back to the TDC
with the preference for category B funding, but I don't know if that
timing will work for this particular item.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, we're not
required to do that, are we, if they have already considered it? We
can make the appropriate changes -- what we feel are the appropriate
changes.
MR. WEIGEL: I don't know if there is a problem. Ms.
Ashton, you may want to address that.
MS. ASHTON: I think we've previously taken the position
that if you decide to approve it here today, that it go back and be
ratified by the TDC.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We don't meet again until
November.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is it your understanding that
that is required or is that just --
MS. ASHTON: Well, it's required that it go to the TDC
for their recommendation on the use. They've said that they would
like to spend category C funding, but they may not have been aware
that there were funds available in category B. So the question is --
they said go ahead and use the funds. It's just a matter of the
source.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Isn't there a question,
though, of whether or not they have considered it, period, as opposed
to whether they considered it under a specific category? If it comes
to us and we change, what is it that they are recommending?
MS. ASHTON: That is why I am suggesting that you just
have them ratify it at their next meeting.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you know if it will be after
the expenditure of the funds?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, Ms. Ashton, but I don't
think that we necessarily have to do the same thing that the TDC does.
In fact, we have done something other than their recommendations
several times in the past. So if we -- then the question is if we
simply change categories here but approve the funding, that's the end
of it; right?
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Legally it is not required to
go back to the TDC, is it?
MS. ASHTON: I don't believe so.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And my request really wasn't
legally or not legally. But, obviously, I would rather tell them we
don't think this is the correct category. Let's see if they agree
with it. If they don't then it is not awarded in any way, shape, or
form. We're not going to award it and see, apparently.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel said he wants to jump
in on this.
MR. WEIGEL: No, I was just raising my finger
inadvertently, my thumb.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Never do that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that supposed to be a thumbs
up or a thumbs down?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: On-the-job training.
MR. WEIGEL: It's thumbs up, absolutely. I think that
our understanding is that we don't have to go back. It's nice to go
back if we have the time to go back. The recommendation can be
altered by this board as it sees fit within the guidelines of the
ordinance and procedures. So I don't think we've got a problem.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that is what I said.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I'll make a motion to
approve it in category B, funding the amount of $6,070.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and second to
approve category B funding for the $6,070 for Florida encounter.
A. Question before I call the question, Ms. Gansel. When
do they need the funds?
MS. GANSEL: That is what I was just checking with Mrs.
Blankenship. They need the funds in October, and the next TDC meeting
will be November 6th.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So it would be after the fact.
MS. GANSEL: It would be after the fact. I always
report back to the TDC where actions of the board differ from the TDC
recommendations so that they would certainly be aware of this change.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But when you report back to the
council, if you would remark that we did it because it was after the
fact and there was no point in sending it back.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They don't have to spend it. If
they don't agree with it, they can just not spend it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I call the question.
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 5 to 0.
Item #8E5
ADDITIONAL RESERVES FOR ECONOHIC DISASTER RECOVERY - CATEGORY C
RESERVES IN THE AMOUNT OF $963,493.00 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
Next item is 8(E)(5), the economic disaster recovery,
additional reserves.
MS. GANSEL: Commissioners, you may remember at the July
25th meeting we had discussed the economic disaster fund and had
indicated that we had spent so much on the advertising for the design
work and had no money at that point to do any of the advertising
should it become necessary. Because the hurricane season has been so
active, we brought it to the board prior to the TDC meeting so that we
could get tentative approval to use category C special events as a
loan to the economic disaster advertising program, and the board had
asked that I bring that back to the TDC for their ratification. I did
do that at their August 7th meeting.
They had two follow-ups to that. It is the item, when
the board reviewed it, was that we would go to category C, and should
there be sufficient money for the total funding for economic disaster,
it would come from category C. The TDC had requested that there
always be sufficient reserves in category C that can be loaned for
advertising.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It sounds to me like they're
asking for a set-aside of nearly a million dollars. MS. GANSEL: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I'm not as
comfortable as I was with the prior situation with half that amount.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise. That was going to be
my comment, that we initially said the monies would come not from
category C, but if available --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- they would be borrowed
from.
MS. GANSEL: And they would be borrowed. They would
still be -- that it would be a loan. But they have requested that
category C funds not be allocated in excess of the amount that would
be needed or set aside for the advertising.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me ask a point of
clarification, because I thought I was at this meeting. I was under
the impression that what we were talking about was that set-aside
funds, in order to bring the disaster recovery funds to that $960,000
level, is that the TDC was asking not that we set aside $900,000, but
that we only set aside the amount needed to bring it to that level.
And, of course, each year as we move $100,000 over -- we are lucky
enough not to have to use it -- the set-aside would come down.
MS. GANSEL: Exactly. I'm sorry if I misstated it.
You're absolutely correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MS. GANSEL: There would be the $946,000 or whatever the
exact figure is that would be available in fund 196, the economic
disaster, and that any additional funds that would be needed to
support that on a loan basis.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You've lost me.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm lost.
MS. GANSEL: Whenever I clarify.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's what I was asking is
where the funds were to come, because I remember we identified a
different source other than just category C, and that is the economic
recovery area --
MS. GANSEL: Yes, right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- where $100,000 a year goes
into it?
MS. GANSEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Currently is the balance a goose
egg?
MS. GANSEL: Yes. We may have a couple thousand dollars
after we finish paying for the design work, but it is essentially --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, in essence, we're looking at
a ten-year commitment of $100,000 to build it up, assuming we never
have to use it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Or to set aside $900,000 now, and
next year if we don't use it, it would be 800, you know, the next year
after that 700, and it would diminish for each year that we don't use
it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't mind setting aside
$100,000 a year if used as an insurance fund. But I guess I do have a
little trouble setting aside a million bucks and then working our way
backwards.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I guess. And, Commissioner
Norris, I'm going to ask you not to say it's not like we're going to
have a hurricane next week, okay, because that is what you said the
last time and guess what. But the point that the TDC and the economic
recovery group is trying to make is that if we were to need to spend
the money, there is no money.
MS. GANSEL: Unless we borrow it from category C.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And they're asking that the board
make available whatever the needs are minus the disaster recovery
funds that are already set aside of which they've all at this point
been used. So right now, yeah, it does amount to $960,000.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As Ms. Gansel said, we can
accept, or unless we borrowed from category C, which is I thought what
we had agreed to before if there was unexpected difficulty, we would
borrow that because there are funds there. And right now we haven't
had an overwhelming demand for all those. What if next year three
events come forward, and they all qualify and they're all good? And
we say, well, I'm sorry because we put a million dollars aside, we
can't do that. I have a little trouble with that.
MS. GANSEL: To give you some idea of where we are now
-- so we need to put it in perspective. We have about a million five
-- 1,500,000 in category C. So if we set aside the $900,000, we
still would have probably 600,000 to allocate to other projects. You
may want to consider -- I know when I brought it to the board before
and you said to allocate funds or to aside some funds in category C or
to use that as a source, that as we allocate special events projects,
I would let you know where we were in relationship to how much we
might need for advertising.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: My concern is if we don't set
this money aside, and we use it for some event in the next couple of
years, then that disaster occurs. And then in order to fund the
recovery program, we will be looking at tapping our reserves, and Mr.
Dotrill won't be very happy at all with that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have two questions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How are we doing on the
teevaluation of the regulations? Can we be expecting the TDC to be
making recommendations soon about looking again at how these funds are
categorized?
MS. GANSEL: We will be meeting -- the next TDC meeting
is November 7th. The subcommittee will be meeting prior to that
making their recommendations to the full committee. So we would not
be looking at anything coming back to the board until after the
November 7th meeting.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My other thought is why -- what
is wrong with some sort of notation that anytime a request is made for
category C funds we have to be reminded that, oh, by the way, remember
you need 900 for this, remember you need 700 for this, whatever year
we're in, but not to make it binding so that we can't undo it. Why
don't we just note it?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Who do we wave it to?
MS. GANSEL: This application has come before you for
category C. I will always give you a balance sheet as to where we are
in relationship as to how much advertising funding we would need, and
if that is at all dipping into --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We may not be able to make a
choice based on the facts at the time.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me see if I can put this into
a motion. I move that we approve the Tourist Development Council
recommendation fund post-hurricane advertising up to $963,493 and that
anytime a category C funding request is made, that the amount of
category C funds necessary to make up the balance of the $963,000 be
made available to the board.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Can you say that
last part again?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Anytime a request for category C
funding is made, that the amount of category C funding that would be
required to make up the $963,000, that that amount be made available
to the board and that we're told how much we would need to make up
that $963,000, in other words, an update so we know where we stand.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've already got a half million
dollars set aside, don't we?
MS. GANSEL: In the motion from the board at the July
25th meeting was essentially what Commissioner Hancock has said, that
you had given us the authority to dip into those -- borrow those funds
on an emergency basis as they were needed. And I would continue to
come back in category C projects, so you would be notified of how they
would fit into there. So it wasn't reserved specifically for that.
But since there is no immediate need for category C that we have right
now, they were being set aside.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that allows us to make a
value judgment on hurricane season.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
MS. GANSEL: And also it was amended -- when Mr. Ayres
was here and made the presentation at that July 25th meeting, he had
indicated to you the original contract had $541,000 for advertising.
He mentioned that at this point that was going to be a larger amount,
which is the $963,000 that's in here. We will be bringing the
contract back to amend that amount of money.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a second.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I beat you.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. I'll second it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have three seconds now.
Are there any other questions regarding this item? The motion then,
Commissioner Hancock, is merely that we be notified each time that we
use category C funds in a grant of what the remaining balance is to
cover.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
disaster recovery amount.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 5 to 0.
MS. GANSEL: Thank you.
As it relates to cover the
Okay. All those in favor, please
Item #8E9
REPORT ON REVENUES FOR THE THIRD QUARTER OF FISCAL YEAR 1995 -
PRESENTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the
agenda is 8(E)(9), a report of revenues for the third quarter. Hr.
Smykowski.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Michael Smykowski, acting budget director. What you have
before you today is a report on revenue collection for major
state-shared revenues, enterprise revenues, and impact fees. This is
through June 30th, which is through three quarters of the county's
fiscal year 1995.
Within the intergovernmental revenues category, we are
reflecting a half-cent sales tax revenue sharing, local option gas
action, and the local issuance of a five cent gas tax, a negative
variance from budget. The bulk of these have been anticipated. As
the executive summary notes, sales tax and revenue sharing will be
slightly less than what we had anticipated during the development of
the budget; 300,000 and 322,900 respectively. These shortfalls will
be made up by additional interest earnings and additional ad valorem
tax proceeds and miscellaneous revenues already in the bank in this
fiscal year, so we have more than offset that six hundred odd thousand
from sales tax and revenue sharing that we will not be receiving.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So there is nothing to worry
about now. However, have we seen the half cent sales tax, the state
revenue sharing, the local option gas tax for each quarter this year?
Have they been continuing to decline versus expected revenues?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: No. Actually for the first seven months
of the fiscal year, for sales tax we're actually 11 percent ahead of
where --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So in your opinion, you
don't see a trend here that causes concern for the next few quarters
of the upcoming budget year based on this?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, we do. We have received revised
estimates downward from the State Department of Revenue. And, in
addition, we received a revenue advisory from the State Department of
Revenue which indicates that in the revenue sharing that we received
13 months of intangible tax collections this year and that to estimate
next year's budgets for receipts on what you anticipate seeing this
would be a faulty assumption on which we just received a week and a
half ago. So we will be reducing the FY '96 budget estimates as well
for sales tax and revenue sharing. I will highlight those tomorrow
night. That's part of our -- what we call a budget resolution that
will identify any changes from the tentative budget that we brought.
And you had approved, at least as of July, what the manager's proposed
budget was. Any changes subsequent to that adoption we identified by
budget resolution as well. I will walk you through a summary of all
the changes that have taken place this year.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. You answered my question,
Hike. Thank you.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: It ends up at this point being a net
reduction to the general fund reserve of about $600,00. We have
mitigated a portion of that with the additional carrying forward. I
will also say, though, that historically our constitutional officer
turn-backs have always been much greater than forecasted at home with
that loss -- so to soften the blow as well.
In the area of enterprise fund revenues, sewer revenues
were off 10 percent. We discussed that throughout the year as part of
the revenue report and had addressed that in the budget process
through our forecast and, in addition, in our budget workshop with the
commission. So we -- in essence, our budget for '96 reflects and '95
reflects we will not be receiving as much as we had anticipated in the
adopted budget this year, so that has been taken into account.
You'll note a substantial deviation. Ambulance fees for
the first three quarters we are projecting, however, for the end of
the year to be 12.1 percent shy of our $2.2 million budget. That's
been a function of getting ambulance billings converted over to the
PBS system this year. You recall in the previous revenue report we
indicated that we had trouble in getting on line to use the
demographic information. At this point, though, billings are a mere
like 20 days behind the long-term goal, which is maybe six days in
arrears, in terms of having billed up to date.
And I think there are things important to note in this
area is that those receivables this year, while we'll have a
shortfall, we're projecting a shortfall from the budget this year.
What will happen is time will cure that problem due to the bills being
just -- it is a function of time at this point converting those
receivables into cash payments. So that should mitigate itself early
in the first quarter of next year.
MR. DORRILL: In fact, I must admit last Friday over at
the Department of Revenue on an abbreviated workday, and they're now
current. They're no longer 20 days behind. In fact, they were all
current in terms of the input and the processing and bills the day
that I was there, and they happened to receive some incoming work. But
the DOR folks have done a great job of recovering the schedule that
was there given the transition that they went through with the Naples
Community Hospital program.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Mr. Yonkosky provided us with some
updated numbers for this report. And through the end of August he
actually feels slightly better -- $40,000 better, I believe, than what
he had projected for August revenue being a smaller problem by year
end than what we are currently projecting now.
MR. DORRILL: And my rationale for going over there last
Friday was to personally thank the three ladies who were responsible
for all of that associated work and tell them we really appreciate it,
in some case the 70 hours per week that it took to be able to recover
the schedule.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Other than impact fees, they fluctuate
wildly. We've had a great year in terms of impact fees. Although
they are substantially greater than budgeted, they have also been for
the upcoming year. In fact, most of them are identical at this point
to our forecast at this time. So I guess overall it's a wait and see
on the revenue sharing. Obviously, at this point, based on the
directional procedure, the state will be reducing the FY '96 budget,
and we'll watch that closely. We'll provide you also a year-end
report, and hopefully we'll be able to save you a little bit better
than what we anticipated.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Any questions? Thank you.
Item #BE10
RESOLUTION 95-483, RE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE 20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT -
ADOPTED
Next item is 8(E)(10), a request to the board of
commissioners to approve the resolution and management agreement with
the court administrator of the 20th Judicial Circuit. Mr. Saadeh.
MR. SAADEH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Sam Saadeh
from the county manager's office presenting the management agreement
of the 20th Judicial Circuit. On April 18, 1995, the chief judge of
the Circuit Court, Judge Thomas Reese, was here before you and had a
presentation for you and answered your questions, and at that time he
was trying to transfer his responsibilities from the county to the
court administrator. At that time you advised staff to come before
you with additional information, which is documented in this
resolution and attached agreement. The proposed effective date is
October 1, 1995, whereby the court administrator shall be solely
responsible for the management of court services. The court
administrator and a new chief judge for the circuit court had reviewed
this, and they have no problems, and they recommend their approval.
The budget office, the risk management department, and
the county attorney's office have also reviewed, as well as staff, to
produce this management agreement. I should mention that the county
clerk's office received a copy of this agreement in the past week,
although they were unable to respond prior to this rescheduled
meeting. I should also mention that this agreement was modeled after
the agreements of Charlotte County and particularly Lee County, and
they're already in place. Staff recommends that the board approve the
proposed resolution and attached agreement. If you have any
questions--
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Saadeh, my understanding
is -- you can confirm it or correct me -- is that all the employees
who will be affected by this will have virtually identical packages as
far as their compensation, their insurance, retirement. There will be
no change to any of that. They won't be detrimentally affected.
MR. SAADEH: That's correct. I went to the records and
reviewed the minutes from that date, and Judge Reese had made the
commitment that they would be mirrored after the county. However,
they are not identical. Let me rephrase that by saying that their
insurance benefits would be the same as the county. They would be
through the county; however, their merit and bonus system would be
mirrored as in Lee County's, but not identical. But if the Board of
County Commissioners chooses, we can stipulate in the agreement based
on the judge's statement that they could be identical if the county so
chooses. They apply to the merit system, to credit or bonus their
employees according to their abilities as opposed to a flat 3 percent
rate and by calling the minutes that you favor that. So if the board
pleases or if you have any directions to staff, you can stipulate
that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just remember one of our
big concerns at that time was that the staff would be -- not be
penalized in any way. There are a number of people who have worked
there for a number of years, and they didn't want to take a step
backwards if they changed, who in a legal sense, they were working
for.
MR. DORRILL: We've been sensitive to that, and I would
say in some ways their merit system is better than yours, and so we've
given them the flexibility to be able to apply that, because it is the
same as the other employees that they have in the circuit. The only
thing that I would add to Mr. Saadeh's presentation is I did have the
opportunity to speak to Mr. Brock late last week, and he has -- Ms.
Hankins, correct me if I am wrong, he has had the opportunity now to
review the agreement. In fact, he traveled to Fort Myers and spoke to
Charlie Green, who is the Lee County clerk, to understand the
mechanics of their disbursing funds. And it is my understanding that
they had no problem with the nature of the agreement as it has been
proposed. They have, in fact, had a chance to review it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually my questions just all
got answered, so I would move approval of staff's recommendation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve staff's recommendation.
Are there further questions or discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 5 to 0. Thank you, Mr. Saadeh.
MR. SAADEH: Thank you.
Item #SEll
AGREEHENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES TO UTILIZE TOURIST DEVELOPHENT FUNDS
TO MAINTAIN DOCTORS PASS AND ITS APPROACHES - APPROVED WITH
STIPULATIONS
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is
8(E)(ll), an agreement with the City of Naples to utilize tourist
development funds for Doctors Pass. Ms. Gansel.
MS. GANSEL: The City of Naples had requested that we
bring this forward to the board as an interlocal agreement indicating
that we will utilize category A, beach renourishment tourist tax
revenues, to continue to maintain Doctors Pass. The projections for
category A, beach renourishment, does include the maintenance of
Doctors Pass, so I feel as though it is the intent of the board or the
county to continue to fund this. However, our reservation was that
this needs to be an annual appropriation, that it needs to be reviewed
each year. The category A funding by the beach renourishment
committee has to be reviewed by the Tourist Development Council and
final approval by the Board of County Commissioners.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ms. Gansel, did it get those two
approvals?
MS. GANSEL: This interlocal agreement? No, it did not.
There's no real funding. It's just the intent that we will fund that
annually when we know the appropriations that are available, is when
that final determination would be made.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But did this go in front of the
city/county beach renourishment committee and the Tourist Development
Council?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It did not go before the Tourist
Development Council. I received it from the City of Naples. Dr.
Staiger, did it go to the beach renourishment committee? Dr. Staiger
from the City of Naples had requested that we put this on the agenda.
He may be able to address that.
DR. STAIGER: For the record, Jon Staiger, natural
resources manager, City of Naples. This is not something that went
through either the beach committee nor the TDC. It's essentially a
request from the Moorings Bay taxing district advisory committee,
because they are recommending a reduction in the millage rate for
their taxing district. And the concern was that before they
recommended a reduction in that millage rate, they would like some
additional assurance that even the spreadsheet that goes to the year
2010 for the beach project shows a line item for maintenance of
Doctors Pass. They wanted a little higher level of comfort that, in
fact, that would be carried through that.
The taxing district borrowed six hundred or so thousand
dollars back in 1990 to do a major dredging project internally in the
Moorings Bay system. That project was completed, and that debt is
now, if not retired, on the verge of being paid off. So the taxing
district would like to recommend a reduction of the millage rate, and
this is just basically some additional assurance that, in fact, that
item would be carried forward as a TDC funding. We're not talking
about the internal work at Moorings Bay, which is still the
responsibility of the taxing district. This is strictly Doctors Pass.
The beach committee has been active in reviewing, of course, the
spreadsheet for the whole program, so they understand that Wiggins and
Doctors Pass are both on the spreadsheet and in the future another 15
years.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are we to understand that this is
being brought forward because the taxing district has a somewhat lack
of confidence in the Board of County Commissioners? Is that what
we're to understand here?
DR. STAIGER: Well, I don't think that's a lack of
confidence.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think there is an affirmative
answer in there. Are there any of the past maintenance groups that
have the same sort of interlocal agreement?
DR. STAIGER: The only other inlet maintenance that is
under the TDC program right now is Wiggins Pass. It does not have a
formal taxing district associated with it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I believe Caxambas Pass is either
under it or will be soon, and I'm not sure that they have a formal
agreement like this either.
DR. STAIGER: Well, yeah. There may be some management.
There is a management plan in completion for Caxambas, Big Marco,
Capri, and also Clam Pass. All of them have inlet management programs
that may or may not require dredging in the future. But this is the
only one that actually has, I believe, a formal taxing district that
has in the past borne some of the financial burden for it.
MR. HARGETT: Commissioners, I would like to comment.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, Mr. Hargett.
MR. HARGETT: Bill Hargett, assistant county manager.
What I understand -- and I guess I took the initial call from the City
of Naples regarding this because the work was being programmed and has
been programmed in our inlet management plan since 1993 -- there was a
taxing district, which we were being assessed for work that was being
paid for out of the TDC revenues. I understand that for two past
years the City of Naples has actually collected that assessment and
has reimbursed these people after they have been reimbursed by the
county TDC money.
They were wanting to know would -- how can we get a
commitment that this would continue. And that's the reason this item
is here so, you know, basically the board can tell you that you no
longer need to levy that assessment against those people for monies
that are going to be paid for out of the TDC revenues if, in fact,
that's the case. That's the program that's been laid out for you. And
it was simply who is going to pay for it, and as I understand it, it's
coming out of TDC revenues and reimbursed to the City of Naples, and
then in turn, I think, it's reimbursed to those property owners. You
can correct me if I'm wrong.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Hasn't it already been decided,
though, to continue to do this in the future?
DR. STAIGER: It's being programmed, and I think that's
the decision here today. But it's been programmed and proposed to you
in the very busy worksheet that we provided you, that the money for
that inlet come out of your TDC revenues, and that would be a
continuation of a practice that I think is two years old where you
have been paying for it through a reimbursement process.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But because we had dismissed this
in the past, because we have committed to do this, and because we
don't make these agreements for anyone else in particular, I'll make a
motion to deny.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Commissioner
Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Am I correct that this is the
only other municipality of which we have this kind of an
understanding? That is the distinction here, that we're dealing with
another municipality who has to levy taxes. We control the taxes on
the other two, and we don't control the taxes here. I don't feel the
same insult or lack of trust. I think it is a reasonable, legal step
to take to get an interlocal agreement. Since we have already
committed to do it, and since they have asked us to make it an
interlocal agreement, and since there is some basis for their asking
-- they're having to determine what the millage rate is for this
area, I think that there is no reason not to give them what they asked
for.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I don't know just because
someone asked for something we should give it. I don't think that is
a good enough reason.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's a good reason.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I will remind you that we do, in
fact, work cooperatively with another taxing district. At least one
that I can think of would be the Marco Island beach renourishment
taxing unit. So there is more than one, and we do deal with more than
one, and they don't require an interlocal agreement.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Only one municipality.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Staiger, this HSTU or HSBU,
whichever it is, was that district set up by the city or by the
county?
DR. STAIGER: City.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: By the city. So the city is at
this point, rather than assess the people within the taxing district,
X amount of mills to cover something that we're all confident tourist
tax money is going to be paid for, they're looking for an interlocal
agreement which will give them reason not to assess a tax on the HSTU
DR. STAIGER: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- an HSTU over which this county
has no control.
DR. STAIGER: Yeah. That's correct. The millage rate
has been since its inception .5 mills, and they want to drop it to .3.
And that will generate the revenues needed to do the other work the
taxing district does.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
second? The motion dies.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
There is a motion. Is there a
Is there another motion?
Move approval.
Second.
We have a motion and a second to
approve the recommendation.
HR. DORRILL: I have a question at the appropriate time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is it a question before we vote?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was just about ready to call it
right now.
MR. DORRILL: My one question is that I note -- I would
like for the record to indicate whether this has or has not been
reviewed by the county attorney's office, because it is not signed off
on. The other question I have for Dr. Staiger is my understanding is
that the city council has not yet reviewed or approved the inlet
management plan for Doctors Pass, the same way that you haven't
reviewed any of the completed inlet management plans. I'm just
wondering from a timing perspective.
The other concern that I have is that we are going to
approve this, that we may want to put some language in here, have our
attorney draft it to have some language that a little more clearly
defines what the approach is -- means. I for one would submit to you
that we should participate in the dredging of the pass. However, the
original justification for both the East Bay and Moorings Bay MSTU and
the city had a lot to do with the fact that the city's street storm
drainage system has caused a fair amount of silting or sand
accumulation at the ends of finger canals. And I don't, frankly, know
whether that is eligible to be used or considered to be part of inlet
dredging. And I just think that we ought to clarify or expend a
moment looking at that, because otherwise you may be in here doing a
lot of dredging of dead-end finger canals that, frankly, don't have
anything to do with keeping the passes open for navigable boat travel.
And it's not very well written in terms of the resolution.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Two valid points, Mr. Dotrill.
First of all, Mr. Weigel, has the county attorney's office reviewed
this?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, we reviewed it after it appeared in
the agenda. So we have reviewed it.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Sufficiently, in your opinion?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, we do the best we can with the time
we have usually. But I think Neil's point is a good one in regards to
approaches, although conceivably Dr. Staiger could address approaches
on the record right here, and that would suffice.
Ms. Gansel had provided that with two provisos that we
had recommended upon in her presentation subject to our review, and
one was that if you wish to have in here -- and I don't know that the
motion takes into account -- was the subject to annual appropriation.
Well, in this particular case what that would mean -- and maybe that
language isn't as artful as it could be, but that's the kind of
language that means that on an annual basis you look at that again to
see if it should continue with the status quo of the funding source
that is there, to continue as proposed here in the agreement. And,
Jean, if you can recollect to me the second proviso.
Incidentally, this is an interlocal agreement. It will
be recorded. There would be a small recording cost. Jean, that
second proviso that you mentioned which escapes me.
MS. GANSEL: That the annual appropriation would be
reviewed by the city/county beach renourishment committee and the
Tourist Development Council for their recommendation. Is that what
you are referring to?
MS. ASHTON: The language that Mr. Weigel just
mentioned, he had recommended that it be put in the agreement so that
section 3 would read, "This agreement shall take effect immediately
upon its acceptance and shall be subject to annual appropriations by
the Board of County Commissioners."
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with that. The second
question that I have, Mr. Dotrill, I was under the impression that
Doctors Pass did have an approved inlet management plan that
identified a growth link.
MR. DORRILL: It's completed. I don't know whether
counsel has adopted it. I know that we have not seen it, nor have
you. And I would think that at some point, even though that's a city
project, I would like for you to review that, because you're going to
see one you have to review for Wiggins Pass and one for Big Marco
Pass.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason that's important is
that it is the inlet management plan that identifies the area subject
to dredging and would basically prohibit or prevent the expenditure of
funds going into the individual finger canals that are not part of a
passable waterway. You know where I am going with that? It sounds to
me like that is a little unanswered at this point. I'm concerned --
DR. STAIGER: Well, I can answer that. The -- we have a
permit from the state for Doctors Pass, and it its approaches, and if
that would help, we could actually append the plan view that shows the
approaches -- the approaches that are essentially the entrance to the
pass from the gulf and then a short area to the north and the south as
you get into Doctors Pass, the area that is actively shoaled by the
tidal movement in and out of the pass. It does not include any
additional waterways to the north or south. That's the permit that we
have from the state for the pass and its approaches, and that is what
-- that's the way we refer to it in the -- in the agreement.
MR. DORRILL: I understand that. We don't want to
belabor this. I think this is a good agreement. If we can
incorporate Ms. Ashton's comments regarding this subject to an annual
appropriation and authorize our attorney to make some minor
modifications, I certainly agree that approaches, as defined, seaward
of the actual inlet and up to what I would call the T where you go off
into the residential areas. I would hate to think just because Dr.
Staiger has a permit that allows him to do a quarter of a mile north
of the T, that is part of or adjacent to residential property, that we
not commit through some interlocal agreement to do the dredging
associated with that tourist development funds if they otherwise have
a residential waterfront taxing district to do that type of thing,
either along that waterway or then what I call the finger canals that
are to the east of there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to amend my motion if I
can, please, to add that -- my motion is for approval subject to Ms.
Ashton's language about annual appropriation after being reviewed by
the beach renourishment committee and TDC and, also, that the subject
property be defined in the state permits, specifically the approaches,
and that that be appended to the agreement.
And I'm not particularly concerned that the city is
trying to pull a fast one on us and sneak something in here that
they're not supposed to be getting covered and that the state knows
what the approaches are, whatever the definition is, and the state
permit ought to do.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before amending the second,
without having it in front of me, the city may not be trying to -- and
no one is trying to pull a fast one here. But eight years from now
when this is a different board and there are different people
representing you, and someone else says, hey, the permit says X, we're
entitled to X, we're not going to have a legal argument against that.
So before agreeing to an appendage I haven't seen, I need to know how
far it extends. What is the timing on this, Mr. Staiger? Is there
the opportunity for this board to see the appendage and approve it and
still fit in with the millage reduction?
DR. STAIGER: Well, I could fax a copy of that permit
drawing to the county attorney or the county manager later today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we get a motion to table and
then a motion to continue?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to withdraw my second
based on seeing that appendage.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What was the timing, Dr. Staiger?
When do you need to have it?
DR. STAIGER: Well, I believe the city council has their
first budget millage meeting Thursday night, day after tomorrow. That
was -- the haste was to get something resolved prior to that meeting.
The question was raised about the review of the inlet management
plans.
None of these inlet management plans have yet to be
approved by the State of Florida, so we're all sort of sitting in
limbo. The state hasn't even passed the rule yet to figure out how to
approve them. So we're waiting for the state to come with the rule
for approval, and then they will presumably approve Doctors Pass and
Wiggins Pass and all these others. There is a stack of them in
Tallahassee. But until the state approves them, we're essentially all
working with draft inlet management plans that we've been told by the
state to go ahead and implement them because, I guess, they think they
are okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Dr. Staiger, could you within an
hour have somebody fax over a copy of that map for us to see so maybe
we could deal with this by the end of the meeting?
MR. DORRILL: If his working knowledge is sufficient to
be able -- how many feet within what I call the T, the bisecting canal
DR. STAIGER: The thing runs to the north, probably 200
to 300 feet north, and about half that distance to the south in that
MR. DORRILL: If he's willing to stipulate that for the
record as part of the bisecting canal, then he has satisfied any
concern that I would have along with Ms. Ashton's other comments.
DR. STAIGER: It's not thousands. It's a few hundred.
MR. DORRILL: That satisfies me because of the shoaling
nature of that pass. I'm familiar enough with it to know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you saying that that few
hundred feet is what is shown on the state permit? DR. STAIGER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if my motion were subject to
Ms. Ashton's language and subject to the permit -- the permit being
appended with the proviso that Dr. Staiger just stated regarding the
several hundred feet inside the T, could I get a second?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second the motion. Mr.
Dotrill, if you get something from Mr. Staiger that shows something
other than what we understand here --
MR. DORRILL: I'll be the first to let you know. But
that's why I said if he is willing to stipulate to that, then he has
satisfied the concern that I had.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
DR. STAIGER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and second. I'm
not real comfortable with it, but I'll call the question.
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 4 to 1, Commissioner Norris being in the
opposition.
Item #10A
APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS TO SERVE ON THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD AND
SET TENTATIVE DATES FOR THE HEARINGS - COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED;
HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR 9/25, 9/27, 9/28 AND 9/29/95
Next item 10(A) is the appointment of commissioners to
serve on the Value Adjustment Board.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Chairman, I've been on the
Value Adjustment Board for the last two years --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me, too.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's a great experience, and I
certainly don't want to hog that experience away from the rest of the
board members.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Very well spoken, Commissioner
Norris.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a question. Ms.
Filson, are -- I'm assuming you have been in touch with Mr. Skinner on
this. Are those dates pretty well set in stone or --
MS. FILSON: They won't be set until September llth, and
that's the deadline for filing the appeals, and then we'll know how
many days we need. And we need to set all four aside just tentative
-- just in case. Last year we used one day.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The year before we used all three
though.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a conflict on some of
those -- after the Lee Port Authority one day and --
MS. FILSON: And I need three commissioners per day.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We do have alternates to take care
of this.
MS. FILSON: We usually select three commissioners and
two alternates, and then that way we can trade off.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll volunteer as a primary.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll volunteer as an
alternate. I really do have a conflict there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Which days do you have conflicts
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Monday, Wednesday, and
Thursday. Friday --
MS. FILSON: Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry.
MS. FILSON: We have scheduled Monday, Wednesday,
Thursday, and Friday.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And you have conflicts on Monday
and Wednesday?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Monday, Wednesday, Thursday.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Monday, Wednesday, Thursday. So
you're good for Friday then.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm good for Thursday.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have no idea when I'm good for.
I'll be there when I can make it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It sounds like you are good for
all four.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I may very well be.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thursday and Friday I'm -- and
you're good for Thursday, Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
MS. FILSON: We need three for Monday.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I could be available for Monday.
MS. FILSON: One more.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Going once. You're out on
Monday?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Flip a coin.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We seem to do this every year,
don't we, John? We have to flip for it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Call it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Heads. Oh -- somehow '-
MS. FILSON: If there are more appeals than we got last
year, we will also need to have three for Wednesday.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll do it Wednesday.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Then I'll do Monday. I'll
agree to Monday.
MS. FILSON: Okay. So Wednesday we will have
Commissioner Norris, Commissioner Hancock -- one more.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: When? I'm sorry.
MS. FILSON: For Wednesday.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I can't do it Wednesday.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You guys are lucky when I make a
schedule.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The whole week?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I'm good for all four.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you be there twice on
Wednesday?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you supply a cardboard cutout,
we'll position it properly. What a full-time commissioner will do for
you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Then we have Hac'Kie on Monday.
MS. FILSON: We have Commissioner Hancock, Commissioner
Hac'Kie, and Commissioner Matthews on Monday. So far on Wednesday I
have Commissioner Hancock, Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who do you have on Thursday?
MS. FILSON: Thursday I have Commissioner Hac'Kie. I
have one on Thursday.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
HS. FILSON: Oh.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Constantine is on Friday.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
I'm on all four.
And Hancock and Commissioner
Wednesday is going to be a problem.
Well, maybe we won't need it.
MS. FILSON: I hope not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe we can give Monday --
MS. FILSON: Monday and Wednesday -- I only have two on
Wednesday though. There's only one year where I can remember that
we've only used one day, and that was last year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll switch Monday for Wednesday.
Does that help anybody?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. That loses the one we have
on Monday.
MS. FILSON: Actually we need three commissioners and
two school board members.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if one commissioner didn't
show up, and there were four out of five people there, we would still
have a quorum, and business would still occur?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Done.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we have for Monday
Commissioners Hancock, Matthews and Hac'Kie; for Wednesday
Commissioners Hancock and Norris; for Thursday Commissioners Hancock
and Hac'Kie; and for Friday Commissioners Hancock and Constantine.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Just one more brief little note.
When you first adjourn you choose a chairman, and we would like the
chairman to be the same one all the way through. And it must be a
county commissioner.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess --
MS. FILSON: We can change --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Congratulations, Tim.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Congratulations, Tim.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You're the chairman?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. They like it to be a
county commissioner.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've got to schedule more
appointments. Doug, how come you didn't call for an appointment on
one of those days?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have that completed. If it
looks like we're going into -- well, we'll have a quorum Wednesday
regardless. You will have at least four of them.
MS. FILSON: Yes.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 95-484, APPOINTING HICHAEL DELATE, CASEY WOLF AND KEETH
KIPP TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD (EPTAB) -
ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Next item on the agenda is
appointment of members to EPTAB.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not going to serve on EPTAB.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought you had an extra half
day here.
MS. FILSON: We have to appoint three members, and we
have six applicants. They're recommending the appointment of Michael
Delate, Casey Wolff, and Keeth Kip.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will -- first, I will say
Keeth Kip, I think -- I hope all of you know he used to be a county
employee. He is someone who I think can provide a pretty balanced
situation here. He is a very, very intelligent guy who knows the
environmental issues and also is in touch with just individual
hallmark-type issues as well. I think he would be a good addition.
I'll make a recommendation that we follow the -- I'll
make a motion that we follow the recommendation of the three names
provided here.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
appoint Michael Delate, Casey Wolff, and Keeth Kip to the appropriate
terms mentioned in the summary. Any further discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 5 to 0.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 95-485, APPOINTING CAROL MORRIS, TARIK AYASUN AND WILLIAM
NICK HALE TO THE PRIVATIZATION PLUS TASK FORCE - ADOPTED
MS. FILSON: The next item is to appoint three members
to the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me, Ms. Filson. It is
three openings and three names?
MS. FILSON: Well --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. Before we can do
that --
MS. FILSON: You need to declare a vacancy first. I
have one member who has moved out of state, and he did not submit a
letter of --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to declare a vacancy in
the seat formerly held by Mark Drucker. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All those in favor, please say
aye.
Motion passes.
Okay. Now we have three vacancies.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to fill the three
vacancies with the three names that have been submitted.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All those in favor, please say
aye.
Motion passes 5 to 0 with the appointment of Carol A.
Morris, Tarik Ayasun, and William Hale to the privatization plus task
force.
Item #10D
DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RE MISCELLANEOUS
CORRESPONDENCE - COUNTY MANAGER TO MEET AND REVIEW WITH ADMINISTRATIVE
ASSISTANT TO THE BOARD
Next item is direction from the Board of County
Commissioners regarding miscellaneous correspondence. This is an item
that came up a couple of weeks ago and resulted from -- Sue, why don't
you explain the way we handle miscellaneous correspondence to see if
there is something we can do to try to remedy the problem.
MS. FILSON: Okay. I put this on the Board of County
Commissioners' agenda as a result of an inquiry from Commissioner
Matthews on the way that we handle miscellaneous correspondence. All
state agencies, federal agencies direct their correspondence to the
chairman of the board. Then we put a little stamp on it in our office
for miscellaneous correspondence, and then it is approval by the board
on your consent agenda, and we also forward it to the staff who we
think are responsible for handling that. And I think it was a week or
two ago we sent something to the environmental department that should
have gone to the agricultural department. That one wasn't a deadline,
but a lot of times we get miscellaneous correspondence in the office
for grants that do have a deadline and need to be responded to by a
certain amount of time. And so I suppose I'm asking for direction
from the board on what to do.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In a nutshell -- and, Neil, maybe
we can just -- you can give me a suggestion here. Our receptionist
doesn't necessarily always know, nor do I think by the time she is
here long enough, you know, that names will remain the same and where
things should go. What is going to help us get it to the proper
division people the quickest?
MR. DORRILL: I have a suggestion. This is the only
error that I can ever recall that your staff ever made in terms of
routing. Now it may occur more frequently than I'm aware of.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ever. Any kind of error.
MR. DORRILL: So of a miscellaneous correspondence
nature my first question is, is there a problem, or is there a
hardship on you secretarial staff? And then the second question I
had, as I read the executive summary, why do we do miscellaneous
correspondence at all? It seems to me a tremendous burden on the part
of someone, and unless there are some statutorial requirement for you
to acknowledge as part of your regular county commission meeting
various correspondence, and in particular those silly notice of intent
to issue DEP permits that don't involve you at all or other things
regarding your receipt of a mechanics lien notice of time or materials
incurred on some job that time can't be liened under the Florida
statutes, I'd just -- I'm wondering if your staff time is being well
spent for miscellaneous correspondence. If there is just some
internal or administrative -- we need to acknowledge and route the
mail to the people that need to have it. But I'm looking for a way of
trying -- as I sit here and I read today's miscellaneous
correspondence, there are hundreds of things. Some of these have been
typed and to keep track of all these, and I'm just thinking isn't
there a better way.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That is why this has come about.
I mean the issue that brought this or caused me to ask Sue what our
current process was, was a letter we received from the governor. And
I wrote you a memo regarding that, and you said you had not received a
copy of it. And at that point I'm asking Sue, well, what is our
system. And she is telling me that, well, our system is for the
receptionist to route this, and in this particular instance, the
letter from the governor asking us a specific question --
MR. DORRILL: I think the routing is important. And I
-- of a personal style. I'm not opposed to you either sending it to
my attention or one of the four major division administrators. My
question of you or your staff is why are you bothering to keep track
of this if there is no statutory requirement, because otherwise --
MS. FILSON: There is.
MR. DORRILL: There is?
MS. FILSON: According to the clerk of courts, and I did
not -- I didn't bring that memorandum in here with me. The minutes
that have to be filed with the clerk of the courts for public record
have to go through miscellaneous correspondence. And he did forward a
memo to me. It's probably three or four years old. And I think the
previous clerk -- but I do have that, and according to them it does
have to be documented and approved by the board for a public record so
that they can file it up there.
MR. DORRILL: I would like to see that because, again, I
think there may be a way of you recognizing and acknowledging and then
distributing official correspondence. But some of the things on here
seem to be a tremendous effort on the part of somebody on your staff.
I don't know who it is, but if we can help you shorten that, I would
like to --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It sounds to me like for the most
part that this has been working, but a mistake was made. Hello,
human. You know, that is going to happen now and then.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It wasn't really a mistake. I
think what it was, a letter from the governor asking that the Board of
County Commissioners appoint somebody to a committee. MS. FILSON: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the committee sounded
environmental. And our staff sent it to our environmental services
division, and it turns out in the end --
MS. FILSON: Well, it was another one. I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There is another one, too?
MS. FILSON: Yes. That was the one that staff called me
and said that I probably should advertise for that position, and you
had thought that staff should bring an appointment to you for
approval. The other one was the net ban fishing that I had sent to
the environmental services, and actually it should have gone to the
agricultural department.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So some of these departments,
though, it is not quite clear where things should go, and that is the
only purpose for bringing this to see if we can't devise a better way
to do what we are doing, especially with letters coming down from the
state government for some things we have to act on fairly quickly.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we send it to anyone more
specific than the four division heads?
MS. FILSON: Yes. Like the dredge and fill we send to--
and I don't know the guy's name who does that now because Harry Huber
used to do it way back a long time ago when I --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is this the kind of thing
wewre going to work out now, or should we try to set some sort of
policy away from a board meeting and better spend our time today?
MR. DORRILL: I'd be happy to look at it, and I'll look
at the former clerk's memorandum.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fine.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please.
MR. DORRILL: If we can do some things to reduce the
amount of work on your secretarial staff, I think we can do that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Work with Sue and do something.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my direction.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. It's not a question of
reducing the amount of work. It's just trying to make it more
efficient so that it gets taken care of.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As long as you two agree on it,
everything is fine.
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 95-486, RE FOREIGN TRADE ZONE REPRESENTATION - ADOOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is 10(E),
resolution regarding foreign trade zone representation.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe we should have a --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Short presentation. We have a
motion and a second.
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 5 to 0.
Item #10F
RECOHMENDATION TO APPOINT SKIP CAMP AS COHMUNITY PARTNER REPRESENTATIVE
TO THE BCC - APPROVED
The last item is 10(F). It's an add-on item, and I have
not passed it out or anything, but it is essentially an appointment of
Skip Camp as consultant manager/director of the National Organization
of Disability.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to authorize the chairman
to sign.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
authorize the chairman to sign this.
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 5 to 0.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I have an add-on item on here
that may require board direction of Mr. Dotrill. There was a fire in
Naples Park. Two folks lost their home, and they have called and
asked for some relief in tipping fees at the dump to clear out their
lot. We've done this in the past.
MR. DORRILL: I'll tell you exactly what we'll do. If
you will just allow me to process that, and that at some point it is
incumbent upon me to bring back a budget amendment, because we cannot
waive tipping fees, but you will subsidize them from the general fund,
and I'll process the necessary budget amendment.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And I'll give you the name
and phone number, and you can contact them immediately to let them
know.
MR. DORRILL: Yes.
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 95-46, AMENDING ORDINANCE 92-60, RE THE LEVY OF A 2e TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT TAX AND AN ADDITIONAL le LEVY OF A TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX
BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 1996 AND TERMINATING UPON THE RETIREMENT OF ALL
DEBT FOR THE COUNTY'S BEACH RENOURISHHENT PROJECT - ADOPTED WITH
CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That will take care of that. We
have the public comment portion of our agenda. Mr. Dotrill, are there
any registered speakers for public comment?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Heidi, you're awfully anxious.
Next item on the agenda is 12(C)(1), adoption of an
ordinance amending Ordinance 92-60.
MS. ASHTON: I didn't know about those add-ons. I am
Heidi Ashton, assistant county attorney, and this is an ordinance
amendment to your tourist development tax Ordinance 92-60. It is to
authorize a levy of an additional 1 percent. There are a couple of
changes that I would like to point out. The tax is to begin January
1, 1996, and to end with the date of retirement of the debt for the
beach renourishment project. I had the date now of the retirement of
the debt, and that is December 31, 1999. So I would like to amend the
title to clarify deleting the language upon the retirement of the debt
and put it instead on December 31, 1999. There is also a change on
page 5, inserting the date to December 31, 1999. It is deleting the
bracketed information.
And this ordinance addresses, with the purpose of the
taxes, beach renourishment. It also includes an amendment that was
recommended by the Tourist Development Tax Council. They had
recommended that upon expiration of the 1 percent tax, that the
allocation of what currently exists is your two categories which are
allocated for 60 percent -- currently 60 percent for beach
renourishment and 40 percent to promote and advertise. They have
recommended that those numbers be flip-flopped so that upon the
expiration of the debt -- or upon the expiration of the one-cent levy,
that beach improvement would use 40 percent of the funds, and the
advertising would be 60 percent of the funds.
I also included a -- there is a further breakdown in
your ordinance of the existing 40 percent for advertising. I broke it
down based upon the same allocation. This is on page 5 of your
ordinance. You're looking at lines 22 through 25. I broke down the
25 and 15 percent, which come out under 60 percent allocation to 37
percent and 23 percent. That further breakdown was not recommended by
the Tourist Development Tax Council. I wanted to bring that to your
attention today. And those are the only changes to the ordinance that
currently exists. If you have any questions, I would be happy to
answer them.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: My recollection on this was that
the one penny is to pay off the debt quicker so that should a storm
event occur in the natural time frame, that the money would be to
rebuild that fund. But by changing the formula, reducing the amount
of funds that go to rebuilding the category A side of things, we're
doing exactly the opposite of what we're trying to do here. So as far
as my preference, the one cent goes to pay off the debt, and the ratio
stays the same. Sixty percent goes to beach renourishment until such
time as that fund is built up for a full beach renourishment, and then
I'll entertain a change in that amount. But that is not what the
voters approved, and until we have that money sitting there in the
account that can do a complete beach renourishment based on the 60
percent allocation, reducing it is not a good idea, in my opinion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I concur wholeheartedly.
Period. I don't need to reconsider.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The two companion items are going
with this?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: After we do this.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: We'll do that after?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
MS. ASHTON: Do we have speakers?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have one question. Do we have
speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We do. Ms. Ashton, I also
remember in the discussion of these changes with the TDC that part of
the resolution they adopted or recommendation they adopted was that
100 percent of the one penny be dedicated to the retirement of this
debt. And I'm not sure that I read that --
MS. ASHTON: One percent of the penny is for beach
renourishment, and that is indicated under section 2. On page 5 it
says the additional 1 percent shall be used to finance beach
improvement, maintenance, renourishment, restoration, and erosion
control including shoreline protection, enhancement, cleanup, or
restoration of inland lakes and rivers to which there is public
access.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But there appears to be a
conflicting statement on page 3 that says the additional 1 percent
tourist development tax is to be collected in the same manner -- oh,
collected in the same manner as the 2 percent. That's the difference.
Okay. I'm sorry. Please go ahead.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So I guess my concern was that
the discussion that we had was that this additional one penny be
dedicated 100 percent to the retirement of the debt for beach
renourishment, not for -- not including shoreline protection,
enhancement, cleanup, restoration of inland lakes and rivers to which
there is a public access. I don't remember that being part of the
recommendation.
MS. ASHTON: To be honest, what I did was insert the
description under category A, which was a little bit broader. I
wasn't sure exactly what the scope of the beach renourishment -- if it
would get into any of these other areas. But if you would like me to
amend the language, I'd be happy to do that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You know, we'll hear what the
board wants. But it seems to me that the purpose that we were putting
this additional penny on was to retire the debt, not to expand it into
inland lakes and so forth, which may or may not have a problem, but
that's not the purpose we entered into this. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was going to make a motion, but
we have speakers, so I'll withhold.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Ayres and, Mr. Abernathy, if I could
have you stand by, please.
MR. AYRES: Good afternoon. I'm John Ayres. I've been
here before.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And will be again.
MR. AYRES: Yeah. I'll probably be here again. I'm
here today as the chairman of the Naples Visitor's Bureau. I guess --
I think I just finally figured out what I wanted to say to you based
on your comment. And I guess -- you know, the tourism industry now --
because we may want to see a shift in these funds -- finds itself, I
think, in an uncomfortable position of being instead an advocate -- an
adversary to beach renourishment.
The Naples Visitor's Bureau properties are all
beach-front properties. I can tell you that my beach is a cupcake,
not a beach. And, certainly, I can't tell you that there is any more
singularly important thing to me personally and to the members of the
Naples Visitor's Bureau than getting this beach fixed. And we have
been supporters in that process since day one. So I think that for
the record, that point needs to be made.
Secondly, this additional penny came up because there
have been challenges in funding and resolving the debt on fixing the
beach. And so the suggestion was that perhaps there be another penny.
We had some conversations when the beach people came to us, and we all
have been talking about these issues. And pretty much what I think
happened and what I think is fair to have happened is that if we're
going to charge the tourist, the person who comes here, another penny
to enjoy our beach and none of that penny gets to be spent to promote
for tourism, which is, in fact, the whole reason that there is a TDC
in the first place, I believe, then if you're going to allocate that
whole penny to retiring the debt, then I think that it's only fair to
agree that at some point in time that this vehicle, which was designed
for promotion purposes, be allowed to do just that and to leave it
opened ended, that they'll never -- you know, that we need to have the
money all there, and we need to see it -- I mean, I came to you on the
hurricane thing, and I wanted the money there, and I want the money
there to fix the beach, too.
But I think that, quite frankly, if you were to do a
survey of tourists, and you went out and you said, okay, Joe Tourist,
you've got the whole world to go to, where are you going to go? And
you talk about taxes being allocated to fixing beaches. I think to
you and myself this tourist would say that whether your beach is fixed
is your problem. I'll come if it is, and I probably won't come if it
isn't. So I just ask you to always keep in mind the fact that these
monies really come from people who opt to come here as opposed to
Acapulco or Bermuda or Hawaii or a whole world and to have a little
more, perhaps, understanding than those of us who are in the industry
are only trying to protect two things; one, make sure the beach gets
fixed. We couldn't be any clearer about that. But, secondly -- and
you've heard if from just about every member of the tourism industry,
from Bud Davis to Mr. Freni to Michael Watkins to whoever -- we really
have a minimal amount of money out there to promote to the world that
this is a place that they should come. We would not be serving
ourselves, nor you, nor the potential tourist without wanting to
protect the fact that we want to see something happen.
So we think it is more than fair if we take the whole
penny and dump it into retiring the debt that you at least give us
some sense of when we better get a hunk of the money to be used to
promote tourists to come in and enjoy the beach. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Abernathy.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, you had a
comment?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Quickly, John, I don't disagree
with you, but I'd rather error on the conservative side of this point.
When we look at the time frame that it takes to build up the money for
a mobilization, a remobilization, at 40 percent we'll never get there.
So we're going to have to come back and alter it again or do another
penny for a period of time. All I'm trying to do is match the funds
accrued with the maintenance required. And the 60 percent was the
closest thing to that. If we find that we're over that, you're
absolutely right. We can then look at an adjustment.
MR. AYRES: Can I make a recommendation? Is there a way
to word this that indicates that when the debt has been retired, given
there has been no hurricanes -- we hope not -- and that there is
sufficient funding there, and the beaches are in the kind of shape we
all hope that they would be in, that the council -- that you would
then see fit to flip-flop. I don't think you need to tie it to a
date. In fact, this original piece of wording we saw here did not. It
just said when the debt was retired -- maybe if you had some language
that says when the debt is retired and when there are sufficient funds
there to protect the continuing maintenance of the beach, that we then
look at doing a 60/40 flip-flop. That, I think, would make me happy
personally. Whether it would make the tourism industry or not, I
don't know.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that a little too vague, Mr.
Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I will stick my finger up on this one. You
know, this is a law and, therefore, in becoming a law the language or
conditions you put upon yourself with the law can be enforced upon you
through the law. So it may be that if you keep that in mind, that any
of these directives to yourself or future boards is to, one, when and
where it will be done, it has to be done very carefully, because if
you have it in there generally that upon retirement of the debt you
will take upon yourself to do this review, the question at that point
in time -- and that is the question: At what point in time is it
reasonable for you to do so. If you delay a few months, are you being
unreasonable? Are you subject to injunctive relief on the part of an
adversely affected party that says you're not acting fast enough?
there certainly must be some caution when you place rules or
restrictions upon yourself in the future.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Good work, also. Mr.
Abernathy.
MR. ABERNATHY: Commissioner Matthews, fellow
Commissioners, my name is Ken Abernathy. I live in the City of
Naples, and I serve currently as the chairman of the city/county beach
renourishment committee. I am here as a result of a special meeting
that the beach committee had at the behest of Ms. Matthews. And to
back up a little bit, at the last TDC meeting the proposal or an
iteration of the proposal that is in front of you now was brought
before the committee, and it was without any prior notice to the beach
committee. I must say that my initial reaction to it was somewhat
like I imagine an animal -- a small animal feels if he is standing on
the shoulder of 1-75 and he is contemplating crossing, and he looks
up, and these big birds are circling overhead measuring him for road
kill.
In any event, we took Mrs. Matthews' suggestion and had
a meeting, and we passed a resolution, which I would like to summarize
for you at this time. There are three facets to it, and the first
being after expiration of the additional 1 percent in the year 2000. A
review of beach and past project financial experience and
reexamination of project needs will be conducted with a view towards
the feasibility of readjustment of the split of TDC funds in a manner
more favorable to the direct tourist promotion portion; two, that the
TDC funds will be retained in an individual trust account to insure
the dedicated use of those funds; three, that the review and
teevaluation be further conducted at five-year intervals thereafter. I
have copies of that which could be available to you.
Our thinking on this is that at this point, before we've
even put any sand on the beach, it is premature to talk about
flip-flopping. And once the bonds are -- or once the debt is paid off
and we have a little better feel for a number of things, not only how
the beach renourishment project has taken hold, but what the federal
government's position is on funding not only beaches but passes, I
think the Clinton proposal not only knocked out beaches, but it
knocked out passes, unless they have a significant navigational
impact, and that would mean that Gordon Pass would have to be added to
the passes that are the responsibility of the beach committee portion
of the money.
So in sum, we think it is too early to establish -- and
by legislation -- any change to the percentage and certainly not to
flip-flop it for whatever symmetry that has. There have been
spreadsheets done on this, and I assume they have been made available
to you. What makes this section an attractive target is that 20
million in the year 2010 -- only 16 of that million of that 22 is
accrued funds. The other 6 is the interest that those funds earn in
the process of being accrued. So it's not such an egregious figure.
You can't get there without accruing them, and if you're going to
accrue them, they're going to earn interest.
The other side of the flip-flop proposal, my
recollection is it leaves us with something like 6.8 million, and if
we came to a storm event, we would be back in the same position we
find ourselves right now, and that is scratching around for money and
having to finance it. So we're not saying that it should never be
readjusted. And, perhaps, with this five-year scheme, if that finds
any favor with you, it could be readjusted and, certainly, in smaller
increments and maybe move up and down. It could move back in the
beach's favor from time to time and back to the tourism side.
that's the essence of our position.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any questions? Any other
speakers, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Freni.
MR. FRENI: Madam Chairman, fellow Commissioners, my
name is Joe Freni, regional vice president, Ritz-Carlton Hotel
Company, owner of the Ritz-Carlton, Naples, and a member of the
Tourist Development Council. The purpose in our bringing to this
issue the need to have the percentage discussion in the first place
was because we felt that if we did not at least have some sort of
sense and some sort of commitment from this commission, that when the
time came for the 1 percent to be taken off, that we felt that we
would be prey again to a distribution of that percentage for reasons
that may go way beyond any promotional consideration or needs we might
have.
That coupled with the fact that we see that we are --
while we are in a very enviable position now in terms of the success
our business has had within the past couple of years, we don't see
that the position -- we see that position possibly eroding if we at
least do not have the knowledge that we will continue to be able to
promote it in an increasing and more effective way in the future. We
have absolutely -- and I speak on behalf of all the members of our
industry. We have no fight whatsoever with the fact that the beach is
an important part of our infrastructure as an industry. We need to
have those beaches in good shape. We, in fact, need the passes to be
in good shape. We would like, though, to have some sense from this
commission that while you proceed ahead to increase this tax -- and,
again, this is a tax that we don't have 3,000 people out screaming
about or writing letters to the editor or arguing about, because they
don't get taxed. This is a tax that unless you keep focus on it and
understand how dangerous it can become, we need to continue to bring
it to your attention that we'd like to make sure that the tax, as it
was originally conceived in the very first tourist development act in
1977 as a promotional tax, gets back to that. And that is why we are
making such a point.
We would much prefer to have a percentage. We would
much rather have an agreed-upon percentage. We are, however, willing
to accept the fact that that percentage may be uncomfortable for you
at this point in time to agree to. It may be uncomfortable for us to
agree to, but can we at least have in the language of this ordinance
some statement that allows us to feel some sort of sense of comfort
that when this 1 percent has done its job, that we can at least
understand that the first priority after that, in addition to making
sure the monies are reserved for future beach maintenance or whatever
else, that we get a revisit of the percentage distribution, that
promotional dollars get the number-one priority? Thatws really all
wewre asking for.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We can probably draft something
like that.
MR. FRENI: It would be real nice.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. FRENI: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, are there other
speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Not on this. I do want to remind you that
this is a companion to two other items. I donwt know whether we need
to at some point have a discussion concerning the other issues before
you today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It was my thought that we would
take those issues off after this one. MR. DORRILL: That is fine.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I fully understand and appreciate
your comments, Mr. Freni, Mr. Ayres. I think at this point where we
donwt really have a base line of maintenance costs, and we really
havenwt been through this -- in fact, we havenwt even started the
beach renourishment -- to look at percentages is, in fact, premature.
I think Mr. Abernathyws comments are correct and on the mark. What I
would like to do is make a motion to approve the ordinance that staff
has presented on page 5 of lines 4 through 33 and the deletion on page
6 of lines 1 through 3, that those lines are to be replaced with the
following: Upon retirement of the additional one-cent tourist
development tax, the TDC may request the Board of County
Commissionersw review of the funding allocations at five-year
intervals.
The purpose there is simply to put in the ordinance that
we expect at the termination that the TDC is going for us and make a
request based on percentages without binding us to those percentages
at this point. I donwt think we can commit to that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will you say that one more
time?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Which lines are you eliminating?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, in the proposed ordinance,
page 5, lines 4 through 33.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Which page? Not agenda page 5,
ordinance page 5.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, Iwm sorry. At the end of
page 6 of item 12(C)(1), lines 4 through 33 and on agenda page 7 of
item 12(C)(1), lines 1 through 3. That needs to be replaced with the
following: Upon retirement of the additional one-cent tourist
development tax, the TDC may request the Board of County
Commissionersw review of the funding allocations at five-year
intervals.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fine. Is that a motion?
MS. ASHTON: If I could just comment for a second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I expect we might have some legal
MS. ASHTON: Line 29 through 33 on page 5 and 1 through
3 of page 6, those identify the purposes of the 1 percent.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will modify the motion to
include only the deletion of lines 4 through 28 on page 6 of item
12(C)(1) to be replaced with the language mentioned already.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So you're reinsetting 29 through
33 and 1 through 4 on the next page?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, excuse me. This is where we
had a discussion before whether or not -- and, Ms. Ashton, since you
just pulled this right out of the description of category A -- but
this is where we had discussion before that the idea was to dedicate
the entire one cent to debt reduction, nothing else.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Right. And I'd like to see
wording to that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I would prefer that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can you come up with that on the
spot, Heidi -- or Ms. Ashton? Can you come up with '-
MS. ASHTON: Well, we can change that to the additional
one cent tax revenues collected pursuant to section 2(F), shall be
used to pay for the retirement of the debt for the beach renourishment
project. If you have any other suggestions -- something to that
effect. We'll polish it a little bit.
MR. HARGETT: Our financial -- Bill Hargett, assistant
county manager -- our financial advisor has recommended, as we get to
another item, that you buy down the debt with the reserves that you
currently have, which is about a million dollars. And rather than
restrict this to the debt, maybe we could change that to say beach
renourishment rather than the payment of this debt, because we're
going to use existing funds to borrow less but use the revenue that
comes in to replace that year end.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You think it is the same place?
MR. HARGETT: I think that --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- because you may end up, the way
my understanding is --
MR. HARGETT: -- beach renourishment --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- that what the debt is and then
be stuck with that. So what the language should be, it would be
something to beach renourishment and the reduction of the debt which
is associated with the beach renourishment. MR. HARGETT: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me revise my original motion
to include line 29 to read -- after the numeral 2 -- the additional
1-percent tax revenues collected pursuant to Section 2(F) shall be
used to finance beach renourishment.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that going to get us where we
need to go?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Of course, we'll stipulate that
if the county attorney's office needs to polish that, they are welcome
to.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is an ordinance. Is that
going to get us to where we need to go, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I see no one nodding no, so I think it
will. I understand the substitution. If we have to put a word or two
of polish, we understand the intention of the board. I think the
public understands the intention of the board. The ordinance shall so
state the intention of the board in that regard.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the second accept the
change?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there further discussion?
There being none, all those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 5 to 0.
I don't have to ask how many votes that required to make
it work.
Item #8E7
RESOLUTION 95-487, SELECTION OF A FINANCING OPTION FOR THE BEACH
RENOURISHHENT PROJECT - ADOPTED
Let's return to agenda item 8(E)(7) of the board,
consideration of the collection of a financing option for beach
renourishment project. Mr. Hargett.
MR. HARGETT: Yes, ma'am. Bill Hargett, assistant
county manager. With your permission, I would like to have our
financial advisor and the finance director, Ms. Hankins -- if they'll
come up here. While they're coming up, Commissioners, this is really
the result of an action that you took on June 20th which you looked at
four different options, and you selected option two, which was a
short-term finance with a single phase for mobilization with the
addition of an additional penny. You then sent that item away to your
finance committee and asked them to evaluate available sources of
revenue to finance that. In your agenda there were basically two
items that were outlined there with regard to how to -- or the source
of the money and how to pay it back. Under one, we considered the
option of utilizing a covenant to budget and appropriate. Under the
other we were using the pledge of TDC revenues. It is very clear the
advantages of using the covenant to budget and appropriate.
The minutes of the finance committee were included in
your agenda package. The cost comparisons between fixed-rate and
variable-rate sources of revenue were also submitted in your agenda as
well as the discussion and submissions of the finance committee
members. With that I would entertain any questions that you might
have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Samet, how are you today?
MR. SAMET: Fine. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
or Mr. Hargett?
Is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
recommendation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Do we have question for Hr. Samet
Hotion to approve. Second.
The motion is to approve the
Yes, which is finance option two.
Finance option two.
The recommendation is option two,
Yes, finance option two.
If there is no further discussion, all those in favor
please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes 5 to 0.
MR. HARGETT: Commissioners, before we leave this item,
there was discussion by the finance committee, and I wanted to make
the board aware of it. There was considerable discussion about adding
in the motion a statement with respect to a commitment of future TDC
revenues, and we felt strongly enough about it that perhaps the board
entertain the suggestion that you adopt another motion notifying or
putting on notice the various committees who have interest in these
funds, that priority -- for the first priority for each of these would
be for the beach renourishment rather than having a secretary pledged
note of TDC revenues. We simply somehow felt that you may want to let
other people know that the first priority of TDC revenues is to repay
this debt. That was simply a message that we thought you may want to
send to those who will be requesting funds to you -- to, look, these
funds are obligated, and our first priority is this. So rather than
make them a secondary pledge on the note, we thought you might look at
it as a separate item if you wanted to.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. What are you asking
us to do then?
MR. HARGETT: We're suggesting to you that in some form
you may wish to make a statement that rather than adopt the secondary
pledge, which we do not recommend, that you may wish to consider,
perhaps, in some way formally of notifying those people who in the
future will be coming to you and asking for TDC monies, that the first
pledge of those monies is the retirement of this debt.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's 60 --
MR. HARGETT: That's committed to that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's the 60 percent of the two
cents and the 100 percent of the one cent? MR. HARGETT: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Included in that is also past
maintenance. And I think there is a project being planned for MArco
Island of some breakwaters and stuff. MR. HARGETT: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Has all that been considered?
MR. HARGETT: Yes, ma'am. What you just did was you are
going to go out and borrow some $11 or $12 million and buy it down.
What you're pledging to pay that back is a covenant to budget and
appropriate the non-ad valorem revenues of your general fund, not the
TDC revenues. What we are saying, in anticipating that, you will then
take the TDC revenues and replace those monies. Somehow in there
there needs to be a stopgap to remind people that, yeah, you pledged
this money, but you intend to take the TDC monies to replace that.
That was the whole point that we were trying to make, that should you
get future requests for funds, that first and foremost the money to
pay back this debt comes off the top if you wanted to do that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, that would certainly be my
intention. But how is the rest of the board --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we notify
all interested -- potentially interested committees that the primary
intention of usage of the TDC beach renourishment funds is to repay
the debt.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that question -- that
precludes us then from having to pledge a secondary source?
MR. HARGETT: That's correct. We did not place that in
here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question. Does that then mean
that 100 percent of the funds collected will go towards debt, or is it
just the 60 percent allocation and the addition penny?
MR. HARGETT: It says that from the TDC revenues that
you collect, the first cut goes to pay this debt, and then whatever is
left goes to the other things.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And so we're --
MR. HARGETT: It is sufficient there so long as you
don't come in and get additional requests or, you know, we flip the
percentages or whatever number of other things that could happen.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that the operative word in
that statement is the primary purpose. Does that mean that it is the
only purpose?
MR. HARGETT: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It doesn't mean that it's the only
thing that they can be used for, but the primary purpose is operative.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just want to make sure we
weren't freezing any funds from going into that other 40 percent. MR. HARGETT: No, sir.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have one other question, Mr.
Hargett, before we vote on this. That is part of the scenario for
borrowing money from -- what is it -- TCEP -- is that what it's
called-- is that we borrow money and roll it. And I think three years
MR. HARGETT: Four years.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Four years?
MR. HARGETT: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we won't have to roll it, is
that the intention?
MR. HARGETT: That is the intent.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So -- because I was a little bit
concerned if it was three years, that someone may want us to pay the
debt off instead of rolling it in three years.
MR. HARGETT: We went through -- Mr. Samet worked those
scenarios, and it is payable in four and --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You answered my questions if
we're going to roll it in four. I'll call the question.
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Samet, are you perfectly
comfortable with what -- you seemed a little uncomfortable. Was it
something we said or --
MR. SAMET: No, I'm just tired.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
Item #8E8
RESOLUTION 95-488, RE REFINANCING MARCO ISLAND BEACHFRONT RENOURISHHENT
MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT LIMITED GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND SERIES
1989 - ADOPTED AND STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Last item on the agenda is item
8(E)(8), and this is a board consideration of refinancing of the Harco
Island beach-front renourishment municipal service taxing unit.
MR. HARGETT: I'm going to ask the finance director to
help me with this one, because I know she talked with the bond council
a couple of times. But the board has stated that in meetings, without
any formal action, that it was your intent to retire, call, some way
take out the Marco Island bonds and use TDC revenues to pay for that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If it was legal.
MR. HARGETT: If it was legal.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just ask a quick
question along those lines, and maybe Ms. Hankins can help with this.
I think all of us would like nothing more than to be able do exactly
that. But we have pledged TDC funds for four-plus years with the
three cents just to pay off the ongoing project. Without that extra
cent it would have been 11 years, I guess. From where are we going to
get monies to help Marco and when?
MS. HANKINS: If we were able to do this project -- and
I say if, because I bring to you as a new finance director -- and for
the record, I'm Kathy Hankins, director of finance -- that we're
talking about a project that actually occurred in 1989. It is a beach
renourishment project, and I have no problem with the merit of the
project at all. However, the actual language of how we can use our
TDC money, particularly the beach renourishment money, does not say
that we can go back to a project before the TDC was in place, and it
also does not say that we can use it to refund debts. The bond
council -- as Mr. Hargett said, I called them and asked them, get me
up to speed on this as a new person so I could understand. And they
were clear with me that they could not give me an opinion that we
could do that. And, therefore, if we were going to go forward with
this, we would need to go for a validation hearing; is that correct,
Bill?
MR. HARGETT: Yes, to have the court actually decide
that. I felt that it was important enough to be sure that that
information is brought to you and that you understand that in your
deliberations. And if there is additional research we need to do,
we'd be glad to do that for you. But the question is, is there is
enough money in the beach renourishment portion to pay for this
refunding if it were allowable. We did include in the spreadsheet
that you got the debt service for the Marco Island bonds. So that
expense has been programmed if you choose to do it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Or do we need to wait on some sort
of legal determination?
MR. HARGETT: No, sir. What we would be asking you to
do is simply state your intent. There is a resolution, I think, that
has been prepared which really sets in motion the process of going --
of calling the bonds and actually going to the court and having that
call validated in the use of the TDC money to pay down that debt.
we would actually at some point in time -- following the validation by
the court, we would then go forward and issue some additional debt
amount of the Marco Island bonds, and we would get that money also
from our commercial paper program.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But that's all been factored into
the beach renourishment program?
MR. HARGETT: It's on the spreadsheet, and it's pursuant
to debt service, so we're covered.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's included in the --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, unless
you want to do the honors.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have one more question before
you do that. Commissioner Mac'Kie, I believe you had one.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to share my
understanding so that the money is available, and I understand that it
is in the spreadsheet. But I also heard that we can't legally do this
unless we get it validated by the court. So our action today would be
to direct staff to proceed to get the court validation because that is
the last step between us and our ability to do it?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Everybody has agreed.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: My question is also a legal
question. In fact, I read the letters from neighbors that were issued
in 1991, and my concern is that, yes, we can do the validation
process, but they make it quite clear that if someone challenged that,
it might all be for naught.
MS. HANKINS: That's correct, Commissioner.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And I guess my question is more
for Mr. Weigel. If the court validates the bonds, which I would favor
them to do, how long is it that anyone would have time to challenge
it, the court decision?
MR. HARGETT: It's about 30 days.
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. The normal procedure is
approximately 30 days after the court enters an order, any appeal goes
-- if I recall correctly -- we haven't had to do this for a long time
-- but the appeal goes directly to the Supreme Court. So there is
the potential for an additional appeal. But the resolution that is
before us as part of this agenda item provides the authorization for
the staff to proceed with the validation proceedings in court, and at
that point the legal chips will fall where they may.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess my only caution and word
of caution to the board is that before we call these bonds and refund
them, that we wait that appeal period to make sure that we don't run
into a challenge problem and then find ourselves losing it and having
to dig into the ad valorem general funds to repay the money.
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely. And the county attorney or a
finance committee representative will keep the board informed as to
the process of that proceeding in case there are any hangups along the
way.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So -- well, as long as we all
understand. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve
the item to give staff the appropriate direction to seek validation.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Items one, two, and three?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've already done item three. If
there is no further discussion, I'll call the question.
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 5 to 0.
Item #14
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
I believe we are at communications. Commissioner
Norris, do you have anything?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I do. A couple of very quick
items. I am fortunate enough to have in my district a large number of
waterfront properties with boat docks and stuff as is Mr. Hancock. And
there are from time to time a number of problems associated with boat
docks and boat dock variances and that type of thing that I would like
to ask the board if we could maybe give staff direction to do some
clarifications in the LDC.
One of the problems that sometimes arises is that some
of these boat dock issues can get very, very contentious, and the
planning commission actually has final authority on boat dock
variances right now. What I would like to suggest is that we set up
some sort of an appeal process from the planning commission. I would
assume that 99 percent of these little variances are never a contested
issue. But if there is a highly contentious one, I think it should be
-- the final decision should be left to elected officials rather than
appointed officials. And I would like to see if we couldn't bring in
state some sort of an appeal mechanism.
And, second, on a related subject is that there has been
a number of occasions where someone will put a cover -- some sort of a
roofed structure over a boat dock, and this causes concern among the
neighbors for view blockage and an aesthetics standpoint. And these
structures are not addressed in our LDC at all. I understand that
they're just part of a boat dock. So I think we need to also direct
staff to look at the LDC with the intent of defining a roof structure
on a boat dock as something that will need separate authorization.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you suggesting that the
property owner would have to file for two variances, or could they do
it all in a single -- there is a fee associated with each of them.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me see if I can maybe give you
an idea of what the issue is. Most of our waterways are fairly
narrow, and you've got houses up and down both sides of them and at
the ends of them on many, many of our waterways. If somebody goes out
there and puts up a fairly large roofed structure, he is going to take
the view of a lot of people's homes and cause some irritation. Because
one residential property can impact a number of others, I think it is
only fair that there be some sort of a process to have a public
hearing where the neighbors can come in and give their point of view.
Now this could be in the form of having a roof structure on a boat
dock be a conditional use or whatever the appropriate mechanism is,
but get them in front of a public hearing so that everybody can say
their peace. I think that is important.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't have any problem with
that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If nobody has any objection to
that, let's give the staff direction to bring those two items back to
us at their earliest opportunity. I don't think we have an LDC cycle
for some time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have one in the fall, don't
we, Mr. Dotrill?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's probably too late to get in
on that one.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess my only concern is the
same one I expressed a couple of minutes ago, and that is there are
fees to be filed with either the conditional use or the variance, is
that correct, and that I don't think it would be fair to unduly burden
a person who happens to want to put a boat dock in with a roof.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's certainly a
consideration. They could be both done at the same time. I don't see
why it couldn't and, therefore, only incur one fee. That's fine, as
long as there is some mechanism -- and I don't care if there is a fee
attached to it at all. That's not my purpose. My purpose is merely
to be able to have some sort of a public hearing process, and I don't
know if conditional use is the right mechanism -- that just comes to
mind -- but to have the process so that any potentially aggrieved
neighbors can have their say.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your suggestion is just that
staff look at some alternatives and bring those back to us, and we
will decide at that time whether it is a conditional use or whether --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's all. I would assume that
it would be Mr. Weigel's department to work on the appeal process for
boat dock variances.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's all. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In light of the boat dock
question, I think we should get in with Muscovy ducks in the county.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're not going to prohibit nests
on top of the roofs of the boat docks, are we?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The county barbecue will be
happening on --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question for the county
manager -- if anybody knows -- maybe for the county attorney. I know
that the infamous Marco Island PUD Hideaway is scheduled for next
week's agenda. And I just want to say that I don't want to hear it
unless either the arguing parties have settled, or they're ready to
tell us there's no longer a possibility of settlement. I don't want
them to use that PUD hearing as a forum to negotiate or to change the
marketing position of anybody in that discussion. And I wondered if
anybody has anything to report on its status.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We don't have anything at this
point, do we?
MR. WEIGEL: No. But that's why Mr. Cuyler has been
away today. He has been at a meeting for a significant part of day in
regard to that. I haven't had an opportunity to talk to him about the
result of that meeting, but I hear your message. We will work with
Ken and the parties toward that regard.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And so we can maybe look to have
that continued again next week if they can't come to an agreement.
Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In the good news category,
remember a week or two or three ago we approved the joint film
commission with Lee County?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Last week and a half they
have been working together furiously trying to pull together all that
Buena Vista Pictures needs to put together a Disney picture down here.
It is about a $30 million picture. I don't know how much success we
had today. I just talked to John Ayres. We may have had some
success. We needed to find a building, a vacant building with at
least a 25-foot, preferably 30-foot ceiling to do some indoor work. If
we found that, they will shoot the entire picture in southwest Florida
and, obviously, all $30 million will be pumped into our economy.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's the problem.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Corner of Golden Gate Parkway and
the old --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Looked there too.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mini-mall.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How about the Ridgeport Winn
Dixie?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Looked there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Looked there. Gone.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If anything else pops in your
mind, let us know.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Golden Gate Community Center.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How about a packing house?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Apparently there were a
couple of places over in Commercial Boulevard area today that they
looked at that might work out. The two commissions -- or the two
counties have worked together very, very well.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What about that Coca-Cola plant,
the old Coca-Cola plant? It's being used now?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. After Just Cause finished,
I think it was sold after that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of items. The
Florida State Lottery contacted us. I've passed this on to Mr.
Dorrill before we went on our brief recess. They're putting in place
some new games this fall including a game show type thing. They are
looking to do -- to offer free advertising to communities all around
the state. So, hopefully, our TDC groups already have some things in
the can that we can offer them. But during their little show they
will push the different communities around the state so that we have
intrastate commerce going on. People in other parts of the state will
see our community and vice versa.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I think I had passed that
to you also. And we're working on it? MR. DORRILL: Yes, we are.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Finally, Mr. Weigel, utility
authority items. Is that on next week?
MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have just one item. I received
a letter from Representative Saunders regarding our lobby efforts. And
he would like to arrange a meeting with us sometime in the latter part
of October. I thought that would probably fit in nicely with our
workshop the fifth Tuesday in October. As far as I know right now,
we're supposed to have a productivity committee report and then in the
afternoon a round table discussion of future goals. So this may fit
in quite well with that. So we're all talking about the future and
having that on our mind that day. So I'd like to get Representative
Saunders a letter telling him that October, whatever it is, will be a
time frame -- 10:30, eleven o'clock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The 31st, Halloween. Tell him to
dress appropriately.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
anything?
Hr. Dotrill, do you have
Item #15
STAFF'S COHMUNICATIONS
HR. DORRILL: Two, real quickly. First is something
that occurred last week and you may have read about in the paper. I
apologize for not being able to be quick enough to advise the board
members. This is the issue concerning what the newspaper is calling
professional plagiarism as it relates to the procedures manual. The
way that I have left it is that my understanding as far that
information is neither copyrighted nor scientific, but it is a
procedures manual. If we need to express the appropriate
acknowledgement and/or apology for that, then we'll do it, and I want
you all to know that. By the same token, I had a meeting at Lee
County two weeks ago with your human resource department to just do
some brainstorming on things that they're going to do or that's
different, and they gave me a variety of noncopyrighted Lee County
human resource manuals and whatnot. And, frankly, it never occurred
to me that if we incorporate some or all of those into what we are
doing here, that we should give credit for that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: These are all from the University
of Florida anyway.
MR. DORRILL: I'm not looking at this anymore sinister
than that, but if we need to express the proper acknowledgment, I
firmly intend for us to do that. That is all I had.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. My feeling on it is
just that it's a question of expressing an acknowledgement or apology
that is required. Mr. Weigel, anything?
MR. WEIGEL: Royal Cove. Just an update. You know the
county has been involved. The injunctive lawsuit had a hearing about
a week ago. Another hearing is scheduled for September 21. I may
have to ask individual board members as we go forward with the
resolution and/or the litigation as it goes to the hearing, and we may
end up with an add-on agenda item for Royal Cove this next Tuesday.
This is just to alert you. Of course, the potential may not occur.
MR. DORRILL: I can tell you that in lieu of that that
we're prepared. Rather than us getting into the issues concerning the
taking or standing to enter on the property with a little package
plan, we are doing the evaluation to acquire a utility easement and
construct a wet well, because the gravity system is already there and
constructing a wet well in such a way that we can then force that back
up to a force main that is along U.S. 41. And at some time in the
future when directed or as necessary, we can then build a gravity
system for the balance of the subdivision. And your utility staff is
on top of that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have one final item that has
been kind of handled around this afternoon between Commissioner
Hancock and myself, in his capacity as the disaster committee chairman
with the Red Cross, and that is that it appears that the sheet flow
coming out of Hendry and Glades County has reached Immokalee, and
there has been substantial flooding. Some culverts have collapsed and
so forth. So we may need to do something in the next couple of hours
to get some shelters open or something. In one of the reports that we
had, more than 30 homes are affected on this.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What currently is being done '-
I've talked to Gary Arnold -- is he is working with the sheriff's
office to get him a preliminary damage assessment of whether or not
homes are physically being affected. We need the results of those,
and you can contact me here or at home this evening. And if we need
to activate the Red Cross disaster relief, then I will be happy to do
that. But, you know, if homes are not affected and the streets are
flooded, then people are usually better off where they are. They will
at least have services and so forth.
MR. DORRILL: I should mention, too, we opened a shelter
last week here to aid Lee County officials in support of the Bonita
Springs activity. We did that in conjunction with the Community
Congregational Church which is on the North Trail. And my
understanding is there is about 30 people there, and we coordinated
that for Lee County, but we're actually assisting in that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It may be as economical for us to
transport people into the Community Congregational Church shelter at
this point, but at least the local chapter of the Red Cross would have
to be notified and involved in that somehow.
MR. DORRILL: This -- for what it is worth, we are
monitoring a proposal. Apparently Sam Kuhl, who is the executive
director of the water management district, signed an emergency water--
authorizing an assessment or some construction to redivert water from
Lee County south along the east side of 1-75 and put that water into
the Cocohatchee canal which runs normally on the north side of
Immokalee Road. And I've asked our staff to do an assessment of that.
And I'm not saying that on a short basis we do anything necessary to
assist in the Bonita Springs situation, but for a longer term I think
we need to have something put that is more appropriately designed and
evaluated just given the whole drainage characteristics of that basin.
We'll keep you informed of that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, you just came in. Is
there a resolution of the Gibson/Hideaway Beach thing?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just as a follow-up. If we
do hear it next week, would anyone be against it being the last item
on the agenda so that no one else who has items on the agenda needs to
sit here for hours?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that's fine.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wonderful.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's fine.
MR. CUYLER: There was a meeting today, last-ditch
effort. There was not any final resolution. Everybody left with the
attitude of anybody has a proposal. We're still talking. But as of
today it's going to be heard next Tuesday. And we met for at least
three or four hours.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They need -- for me to
participate -- they need to say we have given up on settlement.
MR. CUYLER: They have said we have given up to the
extent everybody is rolling out and preparing for next Tuesday. But I
think they at least want to leave it so anyone who wanted to call the
other one and come off anything that people were not coming off of
today, that they have the ability to do that. If you want my
estimate, you're going to hear it next Tuesday.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what happens if we hear it
next Tuesday? Is there any way we can control one party using this to
their advantage? I mean, what do we do about this? That is exactly
what they're -- they're manipulating us. I don't have any ideas.
MR. CUYLER: You have a reasonable right to continue the
item. You can limit the time. You have the ability to do that.
Beyond that, there is a petition in front of you that needs to be
eventually heard.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does this require three or four
votes?
MR. CUYLER: Four.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Four votes. And is it reasonable
that we could request that they get some sort of mediation?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I '-
MR. CUYLER: You've also got a lawsuit against you.
You're really a defendant in this. So you're not just an outside
party that's trying to resolve it. You're also a defendant in the
lawsuit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My thoughts -- my question is, we
waited this long to amend this PUD. Is there any reason why we have
to amend this PUD next week, or can we do a little Mexican standoff
with these guys?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You gave away our strategy.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't -- I want to say it plain
out front. I don't want anything to do with this until they're done
with their lawsuit.
MR. CUYLER: You have got -- the individual that has
sued is Mr. Gibson. He is claiming damages, and part of his
allegations entail the ability -- he can't use his property at the
location where he currently has his slab, although the county's
position is he can certainly go back 50 feet and build his house. So
our position was, he may not clearly use his property in terms of --
or at least the alleged damages, not agree with us, that accrues, at
least from their perspective, their allegations. If there is any
downside, at least that allegation is out there.
If you're saying that you control your own item,
particularly since it is a staff initiated item that is in front of
the Board of County Commissioners, the answer is absolutely, yes. You
do not have to hear it next Tuesday if you don't wish to. I believe
it was continued four weeks. If you want, you can continue it more
than one week. You have to readvertise it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we -- assuming we hear it
at some point, how aggressive can we be in handling the attorneys and
witnesses? Obviously, they all have things they need to get on the
record. But that potentially -- it could be a midnight session if we
allow them to do whatever they want. Surely, there is something in
between.
MR. CUYLER: There is and, obviously, I imagine it's
just finding out what the in-between point is. You do not have to
have the length of period that we had at the appeal. And I've
indicated to the chairman they have a reasonable opportunity to get
their case on the record. They don't have a right to go all day.
Probably some of this I'll talk to you privately about if we are going
to hear it next Tuesday.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My point is that they don't have
a case to make. I mean, that's the whole problem with this. In the
way that this has been handled is the parties are treating this PUD
amendment like it has any relevance to their lawsuit, and it has none.
As far as I am concerned, they get five minutes like anybody else. If
they have no interests --
MR. CUYLER: There is probably some merit to that
argument. You will hear another side of that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
MR. CUYLER: They'll scream bloody murder if they don't.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I mean, do we want to adopt some
guidelines now, I mean, you know, initiate a five-minute maximum per
individual and three minutes on cross?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't I work with Mr. Cuyler
in the week to come, assuming that we're going to hear it Tuesday, and
establish what our guidelines are going to be so that he can explain
them to them, and then we'll reiterate them on Tuesday.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're being threatened with hours
of boring testimony.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Irrelevant testimony to our PUD.
I continue to say I'm not going to participate.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do we have an opportunity to have
them submit what would be redundant on a written form for the record,
because we've heard everything they are going to say? I mean, there's
not going to be anything new, I wouldn't think. If there is, that's
fine, and limit them to an arbitrary period, an hour for each side. Do
we have an opportunity to do that?
MR. CUYLER: I think you can do that. It would be an
arbitrary number. It would be the minimal amount of time that they
can get their evidence on the record. They will tell you there are
new things that they wish you to hear in the sense that we told them
last time -- the appeal, for example, the environmental information.
The environmental arguments are not really relevant to the 50-foot
setback, so they're taking the position that it is relevant to the
PUD. They want you to hear those types of things. Can you set a
reasonable period of time? Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, fine. If we know that, then
let's do that. And the other thing is, personally I would rather not
continue this thing, not even consider continuing it but, rather, say,
parties, we would like you to settle this before next Tuesday, because
if it comes Tuesday, we will settle it for you. That's the way I
would like to handle it.
MR. CUYLER: I think they understand that there will be
a decision, and everybody is trying to point out to everybody else
there will be a decision of some sort. We don't know what it is,
obviously, until you hear the evidence and staff's position and the
public. But there will be a decision on Tuesday.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we'll get sued by somebody.
MR. CUYLER: We have already been sued.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, why don't you and I
get together between now and next Tuesday, and we'll work out some
guidelines, and you can convey them to them, and that's what we will
make every effort to accomplish this next week.
MR. DORRILL: We do have a number of other public
hearings that you do need to hear, because this thing has been
continued repeatedly, that we've held other petitions off the agenda
thinking that we were going to set aside an entire afternoon. We need
to let some of those people go ahead.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We already said that we want to
make this one last so that all these people don't have to sit and
wait.
MR. DORRILL: And we'll just coordinate with your office
before you talk to Mr. Cuyler to give you some idea how many other
petitions we have and when they were previously advertised to help you
in the planning.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
MR. CUYLER: Again, I probably shouldn't say this. I
get myself in trouble. I suggest that if it is more convenient for
everyone, that we do have one more week to work with. I'll check with
the county manager and what the agenda looks like for Tuesday versus a
week from Tuesday. They don't know immediately what they are going to
do, but they they'll be extremely unhappy if we continue it a week.
That is something that is available to you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll take a look at the agenda,
and then Mr. Cuyler and I will get together. Are we finished? Ms.
Filson?
MS. FILSON: Nothing.
There being no further business for the good of the county, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 5 p.m.
***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris,
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the consent
agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 95-478, DESIGNATING THE COHMUNITY DEVELOPHENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR OR HIS DESIGNEE AS THE COUNTY'S
REPRESENTATIVE ON THE REGIONAL HARBOR BOARD (SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL
PLANNING COUNCIL)
See Pages
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 95-479, DEFERRING 100e OF THE IHPACT FEES FOR A 268 UNIT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT TO BE BUILT BY TURTLE CREEK, LTD., A FLORIDA
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FROM LIBRARY SYSTEMS,
PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, ROAD, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES,
WATER, SEWER AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES FOR TURTLE CREEK
APARTMENTS AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS
See Pages
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 95-480, AUTHORIZING A 100e WAIVER OF ROAD, LIBRARY SYSTEH,
PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES SYSTEM IMPACT FEES FOR A 2 BEDROOM
HOUSE TO BE BUILT BY GEORGE L. KING AT 11131 LAERTES LANE, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA
See Pages
Item #16A4
BUDGET AMENDHENT WITHIN THE COHMUNITY DEVELOPHENT FUND (113) TO COVER
UNEXPECTED SHORTFALLS - IN THE AMOUNT OF $143,100
Item #16A5
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING $38,799 FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVES TO THE
HOUSING AND URBAN IMPROVEMENT DEPARTHENT'S OPERATING BUDGET IN FY95
Item #16A6
AUTHORIZATION FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "OAK COLONY AT VINEYARDS"
- SUBJECT TO LETTER OF CREDIT AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT
See Pages
Item #16A7
AUTHORIZATION FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "HIGHLANDS HABITAT
SUBDIVISION" - SUBJECT TO LETTER OF CREDIT AND CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
See Pages
Item #16A8
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR BOUGAIN VILLAS, PHASE I AND V -
SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A9
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR ST. GEORGE ONE AT CROWN POINTE -
SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A10
AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO ADVERTISE A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER TWO
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 95-16, THE BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
Item #16B1 - Deleted
Item #1682
ACCEPTANCE OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT OBTAINED FOR THE NAPLES PARK DRAINAGE
PROJECT
See Pages
Item #1683
WORK ORDER FOR ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES BY TILDEN, LOBNITZ, &
COOPER, INC., FOR THE HIGHWAY LIGHTING DESIGN FOR AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD
(C.R. 31) BETWEEN PINE RIDGE ROAD (C.R. 896) AND VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD
(C.R. 862), CIE #55 - IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,760.00
See Pages
Item #1684 - Moved to Item #884
Item #1685
AGREEMENT FOR COLLIER COUNTY TO REIMBURSE THE PROPERTY APPRAISER AND
TAX COLLECTION FOR SERVICES RENDERED FOR THE NAPLES PARK AREA DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
See Pages
Item #1686
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR MARCO WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT TO MOVE FUNDS FROM
RESERVES TO THE OPERATING COST CENTER - IN THE AMOUNT OF $105,000
Item #1687
BIDS REJECTED TO CONSTRUCT DISINFECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS FOR HANATEE
AND GOODLAND WATER SYSTEMS, SOLICITED UNDER BID #95-2393
Item #1688
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT TO STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND
ENGINEER FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH AGNOLI, BARBER AND BRUNDAGE,
INC. FOR WORK ON THE NAPLES PARK DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
See Pages
Item #1689
AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO NEGOTIATE AN EMERGENCY PURCHASE OF A USED
4,000 GALLON WATER TRUCK FROM HARTIN EQUIPMENT, INC. OF BRANDON,
FLORIDA, FOR USE IN THE MARCO ISLAND BEAUTIFICATION DISTRICT (FUND 131)
SUBJECT TO SUBSEQUENT BOARD ACTION
Item #16B10
RESOLUTIONS 95-481 AND 95-482, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A HIGHWAY
SWEEPING AND HIGHWAY MOWING MAINTENANCE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH
THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
See Pages
Item #16C1 - Moved to Item #8C2
Item #16C2 - Moved to Item #8C1
Item #16C3
RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS RECOGNIZE PRIVATE
CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE GRAND OPENINGS OF THE IHMOKALEE
RECREATION/AQUATIC COMPLEX AND THE GOLDEN GATE COHMUNITY CENTER
Item #16C4 - Deleted
Item #16C5
BUDGET AMENDMENTS MOVING FUNDS FROM 001 RESERVES INTO FUND 129 AND
RECOGNIZING INTEREST INCOME
Item #16C6
BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROPRIATING $2,500 CONTRIBUTED FOR THE ACQUISITION
OF A SECOND DIVING BOARD STAND AT THE GOLDEN GATE AQUATIC FACILITY
Item #16D1
RECOHMENDATION TO EXECUTE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS THAT COMPLY WITH THE
STATE EHS OFFICE GRANT APPLICATION EXECUTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COHMISSIONERS ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1994
See Pages
Item #16D2
RECOHMENDATION TO AWARD FIFTEEN ANNUAL BIDS, NUMBERS 95-2400 THROUGH
95-2414 FOR FISCAL YEAR 95/96 - AS INDICATED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 95-489 AND 95-494
Item #16J1
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1992
REAL PROPERTY
No. Dated
201 08/15/95
1993
REAL PROPERTY
221 08/15/95
136/137
1994
TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
1994
REAL PROPERTY
175/176
Item #16J2
08/03 a 08/23/95
07/28 & 08/8/95
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 directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #16K1
AGREEMENT FOR ELECTION SERVICES FOR OCTOBER 24, 1995
See Pages
Item #16K2
BUDGET TRANSFER WITHIN THE SHERIFF'S GRANT FUND 115
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Shelly Semmler and Catherine Hoffman