BCC Minutes 11/07/1995 RREGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 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 9:06 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
CHAIRPERSON:
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
following members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
Bettye J. Hatthews
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
Timothy L. Hancock
W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3A
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'd like to call to order the county
commission meeting of November the 7th of 1995 if we could get our
county manager to lead us in an invocation and a pledge.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's assuming we can find our county
manager. There he is.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Pray, Neil, pray.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks this morning for so
many things. We give thanks for the -- your wonder and your glory,
especially your grace. Father, we pray especially this morning for our
friend and colleague John Lunsford, also for Tom Cook, a county staff
individual who undergoes surgery today.
Father, we give our prayers and our heart felt appreciation to the
nation of Israel this morning as they mourn their prime minister. Our
prayers for peace would continue to go to that part of the world. We
reach out to those people in their sorrow, and we lift them up.
Father, as always, we ask that you guide the direction
and deliberations of this county commission as they make the important
business decisions that affect our community and that you would bless
our time here together and that it would be a fruitful reflection of
your will for Collier County. And we pray these things in Jesus'
name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Dorrill. Changes
to the agenda, Ms. Hac'Kie, do you have any today?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have none. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: None, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, I have one change. I
would like to remove 16(C)(8) and put it to the regular agenda.
HR. DORRILL: 16(C)(8) will become 8(C)(3).
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That was 16(C)(8)?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 16(C) (8).
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And, Mr. Dorrill, you -- I know
you have a -- several changes yourself.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
commissioners. We have a number of changes this morning. I have
three add-on items. The first is under public -- or excuse me,
community development. It will be item 8(A) -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Four.
MR. DORRILL: -- four which is a routine water
facilities acceptance agreement for the Manors at Regal Lake, phase
1.
I have one add-on under the constitutional officers this
morning. It's item ll(C) at the request of the sheriff which is a
recommendation that the board authorize an agreement and transfer from
the confiscated trust fund for the sheriff's department to acquire a
twin-engine airplane.
(Chairperson Matthews and Commissioner Constantine
entered the proceedings.)
MR. DORRILL: That's 8(C). A final add-on item is item
5(A)(4) which will be under proclamations. It is a special
proclamation recognizing the humanitarian achievements and efforts of
Elizabeth Dole, wife of Senator Bob Dole. And it has been requested
that that be heard at 10 a.m. this morning in order to accommodate her
travel schedule.
I have two requests for continuances. The first is item
7(D) under public petitions, Robert L. Elwood of WCI Communities
requesting a two-week continuance until November the 21st as it
pertains to ball field lighting at the county veteran community park.
The other continuance is under public hearings today
also for two weeks until the 21st, item 12(C)(3), a public hearing to
consider the adoption of an ordinance to create the Isleworth
community development district.
I have one item that is being requested to be withdrawn
and will be rescheduled only if necessary. It's item 16(B)(6) on the
consent agenda under public works as it pertains to the funding and
construction of the Immokalee jail center waste water project.
I have one additional item that's on the consent agenda
that needs to be moved to the regular agenda for discussion. It's --
item 16(I)(2) is moving and will become 9(B) under the county
attorney's report. That was a recommendation to accept a partial
payment of a final judgment for the public defender against a case
involving two individuals, John Franklin and Louise Tiffy, to sell
certain real property.
I have one agenda note for our recorder this morning.
Item 16(A)(8) is on the consent agenda, can remain on the consent
agenda. The title should more appropriately read, a recommendation to
approve the final plat of Stella Maris, S-t-e-l-l-a M-a-r-i-s.
And, Madam Chairman, that's all that I have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Dotrill.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Chairman, everyone except you
and Commissioner Constantine have already made their -- their
individual changes to the agenda.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, okay. Fine. Thank you. I
don't have any additional changes. Do you?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one. You may remember
I mentioned a couple weeks ago Special Olympics would be inquiring
about the waiver of a sign permit and fee. And I realize we don't
actually do full waivers, but I'd like to add that item on under
whatever would be appropriate, discussion of signs for their event.
MR. DORRILL: 10(H).
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 10(H).
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Ten -- ten what -- what number?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: H.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that's Special Olympics.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, sign.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: 10(H).
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have also had a request that
following the proclamation at 10 a.m. that we take a -- a 15-minute
recess until 10:30 which -- which we will do.
There being no other changes to the agenda, could I have
a motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the agenda
as amended.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the agenda. Motion maker, does that include the consent
agenda?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It does.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Second?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion to include the
agenda -- to approve the agenda and consent agenda. All in favor
please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #4
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 3, 1995, OCTOBER 10, 1995 AND OCTOBER 17, 1995
REGULAR MEETINGS AND OCTOBER 18, 1995 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I have a motion --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I'll make a motion to approve
the minutes of the regular meetings on October 3, October 10, October
17, and the special meeting on October 18. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the minutes of four specific meetings. All in favor please
say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE HONTH OF NOVEHBER, 1995, AS ALZHEIHER'S
DISEASE MONTH - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda are proclamations and service
awards. The first proclamation, Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I
have the opportunity this morning to read the Alzheimer's disease
month proclamation. Is Mr. Charles Pollard, president, here? Mr.
Pollard, if I could ask you to come forward and take a position here
on my left and face the camera.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sometimes it's face the music.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good morning, sir.
MR. POLLARD: Good morning.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Whereas, the family unit is one
of the most precious resources of our society; and
Whereas, one in three families is affected by
Alzheimer's disease or another form of dementia for which there is no
known cure; and
Whereas, the Alzheimer's Support Network, the only
local, not-for-profit organization in our community that serves the
thousands of families dealing with Alzheimer's disease by providing a
variety of service at no charge, works to date -- works daily to raise
community awareness to reach those who need assistance; and
Whereas, the month of November 1995 is national
Alzheimer's disease month and the Alzheimer's support group will
launch an intensive awareness campaign during this month beginning
with Elephant Fest 1995 remembering those who forget.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of November
1995 be designated as Alzheimer's disease month.
Done and ordered this 7th day of November, 1995, Board
of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida.
Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we accept this
proclamation declaring November 1995 Alzheimer's disease month.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
accept the proclamation for Alzheimer's disease month. All in favor
please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
MR. POLLARD: Thank you very much. On behalf of the
Alzheimer's Support Network and the 5,000 families suffering from
Alzheimer's disease in Collier County, we thank you for this
proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Pollard.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 6-10, 1995 AS ZONTA
INTERNATIONAL WEEK - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is another proclamation. Is
Ellie Dagle here? If she and other members of Zonta International
would come forward, we have a proclamation regarding Zonta
International week.
A proclamation, whereas, Collier County has
approximately 100 women who are members of the Zonta clubs of Collier
County, Naples, and Bonita Springs; and
Whereas, these members are executives in business and
the professions conducting same in the proximity of Collier County;
and
Whereas, these members give many service hours and
dollars to the community in the name of Zonta International; and
Whereas, Zonta International is a worldwide service
organization for executives in business and the professions working
together to advance the status of women; and
Whereas, Zonta International is composed of 1,176 clubs
in 67 countries with more than 36,278 members; and
Whereas, Zonta International, organized in Buffalo, New
York, on November the 8th, 1919, is 76 years old on this November the
8th, 1995; and
Whereas, Zonta International by sponsorship of the first
international summit on violence against women in June 1995 attended
by 250 persons from the U.S. and 8 foreign countries and by its
inclusion both in the NGO and government portions of the recent fourth
world conference on women in Beijing, China, in August of 1995; and
Whereas, Zonta International and the aforementioned
local Zonta clubs work to improve the status of women through the
achievement of human rights for all, good health for all, and the
eradication of violence against women.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of November 6
through 10, 1995, be designated as Zonta International week.
Done and ordered this 7th day of November, 1995, Board
of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida.
My colleagues, I move that we accept this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
accept the proclamation. All in favor please say aye. Motion passes five to zero.
Thank you. If you have anything you want to say about
the things going on, feel free.
MS. DAGLE: The three Zonta clubs in our area are
constantly working in the local community to, again, help the status
of women in every way that we can. So we urge you to be alert to our
activities and, of course, our fund raising.
And the two events that she read in the proclamation
this year on an international level are something we're very proud of,
and that was the first international summit on the prevention of
violence against women which is an area we work on very closely here
with the shelter for abused women and our participation in the forum
in China.
So we hope that we can still impact in every way both on
the community level and the international level for the improvement of
the status of women. And we thank the county commissioners again for
recognizing our organization. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. And thank you for the
work that Zonta does achieve.
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 5-11, 1995, AS WOMEN
VETERANS RECOGNITION WEEK - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is another proclamation.
Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Chairman. This
proclamation is for the women's veterans recognition week. And we
have a number of women's veterans here with us today. If I could ask
them to come up and stand here in front, I'll read this proclamation
for them.
Thank you, ladies. If you would like, you can face the
camera out there, and everyone in TV land will be able to see you
while we're reading this proclamation.
The proclamation reads, whereas, 1.8 million women have
served in the United States Armed Forces, and women have served in all
of America's major conflicts beginning with the American Revolution;
and
Whereas, women were hired in medical service in the wars
of the 18th and 19th centuries and during the civil wars as foragers
for supplies, cooks, and seamstresses as well as saboteurs, scouts,
and couriers; and
Whereas, the Spanish-American War contributed to the
creation of the Army and Navy nurse corps in the first decade of the
20th century; and
Whereas, women were first recruited as members of the
armed services in World War I in which more than 35,000 served in
roles ranging from nurses to telephone operators and was the first war
in which American women served overseas with 3 receiving the
distinguished service cross; and
Whereas, World War II, in which more than 350,000 women
served, saw the first female officers and was also the first time a
large number of black women could serve in the American military; and
Whereas, the majority of women sent to Korea during the
war were nurses, and again throughout the Vietnam War, mainly nurses
were deployed; and
Whereas, the Vietnam Women's Memorial was dedicated on
November 11, 1993, honoring women's military service personnel of whom
14,571 live in Florida; and
Whereas, in Granada and Panama, the lines between combat
and non-combat duty became blurred as women led troops and faced enemy
fire. Operation Desert Storm became the key turning point, however,
when more than 41,000 women filled combat support positions, the
largest single deployment of military women in American history and
7.5 percent of the total force; and
Whereas, today more than 200,000 women are on active
duty comprising 11.6 percent of the total force and approximately
150,000 women in the reserves, 13 percent; and
Whereas, November 11 is designated by Congress as
Veteran's Day, a day we pause to reflect on the many men and women who
fought to protect and preserve the American way of life. And this
week the women's veterans deserve our deepest respect and thanks for
their many sacrifices.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of November 5
to the llth, 1995, be designated as women's veterans recognition week
in Collier County and urge all our residents to participate in special
services paying tribute to Collier County's women veterans.
Done and ordered this 7th day of November, 1995, by the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida.
And, Miss Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we
accept this proclamation on behalf of the women veterans.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
accept the proclamation. All in favor please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you very much. If you'd
like to say something, please go to the microphone.
MS. FLYNN: Hi. I'd like to say that we now have a
memorial for women veterans from the Revolutionary War to the present
and to the future. It was -- it was -- the ground breaking was on
June 22 and attended by many of us down here. Women in Military
Service for America will be dedicated sometime in 1997, and it's about
time. It really truly is. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWRDS - PRESENTED
Next item on the agenda is service awards. Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
We have a number of employees with us this morning who have been with
us for five years. And we have one employee who has been with us
celebrating his tenth anniversary. But we will go through them one at
a time.
First, celebrating five years from our department of
revenue, Teresa Riesen.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Teresa.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Also celebrating five years
from compliance services, Richard Roll.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Good work.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And from EHS Paul -- is it
Weber or Weber? Which -- which -- I get kind of touchy on my own.
MS. FLAGG: It's actually Paul Weber, and he wasn't able
to come.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. You'll make sure he
gets both of these? Thanks.
MS. FLAGG: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: From -- also from department
of revenue -- having a big day today -- Joan Young.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And five years with road and
bridge, Terry Buck.
MR. BUCK: Thank you. Appreciate it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And finally with us for ten
years -- one of my favorite guys actually -- Jorge or, as I prefer to
call him, George Aguilera. How are you doing?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sporting a new do just for
today?
MR. AGUILERA: There you go.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Comm --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Commissioner
Constantine.
Item #5C
PRSENTATION TO THE COUNTY COHMISSION CONCERNING THE STATE OF LIBRARY
SERVICE IN COLLIER COUNTY BY MRS. SYD HELLINGER, CHAIR OF THE LIBRARY
ADVISORY BOARD
Next item on the agenda is a presentation being made to
the county commission. Is Miss Syd Hellinger here with -- with a
report on the libraries?
MS. HELLINGER: For the record, my name is Syd
Hellinger. I represent district 1 and am chair of the Library
Advisory Board. Thank you for allowing me this privilege of speaking
to you this morning.
Before I begin, I would like to introduce the other
members of the Library Advisory Board: Representing district 2,
Jackie Dering; district 3, Sabina Husci; district 4, Barbara Bova, and
I don't think she's here; and district 5, Hurtell Stephan. Thank
you.
This is a thank-you visit. We are all very, very
pleased with the recent and continuing support not only of the BCC but
also the county manager. This support has allowed Collier County to
begin to approach its proper level of service to the public. Although
you have copies of comparative statistics in front of you which I just
put there, I would like you to -- to briefly review some of them here
so that the citizens of Collier County can also appreciate the impact
of your support.
I have to say that all these stats are from 1994, the
latest available information. What you're looking at also compares
Collier County to various other counties as well as the state. I
won't bore everybody with that. I'm only going to compare to the
state.
Circulation per capita, the state average was 5.02
items. Collier bested that at 6.25. Circulation per registered
borrower, the state average was 11.44. Collier was 12.75.
Circulation for the year, Collier's libraries circulated 1,046,157
items. There is no state average, but in 1995 we bested our 1994
record. One million three hundred and twenty-seven thousand two
hundred and sixty-seven items were borrowed. We are growing, and we
are growing very fast.
Circulation per employee, library staff circulated
20,521 items per employee while the state average was only 13,890.
And I would call your attention to the other county averages. It
tells you a great deal about the quality of our staff.
Books per capita -- and I know you've never heard this
from me before -- the state average was 2.7. Collier is getting
better, but it is still very, very low at 1.1. Employees per 10,000
residents, state average was 3.71. The county had three. Operating
expenditures per resident, again, a state average is not available,
but please compare the other counties, and you will see how good we
look at $13.82. Library visits per capita, the state average was
3.80. Collier County's average was 6.65. If I use a popular --
population base of 186,000 in '94, that means there were 1,236,900
visits to a library branch during that year.
Please do study those stats. They're important not only
for you to know about, but they're going to be important for us as we
head down the road budget-wise.
There is another way to look at those statistics, and
this you will find on page 2. They're called input and output
measures. Input data measures the actual support, financial or other,
that is received to operate the system. Output data measures the use
of that support. There are 21 counties in Florida with a population
base of 165,000 or more residents. In 1994 Collier County's library
ranked from 1st to 13th in output measures but only 17th to 21st in
input measures. That also tells a story.
Six months ago I promised that the LAB would have a
long-range plan in place within 18 months. We are on track. A draft
is in hand for technology. A building long-range plan draft should be
ready soon, and a collection development plan is awaiting completion
of a thorough examination and weeding of the existing collections.
By creating this long-range plan, we will be providing a
roadway for the future. It is important for Collier County to provide
a good public library with a solid collection of materials before it
tries to provide more specialized services. Your solid support, both
financially and as library users, continues to let us advance towards
that goal.
Technology is here to stay, and it is already saving our
taxpayers money. For example, very expensive services such as the
encyclopedia of associations and all national telephone books are now
available on line. That has allowed us to discontinue print
subscriptions.
Building more branches and/or regional libraries is
another ongoing concern. As you know, such building is a product of
population growth. At present we are expanding the Marco Island
branch. We are already studying library service needs elsewhere. We
believe that it is fiscally sound to build large enough libraries in
the proper locations and to do it only once.
Proper collection development is very near and very dear
to me personally. But a library can have the finest collection
available and be useless if it does not have a well-trained,
confident, and user-friendly staff to serve as the guides and helpers
for library users.
Our library staff has come a long way, and our libraries
are very friendly places. But the LAB shall continue to remind the
BCC and the county manager the professional salaries are still far too
low. A professional has a master's degree and here in Collier still
has a starting salary $4,000 less than a beginning teacher with only a
bachelor's degree. As a result, we lose excellent people. And this
has a decided impact on library service.
Consider this if you will an annual report. All the
members of the library board thank you for your patience, your
guidance, and your continuing support. And we are all proud to serve
as volunteers for the county.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. Good
report.
Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just a -- a quick note. I think
this report shows some obvious areas that are strict funding aspects
that the board needs to consider in the future. But the thing that I
-- I can't miss here is I think the residents of Collier County owe a
debt of gratitude to Mr. Jones, to the Library Advisory Board, and
particularly to the volunteers that provide the services you see in
the volumes that are produced, the volumes that are circulated. And I
for one just wanted to take the opportunity to thank the LAB for your
efforts and to recognize all the volunteers that work so hard at our
libraries. Without them, there's no way we can achieve what's in this
column. So I just wanted to say thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Mr. Hancock took my lines
there. I was going to say the same thing. I -- the -- the statistics
that we've been presented here today shows very graphically that --
that we have a highly efficient staff and that the Library Advisory
Board is helping guide our library system the direction it should go.
It looks at -- at first glance of these statistics you can just see
that we have a very effective library system, and it's also very cost
efficient. And you can see through these figures that our staff is
indeed very highly motivated and dedicated. And my thanks also go to
Mr. Jones and -- and to the Library Advisory Board.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Commissioner Norris.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just think we could just ditto
down the line. I see a lot of nodding going on up here. The Library
Advisory Board's been -- one of the most pleasant experiences that
I've had since being on the commission was seeing just how positive
these people can -- can -- can work and how -- what a positive effect
they can have on the work they could do, and I just wanted to thank
you for that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. I -- I just want to
comment on top of the other things that there's -- there's two numbers
on here that strike my attention, and that's circulation per capita of
6.25, library visits per capita of 6.25. No other library system on
this compared that well. And that tells me that our employees, though
we have the lowest employees per 10,000 residents, are helping our
visitors find what they're looking for. And I think that's -- that in
itself says we're doing a real good job.
So thank you very much, Library Advisory Board, Mr.
Jones. I don't know how we can tell you to keep getting better. But
if you can, do so. They're doing a great job now.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd be happy if you just stay the
way you are.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
Next item on the agenda, Mr. Dotrill, we have a -- a
item C under the clerk's report today. Is there any need to discuss
that, or do any members of this board have questions regarding the
interim financial information?
There being none, we'll pass over that then.
Item #7B
AL HCCALL REGARDING EXCAVATION OF A POND - STAFF DIRECTED TO PREPARE AS
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
Next item is 7(B), Hr. A1 HcCall with a public
petition.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. McCall is here. And if you would,
please, sir, come forward.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. McCall?
MR. DORRILL: I believe it's the gentleman in the white
shirt.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. McCall, as you probably received notice in the
paper, we limit public petitions to 10 minutes. The board makes no
decisions at a -- either side's fine. The board makes no decisions at
a public petition, but we may decide to ask -- to direct staff to
bring it back for a more formal presentation at some later date.
if you want to, tell us what it is that you're asking about regarding,
I believe, a pond.
MR. MCCALL: Yeah. I'm trying to excavate a pond, and I
went to the county. They turned me down on moving the dirt. And I
got to get it moved because I don't have room to put it on my
property. There's no expense in it to anybody because the people that
are doing it for me are not charging for it. They're just moving it
for me because I'm disabled and I don't -- can't get around anymore.
They wanted a road fee. We offered to put this up to
move it, but they will not even consider it. And I got the permit to
dig it with. But what I'm wanting to do is move the material out to
another guy. He's not paying for it. He's my brother. I'm just
giving it to him. I'm moving it about half a mile is what it consists
of, but they won't let us do this.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is it basically they're --
they're -- they're suggesting that you would need commercial
excavation permit? Is that --
MR. MCCALL: It's not a -- not a commercial. It's just
a private pond.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But by moving it off site, it
then -- by our definition it then -- MR. MCCALL: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- says this is a commercial
excavation. What you're saying is that you are telling us that you
are not going to sell the fill -- MR. MCCALL: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that it is only being moved a
half mile, I assume?
MR. MCCALL: Approximately a half mile.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Approximately a half mile. What
is the fill being used for where -- where it's going to be -- MR. MCCALL: It's filling in -- where my brother lives
is real low, and he's filling it in.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could -- could we hear --
MR. MCCALL: I've got mine all built up.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- from staff? Is that
appropriate?
MR. MCCALL: I got more material than what I need.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I understand -- I
understand staff's inability to -- because of the way we define
commercial excavation to approve this, so I'd like to hear from staff
on what they feel would be a proper amount of flexibility on this.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Mr. Arnold, can you give us some --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Stand by if you would, sir.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. McCall?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. McCall?
MR. MCCALL: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If you want to hold, we're --
we're going to be asking Mr. Arnold a few questions, and then we may
get back to you if you -- if you care to stand by or to have a seat in
that first -- first chair there, whichever's more comfortable for you.
MR. MCCALL: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Arnold, can you tell us what
the problem is?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I haven't personally been involved
with this gentleman's issue, but essentially as was your discussion a
few moments ago, that the issue is a private excavation versus
commercial excavation. Under our ordinance, any off-site removal
becomes a commercial excavation. We look at it for road impact fees
and right-of-way permits and things of that nature.
I understand this is a very short distance. I'm not
sure there's an exception under the commercial excavation ordinance to
waive any fee if that's the case.
The other issue that we have is if the property in
question is also zoned estates, does that gentleman have a permit to
build or construct on that lot before you place the fill there? The
ordinance that was just passed last week by the commission regarding
clearing and filling does not apply to Golden Gate Estates. It
applies to residentially zoned properties only, and Golden Gate
Estates is not residentially zoned. So that is the other side of that
particular issue.
I'll be happy to work with him any way we can. Maybe
Mr. Archibald and I can determine a way to -- to limit whatever fees
there might be under the commercial excavation permit. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: But it's my understanding he was issued a
private excavation permit for the spreading of fill on his site.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How big an excavation are we
talking about? How many cubic yards of material are we removing?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't even have that information with me
at this time. I apologize.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The reason -- the reason I
ask is you're correct in that if where the fill is going is not a
proper use for -- you know, in other words, you can't fill a
residential lot in the estates unless you have a building permit.
to put it on the property, we'd be solving one problem and creating
another. So unless that can be solved, you know, where the fill ends
up right now is not an appropriate solution either.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't this maybe a glitch? I
mean, I understand the issue -- I don't frankly understand why it's so
important that -- that our ordinance couldn't permit fill to be put on
an -- an estates lot. But if that's what the law is, I'm sure you can
tell me what the basis of it is. Isn't this just a glitch that we
could redefine commercial excavation to exclude something that's a
minor amount of fill going a short distance? Is there something we
can do, or am I opening up a can of worms, and you think that's a bad
idea?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
MR. ARNOLD: I think under the current ordinance there's
not necessarily that latitude, but I certainly think there are ways we
can work with the gentleman to limit any of those fees. But again, my
concern with spreading fill on the estates lot without knowing that it
was for a driveway or -- or a right-of-way improvement or something
that we would have to go out and then issue that approval.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In this case the use of the fill
may be harmless. But in another case, someone may be trading it for
services or, you know, even though they're not selling it so --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- yeah, it is -- we do have to
be careful with that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This -- this would have to come
back before the board for a final approval, I would assume, if we're
going to --
MR. ARNOLD: On a commercial excavation it would come
back on a consent agenda.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. If you can work it out then
with the gentleman, we'd appreciate that, and we'll be looking forward
to seeing it at some point.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. And now, Mr. Arnold, you
have -- have your direction to work it out with him and bring it back
on a consent agenda and see what we can do with it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Limiting fees to what is
appropriate for the given situation.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: We'll -- we'll endeavor to do that within
30 days, 4 weeks from today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Dorrill.
Item #7C
GARLAND EDHONSON REGARDING NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR THE NAPLES
MINI-MALL BUILDING - GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY - STAFF DIRECTED TO PREPARE AS
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT TO LEGAL REVIEW
Next item is Mr. Garland Edmonson regarding the Naples
Mini-Mall building.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Edmonson is here, and you have a
number of other speakers on this as -- as well. But, Mr. Edmonson, if
you would please, sir, come forward.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, while they're coming
forward can I ask you a question, please? MR. WEIGEL: Certainly.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When I was in pri -- in my
private practice with my former law firm, we represented the owner of
this property. And I have quite a bit of knowledge about the property
as a result of a great deal of research that I did over several
years. Nevertheless, I don't represent them presently. I have no
financial interest whatsoever. Do I have a conflict?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you're in good shape particularly
today since it's a public petition. You're not taking any formal
action. I would expect that you do not have a conflict. And by
virtue of the fact you have information, it may be of some assistance
to the board. You'll want to obviously maintain your client
confidentiality that you had before. You should be okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just wanted to ask that on the
record. Thanks.
MR. DORRILL: Good morning. Go ahead.
MR. EDHONSON: Good morning. Thank you. I'm Garland
Edmonson. I certainly appreciate this opportunity this morning to
come before the commissioners to address a concern that I sort of
accidentally fell in about a year ago. And for some reason I've
become the advocate for a group of young people here in the community
who skateboard.
And within the last year since I've been involved with
these group of kids, they have been like nomads being bounced around
from place to place and saying, you're not good enough. You don't
belong here, et cetera, et cetera.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is what it's all about. I
have about 167 kids, and I'm sure that if given an opportunity to
develop the organization, it would jump up to 600 plus kids because
they're coming to me every day calling my home and saying, Coach, when
can we skate? Where can we skate? Please do something. Help us
out. This is as important to them as a baseball bat is to the best
baseball player here in the county, as a football is to the best
football player here in the county, as a trumpet is to the best
trumpet player here in the county. It's important to these young
people. And within the last year since my involvement with them, they
have been kicked around and discriminated against because they're
different.
We have had the opportunity to skate in a location on
Golden Gate Parkway called the old mini mall. The last time we were
there, the county -- the Collier County sheriff department and highway
patrol descended upon us like S.W.A.T. teams and kicked us out of
there, even though the owner of the property said, Mr. Edmonson, you
can use this property as long as you keep it clean and police the area
and so forth. And we've -- we've done that.
Of course, politics as they are, there are just certain
things that that building doesn't satisfy as far as county coding.
this is why I'm here this morning. I have with me this morning a
couple representative of the skateboard club. I have Adam Mount who
is a junior at Barton Collier High School, Adam. And I also have Ben
Johnson who is a former student here in our system who is now in
college. As you know, like I said, I have over 167 kids in this club
from 7 years old on up to college age, and they certainly need a --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Edmonson, if I could
interrupt you --
MR. EDHONSON: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- I think all -- all of us on
this board understand the difficulties children have of finding places
where they can legally skateboard without shopping center owners
throwing them out and all these other problems that continually arise
for the skateboarders as well as the inline skaters. But my question
is this: Your petition is for ten minutes. It's generally for only
you yourself, and I understand we have several speakers. What is it
you're asking us to do?
MR. EDHONSON: As notated in the petition, it's a
non-conforming use permit for the building at 6800 Golden Gate
Parkway.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. EDHONSON: And this is what we're seeking so that we
are able to occupy the building and use it two to three times a week
two to three hours at each visit in order to skate. The building has
over 28,000 square foot of space that's unencumbered, concrete
floors. And it's ideal for the purpose stated.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I'm seeing several
questions from different commissioners. Commissioner Constantine,
then Commissioner Norris, and Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What we traditionally do with
these items is either squelch them or put them on a regular agenda.
And I'd like to see us put the request on a regular agenda. I've
watched Garland with some of these youngsters, and -- and it's really
great. You see this many kids and any -- every generation of kids has
the look that often to adults looks ragged or looks inappropriate.
But I've seen him out there with 50 and 60 kids at a time. And -- and
I know he's had more than that. But that's as many as I've see at a
time, and they're well behaved. They're just -- they're just having a
good time. There's nothing in the way of trouble, and it's given
these kids something to do, a productive role model, a good role
model. And -- so if we can help facilitate this, I think we certainly
should. I know there have been concerns at a couple locations you've
been at. And if there's a owner of some property who is ready and
willing to -- to make that happen, I think we should play our part in
trying to help out as well.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I -- I certainly agree. And
-- and of the board members I think I'm probably the most familiar
with this issue. My son got into this same predicament about --
probably going back about ten years ago when he was skating, and --
and the situation hadn't changed much since then. There just isn't a
good place to go because, of course, shopping centers are private
property. And you can't expect those private property owners to allow
large groups of skateboarders and welcome them when they interfere
with their customers, and it's been a problem all along.
But I've got a question for Mr. Olliff. We had spoken
on a -- in a couple of different contexts of doing something for
skateboarders in our park system. Lake Avalon, for example, we were
considering building something or providing something that would be a
skateboard facility. Are -- are we moving forward with any of those
discussions?
MR. OLLIFF: Actually the county commission in this
year's budget approved $300,000 for the construction of a skateboard
park and -- and similar to the one I believe in Lehigh. We've gone to
visit and looked at that one, and I think we resolved certain of the
liability issues that our own risk management department had, and
we're moving forward to do that. Frankly, construction completion's
probably more than a year away at this point because we still have to
do design work and actual construction. But yes, we're moving forward
on that park.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, when -- when this item comes
back before us as a regular agenda item, could you update us then
officially on -- on what we intend to do because I think Mr. Edmonson
would have a great interest in knowing what the county intends to do
directly.
MR. OLLIFF: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment. Commissioner
Hancock's next.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My first skateboard was wooden,
eight inches wide with metal wheels, so things have changed. I --
first of all, I'm fully supportive of -- of -- you're talking about
using the inside of the building?
MR. EDMONSON: Yes, sir, I am.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's great. The second
thing I think we have to consider is the waiver for the $450 fee is
being requested. So we need to make clear direction to staff on how
we want to approach that waiver. I for one see this as something that
is benefiting to the community as a whole. And I would be in favor of
looking for the possibility of waiving that $450 fee or reducing it,
whichever we are able to do. And that's a question for Mr. Weigel or
for staff. So I'm supportive of the application, and I hope we can at
least create a space until our park is completed.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. McNees, how quickly can
we bring this back?
MR. MULHERE: May I speak to that issue? Bob Mulhere
with current planning. There is a process for a non-conforming --
very briefly, there's a lot of history on this property. It has not
been used for a number of years.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. MULHERE: And -- and it is zoned estates; therefore,
a non-conforming use change is required. There is a process. It
doesn't go to the planning commission. It goes directly to the
board. So I believe we can get it back to you let's say before the
1st of the year for sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Mulhere, let me interrupt
just for a real dumb question. This is a piece of private property,
and is he charging you to use this?
MR. EDMONSON: No, ma'am, he's not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, is there a commercial
operation? Why can't -- if I own a warehouse, I can let somebody come
in and skate in it if I feel like it. They gotta get a permit from
the county for that? It doesn't make sense to me.
MR. MULHERE: For land use I believe that they do.
There are a couple of other issues too. The -- the other issue is
that the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the big deal?
MR. MULHERE: -- East Naples Fire Department -- I just
to want get these on the record. The East Naples Fire Department has
been out to the site. They have concerns with the safety of the
building. I think we would want to see some sort of a letter from the
building department as well as East Naples Fire Department indicating
that the structure is safe for these children to use.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But what's wrong is the county is
injecting itself in a process that it seems to me it's unnecessary.
If the owner of this property gives them permission to use it and they
get injured on the property, then that's between them and the owner.
As we get ourselves as a county involved in -- in the process of
approving whether or not it's an appropriate use and whether or not
it's safe for use, all of a sudden we're in the liability stream too
for who's liable. I -- I don't understand why if somebody has a big
empty building, they want to let some kids skate in it, it requires a
permit from the county. I think that's absurd.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, is there --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's a land use question.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's land use.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm a land use lawyer, and I
think it's absurd.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hulhere, your -- your --
your point was just --
MR. HULHERE: We can carry them through the process.
And as I say, it doesn't have to go to the planning commission. It is
advertised. The property owners in the surrounding area are required
to be notified. Three weeks, four weeks.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't like the -- the
process any more than you do. But if -- if we need to do something to
keep it legal, I just wanted to know what the time frame was. And if
it's three weeks and then we can actually have it done and proper --
MR. HULHERE: From submission of the application.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other comments?
Mr. Garland, I think we've just given staff direction to
bring this back to us as a formal agenda item. MR. EDHONSON: Okay. I appreciate it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And I guess we're looking at
three weeks, four weeks?
MR. HULHERE: Well, the only other item is that there's
a $450 fee. And to my knowledge the board -- and since that would
have to come out of ad valorem taxes, the board in the past has not
generally waived those fees. I -- I would only need some direction
regarding --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's where I go back to
Commissioner Mac'Kie's question. We can avoid a fee if we can avoid
the process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- and I need for the county
attorney to tell us that we have to be involved in this process, we're
legally required to make them go through a conditional use. I mean --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Non-conforming.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, a non-conforming use
or whatever it is. Why -- why is the county involved in this
process?
MR. CAUTERO: Madam Chairman, if I may --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cautero?
MR. CAUTERO: -- Vince Cautero, director --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to want a legal
opinion, though, whether Mr. Cautero talks now or not.
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. CAUTERO: Community development and environmental
services division administrator. As the commission may -- may know,
this issue came up several years ago, and I've read a lot of
documentation on it and reviewed the tape from a few years ago as to
when Commissioner Hac'Kie appeared before the former board to present
her client's case as to whether uses could be allowed on this property
without permits.
Without going into a protracted discussion as to why the
Land Development Code is written the way it is, the staff made an
opinion that all uses would have to go through a valid, non-conforming
use permit process for --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because of the unique character
and history of that parcel?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Even if nobody's --
MR. CAUTERO: Because of the lapse in --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
Wait a minute. One at a time. One at a time, please. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
MR. CAUTERO: Because of the lapse in time, so you're
really dealing with a non-conforming issue and a vested rights issue.
I've talked to the legal staff about this and met with
Harjorie Student who has issued an opinion to me. And it is
subsequently going to be submitted in writing that in accordance with
the Land Development Code, any future uses on this site must go
through this process because of the lapse in time and the fact that it
is a non-conforming use because it is not zoned for the use intended.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it because it's a
non-conforming structure because if it's a non-conforming use, that
doesn't make sense because it's not a commercial activity? If it's a
non-conforming structure, maybe that makes some sense.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was my same argument is that
we're not talking about a commercial business. We're talking about in
essence -- in a residential district you can't have a skateboard
facility. But if I have a concrete slab and 20 kids come over and
skate in my driveway, I'm looking for the --
MR. CAUTERO: Well, forget about the skateboarding for
the moment and whether they're skateboarding inside and outside. You
have a commercial building in an area that's zoned estates; correct?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
MR. CAUTERO: Okay. You have a non-conforming
building. The uses that could go in that building in accordance with
our Land Development Code must go through this process. And there's a
process that we would then -- we would review the application and
bring it forward to you as Mr. Hulhere has indicated. It does not
need a planning commission recommendation but only action by the Board
of County Commissioners.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think I can try to move
this along. It's going to take three or four weeks once the
application is made to bring this back anyway.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Harjorie Student.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Harjorie, you don't mind if I
finish my comments, do you? MS. STUDENT: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- in the ensuing week,
perhaps on next week's agenda as a regular item, we can decide whether
or not we want to waive or put money over in the -- from the general
fund reserves, the $450 to take care of the item. I don't think we
can change policy today. But we can deal with this specific issue as
long as we have it on another agenda. And then perhaps we need to
look long term at the policy because there are obviously some areas
that each of us are concerned with. But that would address this
specific issue. And then let's -- we can move on with a general
policy thing in the coming weeks.
MS. STUDENT: I just wanted to state for the record that
the memo that I had discussed with Mr. Cautero involves a more general
question. It doesn't involve the specific issue of skateboarders
using the facility. That's something that until the agenda came out
we were not aware of. So I would want to look at that more closely
with staff and see what we would come up with. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's make that a part of the
direction, that the county attorney's office review this matter to
find out if this use needs this process. And if it doesn't, then --
then off we go.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Off we go. We don't have a
problem then.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hulhere, you'll get with
Mr. Edmonson?
MR. HULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. That's the direction. And
we will be talking about it next week regarding the $450 if our
attorney's office says that we need to proceed. And other than that,
it will be three or four weeks from now for -- for the official
discussion. And people who had registered to come and on it, I invite
them to come back at that time. MR. EDHONSON: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. EDHONSON: Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Edmonson.
Next item on the agenda, if I can find it, it's ten --
ten o'clock. Does our --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Shortly.
Item #SA1
CARNIVAL PERMIT 95-4 RE PETITION C-95-3, OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE CATHOLIC
CHURCH, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL FROM NOVEMBE 22
THROUGH NOVEMBER 26, 1995, ON THEIR CHURCH GROUNDS LOCATED AT 219 SOUTH
9TH STREET IN IHMOKALEE - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a couple of real
quick ones. Let's see if we can move forward with them. Item
8(A)(1), petition C-95-3 from Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church
for a carnival.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, motion to
approve the item.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Second.
Second.
We have a motion and a second --
Third.
-- to approve petition C-95-3.
All in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes.
Item #8A2
CARNIVAL PERMIT 95-5 RE PETITION C-95-5, COLLIER COUNTY AGRICULTURAL
FAIR 7 EXPOSITION, INC., REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL FROM
JANUARY 12 THROUGH JANUARY 20, 1996, ON THE EAST SIDE OF C.R. 846 IN
SEC. 14, T485, R27E - APPROVED
Petition C-95-5, Collier County Agricultural Fair and
Exposition, a permit to conduct a carnival.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve petition C-95-5. All in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This one's a little long.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This one's gonna be a little
long.
Item #8A4
WATER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR MANORS AT REGAL LAKE, PHASE I -
APPROVED
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 8 (A)(4).
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: C(1).
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 8(A)(4), the water facilities
acceptance.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. So we'll move forward to
8(A)(4), Regal Lake, phase 1.
MR. DORRILL: Routine --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Water facilities.
MR. DORRILL: Routine item. All of the necessary
documents have been --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval.
MR. DORRILL: -- received and approved by the attorney's
office.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the item. All in favor please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Next item is also lengthy.
Item #8C1
BID 395-2436 FOR THE TONY ROSBOUGH COHMUNITY PARK - AWARDED TO 3-R'S
EQUIPMENT D/B/A RICHARDS COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $480,450
HR. DORRILL: 8 -- 8(C)(1) would be my next suggestion
if you want to keep --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 8(C)(1), a recommendation that
the Board of County Commissioners award bid 95-2436 on the Tony
Rosbough Community Park. Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: You've gone so fast, I can't turn pages
that fast.
Good morning. For the record, Tom Olliff, public
services administrator. This is --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tom, dumb question, but where is
this park because I don't know it by its name and it's not in there?
MR. OLLIFF: The park is in Immokalee. It is off of
Lake Trafford Road adjacent to the cemetery in Immokalee.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who is Tony Ros -- well,
nevermind. I'll find out later.
MR. OLLIFF: This is an item that was previously done as
phase 1 construction project. We tried to combine the two phases.
The only issue here is, frankly, that though the project was
underbudgeted, it was underbudgeted last year for phase 1. When we
bid phase 1, it came in $100,000 over the budget that we had
established for it.
We came back to the board and suggested that if we
combine phase 1 and phase 2 in this fiscal year that perhaps we could
realize some economies of scale construction-wise, but actually the
bids came in exactly the same as they did in phase 1, $100,000 over.
Frankly, we just learned that construction in Immokalee for structures
comes in higher than we anticipated.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, it does.
MR. OLLIFF: And we did not budget sufficient funds to
be able to do this. There are funds available for the project in an
athletic fields budget specifically for the construction of athletic
fields.
The particular project still if constructed would save
the county significant amounts of money over having gone out and
purchased property and built these facilities from scratch because
these were, as you will recall, donated properties from the little
league there. And there are some existing facilities that were
donated as well. So it's more of a refurbishment than it is a new
construction project. Our recommendation is for approval of this
construction contract for two ball fields and the concession
building.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions?
Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What are alternates 1, 8, and 10
that you're recommending?
MR. OLLIFF: Those all relate to the construction of the
concession building itself. We actually bid those as alternates only
so that we could have the option of looking at them as separate
items.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And that changes who the low
bidder is when you add those three alternates in? MR. OLLIFF: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The -- the company on the lowest
bidder, is it 3 R's Equipment Inc.? Where are they out of?
MR. OLLIFF: Tom Conrecode says they are a local firm.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Just after all the school
construction, an important question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Okay.
Other questions?
I move approval.
Second.
We have a motion and a second to
approve awarding bid 95-2436. Any other discussion?
All in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #8C2
PARKS & RECREATION AUTHORIZED TO PURCHASE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
UTILIZING THE VOLUSIA COUNTY ANNUAL BID - APPROVED
Next item on the agenda is 8(C)(2), a recommendation the
Board of County Commissioners authorize parks and rec. department
purchases using Volusia annual bid.
MR. BRINKMAN: Yes. This is a -- to allow us to
purchase three pieces of playground equipment, one that will be
installed in Veteran's Park, one that will be installed in East Naples
Park, and one in Frank Mackle Park. They're old existing wooden
structures that are in much need of repair and to some degree unsafe.
So at least this will allow us to get those in and hopefully by later
in the spring have all those installed and available to the public
before the summer camp programs and things get started. This will
allow us to use the Volusia County bid so that we don't have to go out
and do that, and it will save us a little bit of time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is just what we already
discussed and approved in the budget process.
MR. BRINKMAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So unless there are objections,
I'd like to move approval.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
move approval --
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- of the use of the Volusia
County annual bid for parks and recreation purchases. Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. I would like the record to
reflect that beyond the use -- approval and use of the Volusia County
bid that the board's approval also denotes the purchasing policy for
those additional items that are outside of what Volusia County has
available for the county to use. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the motion include that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Second?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Second includes it also?
All those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
MR. BRINKMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If it please the board, while
we're waiting for a 10 a.m. proclamation, we move forward to the Board
of County Commissioners' items which we can move through fair --
fairly quickly.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 95-620 APPOINTING C.A. DAURAY PENDING LEGAL REVIEW TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
Item 10(A) is an appointment of members to the Collier
County Housing Finance Authority. We have one -- one member and a
single recommendation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve Charles
Dauray.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve Charles Dauray to the Collier County Housing Finance
Authority. All in favor please --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question. If he should be
elected to the city council, how would that impact his position on the
housing finance authority?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, is this one that
requires him to -- he -- he is an announced candidate. Does this
require him to withdraw?
MR. WEIGEL: I think it will. I'll need to review that
to be sure. Obviously there's timing as well as a requirement. And I
don't think he's into the timing conflict yet. But I'll get back to
you in regard to if he would have to --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I think the appointment
should stand. I just wanted to raise the question.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fair question.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. FILSON: This isn't one of the advisory boards under
8641. It's under Florida Statutes. Don Pickworth was going to be
here to present it, and I don't think he falls under that category.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Let's just -- we'll answer
the question. If there's a problem, we'll expect to see the item
back.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend the motion to
reflect that we'll appoint him pending Mr. Weigel's legal approval.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
appoint Charles Dauray pending legal approval or legal review. All
those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 95-621 APPOINTING J.R. HUHPREY & B.A. HINCH TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is 10(B), appointment of members
to the Collier County Industrial Development Authority.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, two members,
there or two recommendations, J. R. Humphrey and Barbara A. Hinch.
I'll make a motion we approve those individuals. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the recommended members to the Collier County Industrial
Development Authority. All in favor please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 95-622 APPOINTING B. BACON, SR., AND C. NEWMAN TO THE GOLDEN
GATE PARKWAY BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is 10(C), appointment of members
to the Golden Gate Parkway Beautification Advisory Committee.
Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'd suggest
we follow the recommendation of Bonnet G. Bacon Senior and Cheryle L.
Newman.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
appoint two members to the Golden Gate Parkway Beautification Advisory
Committee. All in favor please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 95-623 APPOINTING S. ORTEGA, K.J. OTTO, J.E. STOCKTON, &
B.L. NEAL TO THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED.
COHMITTEE TO DETERMINE TERMS
Item 10(D), appointment of members to the county
government productivity committee.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I'd like to make
the -- or appoint the recommendations of the committee of John
Stockton and Bill L. Neal.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a -- we have a motion and
a second to appoint John E. Stockton and Bill L. Neal. That's only
two members. There are three.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They were unable to contact the
other two individuals. So if they would like to reapply for a
vacancy, I think that would be appropriate. But the committee not
even being able to contact them or talk to them, they're unable to
make a recommendation. I'd rather have their input before moving
ahead on either person.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So in -- in -- could I ask you
then in -- to include in your motion direction to staff to readvertise
the remaining position?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So included.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Can I ask you to
-- Chris was talking to me. Can I ask what the motion was?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The motion was to -- to approve
the recommendation of John Stockton and Bill L. Neal and to
readvertise for the remaining vacancy. The two other applicants, they
were not able to contact them or discuss anything with them. So they
were unable to make a recommendation on the two remaining applicants.
Again, just trying to defer to the committee's ability to make
recommendations to the board, I'd like at least for them to have the
opportunity to determine which of the -- of the two applicants would
be best suited for the -- the committee.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Don't we have -- we have
three members to serve the remainder of a vacant term for -- expiring
in '96. And we have one member -- remainder of a vacant term, '97.
So that would be a total of four positions, and there's four people.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, it is three members plus one
member. I'm sorry. I missed that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then I might suggest that
we allow the productivity committee to determine who serves which of
those terms if that works for you. I know in the past we've had a
little bit of difficulty with a couple of committees in particular,
didn't we, Miss Filson, where it would drag literally for months
before we'd get a recommendation so --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me -- let me clarify what's
on the -- what's on the table. We have a motion on the table and a
second to appoint John E. Stockton and Bill L. Neal to two of the
positions --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I agree --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and a recommendation to
readvertise.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with Commissioner
Constantine's point. I'm going to withdraw my motion. We have four
applicants and four vacancies, and I think it's only fair to the
applicants to appoint all four. So if the second will -- will so
withdraw, I would like to make a recommendation we appoint all four,
Hiss Ortega, Mr. Otto, Mr. Stockton, and Mr. Neal, to the productivity
committee meeting.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that they determine amongst
themselves who serves which term?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, as has been done in the
past.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll -- I'll second that
motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
appoint all four applicants to the productivity committee and that
they determine amongst themselves who will serve which term. Is there
further discussion?
All in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Not here yet?
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 95-624 APPOINTING D. GONZALES TO THE CONTRACTORS' LICENSING
BOARD - ADOPTED
The next item is item 10(E), appointment of a member to
the contractor's licensing board.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Madam Chairman, I see that Mr.
Dickson who's -- who has served in the past, and I happen to know Mr.
Gonzalez and -- and would welcome his involvement in community service
and would like to nominate him for the vacant position on the
contractor's licensing board.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The only discussion I have on
that was that they -- there was a request for a roofing contractor.
And I don't know Mr. Dickson or Mr. Gonzalez.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't know either one of them.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually there was just a
notation that there's not presently a roofing contractor which I -- I
read as different from a request.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's not a requirement for
there to be one either.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Huh-uh, no.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
appoint Les -- I'm sorry, Daniel Gonzalez to the license --
contractor's licensing board. Is there further discussion?
All in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
The next item is a consideration of lease property for a
department of juvenile justice construction and operation. I'm not
sure we can move through this in a minute or two.
Item #10H
DISCUSSION REGARDING SIGNS FOR SPECIAL OLYMPICS - FEE TO BE PAID OUT OF
GENERAL FUND FOR THREE SIGNS
MR. DORRILL: I'd suggest 10(H).
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's move forward then. Have a
seat. Have a seat. Okay. Discussion regarding -- we're not going to
move through that very fast either.
Commissioner Constantine, Special Olympics.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hello.
MR. DORRILL: He discussed this with me yesterday. They
-- they're willing to abide by the ordinance for temporary signs.
He's asking that the board allow not a waiver but that the -- the fee
would be processed by general revenues. I need your authorization to
do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How unusual is that? I mean,
there are a lot of worthy events that go on every day.
MR. DORRILL: In -- in the event that there's signs --
this became an issue a week or two ago when the county was blanketed
with what were from our perspective improper signs for the Swamp Buggy
Races.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, I saw those.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In medians.
MR. DORRILL: Any sign within the right-of-way can only
be temporary and directional, you know, black arrows pointing to the
fairgrounds or the swamp buggy grounds in or around the day of event.
If they're those types of signs, then they will be allowed in the
right-of-way. If not, they'll have to have a permit. There's a
nominal fee for signs that must be located on private property,
similar to political signs.
It's my understanding that these signs that they want to
have announcing Special Olympics are four-by-four-foot plywood signs
that would be announcing the upcoming event. Those events are usually
held at Naples High School. And they may or may not have directional
capabilities with them.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I certainly want to support
Special Olympics --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do too.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- but not --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How much money are we --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to the favor -- not to the
disfavor of another.
MR. DORRILL: I don't know what a temporary sign permit
costs, so I'm looking at the staff, Mr. Cautero, Mr. Arnold. Here
comes our answer man.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Mulhere, somebody tell us.
MR. DORRILL: Temporary sign permit something of this
type?
MR. HULHERE: They're required to get one permit. The
fee's $75.
MR. DORRILL: And they're asking that the fee be
waived. There's no waiver mechanism, but we would process --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm -- I'm interested in doing
that, but I'm interested in doing that for all 501-C-3 or some other
criteria. So certainly I'd support doing it in this case, but I'd ask
staff to --
MR. DORRILL: Otherwise there are some -- this week I've
noticed there are improper craft show signs all in the right-of-way.
And I've directed the staff to pull those out of the right-of-way when
we see improper or illegal signs of that type. We get very few
requests of this nature, but I would bring them to you individually
and have you authorize the fees to be paid by general revenues.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just about every event that
happens in this community is not for profit. So in essence we would
be putting ourselves in a position of setting a precedent to pay the
sign fee for just about every event. So I would rather have the input
from Commissioner Constantine before making this decision since he
brought this agenda item forward.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Special Olympic sign.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I'm concerned about the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm just saying why is it
different from every other one.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. We have a -- they're
putting an event on in Cambier Park on -- later in November, November
26. And they just want to get a couple of signs up around the
county. What makes this a little unique is they have been pressed for
funds as of late. You remember a couple of weeks ago we had the
discussion on TECH and transportation and all the confusion there?
So they have been spending a lot of their money that
they would normally have for regular activities just trying to
transport some of the athletes to their regular weekend activities and
what have you. And, frankly, they're just shy on funds right now, and
it's partially because of all our conf -- not the county's but our
contract with TECH and the confusion on transportation. They've had
to expend a lot of money that they wouldn't have otherwise. So I'm
not sure what the fee would be. I think they're looking at --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: $75. We just heard.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- total of four, and one of
those is actually in the city so a total of three signs would affect
us.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're just looking for something
to narrow the application so it doesn't mean that everyone -- every
not for profit that comes in for a sign permit comes to the board and
requests using this as a precedent for tax dollars to be used.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was looking for just the
opposite actually that anybody who's worthy, if we make the exception
in this case, that others are encouraged to apply.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those are -- those are tax
dollars that you're using then to pay for the permit. We can't just
waive them. They have to be paid.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know. So why do it for this
particular one unless we're doing it for all?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that's Tim's
question.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I'm not ready to do it for
all.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, perhaps we -- we can
in -- in our one-on-one discussions with you or -- or you might want
to have staff develop a proposal of an equitable way --
MR. DORRILL: Some annual appropriation. That's why I
said if you'll give me authorization on this one, then as -- as these
or if these occur for other similar events, we'll bring them back to
you, and we'll have a policy recommendation for you at that time.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I realize we don't -- we
don't want to open the door for everyone here but just with the
transportation problem they've had, it's kind of a unique situation
so --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, with Mr. Dorrill's
statement as a caveat, I'll support it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion we -- I don't
know that waive's the right term but waive the funds and carry those
over from the general funds to pay for those three signs for Special
Olympics.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a second?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
author -- authorize Mr. Dotrill to pay the sign fees from the general
funds for Special Olympics. Further discussion?
All those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion passes to four to one.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Headline reads, Pam opposes
Special Olympics.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, you hate libraries so --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Here here, here here.
Item #5A4
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING ELIZABETH DOLE - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is a proclamation. Commissioner
Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We are very fortunate to have
Mrs. Dole with us. Mrs. Dole, if you'd come on up, we have a
proclamation recognizing some of your activities around the country
and -- and throughout recent history. There's a television camera
there if you'd --
MS. DOLE: Stand by you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're -- we're high tech.
MS. DOLE: Good morning. How are you? Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good morning. Good to see you.
MS. DOLE: We had a chance to say hello. How are you?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The proclamation reads as
follows: Whereas, Elizabeth Dole continues a remarkable public
service career in which she has served six United States presidents;
and
Whereas, she's been named by the Gallop poll as one of
the world's ten most admired women; and
Whereas, Elizabeth Dole is a recipient of the National
Safety Council's distinguished service award; and
Whereas, Mrs. Dole served for five years as a member of
the Federal Trade Commission; and
Whereas, Elizabeth Dole joined President Reagan's
cabinet as secretary of transportation under which the United States
enjoyed the safest years in its history in all three major
transportation areas: Rail, air, and highway. Mrs. Dole's
initiatives included a new regulation requiring air bags and/or
automatic safety belts; and
Whereas, Mrs. Dole was sworn in by President Bush as the
nation's 20th secretary of labor; and
Whereas, she's been honored by the women executives in
state government with their lifetime achievement award for her many
achievements in helping women and minorities break through the glass
ceiling; and
Whereas, as president of the American Red Cross -- one
of your volunteers right over here -- Mrs. Dole oversees nearly 30,000
staff members and more than 1.5 million volunteers.
Now, therefore, be it declared by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Elizabeth Dole be
honored as a great American and true humanitarian.
Done and ordered this 7th day of November, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Bettye J. Matthews,
chairman.
Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve
this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the proclamation. All in favor please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, passes five to zero.
MS. DOLE: Let me just take a moment to say that this is
a wonderful surprise to me this morning. I am indeed grateful to each
of you, and this -- this I shall cherish. Thank you so very much.
You know, speaking of the Red Cross, I just left the Red
Cross as president last Tuesday. But I'm taking a leave of absence,
and I do plan to go back at the end of this election cycle. And, of
course, we're -- we're bipartisan, and we're not going to talk about
that. But I am very much looking forward to rejoining my friends at
the Red Cross on down the road because it is a wonderful humanitarian
organization and a chance to make a difference for people with dire
human needs.
And indeed there's been a lot of flooding right in this
area where Red Cross has been on the scene to try to help those who
are victims of disaster. Mother nature has not been very kind to us
and especially in Florida. Red Cross -- actually I think it's about
84 million dollars went into helping victims of Hurricane Andrew. And
this has been almost the worst hurricane season ever in American
history. The panhandle has been hit very hard in other parts of
Florida and a great deal of flooding.
So Red Cross will always be there to help, and indeed I
will cherish this, and I'm so very grateful to you for this wonderful
surprise this morning. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Thank you, Mrs.
Dole.
MS. DOLE: Have a good day.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We -- we are --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: On behalf of the local chapter of
the Red Cross, we miss her already.
Item #8A3
PRESENTATION TO THE BCC OF THE FY95 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT
ON PUBLIC FACILITIES (AUIR) OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
- STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're going to take a break until
20 minutes of, and we will pick up our agenda at item 8(A)(3).
(A short break was held.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's reconvene the board of
county commission meeting for November the 7th, 1995. We will pick up
our agenda at item 8(A)(3), presentation to the Board of County
Commissioners of the FY '95 AUIR. Mr. Litsinger.
MR. LITSINGER: Good morning, Madam Chairman and
commissioners. For the record, Stan Litsinger of the planning
department. This morning we have for you the presentation of the
required annual update and inventory report on public facilities as
required by your as adequate public facilities ordinance as codified
in division 3.15 of your Land Development Code.
What we're required to do is annually do an assessment
and analysis of available inventory of capital facilities in your
capital improvement element to recommend to you additional projects
where necessary, to outline available revenues over the next five-year
period and ask the board for approval of proposed changes and
amendments and revenue sources when necessary.
This morning I would like to note that, first of all, it
should be noted that a reassessment for the base -- of the basis for
the analytical methodology of determining availability of level of
service standards for all category A and B facilities will be
recommended as a seven-year evaluation and appraisal report based
amendments in the EAR to be proposed and adopted by the board.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Litsinger, I'm going to ask
that we kind of cut to the chase on this one because it's something we
do on an annual basis. Are any flags shown to you in looking at the
AUIR as opposed to the allocated funding for the same period?
MR. LITSINGER: To summarize for you, Commissioner, I
had handed out to you a copy of attachment B to the road --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh.
MR. LITSINGER: -- program because I don't believe your
agenda package is very clear. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct.
MR. LITSINGER: We can say with some satisfaction that
speaking particularly of category A facilities which are concurrency
driven that you have a funding stream of currently approved revenues
to fund all planned and needed projects relative to concurrency for
the next five-year period with existing revenue sources. In
particular -- of particular note that includes a surplus in the roads
funding program at this time. I have no bad news to point out to you
specifically in this report.
I had proposed that if there were no questions on
specific projects in the report, I would ask the board to take three
actions relative to this report. And this would establish a situation
where we have complied with our regulatory program to make an annual
determination that we have met our concurrency requirements and that
we either have in place the necessary facilities or we have in our
plan the necessary facilities and revenues to meet concurrency for the
next 12-year period. And I believe that this report establishes
that.
And with those comments, I would ask the board to make
three motions.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You -- you said 12-year period.
Did you mean 12 month?
MR. LITSINGER: Twelve-month period. Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. LITSINGER: I wish I could say 12 month.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You got me all excited there,
Stan.
MR. LITSINGER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Twelve-year planning's a bit hard
to do, isn't it?
MR. LITSINGER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have -- I have one question.
You mentioned category A projects are concurrency driven. On this
list how -- how do we identify a category A project, or are all of
them category A?
MR. LITSINGER: Category A projects are any projects
which are -- we're talking about transportation on this list.
Category A projects are any of the arterial and collector road
system. They're denoted by CIE numbers. This is your entire road
program. And all the revenue sources which you previously approved at
a early -- earlier budget meeting is consistent with that report. It
includes both CIE which are concurrency and other transportation
projects which may be related but not directly concurrency driven.
I need to point out one discrepancy relative to
transportation. In the existing conditions report which appears as
attachment A under roads, it does not note that CIE project number --
number 65 was moved from the second 5 years into the first 5-year
planning period because of available funding and the necessity to
carry forward with the -- the project and its construction. And that
decision was made at -- by this board at an earlier meeting due to the
availability of revenues to -- to bring that project forward.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Are there other
questions of staff?
Mr. Dotrill, are there speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Not on this, no.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not on this item?
Is there a recommendation?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a motion that the board
accept and approve the attached fiscal year '95 AUIR on public
facilities.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
accept and approve the attached AUIR for FY '95. All in favor please
say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes three to zero.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioners Constantine and
Mac'Kie will be absent until I include them.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I'll make a
second -- second motion to, I guess, promote or agree with staff
direction on category A and B facilities, to approve staff
recommendation for those projects and revenue sources for inclusion in
the next CIE update.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Mr. Litsinger, did you have a comment?
MR. LITSINGER: I was going to ask that you make that
motion.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Were going to prod that motion,
weren't you, Mr. Litsinger?
MR. LITSINGER: Yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a
second. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes three to zero.
There's a third motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. I will make a motion
the board find upon analysis, review, and actions taken based on the
fiscal year '95 AUIR that adequate category A public facilities will
be available as defined by the concurrency management system and
implemented by the adequate public facilities ordinance to support
development order issuance and total presentation of fiscal year '96
AUIR approximately 12 months from this date.
Oh, and I didn't read that, by the way.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Is there further discussion?
All in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes three to zero.
MR. LITSINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Litsinger.
Item #SB1
COUNTY-WIDE DRAINAGE REPORT WITH RECOHMENDATIONS RELATIVE TO REPAIR
WORK, ENHANCED MAINTENANCE AND/OR RESTORATION/RECONSTRUCTION WORK -
$633,900 RECOHMENDATION SUPPORTED AND STAFF DIRECTED TO LOOK INTO A
MUCK EXCAVATOR
Next item on the agenda is item 8(B)(1), a county-wide
drainage report with recommendations. Mr. Conrecode.
MR. CONRECODE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Tom Conrecode from public works. 8(B)(1), this item is
presented in order for the board to assess and prioritize their county
drainage problems and proposed fixes the staff has developed --
(Commissioner Mac'Kie entered the proceedings.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me interrupt just a moment.
Let the record show Commissioner Mac'Kie has returned. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I had excluded you because I was
taking a series of motions.
MR. CONRECODE: We've -- we've organized the executive
summary such that the board can pick and choose the items needing the
most immediate attention. And staff has attempted to prioritize the
recommendations to create the greatest immediate impact and a
long-term benefit to the system as a whole.
The improvements presented today are substantially
limited to tertiary level systems, drainage systems that are not the
primary and secondary canal systems that are typically maintained by
the water management district and only represent a partial improvement
or the most immediate improvement for funds availability within the
current fiscal year.
Consistent with the board's priority setting and their
-- for 1996 and their five-year goals, staff will develop a more
comprehensive system-wide approach throughout the next budgeting
process which will carry on the direction that the board gives us
today.
And then finally our recommendation in the executive
summary regarding the purchase of a jet vac truck, staff requests that
we have the board support in fast tracking the procurement of that
particular item. However, the bid reference in the executive summary
is somewhat problematic for us to purchase under. And, consequently,
we'd just ask for your support in -- in expediting procurement of that
particular item.
Having said all that, I'm going to turn over some of the
specific items to George Archibald and to John Boldt to discuss some
of the specific items as we walk you through the executive summary in
terms of each of the different areas that we'd like to see some
improvements. Thank you.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Thank you, Tom. Good morning, board
members. For the record, George Archibald representing your
transportation department.
I'd like to very briefly run through an outline of what
we would, first of all, consider our priority 1 items that refer to
damages or immediate repairs that are necessary. We've attempted to
outline the major areas, and that's our first priority because, in
fact, we're trying to keep the integrity of the transportation system
together.
In the report, we've divided it up into the Golden Gate
Estates area, the Immokalee area, and then three sub-areas including
bridge repairs, cross drain replacements, and road restoration work.
Although the data is somewhat self explanatory, what
we're looking at doing is being able to not only change out a lot of
conditions that have been created as a result of the storm event but
also improve upon those.
And examples are throughout the Golden Gate Estates
where we have a great deal of wash-out conditions to repair. And as a
result, the numbers that are in your agenda item such as $193,000 for
the Golden Gate Estates represents 3 primary items: One item is the
purchase of culvert pipe not for driveways but for cross drains. The
locations where that's going to be appropriate would be off of Desoto,
parts of Everglades, and parts of Randall.
In regards to a second item, a large item would be lime
rock. We've identified 26 roadways to be increased in elevation.
We're not proposing that over one year. We're proposing that over a
period of about three years. Accordingly, we're trying to allocate
the need and the funding over a period of time.
One other item is in regards to roads, paved roads, that
have been damaged and require not only the base to be reconstructed
but need to be resurfaced or repaved.
Those are the three major items in the Golden Gate
Estates that are identified in the report and really the -- the crux
of what is needed in regards to repair, not necessarily in regards to
reconstruction.
The second area is the Immokalee urban area. We've
identified five major areas that require work. Two of them are in the
process of being done. There's three other areas where we're planning
on that work to be done again over a period of years. And we've
identified the location and the time frame in which that work is to be
done.
And again, we're talking about restructuring and
reconstructing a drainage system within the urban area of Immokalee.
And the dollars are not that large for that work and the reason being
is that those dollars represent primarily culvert material. That work
as being programmed is to be done by in-house staff over a period of
years.
So again, in the Immokalee area, we're looking at a lot
of reconstruction of drainage swales. And the primary problem there
are either illegal driveways, swales that have been filled in, and/or
drainage systems that have been removed by the private sector over
time.
In regards to the three areas and the big dollar amounts
in regards to bridge repairs, those are a must. We've identified
approximately $64,000 in the bridges that, in fact, have wash-outs on
the approaches or the stabil -- stability of the approaches are in
question. That represents some dollars that we would like to be able
to address those problems before the end of the current fiscal year.
Again, we've talked about cross drains, and we've talked
about some road restoration items. And before I turn to --
(Commissioner Constantine entered the proceedings.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me, Mr. -- Mr. Archibald.
I need to interrupt. Let the record show that Commissioner
Constantine has returned.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Before I turn it over to John Boldt to
address some of the specific water management areas, I also would like
the board to become aware that we have a very, very large work load in
regards to private roads and how those will be handled. And those are
being addressed by a series of neighborhood meetings now.
We also have conditions where, in fact, we may have to
install dewatering pump operations. An example would be Mockingbird
Lake in Pine Ridge. Those are bigger issues that will have to be
addressed through a design permitting and improvement program.
The last item that I have on my short agenda here in
regards to policy, there are, in fact, certain areas of the county,
particularly the Golden Gate Estates, where we have been installing
culvert pipes in ditches that have a questionable capacity and that,
in fact, the board needs to consider that it has the option of
changing the capacity of that drainage system that's being constructed
every time somebody improves a property or puts in a single-family
home.
And as I outlined in the agenda item and in the Golden
Gate Estates report, our options there are to, in fact, consider going
to a larger pipe size, a different gradient of the ditch, and also to
a different ditch section.
And again, one of the advantages to considering that now
is that the Golden Gate Estates is a very large area. But in terms of
growth, there hasn't been a lot of growth. The growth that's going to
occur out there is going to occur in the next 20 years. So, in fact,
if the board considers a policy now, then that policy will most likely
be implemented by residents that develop and move into the area in the
future. It won't require a whole lot of retrofitting. But we have
addressed that issue of retrofitting in the report.
With that brief outline, I'd like to turn it over to
John Boldt in regards to some of the water management issues on some
of the major outfall systems.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Mr. Boldt.
MR. BOLDT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, John Boldt, storm water management director. Just as a brief
update on the rainfall to kind of put this in perspective, our annual
rainfall in Collier County is about 54 inches. This last summer we
experienced an abnormal amount of rainfall. Since June 1, it's
amounted to some six feet of rain, since the beginning of the year
about seven foot. That's like 84 inches. In some areas of the county
up in the northern part, in Bonita, it's pushing 90 inches of
rainfall, and we still have 2 months to go.
So you realize that it's a very unusual event. And even
with a -- you know, a perfect system in place, you know, we'd have
still had flooding. However, it wouldn't have been as deep. It
wouldn't have lasted as long, and I guess the duration is what really
has caused a lot of our problems.
I have identified just from our phone calls and some of
the things that brought to our attention about 75 different problem
areas in the county, some of which are small areas. Others are very
large geographic areas.
It could be solved in four different ways, one of which
is by major capital improvement programs such as in the Lely basin, we
have a network of -- or secondary canal systems that it's going to
take, you know, several millions of dollars to make major improvements
to those canal systems to bring them up to a -- an acceptable level of
service standard.
We did identify, however, a number of real small
projects where a -- the construction of a small drain or the
installation of a berm or a trade-out of a culvert, you know, not
major dollar values, we could have lessened the problem considerably
and particularly the duration aspects. Tropical Storm Jerry, we all
had flooding for several days. Some of those problems lingered on for
a week or two. And some areas are just now recovering, and this is in
November from that particular event.
So those small projects are those we feel like we could
address if we had some additional resources. They're in line with
what some of the things Mr. Archibald's talked about in the
maintenance of what we already have in our secondary system. If we
could keep it maintained at a higher level of standard so we could
optimize the flow that we can get in the systems we have, we could
greatly lessen, you know, the problems we'd have had. And I'd like to
talk about that as far as some of our equipment and personnel needs.
And then there's the fourth area. Quite honestly, there
are low lying flood-prone areas, large areas, some of which you've
heard a lot about this summer that are served by private roads. And
it's going to be very difficult to go in and develop a
state-of-the-art drainage system for those areas. Just
environmentally speaking, the water management district is not going
to allow us to go in and put huge networks and canals in ditches
through some of these wetland areas without countering that with some
of the environmental protection we need for overdrainage and
disruption of our environmental systems. So those are going to be
problems that are going to be very difficult to solve.
I'd like to draw your attention to attachment number 3
which is in your packet which I sort of summarized 7 areas of
priorities that would help me accelerate my storm water program. And
I'm just going to touch on them very briefly. They're more or less in
order of priority, and the first of which would be the additional --
an additional two-man crew. I have three crews at this point, six
people total, to serve the urban area and then the estates and the
Immokalee area.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would you say that again? How
many people?
MR. BOLDT: I have actually -- spray crew people I have
six for the whole county. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Six.
MR. BOLDT: And four of them work in the urban area and
two out in the estates and the Immokalee area. In addition to that, I
do have two equipment operators on -- on a drag line and our -- our
front end loader and dozer, and I do have a field supervisor. So we
do have a total of nine people in the field, but six of them are
dedicated to our aquatic plant control which is mostly the application
of herbicides.
We have some hundred and eighty miles of ditches and,
you know, many acres. And we set up a priority system to treat
those. Some of the areas only get treated once a year. We try to do
it in the spring prior to the rainy season. Other areas closer in,
more populated we do two and three times. And we do have some high
priority areas that are, you know, major populated areas that we try
to maintain up to four times a year. But we're stretched to the
limit. That just gives us a bare minimum, acceptable level of service
for maintenance in a normal year.
In a year like this, we were going into the rainy season
in pretty good shape. The canals and ditches we had were in -- pretty
well maintained. But the rainy season went so long, and the
vegetation kept growing so fast, and it just overwhelmed us after a
point. And even if I'd have had the material and the manpower, when
you have high water situations and the water's moving so fast,
herbicides aren't really effective at that point in time because you
need contact hours on plants in order to -- to get them to react to
herbicides.
So my first request would be for an additional two-man
crew that would help, if nothing else, free up the other six people to
do their job entirely because I spent a lot of my time, my crew time,
on operating and maintaining water level control structures. I have
about 18 of those scattered around the county, 3 pumping stations that
take constant maintenance and overlooking.
I would like to have somebody to -- you know, to get
involved with that and do a lot of those maintenance plus expand the
-- the aquatic -- aquatic plant control program, particularly in
those high priority ditches in the springtime, do some spot clearing
of some ditches, assist in some small construction projects. And
those type of activities would greatly free up and be able to really
accelerate that particular part of the program.
That would amount to, you know, two people. I need
another spray truck fully equipped, some additional herbicides and
some miscellaneous equipment to -- to man that crew.
The second project would be for small construction
projects. I need a crew. I need some equipment to go in and -- and
replace some of these small drains, install some small ones, change
out some culverts, you know, create a berm, do the small things we can
do to solve some of these smaller problems we have at a great
magnitude around the county.
Now we're starting to talk about some larger dollar
values because a tractor/backhoe would be something in the
neighborhood of $85,000. A small dozer to go -- companion with it
would be 150,000 and then the equipment operators and supplies which
would be the culvert pipe and the lime rock and a -- and another truck
to haul that all around, so that adds up to significant figures.
The third priority would be the need for a different
type of a piece of equipment, and I've mapped these out if you want to
go over them specifically on my maps. They're shown in the purple
pen. The -- the orange pen for what the area you're looking at is the
-- is where we can use our regular drag line or the new hydraulic
backhoe that you've already authorized us to purchase and go -- will
be going out to bid yet this month.
We need accessways alongside of those canals to -- to do
that kind of maintenance work, travelways where they can travel and
deposit the spoil. But increasingly in Collier County we're getting
shut out in those activities because of the population growth and the
development. We have a lot of different ditches, smaller ditches in
particular, in backyards where we no longer have access alongside of
them. And we need to have a piece of equipment that can actually work
down in the ditch itself and -- and move itself along the ditch and
clean out the sediments and put them up and spread them out along it.
And I have a recommendation called an all-terrain
vehicle. There's different -- several different manufacturers. One I
have some literature on this morning is called the Henzi Muck
equipment. I'm not sure where they come up with the name. We did
have a demonstration on this a couple years ago, and it's -- it's --
it's quite a tool. It's very flexible. It can work its way up and
over culverts and over guardrails, down into ditches, work itself down
the ditch and get -- climb all over the place. It's kind of like a
spider, and it has two rear wheels and two front attachments that it
works itself along. Plus it has the excavating type of a excavator.
It would give us great flexibility in, say, all these
miles of systems now where it's become extremely difficult. As an
example, if you're familiar with the Poinciana village subdivision, we
have a perimeter canal that goes all the way around it. We have a
very narrow right-of-way. Access is -- is -- is no limit -- no access
whatsoever in most of it. This machine can work down in there and
make improvements to that. And then we could follow up to our aquatic
plant control program.
A fourth priority would be somebody to basically be my
assistant and make things happen. I need somebody that I can assign
small projects, give them direction, and then just turn them loose to
go through the whole process of allocating the funds, the budget
amendments, the executive summaries, the -- the procurement of the
easements, the -- go through the procurement process and, you know,
buying the supplies and -- and making these things happen. It's very
time consuming. And it's -- it's more than I'm able to handle.
At this point in time I have maybe about 24 different
projects I'm trying to work on at all one time, and it's like a
juggling act trying to keep things all going at one time. And I -- I
need an assistant. I'm basically a one-man department.
The other two items or other three items would be an
additional clerical aide in the office to give us the support we need
for an accelerated program.
The sixth item is -- there are various drainage ditches
that are not currently maintained in our program. They're
particularly on the fringes or perimeter of Golden Gate Estates. They
were developed by the original developer way back in the early
sixties. They have never been in our maintenance program, and there
have become an increasing pressure from areas out there where we need
to go in and do rehabilitation of those -- those drainage ditches by
clearing the area, getting all the trees out, and then restoring them
back to their original condition.
And I've tentatively assigned about $100,000 just for
the first year to get involved in at least 2 or 3 of those different
ones. And again, I have a priority list of all those excavating-type
projects that we need to get involved with. And I've identified three
of them as priorities for that type of work which would be bid out to
private contractors.
And the seventh thing is involved in everything else we
do. We need to know where our drainage easements are at, what their
limits are, and also have some grade control on the work we do. And
we need to hire surveying services to do that. So in order to -- to
make that fit together, that's the kind of support I would need.
With that I'd be glad to go into some more specifics, if
you want to cover the maps or some of the tables, if you'd like to
look at the lit -- literature on this. But those are the seven
priorities I would need to really accelerate my program, to put the
systems more in top notch conditions, to minimize the amount of
flooding we're going to have and particularly the duration, although
by doing this, you know, we're not going to eliminate it. But it
would surely take, you know, some of the -- the burden we put on the
people this last summer that went weeks and weeks with the type of
storm water problems we had.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I want to comment. Mr.
Dotrill and I met yesterday afternoon, and I spent yesterday morning
going over the drainage atlas, and I'm sure Mr. Boldt has too.
But what came to my attention with the help of some
other people was that in our drainage atlas that I presume Mr. Boldt
is working from, there's any number, as he said, of drainage easements
that are not included in that atlas.
And I -- my first concern when I was hearing numbers
last week was that, jeez, if -- if you're working from this atlas, we
may not be considering all of the work that eventually will need to be
done. And I would rather have a -- a full-blown picture of what we
need to do as opposed to a quick fix that doesn't really work.
And -- and I'm -- I'm happy to see the changes in the
agenda item that we had over the weekend and what we're seeing today
because you have now included to locate with the field survey -- you
have it as -- as item number 7. I'd like to see it moved up closer to
the top but to go out and locate the physical nature of those drainage
easements and to incorporate them into the maintenance program.
As you said, there's many of them in -- in the eastern
part of the estates. There's some off of U.S. 41 along Rigs Road,
along Greenwood Road, along Auto Ranch Road, all of those down there
that also have easements that are not being well maintained.
And the -- the other thing that I found interesting on
these drainage maps was in Immokalee there don't seem to be any arrows
telling us which way the water is supposed to go to get to the main
canals. And we probably -- we probably need somebody to go out there
and just tell us which way it's supposed to go. And that's probably
going to be talking to some people who have lived out there for a
number of years.
And -- and I know, John, when you and I were flying in
the helicopter we identified an ancient -- well, I don't want to say
ancient; it's probably not that old but an old drainage pattern north
of the airport that looked like it had not been used for drainage
purposes for a number of years. So there's -- there's -- there's a
lot of work that needs to be done that we need to get back into the
drainage cycle.
Commissioner Hancock, you had a question?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This -- obviously what we're
being presented today is a rather large and cumbersome object to --
you know, to step forward and make a single solid decision on. I
think there are several facets to it. But before looking at that, I
have to ask a question of Mr. Dotrill. For the budget '95, '96, what
is our proposed accumulation in reserves for that year alone?
MR. DORRILL: For the current year that we're in?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
MR. DORRILL: General fund reserves are about three and
a half million dollars.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Second question is we're
talking about an increase --
MR. DORRILL: And in order -- anticipating your reason
for asking that, there are some other funds. For example, I would
recommend to you that in the event that we purchase the vactor truck
that that come from the 301 fund reserve and not your general fund
reserve, and so we can modify the executive summary with the help of
my budget office so not to have a wholesale run on the general fund
reserves which is something I always caution the board about.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Particularly at this early stage
in a fiscal year --
MR. DORRILL: Great.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it would be a concern to me.
The second question, we're talking about increasing
drain pipe sizes in the estates. What about elsewhere in the county?
The -- you know, even homes that are being built in Naples Park right
now are going in with 12-inch pipes occasionally when there are
supposed to be 15s. Is that a review problem, or is there a standard
problem on that particular issue?
MR. BOLDT: I think that's more of a review problem
specifically in Naples Park in that I don't think there's a clear
understanding of where the arrows go again, of the direction of flow
and the pipe sizes that are needed in various blocks there. We need
to do more coordination with community development when the issue of
the permits for those particular areas --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you're of the opinion those
pipe sizes are sufficient as required currently in most of the urban
neighborhoods?
MR. BOLDT: Basically that's true. That -- that doesn't
seem to be the problem. It's more that some of the older pipes that
were put in years ago that are now deteriorated.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because the --
MR. BOLDT: And they're crushed and filled with
sediments and so on.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because the item you hit
on -- I mean, our plan review and site inspection when it comes to
drainage has failed to pick up in the past many of the -- the problems
that we're experiencing now. And I think we have to address how
that's handled and what priority's placed on it, and that's not a part
of what's being presented today. But I think it's an -- it's an
attachment that needs to be -- needs some concentration.
The other problem we run -- when we're talking
about county-wide drainage improvements is where do we draw the line
between individual neighborhood systems and county-wide systems? And
could you enunciate that for me?
MR. BOLDT: Well, that's been a difficult decision.
Naples Park is a good example, and that's basically a neighborhood
type problem as opposed to the Lely basin situation we're working on.
That's more regional, serves a large area of East Naples, lots of
different neighborhoods and a lot of undeveloped property. You know,
that's clearly a -- you know, a regional county issue as opposed to
some of these specific ones.
Even a lot of them I have on my small project list
involve, you know, single developments whether it's Riviera or Palm
River or Sperling Court or whatever. You know, those are small ones
which it really wouldn't even be practical to set up a special
assessment district to do some of the work I'm proposing. There's
just not that much money involved to go in and put a short piece of
pipe in or change out a culvert or whatever. We could solve a problem
without a great deal of expense.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So if a culvert failed on H
Street in Naples Park, the county would have to go in and replace it
as -- you know, I mean, that -- to that extent the county is -- is
responsible for it. But when it comes to upsizing improvement, is
that where the -- the line seems to be drawn at this point?
MR. BOLDT: I think that's a good place to do it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. BOLDT: We had done some upgrading in Naples Park,
but we had used funds that were raised from that original taxing
district, so it was all from within.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. My -- my final point, at
least on this line, is storm water and road and bridge are not clearly
separated in the public's eye. As we went into the -- the rains this
year, it seems that what road and bridge maintenance does and what
storm water does should be worked much more closely together. Whether
it should be under one umbrella or not, I don't know. But the public
does not have a clear distinction of what storm water management and
what road and bridge does, and that created a lot of communication
problems, not necessarily between you but from the -- the frustration
point of the public calling in.
MR. DORRILL: We should distinguish here that effective
on October the 1st, we placed both the road and bridge transportation
function and the water management function in one division which is
the public works division. And it's now under the direction of a
civil engineer in Mr. Conrecode as opposed to two separate divisions.
Formerly water management was in your environmental services
division. And we thought for both the mechanical and public works
nature of what they do, they needed to be in the same division with
road and bridge, and that's why we've done that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since the two are so closely in
concert, I'm -- I am concerned about people being bounced from one to
the other on phone calls. And I -- I really would like to see an
effort placed on reducing that.
MR. BOLDT: We did an educational program. We get
frustrated, too, because most of the calls we get come into our
department really we refer on to road and bridge because it involves
ditches and swales alongside of the roadways themselves which almost
entirely are Mr. Archibald's responsibility. My secondary ones are --
overlap somewhat, but it is -- it's confusing.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We -- but we do have some
significant drainage canals, too, that run along roadsides --
MR. BOLDT: That's --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- that are not really swales.
MR. BOLDT: That's true, right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So --
MR. BOLDT: Some of which are -- even belong to South
Florida Water Management District responsibilities.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Which brings up my point because
in my conversations with citizens throughout the county, there's been
confusion between county water management, as they call it, and South
Florida Water Management as to who does what. And they -- and there's
confusion about water management in general. Who do I call? Their
tendency is to call the county when it's really South Florida.
So maybe we ought to also consider looking at a
different name for the county water management department and -- or
maybe emphasizing storm water management. I don't know.
MR. BOLDT: We've --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But there's confusion there.
MR. BOLDT: Officially -- unofficially we have changed
our name to the storm water management department as opposed to water
management.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Water management.
Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. Mr. Boldt, I think your
priorities here are pretty close to the way I would have selected them
myself. Right now I think I need to have some answers about the
equipment that we're proposing. We -- we already have approved the
purchase of the articulated backhoe; right?
MR. BOLDT: Yes, sir. That's in this year's budget.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And that's -- that's in the works.
MR. BOLDT: Correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So it's not part of this
discussion. The -- the tractor/backhoe that you have listed on here
is a -- is the smaller unit that we see normally. And what would that
be used for primarily?
MR. BOLDT: Mostly for small construction projects that
my crews could get involved with as far as constructing a small storm
drain, repair projects or culvert replacements or construction of
berms, things of that nature.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do I -- yeah. Do I hear you
telling us that without some sort of a piece of equipment such as this
all-terrain vehicle that you mentioned that we are not going to be
able to get down a lot of these ditches to do the cleaning? There's
no other way to do them?
MR. BOLDT: Yeah. Physically we're shut out in a lot of
these areas. We can't physically get to them anymore. The way we
maintain them now is by spraying with herbicides, and we have to park
our trucks out on the streets and drag hoses between homes and then
drag the hoses, you know, up and down the ditch.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The answer's yes. I've asked it,
and the answer's yes. There's no other way to do it.
MR. DORRILL: Can you give them a good example of where
that occurs --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I '-
MR. DORRILL: -- where that type of situation occurs?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He said Poinciana.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Poinciana. 91st, 92nd would be
another one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Menzi Muck.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I'm not mistaken, the
difference between being able to get in there with herbicide, we can
get the banks knocked down, but yet growth that is occurring in the
bottom of the ditch continues, is that correct, Mr. Boldt, assuming
there's any flow or velocity?
MR. BOLDT: That and the accumulation of debris and
sediments that wash in.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can't get the junk out.
MR. BOLDT: Sand, right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And this -- this piece of
equipment now would be necessary for a lot of the ditches that -- that
you're proposing that we work on, everything in purple?
MR. BOLDT: Everything in purple which is basically what
we have limited access like in Four Seasons was -- a good number go
through backyards and between lakes, the 91st, 92nd Avenue,
Poinciana. In the East Naples area there would be -- a great deal of
it would be in like Naples Manor. There's five different ditches that
run in backyards there, a lot of smaller systems in the East Naples
area like in -- around Lely and Riviera and up on your Coconut Circle,
some small ditches and right in people's backyards.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: This -- this would be the -- the
way that we -- really the only way -- something to this effect would
be the only way we're going to get into those areas.
MR. BOLDT: Physically that's the only way you can do it
anymore.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: It seems to me that, you know,
it's -- it's an expensive piece of equipment, but I'm not sure what
else -- if you can't come up with another alternative piece of
equipment, another concept, I don't know what we're going to do
because it seems to me that we -- we're getting ourselves here into a
bit of a time constraint with our road improvement projects on both
Rattlesnake Hammock and County Barn Road and the drainage improvements
that -- that are going along with those projects. If we don't have
our Lely canal improved in time for those road projects, we're going
to cause ourselves more problems than we're going to cure I think
because what we're going to do is move water faster down to the Lely
canal which has not been cleaned out yet if we're -- if we're not
careful.
MR. BOLDT: That's a timing problem, although I
understand the environmental agencies that -- that issue the permit,
South Florida and so on, are going to put restrictors. There will be
flow constrictors on the facilities we're going to construct at
Rattlesnake Hammock and County Barn that will restrict the flow until
such time as we get the major outlet done.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it -- you know, it seems
like a lot of money but --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, can I
ask a follow-up question on it? Is there a way to -- I don't know
long term whether we need this same piece for maintenance long term.
Maybe we do, but if not, is there a way to lease this for a year, or
is there some way to address this at a lower cost and still get the
same effectiveness?
MR. BOLDT: With the -- with the amount I've got laid
out here, it's almost an annual, ongoing type of a program. It's --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: By the time you've started at your
first priority and went through all of your priorities, it'd be time
to start over at the top of the list and go down.
MR. BOLDT: Right. By that time there would be some
more that are going to need some attention.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a -- a question, and I'm
-- I'm picturing 91st and 92nd ditch in Naples Park. I have this
thing moving down there, cleaning it out. Where is it putting the
material for hauling away?
MR. BOLDT: Actually most of it would be going up on the
banks and just --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. BOLDT: -- reconfiguring the slopes and repairing
wash-outs.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So typically what's on the bottom
used to be on the sides?
MR. BOLDT: Right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The other -- the other comment on
your -- your funding portion here is you have a number of salaries and
so forth on the annual cost column, the far right-hand column. But
that won't necessarily apply to this fiscal year because we're well
into the fiscal year. And by the time a lot of this was implemented,
we would be even farther so --
MR. BOLDT: If you were to authorize this today, it'd be
several months before we can get this thing all up and running. These
are partial costs.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So that column would probably be
-- end up being half or less of what's shown here on this.
MR. BOLDT: Probably three quarters.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: For this fiscal year.
MR. BOLDT: Right. About half I guess.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions?
Do we have motions?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not exactly sure how to
structure a motion since we have these many proposals.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think what's critical is that
we include the county manager's office in -- in directing the best
funding mechanism to achieve the goals set forth by Mr. Archibald and
Mr. Boldt. And, you know, we're looking at the whole apple right now,
and I'd like to see it piece by piece to know, you know, how it all
works together and how it all fits in.
I would like to -- to get this back in the form of these
are the -- the requests. These are the associated expenditures.
These are the dedicated funds for those expenditures. And I think
we're able to make a value judgment then a little bit better on the
overall piece by knowing what all the parts are.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think the only piece that's
missing from that discussion, though, I think we have very clearly --
and I do really want to commend you for -- for laying it out so
clearly and giving us priorities and letting us make some real clear
decisions. The only piece missing from those -- from that list is
what funds if, in fact, it's 301. I'd love to do something about this
today.
MR. DORRILL: We're prepared to do that today, and we --
we probably can with Mr. Conrecode's assistance. And thank you for
your comment because they fewrote the executive summary for the fiscal
impact section in order to allow you to make those decisions today.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we actually have two different
decisions? We have what Mr. Boldt has proposed and what Mr. Archibald
has proposed, and both are -- are separate costs?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir. They're -- they're all
contained within this same package, attachment A through attachment --
or I'm sorry. Attachment 1 through attachment 6 address the multitude
of issues that you can tackle today. We've outlined and identified a
fiscal impact for the minimum, what our minimum recommendation is.
And that fiscal impact is $633,900 of which you'll have 146,000 in
recurring costs which are staff costs. That doesn't even include the
complete prioritization of John's list and all of George Archibald's
list. Some of those items we couldn't get to this year if we wanted
to but we'll address in subsequent fiscal -- fiscal cycles, budget
cycles, as a part of your long-range one-year and -- and five-year
goals.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, once again, the question
comes down is how can we proceed today? I don't think we're --
MR. CONRECODE: If -- if you want to proceed today, the
executive summary identifies some 101 funding source reserves, some
301 funding source reserves, and some 001 funding source reserves that
would allow you to direct staff to go step by step through the process
that we've identified today and expend roughly $633,900.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you point me on the staff
report where is the 630 you're referring to, what page?
MR. CONRECODE: Okay. There was a modified executive
summary that should have been submitted to you. And I'll turn you to
page -- beginning on page 3 of that modified executive summary.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: While we're doing that, Mr.
Dotrill, are there speakers?
MR. DORRILL: There are four.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Four?
MR. CONRECODE: So if you want to listen to speakers
first --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Does that -- that starter program
that you're talking about, does that include buying this piece of
equipment?
MR. CONRECODE: It does -- that piece of equipment is
not included. The jet vac truck is included in that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: That's staff's first priority. If you
want to go beyond that, and then I would suggest you take Commissioner
Hancock's proposal and -- and direct me for the -- the special spider
equipment, for the additional crews, if you'll authorize or modify the
staff's recommendation and then give us some subsequent direction. If
you're interested in the spider equipment, I think we ought to have it
back here and have it demonstrated or rent one. It'd be very
difficult to lease one for one year. But I'd like to have one back
here and have it demonstrated again before we make a commitment to
sole source that because my understanding, it's manufactured in
Switzerland. It's considered a sole source type of piece of equipment
for this type of terrain.
MR. CONRECODE: In -- in addition to that, under John
Boldt's attachment, he's identified nearly a million dollars in
expansion to the storm water program if you'd like to. He's broken it
out into seven different levels of priority. You can pick 1 and 2 and
7 or whatever you've want. What we've included in this is item 1 and
I believe item 6, the -- the one-time hire a contractor, get out
there, and clean up some of the areas where we've been deficient.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That was my question. So
step -- or priorities 1 and 6 of Mr. Boldt's have been included in the
six hundred and --
MR. CONRECODE: Have been included in the executive
summary fiscal impact. If you want to tackle some of the additional
-- additional ones such as the muck monster, whatever it's called,
that is specifically identified in terms of capital costs and ongoing
annual costs if you want to add that in. In other words --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think for my two cents we need
to take a look at that, whatever the natural -- whatever the -- the
process would be to get a -- a firmer feel on that piece of
equipment.
Mr. Boldt's absolutely correct. There are areas in
which we did not obtain access easements, cannot obtain access
easements, can't get into them to maintain them properly, and we're
just going to continue to feed the problem each year that we don't
have the ability to do that. So I'm very interested in -- in that.
MR. CONRECODE: And those can be identified by priority
number 7 on his list and priority number 4 on his list.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition, Mr. Boldt's
department -- and -- and I think much to the credit of this county --
our number of employees per capita has always been traditionally low
when compared to the rest of the state. I think, though, in the area
of storm water management we're seeing the problems created when you
hold that line for a period of time and -- and get hit with a severe
incident. Our ability to react is greatly diminished.
I would be willing to look at what additions to --
personnel additions to Mr. Boldt's department would make the most
sense and give him an increased work force to accomplish these
things. In other words, maximize the minimum, Mr. Dotrill. And I
would look for your recommendation in working with Mr. Boldt to -- to
do that. I think that we have to consider that. If we're going to
add all of these work programs to storm water management, we're going
to need to have the personnel to -- to -- to help him administer
those.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is a -- is a motion appropriate
now or '-
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're going to hear from public
speakers. But if -- if this board chooses to give direction on -- on
what our thinking is before the speakers, then we may lessen --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I would make a motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- the time.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask a question before
you make a motion then. I was going to wait until after the public
speakers. How does either this impact or how does it impact us? We
talked a couple of weeks ago about working with South Florida Water
Management on a big picture type plan. They're in the midst of their
study.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want us to be doing
-- I don't think we are, but I need some assurance that we're not
overlapping, we're not doing the same thing, and there's still some
benefit.
MR. CONRECODE: If -- if I could break the system down
into three levels, primary, secondary, tertiary, primary being those
major elements that are the South Florida Water Management District's
responsibility, those secondary systems that fall between the Big
Cypress Basin and John's crew for maintenance and -- and upkeep and
management, and then those tertiary systems which are the roadside
drainage swales, the backyard drainage areas, some of the feeder canal
systems that -- that feed into the canals.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand. Perhaps I -- I
misunderstood what the study they're working on is. But I was under
the impression their three-year project is looking at the
interrelationship between all of those, and I want to make sure
anything we do now doesn't render their year and a half left they have
on that moot.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can -- can I interrupt?
MR. CONRECODE: Their focus --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me -- let me interrupt
because I attended the Big Cypress Basin Board meeting last Friday and
made an offer and it was accepted that members of the county
government and members of the Big Cypress Basin Board in a small
committee, five people, Mr. Boldt -- he may not know it yet -- Mr.
Boldt, Mr. Dotrill, myself, Mr. Simpson, and Mr. Van Buskirk, will
coordinate an effort to try to move the study forward faster. We --
we need to coordinate our time and -- and set that meeting and -- and
so forth. But we are look -- looking at a way to move that study from
three to four years out to something much closer.
Go ahead, Mr. Conrecode.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just in --
MR. CONRECODE: Basically to answer that question, we --
this then becomes the tertiary system. It's largely a maintenance
function that allows the secondary and primary systems to work better
as well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just in the interest then of
getting on the floor what I would like to see us do in case speakers
want to comment on it, I'd like to see us support the $633,900 minimum
staff recommendation and that we also direct staff to look into -- I'm
going to see what you call it -- a muck excavator, Menzi Muck,
whatever that is, that -- the spider equipment that we were talking
about, and also that we get a recommendation from staff later on items
7 and 4 in Mr. Boldt's recommended list which has to do with the
staffing that you talked about, Mr. Hancock.
MR. BOLDT: Can you call that an all-terrain vehicle?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go. All-terrain.
MR. BOLDT: All-terrain kind of covers it.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Just for -- if board members are
scratching notes, the approximate breakdown of that 633,000, about
300,000 of that would be in the road and bridge fund which is 101.
The capital -- the major capital improvement fund is 301. That has
168,000 in that. The muck monster would be in addition to that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I love the name.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: All-terrain vehicle.
MR. DORRILL: And the general fund reserves would be
$180,000, and I rounded those off. But that -- that shows you the
various fund reserves that would need to be used to pay for this.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Other discussion before
the public speakers?
We'll hear from the speakers.
MR. DORRILL: And we have five. Mr. McGilvra. And
then, Ms. Barsh, if I can have you stand by, please, you'll follow Mr.
McGilvra.
MR. MCGILVRA: Good morning, Commissioners. Doug
McGilvra. I'm a Taxpayers' Action Group member. I'm also president
of Property Owners of Naples Park. So what I'm saying is more or less
county-wide.
I think this is a fantastic thing that should be done
and should be done at the expense, if necessary, of other things which
we'd all like to do and which are probably all good. But this issue
hits all of us in the basis of the health, safety, and welfare issue.
And thank God it's not raining today, or we'd all be thinking about
100 percent differently I think, you know, or maybe a little bit
differently at any rate.
But I'm all for this. I think we ought to give these
guys both the equipment and the manpower they need to do the job. The
management manpower is necessary absolutely in Mr. Boldt's position.
I know. I've worked with him constantly for two years, and he's a
one-man department. He can't do it all. He's too -- he's juggling
too much right now. So that he needs.
And he needs some of the equipment, this particular
equipment for doing whatever you call it, the spider or whatever -- I
don't know what you want to call it -- and this jet vac truck. Get
this -- get this equipment. Let's spend some money. Let's do this
and get this job done. We've been letting it go for year after year
after year because other things that have been nice to have been done
have come up. And we've always said, well, let's do them.
Other people have come forth with very, very strong
arguments saying, by God, let's do them. In the meantime, the older
neighborhoods, other neighborhoods that have got problems that have
been laying around for years, have been let go and not because they
haven't been tried to be addressed but because there just is not
enough equipment or manpower there to do the job. So I say let's go
with it all. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Barsh. Mr. Keller, are you still with
us?
MR. KELLER: Yup.
MR. DORRILL: He'll follow Ms. Barsh.
MS. BARSH: I'm Frances Barsh. I'm a resident,
taxpayer, and voter of Collier County and a member of TAG.
That this item appears on today's agenda as a request
for additional funds is a sad comment on the priorities espoused by
Collier County government. Collier County is an area of vast
marshlands and wetlands. It is an area of development subject to
repeated torrential tropical rains and hurricanes. It is the home of
flora and fauna and yes, human beings.
All of these elements have forever been dependent on the
synergism of nature and man. When this synergism is interfered with,
when it is neglected, then the health, safety, and welfare of all is
put in jeopardy.
The basic function of government is to protect the
health, welfare, and safety of its constituents. This does not mean
or require an all-frills government or all-frills government
expenditure. It requires a wise stewardship of public trust and
monies.
How much easier, how much more gratifying it is to be
expansive. A $15,000 grant to a private group such as FOCUS does
bring flattering kudos. What are the values in priority assessment
when such sum is glibly granted without discussion? Funding for
FOCUS, a private group, should as its propomenent (sic) -- proponents
initially promised seek its funding in the private sector and not from
government.
The conference is a folk -- of the FOCUS group ask for
visioning. But this visioning comes to naught when the foundation of
wise stewardship in water management is short changed.
The willingness of the Gordon River bridge proponents to
have a March referendum at minimal cost to the county proves that the
$150,000 rush special mail-in ballot was an unnecessary expense. How
much more prudent the uti -- utilization of these taxpayer dollars
would have been if applied to the problems of this county's water
management. Perhaps the very civic-minded members of the Bridge Club
would like to reimburse Collier County for the cost of this
non-essential mail-in voting exercise.
The practice of taking from Peter to -- to pay Paul is a
facile form of kudo management. But what is the result of this kind
of stewardship? Is the outcome the successful synergistic management
of nature and man wherein the health, safety, and welfare of all is
achieved? Hardly.
The millions of tax dollars that -- the millions of tax
dollars which have been taken from drainage projects and moved into
road building projects have in turn dammed the flow of water. The
manic -- the magnitude of Collier County's present water management
problems are the result of the muddled priorities of all-frills
government spending.
Today we, the Taxpayers Action Group, ask that you
reexamine priorities and move Collier County from an all-frills
government spending mode to a no-frills government spending node --
mode. Such a course will make clear what is necessary and needed to
address the well being of Collier County's citizens, taxpayers, and
natural resources. Such a course will elucidate a system of
priorities worthy of public trust.
To spend taxpayers' hard-earned dollars on equipment to
clear, flush, and maintain drainage systems is an honest and wise
expenditure for the health, safety, and welfare of Collier County
citizens. How sad $165,000 of taxpayers' money has been spent on
kudos and frills in this year alone.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Keller and then Mr. Stephan.
MR. KELLER: George Keller. I represent the Golden Gate
Estates Civic Association. And number one, I've -- I've been
following this water situation for at least 15 years. And I -- I
don't think John Boldt has ever had enough money to do the job that he
was supposed to do, number one. So I'm very happy to see that at
least we're recognizing the fact that we do have some problems and
that we have to do something about them.
And I would suggest that you reconsider and appropriate
enough money to his department so that he can do the job as he
outlines. I don't think he's -- he's -- he's exaggerating the
problem. I don't think he's overstating the -- the -- overstating
what he has to do.
We also recognize a couple of factors in Collier
County. We are a tropical area, and from time to time we're going to
experience some problems. You read the paper, and you see Philippines
just had a big problem. They have problems all over the world with
nature. Nobody can control nature, and we can't do everything to go
and stop all emergencies that are caused by nature.
But we do have some areas in Collier County that have
been -- were developed years ago. And I speak of Naples MAnor as one
and probably Naples Park as another where proper -- proper development
was not done. And I hope that in the future that we will be very
careful about retaining water on land that we develop.
There's a lot of land left in Collier County, and
there's a lot of water underneath it. And if we're not very careful,
just digging holes for lakes so they can build up the property so they
can build apartments and -- and houses and roads aren't going to solve
our future problems. So I would suggest to you that you get out and
do it on a practical basis.
Also as far as the estates are concerned, George
Archibald, I think he needs a piece of equipment that has an extension
on it so that he can mow the -- the swales. The county owns the
swales. My property doesn't go into -- down to the swales. And what
happens is the swales -- originally -- originally when the -- we
developed those -- those swales, we tapered them down so that they
would run into the canals.
And what has happened is the swales have built -- been
built up with -- with -- with plant life. And they -- they need --
they need to be -- be corrected. But mainly if they were even -- even
if they were mowed -- and you can't mow them with a mowing machine
because they're very -- they're very deep, and they're -- they're --
they're -- and they're narrow, and you have to have a machine like
they have in a number of places where it's got an extension arm out
and a rotary blade that will at least keep the -- the plant life
down. And that will help the estates considerably. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Keller.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Stephan and then Mr. Riner.
MR. STEPHA/q: Madam Chairman, good morning. As a
resident of Golden Gate Estates and to hold true to my reputation, I
object. What I object to is please do not dig deeper ditches in
Golden Gate Estates. Do not put in larger drain pipes at driveways,
please.
I think you will recognize that only a couple of years
ago we cleaned a -- a drainage area between 8th and 10th off Desoto
Boulevard. This summer the water was draining from the canal into the
residential area.
Unless you get control of the canals from South Florida
Water Management District, you are making the biggest mistake of your
life in doing this. You're going to flood the residential area
because when -- when -- in June the water was at the surface of the
ground. When I'd cut the grass, you'd take and leave a wet spot
behind you. I called South Florida Water Management District, and
they said this -- this is before your heavy rains. They said, well,
we'll open the weirs. Do you know that some of the weirs have the
gates welded shut?
I talked to a neighbor. Some of the other weirs south
of 1-75 not only were closed, they were caulked. They didn't want to
lose a drop of water. That's why -- that's why Collier County was
flooded.
And un -- unless you go look yourself, you can't depend
on what somebody says. The representative from South Florida Water
Management District was talking to me right in front of my driveway in
September before the rain -- heavy rains hit. It was like one or two
days. And he told me that the weirs were open, as wide open as they
could be since I called the last week of June. I said, well,
something's wrong because I've been calling every week. The canal is
coming up.
Four hours later my phone rang. And I answered it, and
it was his big boss from West Palm Beach. And he says, Chuck, I have
to apologize to you. You've been calling me and telling me that the
canal is coming up, that the weirs are closed. And he says, I've been
telling you that they're wide open. He said, they were not wide
open. He said, the people over there at the Big Cypress Basin opened
the weirs in June when you called. They closed them one week later,
and they have been closed to the maximum since then. He said, you are
going to be flooded, and I knew it. And we were.
If you maintain what you've got as far as ditches now
and what has been on deeded record, if you maintain those ditches,
until some reliable control is given to those canals, you're going to
do nothing but flood a residential area. And if you think calls were
bad this year, you just wait. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Riner and then Mr. Perkins.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. RINER: Good morning. Randy Riner, and I'm a
farmer. I'd just like to talk a little bit about the -- the
drainage. I believe the bulk of the problem is in the primary system
being incomplete. And I -- I know that there was a comp. change some
years ago that in essence turned over the primary control to South
Florida Water Management but without the funds. So right now, like I
say, there was some confusion, and I know they're scrambling for funds
to -- to actually do some of the primary work which will -- which will
be a large help in the matter.
Other than that, like I say, if we -- if we don't get
John the help he needs and -- and what funds that are required to do
some of the clean-outs and stuff, the -- from the insurance industry I
checked with in Tallahassee, and they review per year what Collier
County gets, you know, as a rate for insurance on flooding overall.
And it's based on your comprehensive plan and the projected
improvements that you were going to make by your comprehensive plan.
Now, that review comes up again, and we're under a discount rate right
now. That rate will fall to where we pay a positive other than a
discount rate.
And I guess what I'm saying is if -- if there's 50,000
houses in Collier County and the rate goes up an average of 100 a
year, that's -- there's 5 million a year that we're going to pay for
the insurance companies because we have poor drainage, and we're still
not going to have the improvements at the end result. And those rates
are going to remain high until -- until the drainage improvements are
in place and not just part of the comp. plan partially because of the
flooding that we had this year. So it's just another outlook at the
picture to get -- you know, to get funding for -- to improve the
system.
I do have one question on the private roads, though.
The -- they have been collecting tax, ad valorem and gas tax, for
private road maintenance since year one. Are any of those funds
available for some of the private drives that are --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't -- I don't -- I don't
think those people have been paying gas taxes or ad valorem taxes
specifically for private roads but for accessing the public roads.
MR. RINER: Well -- well, the -- the reason I ask that,
page 21 of the -- of the same executive summary indicates that, in
fact -- it caught me by surprise too. But page 21 on the private road
listing under the advantages column, the bottom of it indicates that
the residents of private roads pay both gas tax and ad valorem tax
toward road maintenance. Average amount is approximately 25 a year.
It just -- it seemed odd that those funds weren't, you
know, somehow set aside. Maybe they're not.
But that's basically all I have to say. It was just
another perspective on that, on the drainage. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Riner.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins. He's your final speaker.
MR. PERKINS: Good morning, Commissioners. A1 Perkins,
Belle Heade Groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights.
Last winter I informed this board that the South Florida
Water Mismanagement was deliberately backflooding the Belle Heade area
by raising the level of the weir by four feet, along with that the
Indians having problems because of the South Florida Water Management
raising their water table up to where's their cattle can't graze and
the deer are dying, the snakes are dying. All you conservatists out
there and all you environmentalists, you better wake up. They're
drowning everything you're trying to save, and I'm not an
environmentalist. You better pay attention.
The water had saturated the ground from Broward County
line clear over into 951. So when we got this abundance of rain, the
water had no place to go.
Now, according to Ken Pineau if we had caught one of those
hurricanes that was coming right back to back, we would have had a
storm surge of 28 feet. East Naples would have been under water.
Three stories of the condos on Marco Island would be totally
devastated, and we'd have a lot of bodies floating in the -- in the
streets. The damage would be unreal.
Now, South Florida Water Management along with all the
rest of the agencies want to restore the southern Golden Gates Estates
which contains the Miller canal, Faka Union canal 1 and 2, Prairie
canal. Miller canal and the Faka Union 1 go north to one-half mile
from the Immokalee Road. These are also major canals which are used
to take and have the farmers when they were pumping recently to take
and disburse the water to the south down to Port of the Islands and
out to the -- to the 10,000 Islands.
One of the things that nobody wants to say -- and I was
at the meeting along with Bettye Matthews there at the Big Cypress
Basin Board which I'm trying to tell you people you better start
paying attention. You better start being at these meetings because
they up your taxes. Let's give the county back the money, and let's
give the county back the control of our canals and our swales.
Whether you people know it or not, the people who
control the water is Broward County, Dade County, and Palm Beach
County which are going to try to use your county as a reservoir --
reservoir for their water.
As far as the swale areas go, I highly recommend that we
take and pull the prisoners out of the jail. And if you need be,
chain them together or put a ball on their legs and let them clean out
those swale areas. We need to get rid of the country club.
Something that the Big Cypress Basin Board and the South
Florida Water Management, they have not interconnected the -- the
canals so as you can move water to the east and to the west. At the
present time, the water in Bonita Beach came from Lake Okeechobee
towards and to the north side of Immokalee, towards Bonita Beach,
swung around to the south side of -- of Immokalee right through the
Corkscrew which they want to make a reservoir now and headed towards
the farms just on Oil Well Road and then on into the Fakahatchee
Strand.
These canals were put out there for a reason, to
maintain and control. Now, I've been here long enough that I've seen
the girls when they worked in this building -- and it wasn't this
high. Well, yeah, it was this high -- get out of their cars and wade
into work. This whole county is a swamp. Ask any Indian.
Something that I want to address with this water, you
better pay attention, people, unless you want your kids coming down
sick with malaria, dung which is in Texas right now.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
MR. PERKINS: Ding?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
MR. PERKINS: Dengue?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
MR. PERKINS: Sorry.
Okay.
It's dengue.
Dengue fever, dengue fever.
Dengue.
Uh-huh, dengue fever.
I stand corrected. Dengue.
That's a boat on the back of a big yacht -- yellow fever and
encephalitis.
Now, instead of perpetuating a problem, let's see if we
can't fix it by taking back control right here, put the people back in
control. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Perkins.
MR. DORRILL: That's all.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's our -- our last speaker?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Couple of speakers hit on
something that I've been concerned about for several weeks. There is
a conflicting policy statement out there in the South Florida Water
Management District. While we're under the impression that their job
is to control the water flow so that our ankles are dry 12 months a
year, there's another policy statement that says, you know, we want to
protect the bugs and bunnies, and we have to hold back water to do
it.
And we have had -- during this rainy season in the
middle of it, I've driven by weirs that were closed. I mean, we had
people who had water in their homes, and weirs were closed. And I
hear in a meeting downstairs on the first floor that all the weirs are
wide open. And I'm sitting there doing what A1 has done, looking at a
weir that there's a column of water maybe two feet wide pouring out of
one side of it. The weir was closed. There was a three-foot
elevation difference between upstream and downstream.
We as a Board of County Commissioners don't have the
ability to direct the South Florida Water Management District in any
way. They're controlled simply by the Governor and cabinet if I'm not
mistaken.
Now, you know, it's got to start somewhere that the
interest of county residents are being served by the districts
because, folks, it's on our tax bill. And every year it gets a little
bit larger, and every year we get a little bit wetter. And the
responsiveness and -- and what I saw this year is -- in my opinion was
just an outright misrepresentation of what was going on in some cases,
was inexcusable.
But we sit here with our hands tied, and -- and I have
to ask the question. And I guess, Mr. Weigel, maybe I'm directing it
at you. Where do we start? We've got to start somewhere addressing
this issue to have fair and honest workings with South Florida Water
Management District, or we're going to end up in the same situation
every year. And I'm not saying -- I'm not saying abandon the
environmental side. What I'm saying is balance them fairly. And this
past year --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Prioritize.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, prioritize them. And this
last year was not in any way balanced.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because, Tim, just to add to that
before David answers, I -- I've been informed -- and I'm sure you
guys already know about this -- that the -- that the District is
going to raise the water levels along sections of Collier County
roadways five feet.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've heard twelve and a half feet
as an elevation along Immokalee Road, and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Immokalee Road?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- we have buildings at 12-foot
floor elevations out there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's unacceptable.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, there's -- there's --
there's something seriously wrong here. And we as a body don't have
the ability to seize control of it, nor do I feel we even have the
ability to influence it, so I'm at a loss.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's the danger of an
appointed body having taxing authority is what it is. They have no
accountability.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We are -- we are having a working
lunch with our representative. He's supposed to be in there right
now. That might be a good point to bring up with him as to what is
available to us as a legislative representative to the state to
exercise some control.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a motion if we're ready to
go.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You have a motion?
I -- I've got one more question, though, for Mr. Weigel
that he can be working on and give us a report later. South Florida
Water Management was reported or the Big Cypress Basin was reported to
have engineered a weir to a level of four feet higher than the
constructed weir and raise the water level to a point that it was
above the level of their permitted height. What does Collier County
-- what can Collier County do about a --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: An agency violating --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- a political subdivision of the
state violating its own permits?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, we can start --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What can we do?
MR. WEIGEL: We can start with some research before I
give you --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: -- a definitive answer. But there -- there
certainly may be something. I'll look forward to provide you -- I may
need to obtain for you a little more specific information. But I
certainly caught the gist of the question and look forward to provide
a response to you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'm not asking for that today
obviously.
MR. WEIGEL: No.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I -- I want to get to
Commissioner Norris's motion, but I think it's important that the
public understands that we're feeling a lot of the same frustrations,
if not more. And we're going to need your help in working with the
state legislators in enforcing some action and some cooperation. And
we're not going to be able to do it alone as five individuals. We're
going to need the help from the public. So read the papers, watch the
news. And -- and we'll see if we can get something moving in that
regard.
MR. WEIGEL: I -- I recall several years ago reviewing
and working with Mr. Boldt in regard to some of the contractual
relationships and changing responsibilities between the South Florida
Water Management District and Big Cypress Basin and Collier County
from maintenance. It may go somewhat beyond maintenance. And again,
I'm kind of testing my own memory banks here. But as part of our
review, we can pull out those -- those old contracts and agreements
that may or may not still be in effect but see if there's anything
there from a policy direction standpoint that would assist you with
your information.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Mr. Norris, Commissioner Norris, you have a motion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I have a motion. But let me
ask Mr. Conrecode one last quick question. I think the board and the
staff all recognize that -- that one area that -- that is critical and
also has a time constraint on it is that Lely basin and Lely outfall
canal. This immediate needs request, I didn't get a chance to read
through this this morning. This was just handed to us this morning.
I didn't get to go over it in detail. Does this immediate needs
request start that work in there or would authorize it with the new
equipment?
MR. CONRECODE: The new equipment, the -- for instance,
the track excavator would, in fact, allow us to begin some work in
there. There's really three parts to that, some control structures,
the spreader swale at the end of it, as well as the maintenance of the
existing canal.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. But at least we could get
started on that.
MR. DORRILL: The initial maintenance is scheduled to be
done late this winter upon the delivery of the track excavator.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Then in that case I'll make
a motion that we go forward with the immediate needs request, plus we
also direct the -- the staff to -- to explore the possibility of
buying one of these articulated muck digging machines, all-terrain
vehicle or -- or something of that nature that we discussed earlier.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- if I may, I had -- I thought
I had made a motion.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That was going to be my point of
order. I thought you had -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, you had already made a
motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. And it --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'm sorry.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it was exactly what you just
said except for that I also added to it to ask staff to bring back a
recommendation on items 7 and 4 on Mr. Boldt's list which includes the
staffing.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'll just second your motion
then.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I -- I'm sorry for the
confusion. But we had -- we had talked about that just prior to the
speakers, and I was under the impression that the motion was holding
though you had stated what you would make the motion about.
Commissioner Constantine, you have a comment.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, couple of comments.
First, I -- I share some of the concerns that were expressed either by
Mr. Stephens (sic) that I hate to have us do a lot of work and have
some level of cooperation or not with the other agencies and end up,
despite our best efforts, either having the same problem or having
even worse problem. I don't think we can sit by and do nothing,
though, so I will support the motion.
I also want to address Mrs. Barsh's comments as far as
us being an all-frills government. I think you need only go to Dade
County or Broward County or some of the others to see what an
all-frills government is and when government expends money on things
that are far away from health, safety, and welfare.
There are certainly instances here -- and there have
been some I voted against -- that we have done. But we also have the
lowest ad valorem tax rate in the state of Florida, and there's a
reason for that.
I -- I think contrary to this item being a sad
statement, this agenda item being a sad statement on the staff's
efforts, I think it's a great statement responding to a highly unusual
incident and that being a hundred-year storm. I think Mr. Boldt
outlined the likelihood of having 90 plus inches of rain in any year
is -- is almost non-existent. We had a freak occurrence, and the way
staff has in a matter of weeks put together a very comprehensive plan
should be complimented rather than criticized.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. There's a
second. Can I ask the motion maker to incorporate that the spending
allocation be in accordance with Mr. Dorrill's recommendation of fund
numbers and amounts?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The second accept that?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second accepts.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And I -- I have one comment
before I call the question, and I just saw, Mr. Conrecode, you do
too. Commissioner Constantine made mention of a hundred-year storm.
And someone gave me some figures that a hundred-year storm is eleven
inches in twenty-four hours. We had 17 in -- in one 24-hour period.
I don't know what year that is, but it's a big one.
MR. CONRECODE: Well, and we track them in, you know,
three, five, ten, so on and so forth. And I don't know that we track
anything beyond a hundred-year storm. It was off the charts for the
hundred-year storm.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's off the charts. Okay. We
had an off-the-charts summer.
Mr. Conrecode, you had another comment.
MR. CONRECODE: Just a clarification on Commissioner
Mac'Kie's motion. She had mentioned coming back with items on number
4 and number 7. We've -- if you look at page 1 and 2 of attachment 3
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's water management.
MR. CONRECODE: -- we -- we have assessed that, and
we're very comfortable with the -- with the fiscal impact of those if
you want to just go ahead and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- and -- hmm. So what --
what you're saying is that there's really nothing to come back to. MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we want to include that, we
could go ahead and make it a part of the motion that instead of
discussing that again later, the motion would be for the $633,900 and
to add to that items 7 and 4 which are the surveying contracts and the
staff for Mr. Boldt and then only to direct staff to do further
investigation on the all-terrain vehicle.
MR. CONRECODE: And -- and that we would bring back to
the board in the form of an acquisition process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd -- I'll modify my motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the second accept the
modification?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll accept it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Comment on the motion.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a question on the
motion. This also includes our direction to our county attorney to
pursue answers to our questions I'm assuming because I feel very
strong if -- if despite our best efforts here, if we're -- if we're
not making sure that South Florida is doing their thing too, it can
all be moot so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely part of that package,
and I would like for that to be a part of the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. The motion -- motion maker
incorporates that. The second accept it?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The second will. This is the last
time I'm going to modify my --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have all the motion
amendments at this point?
We have a motion. I'm not going to repeat it. I think
the record will show it, and you've made your notes of what it
includes?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All those in favor please say
aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Let's break for lunch. We'll be back at 25 after 1.
(A short break was held.)
WORKING LUNCH WITH STATE REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS
(The following proceedings took place in the
commissioners' conference room with the following people present:
Chairperson Matthews, Commissioner Norris, Commissioner Constantine,
Commissioner Hancock, Commissioner Mac'Kie, Neil Dorrill, Butt
Saunders, Ed Garcia, and Dave Taylor:)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's put it into context with
the problems we were talking about today. The first is that the water
management district raised the elevation in a canal in the estates
four feet higher than the permitted control elevation. They did it to
hold back water, and they ended up flooding properties. A1 Perkins
was telling us, this is happening, this is happening, and you were --
you know, you were thinking, you know, okay, A1, you know. And
finally we checked into it, and he was correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, also Frank -- A1 took Frank
Heeker down to look at the weir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean that effective
gentleman?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The effective executive director
took Frank Heeker down there to look at the weir, and -- and there had
been a -- a piece of metal strapped to the top of the weir to hold the
water back. Now, mind you, Frank Heeker's no longer with South
Florida Water Management or Big Cypress Basin. He's gone off to do
other things.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: At their request.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He didn't pass the reality
test. He was too close. He was in touch with reality.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm not sure whose request it
was, but it was -- it's -- it's publicly stated as a resignation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition, we experienced
things that -- I would drive by the South Florida weir on Airport Road
and see the difference in water elevation on the upstream and
downstream during the rains and called John Boldt. And John would
call South Florida. And they would tell him all the weirs are open,
and I just drove by it, and it wasn't.
So there was -- there's just kind of a gross
communication difficulty there, and it's as if our asking for action
carries not only no weight, it's -- it's less than that. So those are
the operational difficulties we're having.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Add to that one the business
about they're going to raise -- they're going to raise the elevation
along Immokalee Road to five feet, going to have five more feet of
water than we do.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And that area flooded anyway.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That is definitely -- well, I
guess I won't say on the record what my position is about the private
property rights issue associated with flooding somebody.
MR. DORRILL: For what it's worth, when Butt was the
county attorney, he and I negotiated the agreement that traded or
contracted away the primary canal system. And I'm almost absolutely
sure that there is a termination clause in there that would not only
convey the primary system back to the Board of County Commissioners,
but it can be done with fairly short notice. And I didn't want to get
into that, but I whispered all of that to David and asked him based on
whoever made the comment if they would follow up to see if that is
still true.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I was just reading, though,
the 1991 agreement two nights ago with the -- with the same thing in
mind. And the 1991 agreement supersedes the '86 agreement. So we
have to work with whatever's in the '91 agreement.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I didn't see anything about
cancellation.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I didn't read it that far.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, if you look at the taxes,
the revenues, they generate in Collier County on the millage they
assess, you know, it just -- I want to know where all that money's
coming from.
MR. SAUNDERS: There's a -- there's a select committee
on water policy as part of the standing committees in the
legislature. And they have just really gotten going this year. Last
year they were -- they -- they really didn't have any major issues to
deal with, but this year they're -- we're expecting a lot of activity
from that committee. And that committee has oversight, some
oversight, authority to deal with these types of issues.
So if we can put together a package to explain what's
happened, I'd put that to the committee, and, you know, we can -- if
nothing else, we can certainly cause a great stir amongst the board
members and perhaps get the attention of the Governor. And I think we
can do that very effectively assuming that there is, you know, good --
good basis for the complaint.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Neil, can you take from today's
record the concerns albeit -- you know, and maybe you need to ask us
to add commentary to what we put together. But would you be able to
do that through staff to -- to put together in essence a punch list of
difficulties and miscues that we've experienced?
MR. DORRILL: Absolutely. And then provide that --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we provide that to the
members of the board first to review and add to or amend as we see fit
and then provide it to Butt through official action on a Tuesday?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can -- can I read you clause
number 25 in the 1991 agreement?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why, sure, Bettye.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To the extent permitted by
Florida law, the county shall defend, indemnify, save, and hold the
district basin harmless from any and all claims, suits, judgments, and
liability of death, personal injury, bodily injury, and property
damage.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That wasn't your agreement,
was it, Butt?
MR. SAUNDERS: Did I draft that?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
agreement.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
by the board?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
This is the ninety -- the 1991
Did we -- and that was approved
Uh-huh.
Uh-huh.
MR. SAUNDERS: On advice of counsel no doubt.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, yeah, and he's not here
anymore, so let's blame him. It's Ken Cuyler's fault.
That's scary. That says they can do what they want and
we have no recourse.
MR. SAUNDERS: Not only do you not have recourse. You
have to indemnify them if somebody else has recourse.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, we gotta get out of that
One.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What's the termination clause?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Meanwhile -- meanwhile we have a
deputy director from South Florida Water Management enticing the
DCA --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- to hold our feet to the fire.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Our feet.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is this in perpetuity? Does
this have a time limit to it?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Look for the termination clause.
It will be towards the end.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I didn't see a termination
clause. That's what's scary.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So this is forever.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How about by vote of the county?
Something's gotta be able to terminate that sucker.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This agreement shall bind the
parties, their assigns and successors in interest. I don't see a
termination clause.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why don't we direct or get the
county attorney's office to research that and find out the options for
termination of that or revision.
MR. DORRILL: He already is. That's what we were
whispering.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SAUNDERS: No, that's the -- the agreement whereby
they maintain the major canals.
MR. DORRILL: Through the basin board.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
clause, is there --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
clause?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ten years.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ten years.
MR. DORRILL: From '91.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ten years.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Ten years, huh?
go then.
If there's no specific termination
Ten years.
-- a standard assumed termination
We have a ways to
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And may be -- and may be renewed
upon mutual agreement. Notice of intent to renew or not to renew
shall be delivered to the other party by February 1999.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can always terminate if
somebody defaults. And so if they haven't performed their
obligations, we can say they breached and we quit.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What if they overperform their
obligations?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's -- that's a breach. I'd
argue that's a breach.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sounds to me like the county
attorney's got to work down that road and find out what our options
are.
MR. DORRILL: And the district is otherwise made up of
pretty capable local people like Ellen Getz, Cliff Barksdale, and
people we can deal with.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The -- the basin board I'm not
sure is really the problem. The -- the problem is some of the
employees for the basin board are doing things that the basin board
members don't know they're doing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, what's the link of the
basin board to South Florida? I mean -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's a sub-part.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So basically the basin
board can't bind South Florida in action, can they? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So in essence they're an advisory
board to South Florida more or less.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They have a separate tax.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're separated out a
little bit so that we don't get dominated by the east coast folks that
are --
MR. DORRILL: Which was pretty shrewd on Mary Ellen's
part 20 years ago or whoever it was who did that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, do we have sufficient
direction then to the county attorney to help answer that question so
we can get to Butt what we need to?
MR. DORRILL: I think so.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just asked him also while he
was researching that to research what it is that this board could do
if it choose to do so to separate ourselves from South Florida Water
Management and even form a collaboration with the adjoining counties
and forming a new district.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In essence seceding from the --
seceding from South Florida.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's Burt's birthday cake.
MR. SAUNDERS: Will you just -- the indemnification is
just for --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, there's one indemnifying us
and one indemnifying them.
MR. SAUNDERS: But we're just indemnifying them for any
acts of negligence by our employees, subcontractors. We're not
indemnifying them for their own negligence. As a matter of fact,
they're indemnifying us.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It makes more sense.
MR. SAUNDERS: Yeah, so actually it works to your
benefit.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, that helps.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there -- are we ready for the
next issue? Something that -- that is going to come up through FAC
this year that I know Burt's aware of is the partial year ad valorem
assessment. What happened last year, and what can we do differently
this year?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's never going to pass
because of small counties.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can -- can -- can I interject
something? I -- I got a letter yesterday from -- from Mr. Livingston,
and I'm circulating it around. You should get it today. He maintains
that such a partial year assessment's unconstitutional.
MR. SAUNDERS: Who's that?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ralph, Ralph Livingston, and
that's why it's not passing.
MR. SAUNDERS: I don't think -- well, that's not why
it's not passing. He may be correct in that, but that's not the
reason it's not passing.
The way the system works, you have a Senate sponsor of a
bill and a House sponsor of a bill. And if a sponsor of the bill
doesn't really work the bill, it's not going to go anywhere. It's --
it's practically impossible to take somebody else's bill and push it
along. The sponsor really has to push it along. Lee Constantine was
the House representative who sponsored the bill, I think your
brother. And he -- he for political reasons did not push the bill.
And, as a matter of fact, there was --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is his district made up of some
small counties?
MR. SAUNDERS: Well, I think he's in -- he's in favor of
it, but he just didn't feel there was any real support for it, and he
didn't push it to find out that support.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, let's not have him sponsor
it this time then.
MR. SAUNDERS: Well, I've -- I've spoken to his office
and asked him if he's going to sponsor it. And the -- the problem I
have is -- and I've explained this to the Florida Association of
Counties -- it's -- it's -- right now it's his bill. And he hasn't
decided whether he's going to file it or not. And I told Lee and I
told the Florida Association of Counties that if he does not file it,
then I will. But as long as he's still thinking about it, then I have
to wait and see what he's going to do with it because I don't want to
just grab his bill and file it while he's still thinking of it. So
I'll be meeting with the Florida Association of Counties next week up
there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. SAUNDERS: They're supposed to get back to me on
what Lee's ultimate decision is as to whether he's going to file it.
The -- there are a lot of legal issues associated with
it, and some of those may not be determined until after a bill is
actually approved. It may -- may take some judicial involvement to --
to really determine the legalities.
But from what I've been told, there should be a way to
impose some kind of partial year assessment. It may not be an ad
valorem assessment. But there should be some way to impose some kind
of a fee or tax for people who get their COs during the year.
So those legal problems I think can be worked out. So
that's I think -- when Ralph says that it hasn't passed because it's
unconstitutional, I think that's a bit of a stretch.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where are we on the small
county exemption on that? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
MR. SAUNDERS: There was some discussion about, you
know, limiting the -- you know, giving the county some discretion as
to if it's less than 50,000 people, excluding them from that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a very clear break point
in viability.
MR. SAUNDERS: Yeah. Those counties have a legitimate
concern now having to go forward with that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask you --
MR. SAUNDERS: I think that issue is addressed.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- why it would be necessary to
put or even desirable to put a population number on it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To get their support.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: From what -- from what --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Why -- why give Dade County the
option to not do it if they don't want to? I mean, that's up to them
isn't it, or not?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just give everyone the option?
It -- the way it looks to me is the smaller counties, many of them,
are still doing manual book work.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I understand the reason why
they don't want to do it, but I -- what I'm saying is why is it
necessary --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just make it optional for
everyone? I asked that question at the FAC legislative meeting last
year, and it was -- someone threw out the word unconstitutional, and
the conversation died. I don't know if that was true or was spoken by
someone of -- of well meaning but, you know, lacking in a part of
knowledge. I don't know. But I asked that question on the floor, and
it just kind of died.
MR. SAUNDERS: Well, I think what you can do is have a
system where the county's -- county commission decides whether they're
going to have partial year assessments. It would no longer be an ad
valorem assessment. It would be some kind of a fee for services. And
the fee would have to --
MR. DORRILL: Tack it on at CO.
MR. SAUNDERS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Why can't you -- excuse me.
MR. SAUNDERS: It would be collected -- it would be
collected by the building department.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I -- I don't understand why you
can't do ad valorem partial year. Why not?
MR. SAUNDERS: Well, I think you can. But once you
start making all of the different exceptions to it, then I think you
may run into some -- some problems.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why couldn't we do what Butt just
described now? Do we need -- is there no enabling legislation for us
to do this fee?
MR. SAUNDERS: That's correct. You need -- you need --
you need -- you need some statutory --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mentioned -- you mentioned
all the exemptions if we were to do ad valorem. Can you give me some
examples other than homestead what type of exemptions you're talking
about that make it cumbersome?
MR. SAUNDERS: Well, just what we're talking about. Do
you except small counties, or do you give county commissions --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Opt out?
MR. SAUNDERS: -- the authority to opt out, dutiful arts
counties? And it may just become too confusing to do it as a -- as a
tax.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Livingston in his letter had
said that part of the problems with the constitutionality of the
partial year ad valorem assessment was the tangible tax requirements
within the constitution and that because they -- the tan -- he says
the tangible tax and the real property tax have to be assessed at the
same rate and in the -- up -- up until this year there's always been
FP&L and a couple of others that have huge numbers of tangible
personal property who -- who fight this thing. And he maintained --
and he indicates in his letter that there's a constitutionality
question of having to change the constitution for tangible tax
purposes.
MR. SAUNDERS: Why don't we do this: I -- I'll work
with the Florida Association of Counties. I presume that whatever
they come up with as a potential solution to this, whether it be an ad
valorem tax or a fee or whatever, whether there is a general opt-out
for all counties or whatever they come up with I would presume would
be acceptable to Collier County so --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would want to have a discussion
on a fee as opposed to ad valorem base because the -- the application
is -- is obviously very different there. So rather than saying I
would blanket support whatever the FAC does, why don't I promise you
that as -- that -- that what position they take I'll bring back to
this board. And if it's ratified, we'll forward that to your office
immediately.
MR. SAUNDERS: Yeah. Okay. All right. All right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That way we're not just
blanketing what the FAC does.
MR. SAUNDERS: No. This is also the major piece of
legislation that the school boards around are looking for.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Now, back to the water management
district question if I can, this Thursday and Friday in Tallahassee
the Governor's commission on the water management districts is
meeting. And I had asked Sue to merely get us the minutes from that
meeting because I can't make it. I've got other obligations. But
with this other stuff coming up, perhaps somebody on this board does
want to go and attend that meeting. And if there's some way to have
input on it -- we're looking at three other people, aren't we, John?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: (Commissioner Norris nodded head.)
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When is that, and where is
that?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Tallahassee.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. But any time we start
talking about a Governor's -- Governor's commission on something, it's
going to be a lot of pie in the sky crap without a lot of useful,
in-the-trenches information.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's an appointed group
reviewing an appointed group. I love that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I think our travel funds would
be better spent in other ways. We're not going to have any -- any
viable impacts that would be there. In my opinion it's a waste of
money --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- when we can just read the
minutes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Shall we go?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- as -- as I said, I -- I -- I
asked Sue to request minutes from the meeting so that we know what
they're talking about so we can prepare ourselves.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think that will guarantee
that we understand what they're talking about, but I think that's our
best -- to go up there, I don't think we're going to have any
substantial input or impact so --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, based on the agenda, it
didn't look really appealing, but you never know. Quiet agendas are
sometimes the most revealing ones.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I don't -- I guess what I'm
saying is I don't think there's enough impact for me to express an
interest in going. I don't think it's a worthwhile venture.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Representative Norris might
like to go.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, his big travel budget down
there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Don't tell Willy.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What else do we have on the table
for today?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Butt, why don't you talk to us
about what's coming up that -- that you can see and ways that we might
be able to help you achieve some of your goals?
MR. SAUNDERS: I think there's one major issue that we
-- I think Bettye and I may have talked a little about involving the
federal block grant program for Hedicaid and Hedicare here, Hedicaid
in particular.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is scary.
MR. SAUNDERS: There was a proposal. It was kind of
interesting. It was -- surfaced last week in a healthcare committee,
proposal to block grant to the counties from the state and so the
state government would get X dollars, and then we would break that up
into 67 smaller chunks and block grant it to the counties which means
that the small, rural counties would really be overburdened because
the metropolitan counties would be able to control -- we'd have --
we'd have two funding formulas to be scared of. One would be the
federal funding formula of the states, and the other funding formula
would be from the county -- from the state counties.
We had a -- probably about 150 people in the room that
were interested in that particular issue. And I think there was only
one person in the room that was in favor of it, and that was the
chairman of the healthcare committee. So that -- that issue's still
there.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And he or she was from
where?
MR. SAUNDERS: He is from the Orlando area I think.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Surprise, surprise.
MR. SAUNDERS: And he is still pushing that. And he
would not be pushing it if the Governor wasn't pushing it. And so
that's going to come back. But I -- I think that that will be -- I
think that will --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't mind you at the state
level having to deal with that, but I sure as hell don't want to.
MR. SAUNDERS: No. I mean, that -- you know, I -- I --
it was kind of funny. I didn't know what the speakers were going to
say. But I -- after he surfaced his idea, I said, look. And, you
know, we were all asking questions. And I said, well, one of the
problems, one of the complaints, with the federal block grant program
is that some states will have better programs than other states, and
so you're going to have people migrating from state to state for those
better programs, and we already know that people from Georgia will
come to Florida.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They already are.
MR. SAUNDERS: They already are. And I said, if you
have a block grant program to counties, you're going to have people
traveling throughout the state to different counties to shop for
better programs. And he said, that's not a problem. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For whom?
MR. SAUNDERS: And the next -- the next 15 people --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For whom?
MR. SAUNDERS: The next people --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For whom?
MR. SAUNDERS: The next 15 people to get up to speak all
complained about the fact that we're going to have people migrating
from county to county. You're going to have people -- you already
have people going to West Palm -- to Palm Beach County because they
have a -- a little bit more --
MR. DORRILL: Martha Skinner's even talked to us about
the -- the possibility that the block grant criteria could include
issuance of food stamps and other federal programs previously funded
but under full or partial. And the counties getting into food stamp
issuing business is scary.
MR. SAUNDERS: Yeah, and you'd have to have 67 food
stamp agencies, and you'd have to have 67 Medicaid agencies and
counties --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Where does the administration
money come for -- come from?
MR. SAUNDERS: That would be part of the equipment you
would be block granted. It's a neat -- it's a neat trick for the
legislature to have to avoid making some hard decisions. But that --
that -- that -- that -- I think that concept will -- will -- will fade
away.
MR. DORRILL: What's the status of that? I mean, it's
-- it's there. But, I mean, who's --
MR. SAUNDERS: On the -- on the county block grants?
MR. DORRILL: Uh-huh. Who's driving that from the House
of Representatives?
MR. SAUNDERS: Ben Graber's the chairman of the
healthcare committee, and he's a Democrat, and he gets his
instructions from the Governor and from the speaker of the house. So
I would presume that that's part of the Governor's package.
MR. DORRILL: The other thing Hartha told us was that
the initiative is going to be driven by urban counties who have public
hospitals, ad valorem-supported public hospitals, who desperately need
to be able to manipulate the formula to put more Hedicaid money into
the hospital side --
MR. SAUNDERS: Uh-huh.
MR. DORRILL: -- the primary healthcare system as
opposed to secondary and tertiary.
MR. SAUNDERS: Yup. That's -- that's why it's a -- it's
a bit scary because if you get three or four -- if you get Dade
County, Broward, Palm Beach, and Hillsborough County and Orange County
together voting as a block, they can pass anything they want to pass
so '-
MR. DORRILL: And they all have major public
ad valorem-supported hospitals. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. SAUNDERS: And you're going to have places -- and
the funding formula that was being kicked around was based on per
capita income.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Which hurts us more.
MR. SAUNDERS: So in Collier County you have a high per
capita income on the one hand plus --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And a low --
MR. SAUNDERS: -- plus you've got a tremendous number of
migrant workers.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, and similar to what comes
out in the way of -- of support, we're going to have to be very
careful through FAC because FAC operates on a weighted vote system
that your more urban areas have higher numbers of votes. So, you
know, just as --
MR. SAUNDERS: FAC was -- was opposed to the proposal.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. SAUNDERS: And they -- they appeared in opposition.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just curious if we start
seeing the Orlandos and the Hiamis and Tampas turning if their folks
in FAC will turn also.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But -- but that weighted vote, we
-- we changed it last year and made it less onerous on the -- on the
smaller counties and --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But -- well, a little bit less.
It didn't help Collier a whole lot one way or the other. But it's
still one commissioner, one vote. And if -- if -- even though Dade
County has X number of votes --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thirteen I think.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Even -- even though, you know, 1
-- 1 commissioner from Dade County can cast -- can cast something
like 13 or 14 votes. And they need every one of them there to get the
full weight of it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. I understand.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Likewise we would too if -- if we
really wanted to try to fight something they were -- they were pushing
through. But that's at the FAC level. That doesn't help us at the
legislative level.
MR. SAUNDERS: The Florida Association of Counties is a
pretty powerful group, but they don't have the ability to get a piece
of legislation approved --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. SAUNDERS: -- on their own. I mean, they don't have
that kind of clout.
MR. DORRILL: Even compared to the Florida League of
Cities, we don't have the clout that the League of Cities have.
They've got a much more effective lobby than we do.
MR. SAUNDERS: Yeah. So the -- the good news is that if
they do switch, they can't get enough support to pass the bill on
their own.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. SAUNDERS: The bad news is they can't defeat the
bill either.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Butt, I'm going to back up real
quickly to partial year ad valorem assessments. Who was the Senate
sponsor last year? Was there one?
MR. GARCIA: Dudley.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Dudley.
MR. SAUNDERS: Fred Dudley.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Was it Dudley? Because I know I
was at a press -- press conference with Constantine and Dudley the day
that they announced it up there, and I didn't know is he -- is he
willing to sponsor it again do you think?
MR. GARCIA: He's -- he's taking it up again.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Different subject?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pelican Bay?
MR. SAUNDERS: That's not going to be brought up this
year. That's -- that's definitely not going to be presented.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that because Pelican Bay
hasn't had another straw ballot -- ballot, so to speak?
MR. SAUNDERS: (Mr. Saunders nodded head.) They are in
negotiations with the city on annexation. And until they go through
that process, they're not interested in another Pelican Bay --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you getting a lot of hate
mail?
MR. SAUNDERS: Hmm?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you getting any hate mail on
that?
MR. SAUNDERS: No. I -- I got -- I got more mail on
that issue than on any other issue last year, but it was -- most of
the mail was -- I'd say about 98 percent of the mail was supportive of
the ballot question going on the ballot. A lot of those were opposed
to incorporation, but they wanted me to vote on it.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's good. I just -- I
hear some rumbling sometimes about, you know, that Saunders, you know,
he made a promise, you know, that kind of stuff.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, his promise was to in --
was to introduce it, and that's what he did.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand. I'm just -- I was
just asking because I deal with those people a lot.
MR. SAUNDERS: The story of how that bill died is pretty
funny. I don't know if you've -- if you've heard about it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: About the infighting between
Dudley and -- MR. SAUNDERS: Yeah. Harry Good is the chairman of
the --
MR. DORRILL: I haven't heard this story.
MR. SAUNDERS: Okay. Harry Good is chairman of the
community affairs committee, and he got into an argument with Fred
Dudley. Fred Dudley came in and started yelling at him, and it turned
out Dudley was -- was incorrect, but it was -- Dudley came onto the
floor of the chambers, of the House, and started yelling at Harry Good
about something. And Harry Good vowed that no bill that had Fred
Dudley's name on it was going to get through the legislature in 1995.
And I didn't know about that argument until I started getting copies
of newspaper articles from the Naples Daily News about it.
And on the Thursday before -- or rather the Tuesday
before -- no, it was the Thursday. The Thursday before the session
ended on Friday night, Fred Dudley came over. And he and Harry Good
kissed and made up. And as soon as he did that, my -- that Pelican
Bay bill passed through the -- it was -- it was waived through the --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Committee?
MR. SAUNDERS: -- community affairs committee. But then
it had several other committees to go through. And Keith Arnold --
and I found this out about a month after the session was over. Keith
Arnold got a -- a visit from an attorney representing Westinghouse --
this is what I've been told -- and convinced Keith to try to hold that
bill up for -- for a day. And Keith was able to hold it for one day.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Really. Wow. I didn't know
about the Westinghouse aspect. I hadn't heard that.
MR. SAUNDERS: I'm not 100 percent sure that that's
correct, but that's what I was told. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've heard it too.
MR. SAUNDERS: I know. That's why I said I'm not 100
percent sure that's correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So what else are you anticipating
in the 1995 legislature that we might be able to give a hand with?
MR. SAUNDERS: I'm not sure that there's anything
specific that -- that's going to have any major impact on the
counties. The leaking underground storage tank program is a major
problem for all the counties, but I think we've got that -- that
fixed. I think the new legislation that we have this year will be --
will be good.
MR. DORRILL: Ran out of money last year, didn't they?
MR. SAUNDERS: Well, the -- the program raises about 160
million dollars a year in revenues. And they spend about 250 million
dollars a year, or they're obligated to spend about 250 million
dollars a year in -- pardon me -- reimbursable clean-up costs. So the
program's about 300 million dollars in debt right now, but we've
developed a mechanism to clean up only the most polluted sites.
Pardon me.
So I think we've -- we've fixed that. But it's going to
take a couple years to work it all through. But there -- there are no
other -- there -- there aren't any other major issues that I'm -- I'm
aware of that are going to have some major impact on the counties,
anything unusual.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just -- just the standard old
normal legislative attacks on the county's sovereignties?
MR. SAUNDERS: Yeah, yeah. And I'm working very closely
with the Florida Association of Counties as those issues come up, and
I'm really relying on them to identify those.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are -- are we anticipating any --
any mandates that might be coming down on us?
MR. SAUNDERS: The -- pardon me. The philosophy is that
there are going to be no unfunded mandates from Tallahassee on the
counties.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ha, ha.
MR. SAUNDERS: That's the philosophy.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No legally indefensible unfunded
mandates.
MR. SAUNDERS: No, actually just -- just no -- no
unfunded mandates either for the school boards or for the counties.
And anything that appears to look like a mandate's going to have
serious problems in -- in getting through.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Last year there was an effort by
HRS to try to do -- I guess you could say bulk billing. Is that what
we would call that on our Medicaid --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, where they --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- billing?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- remove itemized review of --
of bills and just give you a bulk number which their ability to pass
has been less than stellar to be accurate.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are they -- are they still
talking about trying to do that, or is all that kind of in the
background until this block grant stuff is finished?
MR. SAUNDERS: I'm -- I'm not familiar with that issue
at all.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Right now we get itemized bills
from HRS for Medicaid.
MR. DORRILL: What they determine the eligibility to be.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They frequently overbill by
what is it? Like 30 percent or something?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thirty percent of it's overbilled
and -- and -- because we review the bill, and we only transfer to them
the money that --
MR. SAUNDERS: So they're talking about eliminating the
itemized bill?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
MR. SAUNDERS: Which would make it difficult to find
that 30 percent?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, yes.
MR. DORRILL: Which we have a lot of people like Hartha
Skinner who've made a career out of scrutinizing every dollar. And
the state's error rate is about 30 percent.
MR. SAUNDERS: Okay. Well, Hartha needs to get ahold of
me if there's a --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, this was a big move last
year. We don't know if it's --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We basically defeated it last
year. FAC took a strong position against it even though Dade and
Orange were in favor of it because they didn't -- they didn't -- they
didn't do their item -- they just -- they just -- they just paid it.
They never reviewed it anyway.
MR. SAUNDERS: Why would they be opposed to the
itemization even though they don't pay any attention to it? Why would
they care?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Because without it being
itemized, there's nobody to question whether that's what they really
owe or not.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I haven't heard anything about it
coming back through all the FAC stuff I've been getting. So if I see
something, I'll bring it to your attention. I'm sure Martha will too
because she -- she -- she stays on the loop on that one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Article --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So yeah, if we see that, we'll
get ahold of you right away.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Article 5 funding, where -- where
are we on that? Any idea?
MR. SAUNDERS: Give me a little more information.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Article 5 of the constitution
says that the state will fully fund our legal justice system, criminal
justice system. But it has a little clause at the bottom of it that
says that whatever the state doesn't fund the counties will. MR. SAUNDERS: Oh.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And -- and -- and Collier County
this year -- Neil can help me with that, but it's something like six
million dollars that we're funding that the state won't fund that's
judges' robes, judges' vacations and seminars, replacement
secretaries when their secretaries go on vacation, silly little things
like that. Six million dollars worth, though.
MR. SAUNDERS: Well, I don't think there are going to be
any new unfunded mandates, but I suspect that there won't be any
repeal of existing unfunded mandates.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was not a retroactive piece
of legislation.
MR. SAUNDERS: No, no. Can you -- you know, I -- I had
a conversation with a freshman Republican last week, and he has
submitted a bill that would repeal Florida's intangible tax.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A lot of people support that.
MR. SAUNDERS: A lot of people support that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. SAUNDERS: And I asked him how much revenue the
state gets in intangible taxes, and he said just over 800 million
dollars.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What are you going to replace it
with?
MR. SAUNDERS: So I said, well, you know, we -- we get
about seven or eight hundred million dollars a year in new revenue
just based on normal growth. We know we're going to lose somewhere
between five hundred million to a billion in federal funding. It
could be as high as -- as a billion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean this year over last
year?
MR. SAUNDERS: Next year when -- when block grants are
-- we know we're going to lose a significant amount of money.
Hopefully it won't be more than five hundred million, but it could be
as much as a billion dollars. If you assume inflation at a rate of,
say, 3 percent on a 40 billion dollar budget, you need a -- what is
that? 1.2 billion dollars just to keep up with inflation. And if you
look at our new revenue, we don't keep up with inflation with our new
revenue. If you take another billion dollars off of federal money and
then take another eight hundred million off with the loss of
intangible tax, then I'm not sure how we balance our budget.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How did he respond?
MR. SAUNDERS: How did I -- how did he --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How did he respond to you?
MR. SAUNDERS: He just said that he thought this would
be good for business in the state.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask --
MR. SAUNDERS: And maybe it would be. But I don't think
he was really thinking --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To the tune of 800 million in
increased sales tax?
MR. SAUNDERS: Yeah. I don't think he was thinking
about, you know, the overall budget.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that 800 million figure net of
administrative costs, or is that the gross income that they bring
because I've -- I've had people say -- and I've never been -- bothered
to check it. But I heard people say that it barely covers its
administrative costs.
MR. SAUNDERS: Okay. I don't know.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a good question.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: At the rate Tallahassee grows, it
probably doesn't.
MR. SAUNDERS: If the administrative costs are more than
3 or 4 percent, then there's -- you know, there's a problem that --
that -- but assuming that it is a net revenue of 800 million dollars
to the state, the loss of that revenue would be just catastrophic.
And you talk about the existing unfunded mandate dealing with the
roads. You know, don't even think about looking for more money from
the state because it won't be there.
The -- I think with a lot of things that are happening
with the block grants and budget problems that the next several years
are going to be much more frustrating than they have been in the last
several years. Last year we had -- we were able to balance everything
out. Next year's going to be -- going to be real tough.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have an operational kind of
question. On the -- the times we have the ability to -- to be up
there during the session, I'm going to have some things such as
Vanderbilt Lagoon and maybe even Clam Bay that I'll want to maybe meet
with some DEP folks about. Would it be appropriate to call you ahead
of time and ask you to set those up?
MR. SAUNDERS: It -- it -- it -- it would be easier if
you did and let me -- let me set those up for you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Don't set it up yourself
because they won't show.
MR. SAUNDERS: I guarantee you that if a member of the
House sets up a meeting, they will -- or requests a meeting, they will
be there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And almost guarantee you if they
don't, they won't.
MR. SAUNDERS: Well, we -- we -- we control their
budget, and that's -- that's the only reason they'll show up. It's
enough.
If you've got an issue that's important and you want to
-- I know you're going up there to lobby, and -- and that's important
to do that. If we can help -- you know, if you've got an issue -- got
an issue -- a position paper on something or there's a piece of
legislation that the county attorney has done a -- a report on saying
this is bad legislation for counties because of blah, blah, blah or
whatever, we can hand deliver that to all of the members of the House
and the Senate. And we can time the delivery of the information to
the day it's coming up for a floor vote or the day it's coming up for
a committee. And so I would encourage you to use us to distribute
information like that. And we just -- we have pages up there and I
guess interns and all kinds of people that their whole job is to run
around hand delivering -- making copies and hand delivering stuff.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Also the tri-county
legislative lobby meeting is now scheduled for November the 20th, and
we'll probably have a better feel for what the three counties are
interested --
MR. SAUNDERS: Is that going to be down here?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Lee County's working on --
on the place. The time is between 9 and 11 on -- on the 20th, so
certainly if you want to be there, I think that would be a good idea.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's in Lee, not in Collier?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, it's in Lee County.
MR. SAUNDERS: November 20?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. SAUNDERS: I'll -- I'll make an attempt to be
there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think it's going to be at the
Terry Field extension -- MR. SAUNDERS: I probably won't be able to make it out
there, but I'll -- I'll write it down.
MR. DORRILL: Are there other counties or cities that
from your perspective being from here who have maybe more visible or
effective lobby? I mean, are there other -- like does the treasure
coast group of cities -- or I know Hetro Dade has a full-time lobbying
staff. Even the Collier County School Board has a full-time lobbyist
who's on staff who spends a session.
MR. SAUNDERS: Yeah. Dade and Broward, for example, in
reference to environmental issues, they have people up there for the
entire session, and they -- and they -- and they're very effective.
MR. DORRILL: Are there things that we did last year
that you think are not effective that as we get ready to go up there
again this spring that -- that we could change?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We weren't remotely effective
last year.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just on -- on that just as
a -- I -- my personal opinion -- and I'm going to vote for it. I've
supported the -- the idea, but my experience is that professional
lobbyists are effective and amateur lobbyists are not effective
whether they're elected officials or not. And, you know, that's my
thought is that we could probably do better.
MR. SAUNDERS: Well, you know, when you -- when you
start talking in terms of a professional lobbyist, take the group of
professional lobbyists that were involved in the telecommunications
debate. There was literally millions of dollars spent in the
telecommunications lobbying effort. And there was an army of
lobbyists there dealing with the legal issues, the technical issues,
and then, you know, doing the PR work and going around and talking to
representatives and hosting dinners and doing all kinds of things.
And obviously the counties can't do that.
And if you have -- if you have a major lobbying effort
where you spend millions of dollars and have lots of people involved,
it's effective. But on the other hand, if it's just hiring a
professional lobbyist and spending a few thousand dollars a week or
something to have this lobbyist brought around and talk to people, I
think that's ineffective. I think this lobby group could be very
effective if --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We need to learn how to do it.
MR. SAUNDERS: Yeah, if you -- first of all, you've got
to pick your issues pretty carefully. You can't lobby on 50 different
issues. So there are two or three or four or five issues that are
going to be important. And I think if you use the resources that you
have which is all of the representatives from the three counties and
all the senators from those three counties, you use those people to
get the word out. You know, and I suggest to you if there's an issue
and you want a paper out or a press release or something out to all
the representatives or to all the media in the state, we can do that
pretty effectively very quickly. And I think you can multiply the
effectiveness of your group if you use the representatives that you
have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. SAUNDERS: But I would -- I would -- I think we
talked a little bit about this last year. I think the -- the main
thing is pick your battles. You know, ad valorem -- partial year ad
valorem assessments is important to you. You've got some resources
here to do a little bit of research. You can -- you can put together
a bullet point thing with the Florida Association of Counties as to
why it's important to you. I can send it to everybody. I can lobby
with the committee members. I can get you on the agenda to talk
before the committees.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. SAUNDERS: We can make your effort a whole lot -- a
whole lot more effective.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Which -- which is one thing the
three counties agreed to do, and that is to be present during --
during the committee meetings in -- in February this year. And we
didn't do that last year, so we need some help in what -- what the
expectations should be.
MR. SAUNDERS: But the -- the process is -- I think the
process is designed to be confusing. And, you know, there's some
advantages to that, and there's some disadvantages. The disadvantage
is that you literally will not know what your bill is going to say
until after the vote's cast. I mean, it can be changed at any point,
and the changes can be dramatic.
And I -- I found myself sponsoring a bill last year that
I ultimately withdrew my sponsorship of and spoke against the bill
because it had changed so much that it was -- you know, didn't bear
any resemblance to what was originally presented. And I didn't know
that until it came up for a floor vote because there were amendments
presented on the floor.
So the -- it's a process that requires vigilance from
the very beginning all the way to the very end. And you can use us to
let you know where things are. You've got the Florida Association of
Counties also. And they're there all the time.
MR. DORRILL: It also takes people like Ed to call you
on the phone in the chambers and say, Butt, don't vote for this bill.
MR. SAUNDERS: Exactly. You know, it's --
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll tell you, Butt, just going
up there last year a couple -- you know, the one time I went up, it
cured me of any inkling I had whatsoever to be in state government. I
mean, just the way in which things happen up there is just -- it's
unbelievable.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Worse than here?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's just -- oh, please. Pam, if
you hate this job, you would detest, despise, and probably commit
suicide in Tallahassee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And imagine the federal level,
what it must be like.
MR. SAUNDERS: Well, you know, there -- there -- like I
say, the process creates challenges also. You can use that process.
If you got a bill that you want to get through, there are ways to use
the process because everybody else is just -- everybody else is just
as confused as -- as you are so --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if you're sly you can tag
things or attach things as it goes through.
MR. SAUNDERS: Yup.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if you're not you can get
tagged as it goes through.
MR. SAUNDERS: Uh-huh. Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think -- I think that's what
we're -- we're looking for our representatives and senators to help us
with is that -- to help us know what the system is so that we can use
it to our advantage.
MR. SAUNDERS: But I -- I think just to wrap on that --
on that issue how you can be more effective, I think the main thing is
use the resources that you have. Use the Florida Association of
Counties. Use your representatives. Don't think that you can go up
there on your own, set up meetings, meet with people, and have any
impact at all because you're just one of another ten million people
that go through there. You know, down here county commissioners are
significant and important people. In Tallahassee, you know, county
commissioners are not significant.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're 1 of 500 that -- that --
that -- you know, almost the entire House of Legislatures, you can
have absolutely no impact on their -- MR. SAUNDERS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- on their existence at all.
MR. SAUNDERS: But you can -- you can make a difference
if you use those resources.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Butt, thanks. I just -- in
the last year I've seen -- I think we've all seen more of you than I
saw in eight years of Mary Ellen, and no offense to Mary Ellen. I
just don't know that the board or me as civic president or whatever in
Golden Gate got an opportunity to see her as often. And I think it
makes it a lot easier.
MR. SAUNDERS: I appreciate that, yeah. Well, I want to
-- I want to meet with the commission every year and at least once
before the session and once after the session. And if we need to get
back together again, we'll let -- we'll let John buy lunch next time.
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Where's your office?
MR. SAUNDERS: Oh, I'm sorry. I'll buy lunch next time.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I don't -- I don't think -- I
will continue to try to attempt to support your community meetings
where I can make them and so forth because I think they're important.
MR. SAUNDERS: We had a -- you know, we had a good
meeting on -- on health -- on criminal justice.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, it was good, good meeting.
MR. SAUNDERS: The film of it was really good. We have
a health care meeting --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I meant to watch that.
MR. SAUNDERS: I'll get you a tape.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
MR. SAUNDERS: We have a -- we have a healthcare meeting
next Wednesday, and we just got word that Porter Goss is going to
participate with us, so, you know, it's going to be an interesting
topic. We're going to try to cover the federal, state, and local
healthcare issues and try to put them in some perspective so people
can understand them.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Good.
MR. SAUNDERS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
(A short break was held.)
Item #8C3
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER HEALTH SERVICES (CHSI) FOR USE OF OFFICE
AND CLINICAL SPACE WITHIN THE HEALTH AND COMHUNITY SERVICE BUILDING -
CONTINUED TO 11/14/95
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the Board of County
Commission meeting for November the 7th, 1995. We are at 8(C)(3).
This is an item moved from the consent agenda.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am. For the record, Tom Olliff,
your public services administrator again. This item, 8(C)(3), is a
request to review and approve a lease agreement with Collier Health
Services, Incorporated, and it's a little unique in that on your
consent agenda is almost a companion item to this. It's an item
wherein the health department has intended to subcontract a majority
of its clinic work out to Collier Health Services, Inc., as opposed to
doing it themselves. This is the associated lease for office and
clinical space to allow that to occur within county building. The
lease agreement, the way it's structured is it's currently a $1-a-year
lease with a term of five years and also allows for some renewals at
the end of its current term. There are provisions where the lessee --
in this case CHSI -- is required to provide both property and
indemnification and liability insurances that name Collier County as
additionally insured which is one of the issues that we had previously
with the health department.
The only other issue at hand is the fact that they used
county equipment as well in that facility downstairs, and I request
that if the board approves the lease, that it would do so with a
proviso -- We need to work out the language. They understand that
it's coming -- that they would be responsible for the maintenance and
repair of that equipment as they use it. As they replace the
equipment, the new equipment that they would purchase would become
their own.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Olliff, I was the one who
brought this off of the consent agenda and I just -- I need some
clarification here. The way I read this, it appears to me that we --
This is in Building H; correct?
MR. OLLIFF: Correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. In our health department
building. It appears to me that we are giving state-free rent,
essentially a-dollar-a-year rent at the same time that we are going
out and renting space for Collier County functions on the commercial
market, and it just doesn't seem to be equitable for us to continue
doing that. I mean, why should we on the one hand provide free space
for some other governmental agency when we're having to go pay rent on
something for ourselves? I mean, that doesn't sound equitable at all.
MR. OLLIFF: I -- Just trying to anticipate that that
might be a question, I tried to get the real properties department to
give me -- and they gave me a very quick -- and I'm not sure if this
is a complete list at all, but the most recent lease of a
county-related type of department is your own finance department that
we're currently leasing space in a building adjacent to the county
complex where we're leasing 5,100 square foot of office space. Their
estimated annual lease cost is about $64,000 that we're spending a
year for that space. So that is the issue, I guess, that you're
raising.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess -- Is there a significant
time-line or a rush on this? Because I think Commissioner Norris has
raised a valid question that we need to look at. I think we're all
supportive of Dr. Polkowski's efforts to provide similar service
through looking at other resources and so forth, but this seems like a
question that needs to be answered substantially and -- and if there's
not a rush to get this done, I -- I would like to see some work done
on that regard and come back to this board.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I also see in the -- the
executive summary here that that -- that the facility that we leased
to him for a dollar a year has a market value around $200,000.
MR. OLLIFF: Actually, I think they recalculated that.
In total, the space that we leased to the health department and this
space included has been estimated at about $400,000 a year. I think
this space is actually -- That was a typo, probably should have been
100,000 and the space that they use is about 300,000. In either case,
we took both leases -- which you have yet to see the health department
lease. Both of them are arranged for a dollar-a-year lease.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So you're saying that it's really
about $400,000 worth of property?
MR. OLLIFF: Between the two agencies, yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That makes it even more
inequitable then.
MR. EVANS: Commissioners, may I provide you with some
information which may be able to assist you in this discussion? I'm
Roger Evans with the Collier public health unit. I'd like to make
sure that I understand the issue that you're considering right now.
And, Commissioner Norris, you brought up the consideration of the
amount of space and the absence of rental payment for the space for
the health unit's operations. Is that -- Is that the focus of your --
of your question?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The focus is really the equity of
Collier County taxpayers paying or receiving no income from another
governmental agency when they have to pay to rent space for their own
operations.
MR. EVANS: Okay. Thank you. The space issue for
Collier County has been a long long-term situation of difficulty.
There's always need for more space than -- than exists. With regard
to the health unit's operations, Building H was a relatively new
construction. In the planning of that facility, legislative
assistance occurred which actually obtained $1.75 million of state
funds which went into the construction of the facility. With -- With
that money going in, the -- the county -- in the process of that money
being part of the project, the county provides the space for the
operations of the public health unit with the understanding that there
would not be rental charges for facility space used by the public
health unit. That, in part, comes with the -- came with the money,
but it's also a provision of Florida Statute when the construction
funds, in part, come from the -- come -- come from the state. So I
wanted to be sure that you had that information in your further
considerations of this. That's an important element.
MR. OLLIFF: I'm unaware of any agreement or anything in
the state statute that requires that. We can certainly research that
through -- through the attorney's office.
MR. EVANS: The reference is 154 -- Florida Statute
154.016A.
MR. OLLIFF: Whether it prevents counties from -- from
requiring a certain annual lease payment or not, I don't know. We'll
research that, but I don't think that the county entered into any kind
of special agreement for the state's participation in the actual
building, that dedicated portions of the building are -- are --
required us to provide lease-free space to them.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let me suggest that in any
-- any case, if we're -- if we're donating $400,000 worth of lease
payments on an annual basis, that in three years we would recover our
money if we refunded them their $1.2 million worth of construction
fees and just charge them rent, and I think anybody would agree that
thirty-three and a third percent return on your investment is pretty
good money nowadays.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That $400,000 is construction? I
mean, that's the market value of the space? Is that --
MR. OLLIFF: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's not rental value, is it?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, it is?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Maybe we ought to repay it.
Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just think there are a lot of
nuances in what's being brought forward, such as a provider coming in,
using the space, being paid by the state for its services, yet the
county's, quote, unquote, "contribution" is not a part of the
contract, nor is it a part of the contract for reimbursement should
state fees exceed the cost of providing the service. So I think, you
know, in essence, it's -- it's -- it's a subsidy, and it needs to be
either corrected or, at minimum, recognized and included in the
formula. And until that's done, I really wouldn't want to move
forward on this particular item.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to continue.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion to continue. Second. Any
discussion?
MR. EVANS: Commissioners, if I just might give you
another element for consideration. The lease is -- in part, it's one
of two elements in order to allow the privatization project to
continue. The first was the operational agreement which included some
of the considerations that the board was concerned about. Indemnity,
liability coverage, the -- the use of equipment, and the
responsibility to repair and replace, all of those things were
included in the agreement, operating service agreement. Without the
lease being approved, the project stops. We have in motion a rather
large and heavy wheel which required community notification, legal
notifications, because physicians' offices were transferring services
to another entity. There's been a great deal of effort occurring in
community notification and -- and legal responsibilities with regard
to this transition, all with the understanding that things were
progressing with knowledge of county administration and the -- the
board's understanding from earlier discussions. We're -- We're --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not only that, but the program
that you're -- that you're pursuing is one that someone like
Commissioner Norris would heartily endure since it is a public/private
partnership that -- that gets some private involvement in this, what's
formerly been completely publicly funded activity, and I -- I
recognize your question, but I don't want to do anything to slow that
process down because they're -- they're going along so well and it's
-- it has a great momentum, and I'd hate to interfere with it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I don't think just the delay
to find the answers to the questions that this board has raised is
going to cause the complete termination of the project so I --
MR. EVANS: We're scheduled to transfer services on the
15th. The next board opportunity, I believe, would be Tuesday, the
14th. So that would be the day before. Should there be any problems
or any situations that were not resolvable, then, quite honestly, the
project would be at a standstill.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I ask you --
MR. EVANS: One -- One other very quick -- if I may,
please --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- maybe some answers by the end
of the day. Commissioner Norris, could we try to do that instead of
postpone longer than that if it's possible to get those answers by the
end of the meeting?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you know, one of the things
that's exasperating sometimes is that if this lease agreement is so
important to the -- to the completion of your project, why wasn't it
taken care of before? I mean, here it is on the consent agenda a week
before you need it, eight days before you need it. I mean, what -- Is
that -- Are you telling me that -- that it's -- it's such a vital
important part of the program on one hand and on the other hand it's
on the consent agenda a week before you need it? I mean --
MR. EVANS: I'm not sure that you're addressing it to
the proper individual, Commissioner Norris. There's been a very large
team effort involved in this, including many facets of county staff
and county operations. And, frankly, the health unit has acted as
facilitator in getting many of these things accomplished even to the
point that they are. But to answer your specific question, sir, I
think you'd have to address other individuals.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think the answer to the
questions is important. If -- If they are able to get those questions
answered by the end of the meeting, would that be satisfactory? And
then if they're not, of course, you'd have to have your questions
answered. I respect that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that realistic, Hr. Olliff, to
try to answer these questions in the period of --
MR. OLLIFF: Your first question is the larger of the
issues, and it's the -- the issue about providing a-dollar-a-year
lease space when you are on the other hand paying for county offices
and rental space, and that's one that -- I don't know who can answer
that other than you as the board.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MR. OLLIFF: And -- And that's something I'm not sure
what you want in the way of information other than, yes or no, do we
have a legal obligation to provide them space; and, if so, at no cost.
And I guess those are the two questions you're looking to me to
answer. David, can we -- can we answer that today?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'll tell you, we're part way there
already in the sense that Mr. Evans does have a statutory citation
with him which I've reviewed, but I think what we have to do -- it may
be possible during the course of the rest of the meeting today -- is
to determine the funding that went into Building H, the facility in
question, to determine what the state mix was, if there was a state
mix, and/or any agreements that existed, grants or otherwise, toward
the construction of the building which will play a large part in
applying the statute that Mr. Evans has to the issue that's before you
today which is, in part, of course, use of facilities at no cost,
potentially no cost to the -- to the health unit. So there is some
homework that can be done. I don't know if we can get it done today,
but I know just what it is as far as that goes.
MR. OLLIFF: I'll tell you, I would be more comfortable
if there is a date -- a Tuesday prior to implementation -- date being
able to come back because I've got to put my hands on those agreements
from probably seven or eight years ago at this point.
MR. EVANS: I want to let the board know that as part of
this wheel of motion that has occurred, since the privatization effort
impacted individuals who are employed by the public health unit, in
our efforts to minimize the impact on them as individuals, there's
been a great deal of placement effort that has occurred, all aiming
toward the transition date of the 15th. This is one other area that
is going to be a significant impact for us, as the health unit
staffing has been adjusted for this transition. And if the health
unit is responsible for the continuation of services beyond that date,
we're, frankly, going to be unable to handle the volume of individuals
that are already on the books already scheduled to come in. It's --
It's a very, very integrated and complicated interrelated effort.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those are certainly valid
concerns, and I understand your comments, Commissioner Hac'Kie, but I
share Commissioner Norris's concerns in that if we don't have answers
to our questions, it's not moving ahead as a matter of convenience or
a matter of -- It may slow us down by a week or by a few days. There
may be -- We may have a period for seven days in there that we have to
respond somehow if the staffing has changed and all. I don't know how
that is, but I'm not comfortable simply moving ahead so that we can
avoid something like that if we don't know what we're getting into.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think I feel the same way and
especially in light of the conversation that we just had at lunch
regarding block grants and not knowing what the federal government is
going to do versus the state government and what our obligations are
going to be under any program that changes in the future. This is a
five-year lease, and medical supervision five years from now could
very well be far different from what we're doing right now. So I -- I
-- I agree. I think we need some answers.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we're all in agreement
with Commissioner Hac'Kie, that -- that we appreciate and honor the
efforts of the public health unit in trying to create a -- a
consistent level of service in the face of decreased funding, but no
one probably on our staff knows the idea of doing more with less than
Mr. Olliff does in the coming fiscal year. We've all had to -- to
make those hard decisions, and all we're asking is before signing on
to a five-year lease, that we have, you know, some significant
questions answered, some caveats in place and -- and I'm going to
support that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree. If it were possible to
get an answer today, that was my only question.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Would the motionmaker incorporate
in the motion to continue this for one week and to have it before us
next week?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure. I think Mr. Olliff has
indicated that he can reasonably do his research by then.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The second accepts that?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The second accepts.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. The motion is to continue
this item for one week. Any further discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #9A
LELY BAREFOOT BEACH GATEHOUSE UPDATE - COUNTY ATTORNEY TO HEET WITH
LELY BEACH HOMEOWNERS REPRESENTATIVE AND THEN THE STATE TO DISCUSS
CERTAIN CRITERIA TO RESOLVE GATEHOUSE ISSUE AND RETURN TO BCC IN TWO
WEEKS
Next item on the agenda is item 9(A), county attorney's
report, an update on Lely Barefoot Beach gatehouse.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The first statement is, it's
still there.
MR. WEIGEL: Hello. So am I. Hi. This is -- This is
the segment we set aside for the update on the Lely Barefoot Beach
gatehouse, and I had provided some information to you this past
Tuesday at the workshop. As you know, the county has had an ongoing
lawsuit, not -- not initiated by the county, but by the homeowners
association which occurred earlier in 1995, in essence, preempting the
county's administrative action upon board direction to pursue a -- a
code compliance, Code Enforcement Board format.
Since that time, we've been in court. The matter with
Collier County as defendant had been delayed in part because the
county had felt that the State of Florida was a necessary and, in
fact, indispensable party to the action. The State of Florida did not
weigh in, did not enter the action, and ultimately upon disposition of
the Court, it was determined that they were not an indispensable
party.
In the meantime, there has been various mode of
negotiation and discussion between the attorney for the plaintiff and
the attorney for Collier County, the county attorney's office and
commissioners looking for, addressing, fleshing out potential
agreement, a reduction of issues, determining where the interests
would lie, and to reach -- resolve the issues that were presented in
court and exist outside of court with the reality of -- of what's in
the street up at Lely Barefoot Beach roadway.
The State of Florida, through the Attorney General,
ultimately intervened relatively recently. The Court granted leave to
intervene, and subsequent to that, the Attorney General -- on behalf
of the Attorney General and the board of trustees of the internal
trust fund, filed a cross-claim and counterclaim. The cross-claim is
against Collier County, and it would appear based on the allegations
of the state that their interests, at least as written, are
potentially at variance, not necessarily actually at variance, but
potentially at variance from what they perceive the interest and
responsibilities of the county are in regard to the easement and the
right-of-way and the access to the -- to the beach facilities up at
the Lely Barefoot Beach area.
Collier County, through the county attorney's office,
has filed a response in court to the cross-claim from the State
Attorney General, asking for dismissal of the cross-claim against
Collier County. That is pending before the Court. A hearing is yet
to be scheduled on that particular motion. But that tells you briefly
where we are in court at the present time.
There's been some discussion about the county staff,
code compliance proceeding in a parallel fashion outside of the court
jurisdiction to provide -- to act upon and provide a notice of
violation for the ongoing situation of the gatehouse up in the Lely
Barefoot Beach area. And as I advised the board this past Tuesday,
such action may be met with opposition by the plaintiff in the court
action which are the property owners associations, and I think that
there is a possibility that the county may not be able to proceed in
its own administrative code compliance action by virtue of the fact
that the parties and the issues are before the Court at the present
time.
And that summarizes, I think, the status of the -- of
the situation from the county attorney and the -- and the legal
aspects in court. There may be other -- I know there are numerous
speakers, and there may be other information that can be brought
forward today which the county attorney will look forward to comment
upon. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Last week when we had our
discussion at the workshop, there were four specific areas that I said
at the time I think seemed to have come to the forefront as the areas.
There are any number of fringe issues that go along with this, but
there seem to be four that most parties agree are the keys and -- and
first and foremost, that the guardhouse in its current form must go;
that there needs to be unencumbered access to the park properties for
the public. And -- And I described last week, for me, "unencumbered"
means not only that there's a right to drive through there, but there
is no visual barrier or -- or otherwise. So when Joe and Sally
Connecticut are driving in, they know they have access to the park.
Equally important, though, that there is some sort of information area
so if there is a contractor or visitor to the condominium owners, they
have a place to stop to get their information, to get a sticker, to
get whatever they need. And, of course, I don't think anyone has
objected any -- anywhere along the lines that at nighttime those
homeowners certainly need their security, and there's no need for
anyone to be going into the park at night and so to button that up for
the residents' benefit.
I had done a sketch and met with Mr. Hazzard,
representing the homeowners, and also met with some of the Citizens
Association of Bonita Beach people two or three weeks ago and gone
through some things. Last week Commissioner Hancock handed out a
sketch --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Out of the beauty of the Sunshine
Law.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- Yeah -- at the
workshop, and I have -- had just done a couple of things since then.
Rather than draw another sketch -- because I think much of what
Commissioner Hancock has can work with some minor changes -- I had
handed out to the other commissioners earlier today, about 20 minutes
ago as we sat here, a little color-coded thing just to follow my
explanation, and the orange "X" obviously means remove the existing
guardhouse. I think the green dot on there represents, as
Commissioner Hancock had, a little area where people can stop for
information or contractors can stop or what have you. And the -- I
highlighted the median in the middle with yellow, and what I was --
Why I wanted to highlight that was, as I mentioned, I think unimpeded,
unencumbered access is important, and in order to maintain some
continuity there -- we may, we may not, but we may need to do a little
work on the median if we're going to have space for people to stop
there. We want to have it safe enough so that people can get through
-- those who are going to the park can get through, and so perhaps we
can jog that median a little and create it straight through.
But on Commissioner Hancock's -- I -- I had a couple of
questions on the drawing you had. One, it has an exit gate now which
it doesn't exist currently.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was that nasty little
planner in me coming out and trying to achieve symmetry so, you know,
I'm not -- I'm not advocating that it's there. It was -- I was just
trying to define the left edge of where we were. So it's not there
now. I don't think the -- the residents are -- are as concerned about
exiting as they are about entering. So I -- I don't think that's a
vital element.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the only other question I
had on your drawing was the written description, where it talked about
a swinging gate, and it says -- appears to have an arm gate. I didn't
know what the difference was.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is a swinging gate.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. The intent there was that
the park entrance, which would be the left-hand lane, would have a
swinging gate that county personnel in the morning unlock, swing open,
and lock in an open position, and then as the park closes, they close
that gate and lock it in a closed position, trying to separate the --
the responsibilities of a private guard that's hired by Lely
homeowners and that of -- of park entrance. So there can be no mixing
of the two, so to speak. So the swing gate is -- is intended to be
for park visitors.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That park gate, by the way, is --
apparently from your drawing, looks the same as the gates on all of
our other parks.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. It would be unless the
-- the homeowners want to, you know, pretty it up and -- and that's
-- that's their option but it's -- My intention would be to install a
typical swing, arm-type gate there, then allowing the right-hand lane
for the -- the monitor -- or not the monitoring, but the issuing of
passes and permits as they're required, you know, in the evening and
for construction workers and so forth, guests during the day.
You mentioned the space in there. I went out and did a
very scientific method by walking it off and found that the right-hand
side -- there's 24 feet of pavement which is typical of two 12-foot
travel lanes; however, in entrances they vary in the county anywhere
from 10 to upwards of 14 feet, depending on the type of entrance and
type of lane. The only concern I have there is to, again, be very,
very clear about people who are wishing to go to the park, that, you
know, you go straight through here. You, you know -- you know, do not
pass go. Do not collect $200. Just -- You know, this is -- is for
folks that are going to the park, and my idea was that with 24 feet of
pavement, we could put a 2- or 3-foot median so that if there's
someone stopped in the right-hand lane, someone who's not familiar
with the park doesn't come in and feel the need to pull in behind
them, that we can put signage or -- or something there to -- to
clearly identify what park visitors, you know, are able to do and what
people who are not going to the park need to do so --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your idea being to
differentiate so it doesn't appear that someone has stopped in the
middle of the road?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. And that -- that's the
problem when you look at just having two gates and no -- you know,
nothing in between them.
And, again, like I said, this is a starting point for
discussion and -- and I think the keys to this type of approach is
that the guardhouse is then located in tract A. Even though it's --
it's during evening hours, its, you know, gate would extend out into
the right-of-way to -- to monitor traffic and so forth. During the
park hours, that would not be the case. That gate would have to be
open. It maintains some level of what is afforded the residents in
their PUD while improving the public access.
And it's kind of unusual that you and I were working on
parallel courses and, thanks to our state legislature, couldn't ask
each other what we were doing, and it unfortunately probably wasted
some of each of our time.
But I know there's a lot of people here to talk about it
today. The paper did a very good job of -- of iljustrating what was
shown a week ago, and I guess I'd be curious to hear what -- what the
response is from -- from the folks that are here.
But my goal is simply to -- to do two things, to provide
for the residents what is afforded them in their PUD while improving
the public access situation for the general public to get to the
beach, and I think we can do both. I don't think they're mutually
exclusive, and I think this is the starting point of getting that done
and that's -- that's as far as I -- I've gotten on this.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Why don't we hear from the
public speakers. Mr. Dotrill, how many are there?
MR. DORRILL: I'll say we have about a half a dozen.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Half a dozen.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Ward.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me remind you that each of
you will have -- have up to five minutes. I think you're hearing
where this board wants to go with this notion, and we would much
appreciate it if you would just say, "We support what you're talking
about," and/or if you don't support us in it, to tell us a better way
to do it --
MR. DORRILL: And then Mr. Pires --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- in five minutes.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pires, you'll follow Ms. Ward.
MS. WARD: I've timed it. It's supposed to take 2
minutes and 33 seconds if I talk fast enough. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine. Talk fast.
MS. WARD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Marjorie Ward, and I'm representing CABB as its
president. As you're all aware -- very well aware of, we are a
bi-county association of over 1,600 members whose dedication is to our
sovereign beaches and the right of the public freely thereto.
The Barefoot Beach Preserves, the guardhouse, the gates,
et cetera, have been a top priority in various stages since before the
first house was even built by Lely Development. What the people I
represent ask is simply that the general beachgoing public receive
what they're legally entitled to, no more, but no less. The existing
Lely guardhouse which sits in the middle of the state right-of-way
without benefit or proper permitting must be removed out of the road
which is tract R. It must no longer encroach upon the 60-foot road
easement in any manner whatsoever in order to be in compliance. All
gates -- and I mean this plural -- must be up during the hours that
the preserved property is open which by agreement is 8 a.m. To sunset
every day of the year. This is, and always has been, a portion of the
ELMAC agreement as written by Collier County and approved and signed
by both the commissioners -- You're looking at me. Did I say
something wrong?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: (Shaking head)
MS. WARD: Oh, okay. -- as approved by the
commissioners and the governor and the cabinet, and it has never been
abided by, by those who are in charge of said guardhouse which is the
Homeowner Master Association.
There must not be any physical or visual blockage in any
manner, shape, or form for a straight shot right from Bonita Beach
Road down Lely Boulevard to the preserve lands. Anything -- and that
also includes overdone vegetation which has not been mentioned -- is
an intimidation to beachgoers to even start to go to the state
Barefoot Beach Preserve which you maintain under a lease but which was
bought by the state with funds from all Floridians and to the Collier
County Barefoot Beach Preserve.
Any future agreement should spell out and make
enforceable -- and I repeat, and make enforceable -- the rights of the
public. All we ask is, this long overdraw -- overdue and drawn-out
headache for all concerned be resolved. What was legally agreed to
can be accomplished if we just get into compliance as soon as
possible. And on behalf of everybody, we thank all of you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mrs. Ward.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pires and then Ms. Haggio.
MR. PIRES: Members of the board, Anthony Pires, Junior.
As you know -- well know, I represent Ms. Haggio and some issues
before this board concerning this. We applaud the commissioners'
efforts and agree with the four points. Maybe just some additional
thoughts. Commissioner Constantine has mentioned about the entrance
being basically inviting to the public, that they can then know that
they have a way to get to the park or preserve area in an
unencumbered, unrestricted manner. Possibly having a wider lane --
I'm not a planner. I'm not an engineer. But a wider lane for the
public with clear delineation that that's a dedicated public access to
the preserve I think would go a long way towards creating that visual
invitation, sort of saying, "I'm a member of the public. I'm special.
I can go to my facility, my public facility." I think that could
possibly be an enhancement of it.
Additionally, signage. I know all the details have not
been discussed. In the past there's been talk about signage to also
clearly delineate the public can proceed unencumbered, unrestricted
through this lane to the preserve.
And I think another -- another aspect of it is, once
again, in the details, that the access is not limited solely to motor
vehicles. I know there's been talk in the past about some restriction
about the mode and method or manner of how a person would transport
themselves or get down to the preserve. There's been no talk of that
in this discussion, but I think unlimited access regardless of how the
person wishes to get down there, that's always been, I think, in the
spirit of the state agreement and the use access agreement.
We applaud the efforts. It's been a long, hard road and
agree in concept with the outline, the plan not yet seen but as
articulated by Commissioner Constantine. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Maggio and then Mr. Pointer.
MS. MAGGIO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Emily Maggio. The first thing I want to do -- I'm
wearing a couple of hats today. Marie Sourbeer who is president of
the Naples Park Area Association could not be here today, but she gave
me a letter addressed to the board. Would you like me to read it, or
should I just pass it to you?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Pass it, please.
MS. MAGGIO: All right. And -- And --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't you just pass it to us.
MS. MAGGIO: And there's a backup with it. It states
their position which is basically what we're talking about here.
I'm here also, not just representing myself, I'm
representing the Bonita Shores and Little Hickory Shores Improvement
Association which is the homeowner group where I live. I think the
rights of everyone are clear in the legal documents and the PUDs and
the easement agreements what everybody's rights and obligations are.
And, believe it or not, I as a person or -- or anyone I've ever
represented here, we've only wanted what we were legally entitled to
in the way of access. What I'm hearing today is something we can and
have always advocated and we will support. The guardhouse moves out
of the middle of the road, completely onto tract A which is -- gets it
into compliance with the PUD. All the gates are up. That's all we've
ever asked for.
The only other comment I would make is, I have a copy
here of a settlement agreement, supposedly to the lawsuit, that was
authored by the attorneys for the homeowners. And it asks for, among
other things, control of how many parking places can be in the park,
only vehicular access, et cetera, et cetera. I just think that this
whole agreement should be just ignored, thrown out, because no
homeowner association, even the one I'm representing here today,
should have this much say over how a public facility is run. That
should be done by the people answerable to the voters. I thank you
very much.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pointer and then Mr. Hazzard.
MR. POINTER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Jack Pointer. I'm here representing myself and Willoughby Acres. I
wish to claim and state our support for the plan articulated by
Commissioner Constantine, and we hope that that is implemented. Thank
you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hazzard and then Mr. HcGilvra.
MR. HAZZARD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Bill
Hazzard. And, as I think you all know, I represent the Lely Barefoot
Beach homeowners groups that are the plaintiffs in the lawsuit Mr.
Weigel referred to earlier. I particularly want to thank the board
for its efforts today, and I'd like to single out Commissioner Hancock
and Commissioner Constantine but also other members of the board who
have spent a great deal of time over the past months to develop a
solution to what has, frankly, become a larger problem than it needs
to be, in my estimation.
I'll share with you that I've been working on this --
this matter for 13 months now. At the very first meeting that I had
on behalf of my clients with members of the county staff, I laid out
on the table a map and said put an "X" where you want it, and I'll see
what the guys say about it. If Collier County is inclined to do so,
my clients are and continue to be ready, willing, and able to sit down
with the staff and to work out a solution along the lines discussed
here today to the many complex issues that are raised in this case.
As a gesture of our willingness to solve this issue, you
should be aware that yesterday my clients instructed their staff to
raise both entry gates at Barefoot Beach Boulevard and to keep them
raised throughout the day when the county park is open. That, again,
is a gesture of our willingness to work with the county to resolve
this matter.
On the other hand, at the outset of this, I heard a
little bit of possibility that the county could direct its staff to
pursue code enforcement action. I think that would be
counterproductive at this stage. I would discourage you from doing
that. I think that could, frankly, scuttle all attempts to end this
lawsuit and throw us all into a protracted litigation. But if that is
the county's chosen action, then my clients will take appropriate
action in the appropriate forum to protect their legal rights in that
event.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He could have --
MR. HAZZARD: Again, I thank you all.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- heard that from me because
when he asked me on the break -- Well, he may have heard it from
others, but I know he heard it from me when he asked what -- what was
my intention in this discussion today, and my intention is the same
intention as it was when we first brought it up to Mr. Weigel. And
that is, I'm not buying that we can't go forward with code enforcement
because they have filed a lawsuit sooner than us. We should have
beaten them to the punch. They beat us to the punch. I'm not buying
it. And if a judge tells us, you know, go away, then I'll buy it, but
until then, I don't think we have to be held hostage by this lawsuit.
And, you know, if -- if there's a better idea out there, I'm
listening, but I just want to say on the record that I think we ought
to be pursuing the code enforcement action.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want to get knocked
off track here. It seems -- Until the last 60 seconds, we seemed to
be on a track that most people sounded like they were in rough
agreement with.
MR. HAZZARD: I'm sort of sorry I brought it up,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if we come to agreement
today, it is moot so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I -- I -- I -- There are
two -- There are two directions here. One is to proceed ahead with --
with finalizing an agreement that accomplishes everything we've set
out to do, and the second is to go with the code enforcement action.
I say if -- if it's possible to head down the first track, we do that
and set a time frame to have it resolved by. If it's not, then we're
left no other choice but option B. But going down path B precludes A,
and I think that's a mistake.
We've sat on this -- you know, sat on this -- not really
sat on the issue, but we've been dealing with this issue time and time
again, over and over and over, long -- there's long -- You know, I
feel like I entered a fight in the fifth round and -- you know, now
we're about the eighth round, and I can see the end here and I -- I
think we can do it amiably and -- and get it done the right way. If
that works, great.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hazzard, if the board
were to come to some sort of consensus today, I assume you have the
authority to agree to a conceptual plan on behalf of your client?
Obviously we need to get the exact --
MR. HAZZARD: I -- I think the small points need to be
worked out, and I think that there are probably some issues that --
that need to be discussed that are beyond a picture and things like
that. We've talked -- I think I've talked with each one of you about
the possibility of some concerns about liability for employees, at
danger to employees. We need to make sure that somebody's not going to
get clipped in the behind, frankly, by a car going by behind them. We
need to take the appropriate steps to ensure that these folks who
envision people walking down the road are willing to take
responsibility for the cars that are also trying to walk down --
trying to drive down that road. I think there are some items that I
would put under the category of the small stuff that -- that may
become very important at some stage. And -- And, you know, sad to
say, but sometimes the small stuff ruins the big picture but I think
it -- I'll repeat again that my clients are ready, willing, and able
to sit down with the county staff, work out the small stuff, and come
back to this board at a future time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the answer to my question
as far as you having the ability and the authority to deal on the
conceptual --
MR. HAZZARD: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Obviously we need to dot the
I's and cross the T's if we get to that point. MR. HAZZARD: True.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But you do have that
authority today?
MR. HAZZARD: Today to -- to tell you that, yes, we want
to work along the lines of the plans that have -- that have been
discussed by both you and Commissioner Hancock to resolve this matter.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- And I just want to say --
And -- And if we're going to have good cop, bad cop, I hereby assume
the role of the bad cop. But they're here today because we started
talking about code enforcement action. I'm going to keep talking
about code enforcement action. We've been -- When we weren't talking
about code enforcement, they didn't talk to us for a year.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, that simply
isn't true. Okay? The amount of time I've spent with the residents
of Lely Barefoot, the machinations we've gone through -- You know, if
-- if, you know, you want to take credit for us being here today,
that's fine but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't want credit for it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but don't imply that -- that
no one else has been working toward a solution on this --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't imply that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because that is not the case.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I said we need a stick,
Commissioner Hancock, is what I intend to be saying. If I didn't say
that clearly, let me say it now.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, let's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The negotiation requires a stick.
You be the carrot. I'll be the stick. We're both helping here. I
don't mean that you aren't, and I don't want any credit. But I think
that we'll drag this out for another year if we don't have a stick of
code enforcement.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie, we
have the stick. Let's develop the carrot and see if we can't bring
this to a close and develop --
MR. HAZZARD: I -- I don't have anything further to say,
Commissioner. Could I --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. -- and develop --
MR. HAZZARD: -- unless you have any questions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- amongst ourselves today a
general presentation that we're going to be asking Mr. Hazzard to
present to his -- his -- his client. Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. I had respectfully reserved an
opportunity to -- to get back to you, and I -- I can wait until after
Mr. McGilvra speaks as far as that goes or anyone else that speaks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. --
MR. DORRILL: Following him, we'll have Ms. -- Ms. Hogg.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. HcGilvra.
MR. HCGILVRA: Thank you, Commissioners. Once again,
good morning. My name is Doug HcGilvra. I'm the president of
Property Owners of Naples Park, and I want to say that I have full
support for the article in the paper which was sociable for both --
for Barefoot Beach. Both Tim Constantine and Tim Hancock, I want to
give you both lots of credit. I think it's a good job. I think it's
the best we can do under the circumstances. I think everybody's going
to be happier than what they have been which is an understatement of
the age.
One thing I do want to say, a long time ago the Sistine
Chapel in Rome was painted by Michelangelo, and the pope said to him
one famous, famous statement. He says, "Please, please, bring it to
an end." Let's do it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I like that.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Hogg and then Mr. Snodgrass.
MS. HOGG: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Jane Hogg.
I live in Bonita Springs in Bonita Shores which is also part of
Collier County, even though sometimes we feel that a lot of our county
people don't realize it. But I commend the commissioners for their --
what they have done for recreation in north Collier. Your park at the
Wiggins Pass boat launch, your park at Pelican Bay with the tennis
courts is -- they're just wonderful facilities that we all appreciate
up in north Collier.
We also appreciate Barefoot Beach, and I probably have
been trespassing when I've rollerbladed down the five-mile stretch.
It's a wonderful exercise, and it is a wonderful sidewalk that goes
all the way down to the beach. I've never felt threatened by the big
dump trucks that have been hauling fill in for the condominiums or --
or any other vehicle on the road because I have been on the sidewalk.
I hope that I will be able to rollerblade down there in the future
whenever the -- the notion strikes me. I hope that this can be
resolved and that we can have full access, and I appreciate your
efforts, and thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Snodgrass is your final registered
speaker.
MR. SNODGRASS: MAdam Chairman and Commissioners, my
name is Brent Snodgrass. I'm here today representing the board of
directors of -- and an 18-member associations of the Property Owners
Associations of North Collier County, also known as the Second
District Association.
Your latest four-point plan minus the exit gate which
Commissioners Constantine and Hancock have addressed appears to
support our position. Each of you has received a copy of our
resolution dated August 17 regarding the Barefoot Beach Preserve
access situation. I'd just briefly like to reiterate our position as
follows. One, the public easement should allow unimpeded access
during preserve hours. Two, the guardhouse should be removed without
further delay. And, three, the provisions of the land management plan
for the preserve, developed and agreed to jointly by Collier County
and the State of Florida, should be honored and strictly adhered to at
all times.
In addition, we have reviewed the intervening brief
submitted by the office of the Florida Attorney General in answer to
the lawsuit filed by the Lely Barefoot Beach Property Owners
Association and the Lely Barefoot Beach MAster Association against
Collier County. We are in complete agreement with the Attorney
General's submittal and respectfully request that the contents of this
document be given the weight and consideration they deserve in any
decision that you make here today or any time hereafter regarding
access to the Barefoot Beach Preserve. Thank you for your
consideration of our position.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. That was our last
speaker?
Let's open this for discussion. We have the stick. Now
let's see if we can't develop a carrot.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A question for -- A couple of
questions for Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On here -- One -- One
question as to something someone rose I think is a -- brought up is --
I think is a good idea, and one question just kind of popped in my
mind now. The -- Any objection -- Would there be any objection to
perhaps widening the park entrance lane from a safety standpoint, if
nothing else? I don't know if Mr. Hazzard brought that up, or someone
brought that up -- from a safety standpoint as much as anything so
that we don't end up -- even with the --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I -- I think it needs to --
to mimic what we have at every other county park, and if we have a
standard 12-foot lane at every county park, then we need to have a
standard 12-foot lane here.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't want to make any safety
exceptions for this entrance by any means. So I think it needs to
mimic what we have elsewhere. And if it has to eat into that median a
little bit, we have 24 feet of pavement there currently. Again, I was
looking to try to minimize what hard, you know, construction items had
to be done to achieve the best result. So I don't -- I don't have a
problem with that. But, again, you know, I'll -- I'll state that, and
if that's part of the direction we give our staff to work with the
homeowners and/or with Mr. Hazzard, then -- then I'd be happy to do
that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And my assumption was that we
would stay consistent with other parks. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good point. The second
thing, you had mentioned symmetry earlier. Would it make any sense to
have the gate coming off the guardhouse, some sort of swing gate
itself, just for visual symmetry?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, you know, that's -- I'll
__
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It will still serve the same
purpose.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just thinking visually.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I don't have a problem
with that, and I think actually it would be more attractive, you know,
after park hours. So, yeah, I'm not sold to whether it's a swing arm
or whether it's a swing gate. Either one of those is fine with me.
What I was hoping to do is maybe so that we had a -- kind of a
starting point, is I've written "Exhibit A" on this drawing, and I've
written on the left, "Minus gate arm on exit." Everything else on
here is up in the air for discussion as far as type -- you know -- I
mean, you know, is subject to an agreement, and I guess I'd like to --
if we're going to have a motion, enter that for the record as a
starting point so that we know what we're talking about and -- you
know, and direct our -- our county attorney to work with a
representative from the homeowners to come up with something that we
-- you know, within a certain time frame.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why don't I try to frame it
in a motion. We can amend it as necessary but at least --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris has -- has
some comments.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we see what he has to
say. That might interfere or help us construct a motion.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let me -- It looks like a
good plan, and I'm sure it could be refined to be acceptable to
everyone, but why don't I just suggest here at this point that as
you're driving up towards this area, that the -- the street would be
clearly striped to denote that there's two directions you can go, and
have "Park Entrance" just right on the road, printed right on the road
where you can -- with arrows that go to the open gate, and that way I
don't think any member of the public could ever become confused or --
or concerned that they don't have unfettered access or anything like
that. Just -- Just a little bit of icing on the cake, I think.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How does that -- How does that
sound for reaction to print -- to paint "Park Entrance" on the roadway
in front of the actual entrance?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think any and all signage
that helps clear up that is -- is an excellent idea, and I think
that's a good suggestion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I think part of any
agreement is going to have to be signage, and whether it's painting on
the pavement or whether it's visible signs will have -- will be a part
of that. So I'd like to not really make that striping a part of a
motion but, you know, that we need to address the signage issue
because I -- Again, I'm --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What is your motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, actually, Commissioner
Constantine was going to make one.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why don't I make a motion
that we -- we use Exhibit A as outlined by Commissioner Hancock as a
starting point. We'll remove the exit gate, perhaps sugge -- I would
suggest a -- for symmetry purposes, a swing gate by the guardhouse,
but that we follow the four points I outlined earlier. And that is,
the guardhouse where it currently exists must go; that there is
clearly marked following Commissioner Norris's suggestion -- or
whatever our transportation and park officials thinks are appropriate,
but clearly marked unencumbered access that -- the right-hand lane;
and the mini guardhouse be used for an information area and -- and
stop area for contractors, et cetera, as outlined before; and that
nighttime security after park hours, after sunset, that the park can
be -- or that the entrance can be closed in accordance with the
existing agreement. I think that should be the same either way.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we give our staff
direction to follow those specifics with Mr. Hazzard -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that we come back in-- I'd
like to set a specific time frame. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, Mr. Weigel --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that Commissioner Hac'Kie
doesn't have to take her stick out.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So that, Mr. Weigel, perhaps
you can give us a realistic time frame. Two weeks?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'd like to give you a little
realism, and that is that as we move from ranking crew to mop-up crew
on this, we can't forget that we have a judicial forum to contend with
now, and they reap what they sow, and they have another defendant, an
intervener, that they must deal with and we must deal with too, and so
what may look appropriate to the county may not look appropriate to
the state. That which they have filed in court up to this point does
not appear to be on all fours, as attorneys say, with our thoughts and
our interests here locally right now.
So I would expect that your direction to us is to make
sure locally that we're in PUD compliance up there. We have to review
the ELHAC agreement for which we and the state and the association are
a party. We've got to -- We've got to work with the state, as does
Mr. Hazzard's group, so that that forum can close down too and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make a suggestion.
First of all, I've talked with the state, and I think if we get all
the parties here in line, the state is fairly anxious, assuming it
still meets the basic --
MR. WEIGEL: I -- I would hope so.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- groundwork, that they'll
work with us. I know -- MR. WEIGEL: But unilaterally we can't get dismissed
from the suit with the state unless the state lets us out too.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. Both the chairman
and I have spoken with the state office on that, and they are more
than anxious to work with us. MR. WEIGEL: Good.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I might suggest is that
-- as part of my motion, that you and Mr. Hazzard, representing the
homeowners of Lely Barefoot Beach, get together, come up with
something that we all are comfortable with, and then in turn we take
that to the state, but at least we go to the state as a team. And I
think if we do that rather than trying to have a three-way
negotiation, it will likely go a little faster.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. I -- I don't want to complicate.
Would you like for Mr. Hazzard and county staff, the county attorney
to come back to you formally to approve so that we can tell the state
-- not withstanding we'd been having dialogue with them anyway, but
that the board, in fact, has signed off and authorized such and such
plan to --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would anticipate that as
part of the motion just because I'd hate to have something go to the
state and have them agree and come back and then have the board pick
it apart again.
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we should probably have a
pretty solid --
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- agreement before we go to
the state.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the time frame for that
response should be --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I'd like to see Mr.
Weigel and Mr. Hazzard come back in a couple of weeks. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two weeks.
MR. WEIGEL: Try for two and maybe three at the outset.
Just -- It may end up as an add-on agenda item. But if nothing else,
we can pencil in, as we did today, the agenda item, and the backup
might be forthcoming afterwards. So we can -- We'll go for two weeks
and give you what we've got. How's that? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and we have a
second. I'd like to ask the motionmaker to consider something that
we've talked about over the last three years, at least, and that --
that is that -- to address some of the concerns of the residents of
Lely Barefoot and the fact that, yes, traffic does travel down this
road only to discover the park is full, turn around, and come back;
that we continue to consider the posting of the sign on Bonita Beach
Road notifying people who are beachgoing public that the park is full
and there is no parking available. That sign could be an electronic
sign. It could be a manually operated sign that would be operated by
our park rangers.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of questions. One
youwve answered, and that is, it would be governed and operated by
county employees.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two, that it would in no way
prohibit anyone from --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. No. They're --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- entering the park.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're free to go down the road
and take their chances, but those who -- who don't want to spend that
10 or 15 minutes driving down there being told no and then driving
back out only to go on to Bonita Beach or to go on up to Johnson or
Lover's Key or what have you, they -- they can just continue in that
direction on their own.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If it's for informational
purposes only, I have no objection to exploring that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what it's for.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The second amends?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The second amends.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The second amends. Okay. We have
a motion and a second to adopt Commissioner Constantine's four --
four-point program with the fifth point added, and that would be
appropriate signage, notification that the parking lot is full. We --
We are not going forward with the current agreement then, that the
residents have a say in the total number of parking spaces available?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I think if -- No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good, because I can't support
that. Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the motion also
referenced Commissioner Hancock's Exhibit A as the basis for this with
the -- with the changes as outlined in the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I just -- I just want to --
want to clarify that the residents of Lely Barefoot will not have any
participation other than normal county resident --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not part of the
motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- participation. Okay.
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
And we'll look to see this back, Mr. Weigel, hopefully
in two weeks?
MR. WEIGEL: Two weeks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Item #9B
PARTIAL PAYMENT OF FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PUBLIC DEFENDER LIEN AGAINST JOHN
FRANKLIN CREWS TO ALLOW LOUISE TIFFY TO SELL REAL PROPERTY AND TO
APPROVE SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT IN FULL SATISFACTION OF OUTSTANDING
LIEN - APPROVED
Next item on the agenda is item 10(F), consideration of
lease of property to the Department of Juvenile Justice for
construction and operation of a --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, Hiss Chairman. I think
there was -- there was an --
MS. ASHTON: Excuse me.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- item off the consent agenda --
MS. ASHTON: Are we skipping --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- 16(I)(2).
MS. ASHTON: -- Item 9(B)?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me a second.
MS. ASHTON: Okay. I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
were interrupting there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
moved to 9(B). I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
I didn't mean to talk while you
Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. It got
Yeah. We had one moved to 9(B).
I'm sorry. Yes, there is. Item
9(B). It should be fairly quick. I'm sorry.
HS. ASHTON: This -- First of all, good afternoon. I'm
Heidi Ashton, assistant county attorney. This item is related to an
item you've previously heard which is Louise Tiffy master pump
station. Months ago that item was before you. Miss Tiffy has a
buyer. They've discovered that there's another owner on the property
who has a public defender lien in the amount of $9,285.83 against the
property. The public defender lien exceeds the value of the proceeds.
So they're requesting that the county accept the proceeds from the
sale and satisfy the public defender lien. So you would be getting a
partial payment instead of the full. An alternative would be if the
county would want to accept a partial payment and then just release
the property from the lien, but I've been advised that that's not
acceptable to Hiss Tiffy, that they -- they would not sell the
property under that condition.
The reason I pulled the item is because there is an
adjustment. The amount of the public defender lien is $9,285.83. The
amount that I indicated as being the proceeds is $5,655.05. The
adjustment is that the seller has identified another cost being a
credit to the buyer in lieu of the abstracts in the amount of $75. So
the amount of proceeds that would be available to the county if they
go forward with the sale would be $5,580.05. So the recommendation is
to accept that amount in -- in lieu of the full payment and to release
the judgment. We have not been able to identify any other assets
owned by Mr. Crews. So our suggestion is go ahead and take the
partial payment because you might not get anything --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Take what you can get while you
can get it.
MS. ASHTON: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any discussion? Questions?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was a motion of approval.
MR. DORRILL: One speaker.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
MR. DORRILL: We have one speaker.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have one speaker?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Mr. Woodworth.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Please bear in mind, Mr. Woodword
-- Is that his name?
MR. DORRILL: Woodworth.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- Woodworth, that a motion --
MR. WOODWORTH: Yeah. My name is --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and a second has been made.
MR. WOODWORTH: Yes. My name is David Woodworth. I'm a
realtor associate with Bluebill Properties. Hiss Tiffy contracted
with Bluebill to sell her lot. We did get a buyer for the lot, and
then when the process was about to close, we discovered that there was
an outstanding judgment against one of the owners, and we weren't even
aware that he was on the deed originally. The only thing that I can
under -- would like to interject is that this woman, you know, through
no fault of anyone else, just poor judgment, not seeking advice of an
attorney, decided to put her son on this property that she owned
wholly, you know, without any -- and I -- I -- I find that in -- Even
though she has agreed to this -- to, you know, give up all -- all the
proceeds from the sale of this lot, I -- I find it somewhat unfair
that you take it all. I know the judgment is for a lot more than
this, but I was thinking that possibly the county through, you know,
some benevolent could give maybe a thousand or two out of the proceeds
to the woman.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Would that enable you to go ahead
and get your commission then on the sale?
MR. WOODWORTH: Well, our commission is very, very
small. I mean, it's -- I've been working on this since June, and I'm
working for pennies.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm afraid not. I -- I
just don't -- I'm sorry but people -- Owners of record, they have
legal responsibilities and liabilities, and for us to make an
exception in this case just because she didn't know, that's just --
that's just --
MR. WOODWORTH: Well --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- not something we can do.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Is there further discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes four to zero,
Commissioner Constantine absent.
Item #10F
RESOLUTION 95-625 REGARDING LEASING PROPERTY TO DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE
JUSTICE FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF JUVENILE DELINQUENT FACILITY
- ADOPTED
I've been trying to get to the juvenile justice all day.
I think I'm there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're here!
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Item 10(F).
MS. PASSIDOHO: Good after -- Good afternoon,
Commissioners. My name is Kathleen Passidomo.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. Seriously, I'm ready to
vote.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
I'm ready to vote.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Yeah.
I'm ready to vote. Lord knows,
That's four. Let's go.
HS. PASSIDOHO: I'll send you guys a bill.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. For the public's
benefit, Kathleen, give us a little synopsis. We've all -- MS. PASSIDOHO: I can leave. That's fine.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We've all heard this individually
so we know -- MS. PASSIDOHO: I've got a client in my office. I could
leave right now.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just a synopsis of what it is.
MS. PASSIDOHO: A synopsis. Yeah. That's fine.
Kathleen Passidomo. I -- I'm not really sure who I represent here,
but I am chairman of the Collier County Juvenile Justice Council.
Today we have a tremendous opportunity for our community again in our
efforts to combat juvenile crime and delinquency in Collier County.
The legislature allocated 20 juvenile detention beds to Southwest
Florida in 1994. They've allocated an additional ten beds, detention
beds, in 1995. Those beds were originally to be sited in Lee County,
but as we've been reading in the press recently, there's all kinds of
problems in Lee County with siting of juvenile detention facilities.
The judges in Lee County and a number of people,
including Commissioner Matthews, had been speaking with the Department
of Juvenile Justice about perhaps building a detention center in
Collier County, the issue being there's no land available for the
state to buy. So we came to the -- We're coming to the Board of
County Commissioners to ask the board to lease to the state
approximately five acres adjacent to the jail facility for the
construction of a juvenile detention facility. The state has $2
million for construction funds. They need to get under way by January
or the funds go back to the state and we don't get any detention beds
in Southwest Florida. So we are asking you to approve entering into a
lease.
And let me -- Let me suggest something because of the
time frame. I worked with the county attorney's office and began
drafting a lease substantially similar to the drill lease. I
understand it needs to be different because it's a different type of
facility, and I'm asking the board to approve leasing approximately
five acres adjacent to the jail and directing the county attorney's
office to work with the attorney for the Department of Juvenile
Justice to come up with a lease in two weeks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In two weeks?
MS. PASSIDOHO: They can do that after they've done Lely
and everything else. I -- I -- I think that would be a good time
frame and -- and -- and I would be happy to work with them, and it's
already on my desk.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So the issue is that the state
will fund the construction and the operation '- MS. PASSIDOHO: And maintenance.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- of the juvenile detention
center for Collier County which we have never had. MS. PASSIDOHO: Right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And all we have to do is allow
them to use some of our land.
MS. PASSIDOHO: A dollar a year. Plus -- and for the
benefit of the public -- and -- and I think the most exciting thing
that we hope is going to come out of this is that we will at this
facility hope to create an assessment center for assessing the needs
of at-risk youth and their families which is something that has not
been done in Collier County and is something that was vital, and we're
not going to ask the county commission for a penny for that. We're
going to go to the community.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're on the record.
MS. PASSIDOHO: For the record. Yet. I have been known
to say that before, and I think I have come back. I think I did that
once before. But I -- We'll go to the state first. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. I'd also, for the record, like the
board, for the record, to note that the property that will become the
parcel or piece for -- for this lease, which is yet to be legally
described but will be, that the board find that the property is not
needed for current county government purposes and that -- and that the
lease is approved and to reserve a resolution -- resolution number,
and we'll prepare that resolution for you.
MS. PASSIDOHO: Could I also -- I -- Because he's been
here all day, I'd like to introduce Richard Kline who is from
Tallahassee. He is the acting juvenile justice manager for our
district and is really a tremendous human being and has been working
with the juvenile justice council and is really the guy behind all
this. Richard Kline.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hi, Mr. Kline. Good to see you
again.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Kline, Ms. Passidomo did such
a good job describing this to us individually, it -- it made this --
this part easy.
MR. KLINE: Great.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of quick questions.
The -- As far as liability, should anything happen in the building,
what happens -- what's the county carry for liability here?
MS. PASSIDOHO: I -- I think -- Well, I --
MR. WEIGEL: Sovereign '-
MS. PASSIDOHO: -- Think you should ask him.
MR. WEIGEL: Sovereign immunity. That's what the--
That's what the draft lease provides so far, is that each party is
responsible for its negligent, tortions acts and omissions and --
because we're dealing with two state sovereign entities right here.
MR. KLINE: That's one of the issues that we'll need to
revise in the lease. The lease we have with the drill academy had a
third party as an operator. In this case Department of Juvenile
Justice will be the operator. So the state's self-insurance fund
through risk management will cover our liability.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of other points --
and you may have covered it when I was in the hall. But the children
that are -- are -- What are the kids that will be going here? What
are they doing? How is it they will end up getting in the juvenile
detention center? What's your typical resident or guest?
MR. KLINE: Detention is a facility for pretrial kids
who have been arrested for certain offenses that are specified in
statute. The overwhelming majority of the kids will be arrested on
felony offenses. They'll be assessed as -- if they were released,
they would pose a risk to tiff in (phonetic) or failure to appear for
their court hearing. So they need secure care before their court
hearing occurs, and the facility will also hold kids who have been
committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice and are awaiting their
bed in a treatment program.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Currently those children go
where?
MR. KLINE: They go to the Southwest Florida detention
center in Lee County of which about 25 percent of that center is
currently Collier County kids. And that facility operates on an
overcrowded basis on a daily basis, and having a center here in
Collier County will not only help Collier County, but it will also
help Lee County in reducing the population up there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have motion and a second. Is
there further discussion?
MR. DORRILL: Just one point of clarification. My
understanding is that the proposed lease would be up to five acres?
My only rationale being that that land is very, very expensive, and
that as we have an opportunity through the lease agreement to review
their site development plan, that we want to make sure that they --
they use your property judiciously and that it be up to five acres as
opposed to automatically we're going to give them five acres of -- of
land because, otherwise, you've limited any other potential use of
that property at the north end of the Government Center.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there any -- any problem with
that?
MS. PASSIDOHO: I'll tell you, in my preliminary
discussions with the department, they -- you know, like any
bureaucrat, they need five acres. We -- You know, if we can do it on
less, I think we could but I -- I think we ought to say -- Up to five
is fine.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Up to five.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The one outstanding issue that
would be that if we want to in the future do a jail expansion, we want
to make sure that we retain enough land to do that, and that's what
your little drawing shows.
MS. PASSIDOHO: That's my -- That's my pretty drawing.
I -- I got that from the sheriff's office. So I assume it's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wouldn't touch that one.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The sheriff is here.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a composite sketch.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have -- We have a motion and a
second. I'm going to call the question. All those in favor, please
say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
MS. PASSIDOHO: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excellent presentation, Hiss
Passidomo.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As always '-
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well worth the wait.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- Kathleen, thank you for your
good work for the community and sitting in this room all day, not
getting paid. So thank you.
MS. PASSIDOMO: We'll work on that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: She'll make it up.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Go do something you get paid for
Item #10G
DISCUSSION REGARDING A SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE
- TO BE BROUGHT BACK ON 12/12/95
Next item on the agenda is 10(G), a discussion regarding
a special taxing district for the sheriff's office. Discussion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Last week, I guess it was, we
chatted about this in our workshop about the potential of separating
the sheriff's budget out as a MSTD-type special assessment or ad
valorem assessment in order to allow the sheriff perhaps a bit more
flexibility in his budgeting and perhaps less -- less arguing with the
county commission, and at the same time, then the county commission
has a little more freedom in -- in how it budgets the county
commission's portion of the county tax bill. It seems to me something
that -- that really makes sense because the sheriff's budget is the
largest component of the county commission budget, being about half of
the ad valorem that we assess. And as such a large amount, it just
makes sense to have it as a stand-alone item on the tax bill if you
ask me, and that's why I brought this discussion forward, and I'm sure
that some of the other members have something to say about that, and I
wouldn't be surprised if the sheriff wanted to say something about it
too.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I wouldn't be surprised at
all. Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I liked the idea when it was
originally proposed. When we went through this last budget cycle --
and I discussed this with Sheriff Hunter -- we kind of set our goals
for our spending and, you know, trying to keep things at a certain
level, and if it were as simple as going out to the public and saying,
this is our part, this is the sheriff's part, this is why we are where
we are, and everyone understood that, we could avoid this discussion.
But the problem isn't so much, you know, what -- what's going on in
the budget process as it is people's understanding of what's going on,
and to try and overcome that, you know, is -- is extremely difficult.
This is simply a way of identifying where increases occur more
specifically for the public or where increases do not occur. And, you
know, I would like to see us work on -- on -- I don't look at
separating, but when the millage is set, regardless of how it got
there, we're blamed or credited or however it may be. And, you know,
it -- it's just It's difficult to sit there and try and make answers
for the sheriff's budget, why did we do it this way and why didn't --
you know, why didn't we go this way, and that kind of thing.
So I'm just looking for -- to create a situation in
which things work together better, and the way they are now, I just
feel like I'm in an uncomfortable position of having to determine
whether the sheriff should or shouldn't have "X" or"Y" because it's a
part of the overall budget and having to determine what that impact
does to the final millage rate, and I just feel uncomfortable telling
you what is right or wrong for your agency.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's a very good point,
and I've said that before. I think the sheriff knows a lot better
than we do what's necessary for his budget and -- but at the same
time, if it's included in our budget, then we have to get in there and
try to squeeze on it, and we really don't know particularly what is
best for the community, and that's the sheriff's job. So separating
it like this, I think, takes a lot of that away and -- and lets the
sheriff be more specific and definite about his needs and goals.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm okay. If the sheriff
wants to share some thoughts on this, I'll withhold comments.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- Well, let me -- Let me say,
I thought I heard -- One of the things that came up too last Tuesday
was that the sheriff's budget is not entirely funded out of ad valorem
taxes. There are revenue-sharing funds that are in the mix for the
general fund and so forth, and I would think it would be only
appropriate that we try to determine what that percentage is --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
sheriff as well.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Hunter.
Absolutely.
-- and pass that on to the
Absolutely.
But with that in mind, Sheriff
SHERIFF HUNTER: Sure. You're looking for comments now
on the proposal itself? First of all, I don't believe there's any
disparaging comments from our side. We worked well with the board.
We want to cooperate with the board to do what's best for the whole
county. I think the board was bold in the last budget proposal
process acknowledging the need for 28 additional positions for road
patrol. I think many times the public does not give you the credit
you are due for the tough decisions you make, and we certainly want to
acknowledge those tough decisions that you do make. Determining where
the money goes, limited as it is, is a very difficult task. We can
work better with you under Commissioner Norris's proposal. We have no
objection. I have no problem with selling the budget itself. We go
through the same process you do in public forums throughout the summer
months trying to convey the message and work with the public to better
help the public understand what we're trying to do with the money,
where it will be going, and how it will be utilized for public safety.
So I guess the summation on that would be that separate
but equal time, separate but equal budget presentation on the tax bill
is no real problem. I think the public needs to know as well in this
public forum that you are -- Sometimes it could be construed as
limited in what you are able to do in terms of constitutional officer
budgets and the sheriff's budget, in particular, where it comes to
line items that you have a say over the full funding or the limited
funding of a budget, but the public may not know that to dig into
those line items is a much more difficult constitutional task. So
this certainly makes sense, and I have no reservations about launching
into it wholeheartedly with you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Sheriff.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to give Sheriff Hunter
credit for an idea that he had when we were discussing this last week,
and that is that as the budget process comes around, I'll be working
with the sheriff to have very local town hall meetings in my district
as a representative of the board and with the sheriff that we can
answer those budgetary questions together instead of, you know, one of
us being in a position of answering for the other. So I'm looking
forward to -- as the next -- next budget cycle comes around, us
working to get on those type of town hall meetings to get the
information out, and I want to give you credit for that idea. I think
it's terrific and -- and I look forward to working on it in -- in the
next year with you.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Will do it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, we asked last
week if you thought we could achieve this by the end of the year so
that it could be implemented in next year's budget process. You'd
indicated yes. I wanted to assure that that's true and have you give
us an approximate schedule. And then I'd also like to ask the manager
-- Someone brought up the point -- I can't remember who it was now.
Someone brought up the point of -- that there are different taxing
sources or different revenue sources the sheriff does, and can we have
all that information compiled and in a legible fashion, readable
fashion by the time Mr. Weigel brings everything back to us. Mr.
Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: I'll answer for Neil. I think the answer
is yes, that they can -- they can do that in the time that we'll have
to bring it back but -- Since last week I talked with Hike Smykowski a
little bit and gotten some budget information which assisted me, and
it appears that what -- If the board were direct -- to direct staff
today, that we would prepare a draft ordinance, kind of a shell
ordinance, but a draft -- two draft ordinances to create two districts
for the sheriff's municipal service taxing district element, one would
be the unincorporated Collier County. The other would be all of
Collier County, including the City of Naples. As you're aware, the
City of Naples has their own police force and -- and -- and pays a --
a, therefore, proportionate share toward road patrol and some of the
other services that the sheriff provides. So to encompass both those
elements, it looks like we would be actually creating two districts.
They will, therefore, have different millages as far as that goes and
ultimately to be determined by -- by you all.
And I would suggest that we bring this back no later
than your next to last scheduled meeting of the year. If we can
advertise and bring it back earlier, we would, but if it needed to be
continued a week or two, we'll try to bring it back within the
advertising requirements that we have for ordinances after we create
the thing, that we would try to have at least one week scheduled
agenda -- board meeting with an agenda after the week that it's
advertised to be brought. So if it had to be continued for a week, it
could be, and we don't run into problems with -- from an advertising
standpoint. So the last meeting is the 19th. Today is the 7th. We'd
be targeting for early or mid December.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we be assured that -- that
the earliest review point that the board has to see a draft, that the
sheriff will receive the same information at the same time?
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, yes. In fact, as you're aware, we
actually have to have a draft ready when we go to -- to submit the
legal advertisement so that there will be a draft ready for the
public, anyone who's interested to see and, of course, will be
distributing those to all of the appropriate parties for review, and
we'll be looking for input even as we draft.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So that's only five weeks away.
There's no longer a five-week --
MR. WEIGEL: Well --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- requirement --
MR. WEIGEL: -- the last --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- advertisement?
MR. WEIGEL: -- board meeting -- The last board meeting
is scheduled for the 19th of December. The MSTUs would have to be in
place by January 1 to be implementable in next year -- the next year's
budget process. So it's only because the board no longer meets in the
latter part of December in the holiday period that we have that
constraint, but I think we need, you know, about three weeks at least
to get it back which puts us right in the first of December anyway.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So you can -- But you said
that you need to have it drafted before you can advertise? MR. WEIGEL: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And -- And I thought the
advertising period was five weeks.
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, no. No. We have a five-week window of
the first advertised date that we can keep continuing it --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, okay.
MR. WEIGEL: -- until we would have to readvertise
again.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Got you. Okay. Commissioner
Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, I assume you'll
also talk with Mr. Carlton so that he's aware, because obviously this
will impact him.
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the errors we made in
the past, I know on at least one occasion, is that when we talked
taxing issues, we failed to communicate with Mr. Carlton. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Good point.
MR. WEIGEL: I'll try to maintain a relationship.
MR. DORRILL: We've already made a note to do that in
terms of the format of the tax bill. My only other comment is that I
would like for you to reserve the right to just -- if we determine to
recommend to you, as the policymakers, a single taxing district as
opposed to two. The two-fund arrangement that we have now, frankly,
is a -- a relic from a 1978 one-year agreement that has sort of drug
on and drug on, and at this point the only unincorporated area of
funding for the sheriff is his road patrol activities in Immokalee and
Everglades City. All the other unincorporated functions of the sheriff
are in the general fund, and I just want you to reserve the right to
be as flexible as -- as you choose to do and so that's -- We'll be
evaluating both proposals.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sounds fair to me. So the
direction is that we will see that as soon as we can.
MR. WEIGEL: As soon as we can. It would probably be
not before three weeks, just -- If we had it drafted tomorrow, we --
we've got a lag time to get it into the paper to be heard ten days
later. So three weeks would be the closest, but we'll do our best to
get it there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sounds good.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My compliments, by the way,
to Commissioner Norris for bringing this forward in the first place.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like I said, he's a genius.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Aren't workshops wonderful?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They were last week.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They were last week.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Question.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I have a couple of questions, actually.
One --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Which is?
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- will this in any way -- Is it the
intent of the proposal to, in any way, limit the creation of
additional special HSTUs --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- that may from time to time be dealt
with? Good.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
SHERIFF HUNTER: And -- Good. Hay we also -- Second
question, may we also explore when we get to the implementation of
this proposal next year the possibility of truly identifying all
revenue sources for the funding of the sheriff's budget, including
things such as bond estreatures that we are most certainly directly
correlated to because we do arrest people, bring them to -- to the
jail. They bond out. They estreat on their bond by forfeiting their
bond when they fail to appear for court. Nonetheless, it is directly
tied back to law enforcement activity. We have citations we write.
There's a number of different revenue sources that are generated by
the sheriff's office, sale of meals. And if we get the detention
facility, state detention for juveniles, we intend to work with them
in a partnership for the laundry services, food services. We'd be
selling those meals to them, for instance. I would like to explore
with the board use of those types of revenues to assist in funding the
budget as well.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. That would be helpful.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Great.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's wonderful.
MR. DORRILL: A comment in response. I -- I wouldn't do
that at the expense of your sharing your revenues proportionately with
him in the -- in the general fund.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the sheriff's asking --
MR. DORRILL: I think it could be one or the other but
for --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the sheriff --
MR. DORRILL: -- your advantage, I'd say it shouldn't be
both.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand you're -- you're
seeking a balance, not necessarily -- SHERIFF HUNTER: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- have your cake and eat it too
and -- and that's a -- that's a worthwhile caution, but I don't
believe the sheriff is asking for gross revenue sharing in addition to
excluding all other related expenses. I think we're looking at --
SHERIFF HUNTER: No. We have general revenue sharing
that comes back from the state that we use for assisting us in paying
incentive pay. This would be much like your utilities division where
you charge back for services. We -- We bring revenues in, but we
rarely have been getting those revenues back. I would like to explore
that with you next year and leave that door open.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. We'll be glad to talk about
that.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Very good.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We can talk. Always free to
talk. Thank you. So we -- we will be hearing that issue a minimum
time of three weeks.
Item #11A
REVISED JOB CLASSIFICATION AND PAY PLAN SCHEDULE IHPLEHENTATION PER THE
PAY PLAN STUDY PERFORMED BY DAVID H. GRIFFITH AND ASSOCIATES -
PRIORITIZE PLAN ACCORDING TO TIERS AND BRING BACK NEXT WEEK
Next item on the agenda is ll(A) which is a
recommendation to approve a revised job classification for the
sheriff's office. You're back.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Don't sit down. We have two in a
row -- three in a row.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Three.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes. Let's -- Let's get them all over
with now. Yes. This item deals with a pay study that we touched on
briefly back in September in a board meeting. As you know, it's been
some matter of concern, especially in the sheriff's office especially
at budget time, that we have been carrying vacancy factors, what had
been referred to genetically as attrition. Greater Naples Civic
Association touches on this, I believe three years consecutively now,
and we have been experiencing difficulties filling those vacancies,
both in the certified -- which is those areas of deputy sheriffs who
make arrests, deputy sheriffs who maintain custody and control of
inmates -- as well as on the civilian side, deputy sheriffs who are
victim advocates, deputy sheriffs who are records, who are civil
clerks, who are civil process servers, who are community service
deputies.
In an effort to address that issue, we looked at a
number of different factors over the last couple of years trying to
mitigate that attrition because attrition is a very expensive thing
for law enforcement. To get a person through a three-month academy, a
three-month field training officer program and to lose them to another
agency like Hendry County, for instance, which has happened, and Lee
County or Broward County, it's a very expensive proposition for not
only the sheriff's office, but for this county in general.
One of the things that I discovered was that we could
perhaps do better at getting out the word that we have vacancies, and
we have made contacts, as I told you before, with the military,
Department of Defense. We have changed our policy internally so that
we are given a large enough number of applications. We can stack or
cue in line a number of applicants under conditional offers so that if
we have someone fall through or if we have someone leave us, we have
someone in line to fill that position. Those types of things, those
internal fixes have been accommodated.
The next issue -- and it had been rumored for a year,
not only amongst the ranks within the agency, but I heard discussions
of this in this very room, that perhaps we weren't paying the type of
wage necessary to attract people and retain them. You were currently
involved in a pay study yourself. We made contact with personnel over
here and were told that the pay study was on. You had an executive
summary you -- you approved not too far back for such a study. We too
enlisted the aid of experts, consultants to determine if that may also
be a feature leading to our vacancies. Today I'm happy to report that
we do have a final report on the pay study. I'm not encouraged by the
outcome so much so in terms of what it will cost, so much so in terms
of what the continuing cost will be, but we know that government is
necessarily sometimes an expensive enterprise. Law enforcement most
certainly is when you provide a vehicle and shotguns and radios and
armor and -- and all of the -- the accouterments that -- that go with
that.
So we -- we have an outcome. I am encouraged by the
fact that I believe with implementation -- phased implementation of
this pay plan, that we will see a better outcome next year. We will
have filled our vacancies by and large and that we will have taken
care of public safety. We will make certain that we have our,
perhaps, pressure patrols up in our neighborhoods because we will have
enough patrol officers on duty to provide for that. We will -- We
will stop the leak, the leakage from the agency of people leaving here
to go back North or to another agency to -- to better their salary.
So I'm asking for your favorable consideration, and I
will reserve any further comment to the end of the presentation, if I
may, to -- and to answer questions. But by way of introduction, this
is merely our attempt to address this very large issue, same that
you're dealing with as well, and from time to time as prudent on the
part of government to look to see just where we are. This is our
snapshot. This is our projection, and I would ask for your favorable
consideration.
We have today with us a representative of David
Griffith, Incorporated, who is our consultant on the pay study, and if
I could, we'd like to take the opportunity to walk you through some of
the findings.
MS. LONG: Thank you, Sheriff. Good afternoon. It's a
pleasure to be here. Let me -- I'm going to have a brief
presentation, and then we can have some discussion, questions, and
answers.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't you just hand them in.
We'll pass them out.
MS. LONG: Okay. Hi. My name is Carolyn Long. I'm vice
president of human resources for David M. Griffith. David Griffith is
a national firm. We have 33 offices in 27 states, in three foreign
countries. We are the largest public management consulting firm in
the country. We have conducted about 600 studies similar to the one
that we did for the sheriff's office. I have personally directed in
my 22 years in public management consulting about 200 compensation and
classification studies.
We did bring a few extra copies of the presentation if
anybody wanted to get one. I'm afraid I don't have one for everybody
in the room, but if you wanted to look at it, it's just a little
overview to walk you through what we've done. If I can reach this
mike -- I was delighted to discover after I sent my daughter to
college that I'm not short anymore. I'm simply vertically challenged.
So I can barely reach the -- stand up to the podium.
Let me just briefly go over what we did for you. We
looked at all 800 employees in approximately the 60 job classes in the
sheriff's office. We looked at the current wages, and we looked at
the benefits to make sure that the compensation package was
competitive in terms of benefits as well as base salary. We did an
extensive salary survey. I know you have an executive summary of the
report that we did, and you can tell that we did an extensive survey
of law enforcement agencies here in the State of Florida. We included
both large and small employers. We wanted to have enough of a
database that everyone would feel reasonably comfortable with the
outcome. Local employers for civilian positions -- we relied on a
1995 wage and salary survey that was also conducted independently by
the Southwest Florida Employers Association and included about 60
public and private employers in the greater Naples/Fort Myers area.
So we had an extensive labor database to fall upon.
We wanted to make sure that in addition to being
competitive in the labor market, we also looked at the question of
internal equity. So a significant amount of job analysis was reviewed
for the positions within the sheriff's office so that we were assured
that we were not adversely impacting as a result of any anomalies or
bias that might exist in the labor market. So the labor market data
that we compiled was then integrated with a careful point factor
matrix evaluation of each of the positions within the sheriff's
office. For those of you who have had an opportunity to look at the
area of classification and compensation, I think you'll be aware that
the internal equity issue is really the one that you have to be
concerned with in terms of liability and exposure. So it's very
important that we -- we look at those issues as well. We developed a
classification and compensation plan, and we have -- recommending an
implementation strategy and a cost for that classification and
compensation plan.
The survey results, just briefly. For law enforcement
positions, Collier County Sheriff's Office -- This does not come as a
great surprise to you, I'm sure. It's about on average 14.3 percent
behind the labor market that we surveyed was. It was a very extensive
labor market. We picked some large employers, some small employers,
some small police departments as well as some larger organizations,
and we sort of shotgunned around the state, starting somewhere up
around the Orlando area, but not including Orlando, and going for the
southwest quadrant of the state. We included some information from
Dade County. You have had a couple of people who are willing to
navigate the alley to go over and take a job in the Dade or Broward
area.
Just briefly, the undersheriff's position -- which is a
single member in common. I hate to deal with those because you -- you
kind of know who we're talking about, but that's about 20 percent
behind the market. Captains were down about 9 percent, lieutenants
about 4 percent. Then we started getting into some real disparities.
A sergeant was 18 percent. A corporal was 18 percent, and deputy
sheriff was 17 percent.
Primarily when we do this kind of survey, we look at --
at the midpoint of the survey ranges. So that's generally considered
in public-sector employment the job rate. So when I'm saying these
are 17 percent, I'm -- I'm looking at midpoint ranges.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please define how you arrive at
midpoint. It's not average, I understand. How do you arrive at
midpoint?
MS. LONG: No. Actually, we do use the actual average.
We --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you take starting and
finishing and take just the flat average of '- MS. LONG: Yes. We take a --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- The two for the midpoint?
MS. LONG: -- a numeric average. The reason we do that
is I find that it's very confusing sometimes to citizens. I'm fully
aware of weighted average methodology and all of the other kinds of
things that you can do with actual salaries and -- and I've done a lot
of work under what they call Davis-Bacon regulations where you have to
do weighted average, but we use actual numeric average. Everybody
understands that. Nobody has difficulty.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But in many positions where a
typical turnover is two to three years, the average is rarely reached.
So is that a fair assessment? I mean, there are some positions that
just are not competitive-type positions, and there's a -- a typical
turnover in them. I'm just curious if midpoint '-
MS. LONG: You mean, if midpoint's ever reached?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
MS. LONG: If the midpoint's ever reached?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When you're -- If you're using
midpoint as a comparison, I -- I make the assumption that that
typically is the average salary paid to a person in that position or
typical salary.
MS. LONG: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But in some positions midpoint is
not reached as often as in others. There are some that are long-term,
dedicated positions '-
MS. LONG: Well, yeah. You're going to have, for
whatever reason, some of your -- Some of your lower-level positions
will have more turnover. It depends. Public-sector pay plans
typically are fairly standard, everything from -- Probably the
best-known public-sector pay plan is the federal schedule which is, by
the way, a non-integrated salary structure, right on down to local
government plans which are basically usually integrated salary
structures where the sets range from entry to maximum.
If you get into private-sector compensation, more of
what you're saying tends to be considered. They will actually look at
weighted average and that's how -- Like, for example, when you look at
the DOL area wage survey, you're going to get actual weighted average
salary, and that's what they consider the job rate and what in public
sector we typically take as the midpoint. You probably -- If you
really wanted to do some kind of statistical analysis, your midpoint,
your job rate might actually -- If your pay matrix was this way, it
would probably go -- skew sort of that way. Typically just for ease
of understanding, most people just consider the midpoint. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. LONG: One other thing I wanted to suggest that was
a component of the study too -- I -- I have to give the sheriff and
the sheriff's office staff full credit in this study. They have just
about turned over every cabbage leaf they can in trying to come up
with ways to address the turnover and the attrition problem that they
have. In addition to the work that we're doing here, we're also doing
a pilot program called the Quality of Work Life Survey for their
communications and dispatch area. They were having a great deal of
difficulty in that area and -- and trying to make sure that we're --
we're looking at every possible reason for turnover. It's -- It's
very easy to say, "Well, if we just pay people more salaries,
everybody will be happy." Well, we know that's -- that doesn't really
work that way. There is some threshold that you have to reach, but
beyond that, there are other issues.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm -- I'm sorry to
interrupt, but when you're talking about turnover and attrition, what
is an overall average? What are we looking at annually
percentage-wise?
MS. LONG: For turnover?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
MS. LONG: I don't have it exactly. I'm sure Gail can
tell you. I do know that right now -- well -- and -- and this is
slightly inflated. Right now there's 75 vacancies in the sheriff's
office, and that's out of 800 employees. So that's a fairly high
number. It's been averaging this past year about 60 vacancies which
is pretty significant.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Some of those are positions
that were never filled though. Is it '- MS. LONG: Well, some of those are civilian positions.
Not all 60 are law enforcement.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My -- The reason I ask the
question is you said why do we have such a problem of turnover and
attrition. And I'm wondering, "such a problem" means how much of a
problem? And if -- if there's only, you know '- MS. LONG: Well --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- 5 percent, then that's not
that bad.
MS. LONG: Yeah. Average --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If there's only 2 percent,
that's not bad at all. MS. LONG: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If it's 25 percent -- but we
don't know.
MS. LONG: What is it? Eight percent. Eight percent
she's saying. Actually, in the public sector, we consider about 5
percent to be an okay figure. When you get up around 10 percent,
it's, you know --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And let me just clarify.
That's 8 percent vacancies or 8 percent attrition in a regular year?
MS. LONG: Actually, I was looking at their figures and
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Would you repeat what she said
because she's making comments from the floor, and they're not on the
record and '-
MS. LONG: Okay. Gail.
MS. ADDISON: We've had about an 8 --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You've got to identify yourself.
MS. ADDISON: Gail Addison. I'm the personnel services
director. We've had about 8 percent attrition. We've also had about
8 percent to 10 percent vacancy factor over the last year to year and
a half. Prior to the state exam and the problems that we've had with
salaries in the last two years, we were having about 3 to 5 percent
attrition rates.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- Just to -- Maybe memory
serves me incorrectly, but it seems to me those numbers are higher
than what we heard during the budgeting process when we were trying to
budget for attrition.
MS. LONG: Five percent is generally accepted as a
standard attrition or turnover rate. Anything more than that, then
you begin to wonder if there's some other issue. The reason I brought
it up even and -- and -- and thank you, Gail. The reason I brought it
up was that we are looking through the Quality of Work Life Survey in
the communications and dispatch area to see if there are other issues
as well as salary that may be affecting employee moral so that -- that
we can make other positive changes. So I -- I give them credit.
They're -- They're really looking at every issue they can.
The implementation of what we're recommenda --
recommending for changes would -- Actually, it does two things. One,
it looks at putting the sheriff's office in a competitive posture.
Right now we have a situation where your -- your pay rank for deputy
sheriff from the entry level to the maximum is 20,000 and change to
right around 30,000. The midpoint of the survey average -- and that
is one where your midpoint probably is pretty much a job right -- is
about 31,000. So we've got presumably a senior deputy who would be
maxed out with Collier County Sheriff's Office that is -- actually has
a maximum earning potential of less than the midpoint of the survey
average that we did for law enforcement agencies. That's certainly
something that you -- you want to consider in looking at these
recommendations.
I would tell you too that we looked at law enforcement
positions, and I know that's always the critical one, and that's
always the one that people get all excited about, but we also looked
at the other positions in the organization so that we do not leave out
or disadvantage those people that maybe don't have the -- what do I
want to say -- the public visibility of the law enforcement positions,
those civilian people that toil behind the scenes, the records clerks,
the -- tremendous pressure in those jobs, absolute accuracy required;
your emergency communications dispatchers, a very pressure-cooker job.
It's interesting, when I travel around the country, I just pick up
newspapers, and I see there's enormous liability and exposure for
those positions. You really need good, qualified individuals in those
positions. So we didn't leave those people out. I don't want anybody
to think that we just looked at the law enforcement positions and kind
of left the other people by the --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would like to comment on that
point because my -- my support for this item is very, very strong as
it comes to lower-level law enforcement positions. When this -- This
that you gave us where it talks about phase four that sergeants are 18
percent under, corporals are 18 percent under, and deputies are 17
percent under, that matters a whole lot more from a law enforcement
perspective when the reason for this discussion, the reason for
keeping the million dollars set aside was that we've got to recruit 28
more road deputies, and we're not going to be able to get them if we
can't pay them a decent wage.
I am a strong supporter of that increase for deputies,
corporals, and sergeants, but a discussion of administrative clerical
personnel salaries in my judgment is not appropriate at this time,
especially considering that the Board of County Commissioners through
the county manager has employees who just got penny-ante raises
because we didn't have any money. So I'm not prepared to give staff
raises to the sheriff's office staff that I wouldn't give to the
county manager's staff. I am, however, concerned greatly with what we
pay road deputies and lower-level law enforcement officers and want to
do something about that. So I just want to go on record with that out
front early so we can try to work around that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm very much on those same
lines, and Sheriff Hunter and I had this discussion. What I missed in
this is that there are positions that are competitive statewide.
Entry-level police officers will apply all over the State of Florida,
and salary will be a big factor in -- in -- if they are one of the few
people that's qualified to serve, that -- where they will serve.
There are other positions in here that are what I call
local positions that don't require special academy-type training, or
they don't require special levels of education. They are local
pool-type jobs. The fair comparison or marketability of those
positions is what is the going rate in this community for that type of
work.
MS. LONG: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And there's a very distinct
separation between, are we competitive in the local community for
certain types of jobs, and are we competitive for the specialist jobs
and the statewide recruitment jobs, and I don't see the separation in
this report on -- on those plains. And like Commissioner Hac'Kie, for
us to approve across the board budget increases that increases payroll
of positions that go well above and beyond, let's say, county
employees in the same position are making lacks common sense from this
standpoint.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think '-
MS. LONG: Let me --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- I hear three people on the
board saying the same thing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MS. LONG: Well, let me -- Let me just say --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're going to hear four.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Four? Is that four?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You'll hear four shortly.
MS. LONG: I think your point is well taken and -- and I
-- I -- I certainly support what you're saying. There's two issues
that I -- that I heard raised. One, you raised an issue, Commissioner
Hacky, (phonetic) regarding the salaries for your lower-level law
enforcement officers. And, second, you were fully in support of that
and that --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My kids will be mad at me if I
don't tell you it's Hac'Kie. I always make them correct it.
MS. LONG: Oh, I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's okay.
MS. LONG: Thank you. Hac'Kie.
That -- The other issue that I heard was, how do we
compare with other positions in the local labor market and other
positions. When you get in the upper ranks of the sheriff's office,
there's no way to compare those other positions in your local labor
market except maybe with the local police department. You just simply
have to go statewide for those.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. Those are specialist
positions.
MS. LONG: So you're looking at your civilian support
positions. With respect to that, we did look at the Southwest Florida
Employers Association, and I'll be, you know, happy to summarize a
copy of the information that we used from this for you, and I'm not
going to go through it today, but, you know, we're -- file clerk here,
the average salary for file clerk is about 14. We're looking at 13.
The average for a general clerk, sixteen three. We're at sixteen
nine. The average for a senior clerk about 21,000. We're about
18,000. So we're -- I can -- I'll give you -- I'll get you copies of
what we used out of this, but this is -- I think it's very important
that you be competitive at the local area for those jobs, that you be
at least with the local market. You -- You don't want to be the
highest paid. You don't want to be the lowest paid. You want to be
somewhere in the middle. Certainly we don't want to be in a situation
of being accused of driving the local market because we have a lot of
private-sector employers here that we have to be sensitive to.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm -- I want to go ahead and
I'm going to agree with what all of you have said, and I'm going to
take it a step further. Obviously we want to take care of our law
enforcement deputies as best we can. My concern here is -- as I look
at 18 percent, 18 percent, 17 percent, is that's percent under what.
And I go back to the list that's provided that we are -- we compared
to, and eight out of 18 of those I don't know are appropriate to be
comparing. I would expect Broward County or Dade County to be paying
more because I think that's going to be a less appealing job. You're
-- You're, I would guess, putting yourself in a little more danger
than you likely are in Collier County. There are a number of
different things. It's -- The quality of life living there isn't the
same. But you look at Broward, Dade, Florida Highway Patrol --
Hillsborough is the Tampa area. Again -- Metro Dade. Orange County is
Orlando. Again, you get into big-city crime. Palm Beach, Pinellas
County, back to the Tampa area. And I don't know that those are
appropriate comparisons. So when we say 18 percent, of course we're
going to be under someone who's fighting inner-city crime in downtown
Orlando or -- or in Miami, and I feel much more comfortable when we
look at Saint Lucy and Sarasota and Lee County and others that are
comparable to ours but -- and I suspect we are still lower than some
of those, but I don't know if you take the big city, the metropolitan
areas out of there if that number will still be 18 percent.
MS. LONG: Well, you know, you can -- and -- and I -- I
-- I certainly understand what you're saying, and I -- I agree with
you. We have included some large employers. We included small
employers. We included big cities. We've -- Well, not big cities.
We included a lot of small cities in -- in relatively local areas.
One of the things I try to do when I'm looking at a labor market is
come up with a labor market that is -- that the employers will think
is fair as well as the commissioners will think is fair. So we've got
some that are going to be paying higher, some that are going to be
paying lower, just --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I'm suggesting is that
I'm not sure I think this is fair. When you have eight -- MS. LONG: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- eight out of the 18 being
large metropolitan areas, of course they are going to pay higher. The
cost of living is higher there. The risk of the job is higher there.
If you go to Miami, it costs a lot more --
MS. LONG: Yeah. I -- I agree with you.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- A couple of other
points is the attrition rate I asked you about and -- and were told
there are roughly 80 vacancies now out of 800-and-some-odd jobs, how
-- how many of them are positions you have now. Twenty-eight of
those are deputies that we approved for this year but that are vacant.
Twelve, I believe, was the number we were told that were not filled,
were never filled last year, which brings that number of 80 down to 40
out of 800 which is back to 5 percent which you say is normal in
private business. So I'm -- I'm beginning to wonder how much of an
attrition problem do we have due to this and -- and I want to --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Let me --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- take care of deputies --
SHERIFF HUNTER: I'll address that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- compared to other places,
but I don't want numbers thrown loose and fancy here because they're
not -- 80 out of 800 isn't an accurate number.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Let me take a shot at that. Don
Hunter, sheriff of Collier County again. First of all, let me go -- I
would like to go back to your previous point which was, let's compare
Collier County to big cities. And certainly Hetro Dade has a bit of a
problem. They have an image problem over there, not South Beach, but
the rest of it. They're a large county like we are. They're smaller
than we are in the sense of land, and certainly trying to attract
people over there when you're having interstate shootings and people
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Gangs.
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- bumping each other off because they
were cut off in traffic is a significant issue. I would, though, make
the representation to you that we are very similar to Orange County.
We're a resort destination. We don't have a Disney World, but we
certainly bring in international travelers. We bring in a lot of
dignitaries, VIPs. We have threats here. We train revolutionaries to
go to Nicaragua. We train revolutionaries to go to -- and terrorist
groups to go to Cuba -- to go to Cuba. I've had -- I've had -- I've
had two deputies shot on my watch, Vito Celiberti and -- and Rick
Roman.
I think we're -- we might be splitting hairs a little
bit. Now, I -- we don't have an image problem, and thank God we
don't. When I recruit, I talk about palm trees and soft gulf breezes.
We don't talk about deputies being shot in the line of duty or
killed in the line of duty. We've lost seven. We've had two more
wounded. Let's not split hairs on that issue. This is a very
dangerous job. I'd like for the board to recognize that. I'd like
for the board to recognize that I'm not trying to compare to Tampa.
We don't want to be a Tampa. We don't want to be a Dade County. We
want to keep the best talent here. We want -- We want to pay for
quality. We want to keep this place a safe place. So that's one
point.
The other point is, when we talk about an 8 percent
attrition or let's just say 5 percent attrition -- Commissioner
Hac'Kie and I just had this discussion. You'll remember this from the
budget proposal process just passed -- we're dealing with a very
significant issue. If I had asked for the number of road patrol
deputies we really needed, we would have asked for 66. That's what
we've been staffing at for the last five -- 15 years, the last 15
years that I've been involved. If we staff the same pattern, we'd be
talking about 66 deputies. We asked for 28. We can't break the bank.
We knew we had a recruitment problem, but 5 percent is more
significant when you compare it to the fact we need those 66 patrol
deputies on patrol but you're only going for 28, and if we can't fill
those positions, we're even further down. So if we can keep it in a
proper frame of reference, the issue is we don't have enough of what
we need, and we're suffering under that issue, and we're trying to
improve that point.
The -- The other part of this, before we get too far off
track, when we're talking about civilians, I'm -- I need to remind the
board that when we talk about civilian positions in the sheriff's
office, we have to be very careful. We're not talking about clerk
typists per se. We're also talking about community service deputies,
jail technicians who don't go through an academy, but, nonetheless,
they have to be at their post every day in order to operate the doors;
otherwise, the jail deputies are captured also. They can't move about
the facility. We're talking about victim advocates, dispatchers,
complaint-takers, switchboard operators who receive the complaints
initially, report writers who take the load off the deputy sheriffs so
they can stay in the field patrolling. So we have to be very careful
when we say civilian so that we know that when we talk about local
market competition, if we can eliminate all of those from the -- from
the discussion, we might be talking about, let's say, 50 positions of
800 that are, as Commissioner Hancock said, local market issues, and
those were considered as part of the study. And I have to apologize
to you, Commissioner Hancock, for not having that information
available when you asked a very pertinent question. But the
consultants did consider that local-market issue when they prepared
the report and hear the results using other surveys that were -- that
were conducted in the area. So I think if we can keep that in the
back of our minds, when I'm talking about civilian positions,
sometimes we're not talking about clerk typists or secretary. We may
be talking about jail tech or victim advocate or -- or dispatcher.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You would acknowledge,
though, that some of those are -- I mean, I -- I just looked through
the list here, and there's office assistant, data entry operator,
office assistant two, fiscal clerk -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- personnel --
SHERIFF HUNTER: We do have some of those very similar
positions as you do. And if -- And if you have suffered what we have
suffered, trying to attract data processing people into this area is a
very significant problem.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
Thank you.
Can I --
Commissioner Norris, you had a '-
I'm sorry.
-- a question?
I did?
If not, make one up.
Well, I was just going to say that
I don't think our discussion is going anywhere at the moment. I -- I
think we need to figure out something we can do today, what are we
going to do today.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make a couple of quick
points and see if --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I was next. I'm sure I'm
next.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Go ahead.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because my -- my question is
exactly on -- going down that same road, and that is, I want to know
if -- if we -- What I would be willing to vote to approve is this 18,
18, and 17 for sergeants, corporals, deputies. What's the dollar
ticket? Is that a crystal question?
SHERIFF HUNTER: That may be a come-back-next-week
question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I'm willing to accept
that --
SHERIFF HUNTER: I would -- Well, I --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- but that's it.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I would have to raise that issue we
talked about earlier, and I would want to be very careful about
separating out what appears to be certified versus some of the other
positions. We need to remain competitive but we will--
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ironically what I'm --
Ironically, in some people's minds, what I'm suggesting is a -- is a
raise for a whole lot of men and not a raise for any -- for very many
women, and I recognize that. Nevertheless, the line that I'm drawing -- It's a discussion that I had outside of this forum --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- is the reason I brought it up.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good thing I didn't think of
that.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Unhappily, most of the agency on law
enforcement and jail side is constituted of male deputy sheriffs.
They're mostly attracted to this line of work. On the other side, the
support side, we have predominantly females, and this is the issue
that's being related to here. We get into a discussion about funding
the certified side, we're funding male increases. If we fund the
support side, we're funding female positions predominantly.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But what I -- What I was saying
about that is, as ironic as some people may see that coming out of my
mouth, I think there is a great deal of substantiation. There's a
great reason for that, and that is I'm talking about raises based on
position and risk and people who are in the field putting their lives
at risk and that that would be at the sergeant, corporal, and deputy
level. And, again, if a motion's appropriate, I'm willing to make a
motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hang on. I'm not prepared to
go that far yet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I'll wait.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine, you're
next.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- I don't argue that we
want to stay competitive and we want to make sure we fill particularly
those law enforcement positions. I certainly hope whatever decision
we make will be based on positions we're trying to stay competitive
with and not on what gender may or may not be filling it. The
arguments made that we -- we're -- reasons we need to stay competitive
is that our attrition rate is too high, and it appears the attrition
rate is what our -- our consultant is saying is -- Our attrition rate
is what our consultant appears to say is average, and that is 5
percent. So I -- I don't know that we're any -- I don't know how that
compares. I'd love to know how that compares to other law enforcement
agencies. Perhaps out of this list we have here we know what their
attrition rate is, but that might be interesting. But, again, I've
got to go back. I want to take care of our deputies, but I don't know
that this 18 percent number is comparable to the communities we are
competing with. I don't know that we can afford to have the same
prices that Dade and Broward and -- I mean, Orlando -- When I said
Orlando, Sheriff, you said that's a resort destination, and indeed it
is, but it's not all Mickey Mouse. I have spent some time up there.
You and I -- I'm sure you have as well. There are close to 750,000
people there. There's inner-city. There's a lot of crime. There are
multiple shootings. You may remember there was a kid out of Naples
involved in shootings up there earlier this year. It is a different
level of crime, and you get into those big metropolitan areas, it's a
little bit different ball game than we have here.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, let --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So I -- There may be -- We
may be short, but I'm just thinking, if you take the metropolitan
areas out, it may only be 9 or 10 percent, and I'm not prepared to go
ahead today and say 18 when we're using -- the biggest part of our
comparison is large metropolitan areas.
SHERIFF HUNTER: And we aren't suggesting that you go to
Broward. We're -- I believe the proposal's about $8,000 below
Broward, but let's -- let's talk about that one more time. Even with
the money that they are spending, you'll recall the infamous phrase
Hiami river cops, if you will. They may spend $50,000 for a position,
but they're not getting quality. What I'm saying to you is, I don't
want to compete with Hiami, and we don't compete with Hiami and never
will. We don't compete with Broward. We probably don't compete with
Orange County, but we're well below that with this proposal, well
below that, but we also want quality. We don't want Hiami river cops
here, and that's part of my responsibility, make sure they're screened
out appropriately. But to draw comparisons and say relative risk, I'm
sure that there's some program, statistical program that can be run to
show us a model that would demonstrate that the features in Orlando
are a little bit different than us, and the probabilities are
different. I'm not suggesting that the probabilities are higher here
that deputy sheriffs are going to be killed. My problem is we don't
know. Even on a traffic stop, we don't know. And I've had two shot,
seven killed over the life of the agency, and we're beginning to move
into a new realm, as you know, with drive-by shootings and gangs, and
this is a different situation. So we are taking on a lot of vestiges
of a large city. We want to make sure that doesn't happen here. We
are short-handed. We didn't ask for as many people as we needed in
the regular budget. We need to fill those positions that we did get
boldly from you, as I said before, and this will be the step in the
right direction.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only other point I wanted
to make was on fiscal clerk, secretary, et cetera. It's not only
comparing with other agencies but -- and we have a thousand employees
working for the county manager who fit those same criteria, and I
don't want to --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In a selfish mode, I don't
want them to end up going over to Building J because they can get
$3,000 more and we have an attrition in this building.
SHERIFF HUNTER: And we don't want to become part of
that process either. Ours is finished a little sooner than your pay
study is finished. I believe you're going to discover the same
things. We're using the same materials, I would imagine. I think
you're going to discover the same things on those types of positions.
Host all of your positions are civilian positions, in that sense. You
have certified engineers and planners and whatnot but in a -- you are
civilian, and I understand what -- what you're saying. Lower-end
civilians are competing against lower-end civilians in board agencies,
board -- board divisions, and there may be some need for discussion
there about where we go from here. Compare current to current right
now, get that parody now, wait for the pay study to be completed for
the board, compare that with what we found, and move ahead as one for
those types of positions, come to some agreement on those positions.
I think that would be prudent.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think that makes a great deal
of sense with regard to those civilian-type positions. I don't see
any reason why we wouldn't make a decision today on these law
enforcement positions we've been talking about because our pay study
is not going to add anything to that discussion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When I look at this and from
discussions I've had with Sheriff Hunter, there appears to me to be
three tiers of need. There is a tier that is a statewide competitive
with a high level of training. These are typically your road deputies
advanced to become your corporals, your lieutenants -- you know, your
sergeants, your lieutenants, and so forth. There is a need in that
area to be competitive with like communities, and I believe the
fairest comparison is, indeed, with like communities. Understanding
that Broward and others were thrown in the mix, Sheriff Hunter makes a
good point. A deputy's life is worth as much here as it is anywhere
else; however, his life is typically in less jeopardy here than it is
in the Dade area on a daily basis. That doesn't lessen the importance
of that individual or their commitment, but I -- I think we need to
recognize that an officer making "X" salary makes a risk decision by
working in Dade County. That risk decision is easier to come to
Collier County and is worth probably something in the family life and
security of that individual.
So I think we -- we do need to recognize that we need to
make that comparison of like communities. I want to address that
first tier of need at a minimum today. I have to agree with
Commissioner Constantine in the sense that some of the communities
that are -- are listed are not like communities, and we need to be
competitive on a reasonable scale.
The second tier -- and hopefully we'll talk about some
of those, and we can get some information from those like communities
and assimilate it today because I'd hate to walk out of here without
doing anything.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Me too.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The second tier are those
specialized positions that -- that Sheriff Hunter alluded to. These
are people that have trained skills. After a year or two years, their
loss or their attrition has a twofold effect on the agency. And I
think we have a responsibility, even though those may be local pool
hires, to bring those commensurate with other like agencies. The
third position is one of the local pool positions. And I -- I think
by looking at it in those three tiers, we can look at each one, its
level of importance, and address it as such, not to say that those
local pool people are not as important, but their measure of salary is
different than the other two.
So for my two cents and my hope of direction is that we
focus on that first tier immediately which is the statewide
competitive positions, the ones that are priority positions to be
filled, that require a high level of training, and let's compare them
to like communities and be at or within the range of those like
communities. If we can accomplish that today, I'd like to see us come
back and look at the other two tiers, but I don't think we have the
information in front of us to make those firm decisions today.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If what you just said is a motion,
I'll second it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will frame that as a motion,
and it just means we're going to focus on one -- on that top tier
immediately following the motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just -- Can I ask you a
question as part of that? I just highlighted what I consider more
like than unlike communities. Saint Lucy County, Sarasota County --
Polk County, of course, is smaller, but Lee County is larger, so those
two probably average out -- City of Sarasota, City of Naples, City of
Cape Coral, and Brevard County, they are all in one way or another
more like counties.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Did you include Polk in that?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, I did.
HS. ADDISON: As a person in the line of fire, if I
could make a few comments, we are not going to go to the same rate as
Broward County. We recently lost a certified Florida deputy after
less than two months working here. He went across the alley for
$8,000. What we're proposing is for a Florida certified -- already
Florida certified deputy to go to about $6,000 more than they are now.
We can talk quality of life issues, and for that $2,000 difference,
persuade someone to stay in Collier County. We can't persuade them to
stay here when they're looking at 40 percent increases in pay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No one's arguing the $8,000
difference. What we're saying is the amount that we attach, that we
increase, we want to make sure it's consistent with like counties. We
know we're not going to match --
MS. ADDISON: Which it basically will be.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
For example, Lee County.
But we --
Give us some examples.
Hold it.
Yeah. I --
One at a time.
I think what we're saying is we
want to see those like county midpoints as opposed to being told, yes,
you are. I -- I would just like to -- to be able to see the midpoints
of the similar counties and know that we are competitive with them.
HS. ADDISON: I don't have midpoints, but I know that we
called today. Lee County is starting at around 24, and we're starting
at 20.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. Can you have this
information for us next week?
HS. ADDISON: We can get it. Yes, we can.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me read the list again.
Maybe somebody that has a list of those wage and salary survey items
-- and if anybody on the commission agrees or disagrees, let me know,
but the -- the list I had read as what I would consider like
communities are Brevard County, City of Cape Coral Police, City of
Naples Police, City of Sarasota Police, Lee County Sheriff's Office,
Polk County Sheriff's Office, Sarasota County Sheriff's Office, and
Saint Lucy County Sheriff's Office. I'd like to see the midpoint in
comparison on each of those.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Why not Charlotte and Lee? I mean,
why were they excluded?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're not on this list.
Lee is --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Charlotte's not.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where's Charlotte?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Charlotte's probably a good
idea. I don't know why they're not included.
MS. ADDISON: They're going -- They're doing a pay
study.
MS. LONG: Charlotte's in the process of doing --
MS. ADDISON: They're doing the same thing.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ha'am, you -- you can't talk from
the audience. We need whatever you say on --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we had the -- the answer
here. Charlotte's in the middle of the pay study.
MS. ADDISON: Charlotte's in the middle of the same kind
of a pay study by the same company.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What about Palm Beach?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's more expensive.
MS. ADDISON: Palm Beach is much higher.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Much higher.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Larger population, larger '-
MS. ADDISON: With the cost of living, I think we now
exceed the cost of living of Palm Beach.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So Palm Beach should be on the
list. I'd like to know Palm Beach's numbers next week if we're
waiting.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm thinking in the way of a
threat, if I'm a deputy, I would probably put my -- my life threat in
Palm Beach as being a little less than I would in Collier.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Really?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- I -- I'd like to see
Charlotte County included. Whether they're doing a survey or not,
they're still paying their people some amount, something, and I'd like
to know what that is so '-
MS. ADDISON: They're -- They're comparable with us
right now.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Can we have that
information next week '-
MS. ADDISON: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- as well?
MS. ADDISON: Yes, sir. But I'd also like to make out a
point that in this implementation, the majority of our lieutenants and
captains will receive nothing this year other than a COLA. They're
not scheduled to receive anything under this midpoint implementation
schedule. The sergeants, the corporals, and the deputies are all
scheduled to receive something, and it's more for the newer people and
less for the people that have been here for a while so '-
I'd also like to address a little bit -- As the person
who has to try to recruit clerical staff, the process that we put our
people through is very similar to the process we put them through for
certified. Because they have so many pieces of confidential
information, we have to put them through the polygraph. We put a lot
of them through a psychological -- Dispatchers all go through a
psychological. It takes anywhere from six weeks to two and a half
months to process them. We are losing especially computer people to
the hospital on a routine basis. They're outbidding us. It's been a
real nightmare. We also have some physical space problems. So we are
scheduling clerks to work odd shifts. We're scheduling them for
afternoon shifts and for night shifts -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me.
MS. ADDISON: -- and that costs us a little bit more
also.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. The direction of this
board seems to be going that we're going to ask you to come back '-
MS. ADDISON: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- next week with this if you
wouldn't mind '-
MS. ADDISON: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- holding that discussion until
then. The motion, as I understand it, is to concentrate on the upper
tier first, the law enforcement people first.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And to provide the additional
information on the -- what I call the following two tiers, the
specialized position of training skills and the local pool positions
to make the -- the proper comparisons in those categories. But, yes,
the priority is that those highly trained, highly specialized
positions that are the most difficult to retain, most difficult to
acquire, we definitely want to make those fair first, but we want the
comparisons to be in front of us so we understand what we're doing.
That -- That's really all I'm -- I'm asking for.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me be very specific too.
I'm looking for the numbers broken out by county, not an average of
those counties, but numbers broken out by each of those so we have a
good understanding what each of those is doing. I'd also like to know
what the attrition rate at each of those --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- levels is.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- offices are as well so we
can compare.
MS. ADDISON: Can we have a clear definition? Are you
talking attrition in numbers of bodies, or are you talking attrition
in salary, or are you talking turnover?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm talking turnover.
MS. ADDISON: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I think it needs to be made
very clear that we want our sheriff's office to be competitive with
like communities. We want to give Sheriff Hunter the tools to go out
and get the people he needs, but we need to have the justification in
front of us that it is, in fact, similar and fair, and that's really
what we're seeking.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Before I call the question on
this, I -- I want to throw one more item into the mix, and I've talked
with both Sheriff Hunter about this and Mr. Dotrill, and that is,
several years ago the sheriff convinced the board to go to what he
calls a Cincinnati plan for his deputies and a take-home program.
Right now those cars go home and sit in driveways. They -- They
cannot use them. Indianapolis? Okay. Whatever.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Some silly town.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Close enough.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- what I've -- what I've talked
with the sheriff about doing is -- and he's agreed to take a look at
it -- is to allow the deputies to use those vehicles in their off
hours so that we have a higher presence on the street. And, in
addition to that, if we were to allow that, the deputies may not have
to buy that second car so that that vehicle now becomes a benefit to
them and is worth a couple thousand dollars. So it -- it seems to me
that we -- that we've already spent some dollars in these cars, and we
can provide a benefit that already exists there that will help them
with their spendable dollars.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: As -- With a brother as a
detective, I can give you some insight. He doesn't want to drive his
car when he's off because he gets flagged down. He gets -- You know,
I mean, it's unbelievable. So it's worth looking at, but as a -- with
a brother as a detective in Hillsborough County who was a patrol
deputy since '87, made detective last year, he tries to stay away from
that thing. So --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But that's a detective on a
detective salary. That may not be a deputy. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Can we call it?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. We'll call the question.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, deputies come in many different
ranks as well, corporals, sergeants, deputies. As you'll recall --
Sheriff Hunter again, for the record. As you will recall,
Commissioner Matthews, we did discuss that briefly, and there are a
number of reservations I have, including risk to -- risk to families.
That second car still may be required. The deputy is going to say, I'm
driving the marked unit down for the visibility that the sheriff
requires, but meet me at the theater, or meet me at the grocery store,
because I'm not taking you in this marked vehicle for fear that we're
a target, for number one. Plus I have liability insurance issues. If
I'm going to be conveying civilians on a regular basis in marked
units, I will have -- I'll have to make certain that that is a
possibility, that we cover and --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're twisting a little bit
about what we talked about. It was not a requirement that they use
the vehicle but that they be allowed to.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Be permitted to. Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So if the family is going out as
a unit, they use the family car.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Okay. Well, I'm not --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If the deputy --
SHERIFF HUNTER: I'm not trying to twist that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
SHERIFF HUNTER: What I'm suggesting is that if they use
a vehicle, it may not be so much that they now do not need a second
vehicle because, still, if I were a certified deputy in a marked --
with a marked vehicle and I wanted to go somewhere on a family outing,
I'd be very careful about what I'd do with that vehicle and what --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- and my family.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm -- I'm going to --
SHERIFF HUNTER: But, as I said, I will -- I consider
that on a regular basis, and I have some large concerns because our
civic associations and taxpayer groups still do not understand nor
accept the modified Indianapolis plan that we have adopted 12 years
ago. We're still selling that program. We're still justifying and
convincing and to expand it as perhaps a large -- a large issue and a
large problem, but -- but I will consider that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We -- We have two speakers on
this before I call the question. I -- I just want to say that other
-- other jurisdictions use this program too, and they do have a
program for deputy use in the off hours. Mr. Dorrill, would you call
our speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Go ahead, Jim.
CAPTAIN SANDERS: Jim Sanders, captain of uniform
patrol, and I would like to address a couple of issues that I've --
I've heard or statements I've heard made here, and it's twofold. One
is because of the people that I'm accountable for being the captain of
a uniformed patrol division and in charge of communications. You
talked about a 17 percent, and I'm -- I -- I heard that figure kind of
questioned, and I heard that we were willing to look at 17, 18 percent
from a deputy, corporal, and sergeant. Well, if you only look at that
and you don't look at my base salary and you give this sergeant an 18
percent raise, you're not going to have a captain to be the supervisor
because he's going to be making more money. You're going to have the
same thing with the lieutenant's position, those people held
accountable for all those people out there doing their job. So what I
ask you to do is consider that range when you look into that because
your decision affects everyone that wears a uniform. I may be a
captain of uniform patrol, but I drive a marked patrol car, and I'm in
uniform, and I take the same opportunity to stop somebody out there to
get shot and to make an arrest as the guy on the street. It may be
less, but I started on the street which brings me to my second point.
You talk about areas. I went to Dade County Academy. I
went 680 hours. Starting salary for me back then was about $900 a
month, I believe. They offered me 1,300. Their comment to me was that
I lived and worked in the most dangerous county in the state, and they
natrowed that down to Immokalee because of the reputation, I guess,
that Immokalee had and a part of East Naples. And I had people that
were living and working in Dade County questioning my sanity for
working in Immokalee and East Naples.
So when you look at threatability and where a crime is
committed, that threat -- I don't care what county you're in, that
ability for someone to pull that trigger and -- and kill a law
enforcement officer is there. So you take that in consideration.
I do this by choice. I definitely don't do it because
of the money. If I wanted more money, I could probably go to Dade
County, but I do consider the atmosphere over there and -- and what I
would be facing, but I also look at Lee County, and I look at Hendry
County, and when a deputy can leave here and go to Hendry County and
make $900 more, something's wrong. And -- And you talk about Collier
being the largest county, I think we need to take that in
consideration. And you go to Lee County, and you talk about salary
comparisons -- They don't know that I've done a little research on my
own. I know what a captain in Lee County makes, and I'd be glad to
take home his money, and I'm sure that some of my deputies out there
will be glad to take home some of the salaries that Lee County's
getting and even in Hendry County. And Hendry County, if you close
your eyes, you're going to miss it. So when you consider that side of
law enforcement, please consider that.
And -- And you've talked about civilian side, and one of
the areas of concern is this dispatch. That's a civilian employee.
Without that dispatcher and that call-taker, that uniform guy doesn't
get there. So you've got to take all those things into consideration.
I hear the two tier, but you need to do an overall, in my view.
I've been with the sheriff's office 18 years. I just didn't step in
as captain. So I've experienced the salary all along, and it's pretty
rough to feed a family on what we make alone and carry the
responsibility that what we carry.
So when you sit down and you look at what we are
compared throughout the state, I don't care where you're at, our job
is the same. When you pick up that phone and call us, you expect us
there, and the threat level is the same. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. HcGilvra.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is the meeting that painful,
Doug?
MR. HCGILVRA: No. The chair was. Greetings again.
Doug HcGilvra, for the record. I'd just like to say a few things
here. I -- I think you're all addressing the subject properly. At
least you sound like it so far. Youwre going into a three-tiered
approach. My main point that I like to make is regarding the -- the
-- the lower paid officers and deputies and so forth like that.
Wewre acting like a training ground. Wewre acting like a training
ground. If you were out working in the commercial world, youwd say,
well, wewre working for -- wewre making a training ground out of this
place. Wewll just whistle them through here, whistle them out, and
somebody else will pick them up. The un -- The unfortunate problem is
being a training ground in this type of a business that the sheriff is
talking about takes an awful lot of time. It takes a lot of guts and
get the right type of people, and wewre spending an awful lot of time
doing this which -- perhaps youwre forgetting about it -- it costs
dollars to train these people into these jobs. And after theywre
trained here well enough, they get far enough, some of them do like to
go to maybe Dade or Broward or some other place like that. Most of
them hopefully will stay here. Itws a vicious circle. Wewve got to
get out of that vicious circle.
In the meantime, while the vicious circle is going on,
we have whatws called a lack of coverage, and thatws the problem wewve
got into. Now, just as a little tidbit for you, last Friday night I
was out in East Naples on the 3:45 to two olclock patrol with Daren
Larson as the deputy sheriff, and we had 25 calls for service while we
were out. That poor fellow didnlt have hardly time to sit down and
write out the information that he had to do, and then when we got back
to the station, he had to write this whole bit up, and it would be
another hour or so by the time he got there. We had three trips to
the jail. We had one K-9 incident where we picked up a -- the K-9
corps, happened to pick up a party that we had jumped a car. We
couldnlt find any other way. So he had to call the K-9 corps out to
do it. It was a very busy night. Some nights are probably slow.
That was a very busy night.
But this guy is a fairly young guy. Hels working
probably at the average of probably -- I guess 25, something like
that, and I donlt think therels a soul in this room outside of perhaps
one, two, three, or four, or five people that would be willing to take
on that type of a job, and he did it professionally in a very, very
top manner, and Iive got to congratulate him for that, and Iive got to
congratulate Sheriff Hunter for having that type of people on the --
on the force, and I wish we could keep them there. We need them. So
letls do everything we can to do so. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner
Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just before we call the
question, I do not want the message to be that we donlt want to take
care of our deputies because clearly we do. I think welre just all
trying to get to the point where that is based on information we have
in front of us, can hold onto, can read. Jim made the point that if
there is a threat regardless of where you are, if youlre in law
enforcement, it doesnlt matter if youlre in a little town in Maine
called Bangor, if youlre in Miami, then -- then there is a threat
every day, and itls very real. The point you all had brought up in
the beginning was -- One of the concerns is when welre trying to
attract new hires, we need to be competitive, and -- and Iim just
speaking in terms of new hires. Hopefully they see Collier as a more
attractive place to come than Dade, and thatls not to suggest in any
way that there isnlt still a threat here.
I think your suggestion or your points with Hendry or
Lee County are -- are well taken, and that's the only thing -- the
only reason why I want to see next week -- be able to compare to our
neighboring and like communities, and I think the numbers will
probably come back that we're under, and we can react accordingly, but
I just need to have that in front of me in order to make that
decision.
SHERIFF HUNTER: We'll do the extra work necessary. We
just don't want to get into a catch-and-release program. That's
supposed to be fishing. That's -- We're trying to avoid that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think you can --
SHERIFF HUNTER: And we do want quality. If we can
attract the quality law enforcement here and quality jail deputies,
quality across the board just as I'm sure the county manager wants to
do, we -- we wind up with a better outcome, and we put less effort
into it. We're more efficient. We're more effective. That's what we
were looking for.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, does
your motion anticipate after we've dealt with the first tier, then we
would immediately take on the next --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My motion was simply to
prioritize the manner in which we look at the positions throughout the
sheriff's agency to differentiate the manner which they're evaluated
based on importance to the sheriff. He can set those tiers up, but I
think his first tier is -- is, you know, the deputies and the
retention. And it's going to be easier for us to take them one group
at a time that have a similar comparative value. You know, like,
deputies we can go to other communities, but local positions we need
to look at the local community, and I'm just looking for that
differentiation. If we can do it all in one week, great. If it takes
one or two visits, great. I'll leave that up to you. But my goal is
to -- to set up those measures that we talked about, and that's the
intent of the motion. I -- I would expect you will see some
adjustment.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: When are you looking for tier one
to come back? Next week?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Next week.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Yeah. I believe we can do it in a week
for further discussion, and we'll see where we go from there. We're
talking about two tiers, or we decide the number of tiers?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Three.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, I -- I -- I see three
differentiations in the agency. You may find more than that. You may
find --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, I'll -- I'll get back together
with you, and we'll discuss that briefly if --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I -- I'd like to give some
direction on the identification of -- of this board's -- what we say
is the first tier. What I say is the first tier are deputies -- What
is that list again?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Law enforcement.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Law enforcement officers.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Law enforcement certified --
lower-level certified officers.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Jail deputies, certified jail deputies
as well.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The second would be the
specialized, like your switchboard operators or those things that are
obviously dealing with high stress, high level, but they're not law
enforcement officers --
SHERIFF HUNTER: 911 --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would think of that as the
second --
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- emergency telephone operators.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you may want to throw in the
statewide competitive positions and that, such as your specialized
computer analysts and so forth.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Dispatchers.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You have some forensic people in
here that competes, you know, all over the U.S. I would consider
those as a second tier. You know, the third tier is going to be very
limited. You know, those are strictly local pool. So I don't think
we're going to get up here and argue about this position, that
position. I think you can -- can -- You know, hopefully you have an
idea of what we're talking about.
SHERIFF HUNTER: We'll -- We'll respond to your
direction, and we may have a preferred tier structure as well. Maybe
we can discuss that when we come back.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call the motion. All those in
favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero. Let's take a break. Ten
minutes.
(A short break was held.)
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 95-59 RE PETITION PUD-80-20(5) REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
HIDEAWAY BEACH PUD, ORDINANCE 92-11, BY AMENDING MINIMUM SETBACKS FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON MARCO ISLAND - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the meeting for
November 7, 1995. We have a request to move the Hideaway Beach
petition to the immediate next item.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Before the plane?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Before the plane. I'm requesting
the board consider that. Is anybody opposed?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Seeing as how Commissioner Norris
has an obligation this afternoon and I think this is vital to the
discussion, I would like to do that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. Let's jump ahead to
12(B)(1), petition PUD-80-20, fifth amendment.
MR. ARNOLD: Good afternoon. For the record, Wayne
Arnold of your planning services staff presenting this petition. This
is the ordinance amending the Hideaway Beach PUD to establish new
beachfront setbacks.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Arnold, is there anything
different than the agreement that we saw earlier?
MR. ARNOLD: The ordinance that was in your -- I guess
the easy answer is, no, not really. I have made some minor changes to
the ordinance that was presented in the agenda packet to clarify some
language that was also a part of the settlement agreement, and if need
be -- I don't think there's any true matters that -- that have to be
re-entered for the record, but I -- I can summarize what the ordinance
says. I think, you know, staff is certainly endorsing the amendment.
Our environmental staff is also endorsing the amended language.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Did -- Did all of the lot owners
finally agree to -- to -- to fund their portion of moving the road?
MR. ARNOLD: It is my understanding that all parties of
the settlement agreement have agreed to that settlement agreement.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I've got a couple of
important questions I need to know before we go forward then. Does
this amendment only concern lots 14 through 177
MR. ARNOLD: No, it does not. It affects all beachfront
lots in Hideaway Beach, lots one and two -- or blocks one and two.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, when did that happen? Now,
that wasn't part of the agreement that we heard earlier.
MR. ARNOLD: That's right. It was not part of the
settlement agreement. The settlement agreement is specifically
affecting lots 14 through 17. Our earlier proposal of a straight
30/20 -- 20 feet for accessory structures, 30 feet for the principal
structure setbacks was meant to imply beachwide because of trying to
justify the distinctions between the north part of the beach and south
part of the beach and central part of the beach. At that point in
time, we felt like going with the straight number as it had always
been. It was the easiest and most justifiable method for approaching
the subject. As conditions of the settlement agreement came forward
and as we went through the Environmental Advisory Board hearings and
the Planning Commission hearing, it became more obvious that we needed
to take a little bit different look at the straight 30/20 setback
number, and what you have before you is sort of looking at the beach
in three tiers, the south part of the beach, the central part of the
beach, and a north part of the beach where we could look more
specifically at the problems each of those areas has, and, frankly,
the central part of the beach is 21 of those lots, and they will be
held to a straight 50 feet setback as we had previously interpreted.
They're essentially unaffected by the PUD amendment. The four most
southern lots who have had the most beach erosion will get the
30-/20-foot setback under this proposal, and the northern lots, lots
13 through 17, would be entitled to primarily a reduction in front
yard setbacks because of the road relocation, but a minimum of a
30-foot setback from the old erosion control line.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And are there any other
changes of any kind within the PUD?
MR. ARNOLD: The only other change that has been added
from the document you saw was a statement allowing the roof overhangs
to protrude within the front yard setback for those four northern
lots.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And we are not making any
kind of changes to any other aspect of the PUD?
MR. ARNOLD: Only the setbacks regarding the beachfront
lots. That's correct.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Then that's fine.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Could folks on the south end of
Hideaway on beachfront lots consider this amendment adverse to their
interest in your opinion?
MR. ARNOLD: I think it depends on how you define the
south end. As -- We've defined it as being the southern -- the four
most southern lots in Hideaway Beach, and we did that for a couple of
reasons, and it wasn't something I came up with. This came out of --
sort of evolved out of discussions with the developer of Hideaway and
-- and various property owners. But the four most southern lots have
had the most erosion and the impacts by erosion. They have the least
vegetation that -- that we can retain in any circumstance. They are
also undeveloped. When you start moving further to the north, you find
these lots that have been developed. I know that there was a letter
that I received regarding the gentleman I think was on lot two, block
two. He is -- He is far enough north that, by my calculation, the
50-foot setback that -- that would be applied to his lot under the --
the proposal that we have, he would have -- He's not impacted at all,
in my opinion, because today if we didn't amend the PUD, he has a
50-foot setback. As we amend the PUD, he also has a 50-foot setback.
He doesn't gain, but he's not adversely affected.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's the important
statement, is that he would have a 50-foot setback if we didn't amend
the PUD.
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. And as it turns out, he
could build -- He could move forward almost 50 feet for an accessory
structure on his lot even with the PUD amendment on one portion of his
plot. The most southern boundary of his property, he would only gain
about 35 feet by my estimation so --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Only those that charge by the hour.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Only those that charge --
otherwise known as suits, huh?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And have been charging since --
what -- 10:007
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Whenever they got here. Are there
other questions for staff?
Why -- Why don't we get some direction as to what the
motion might look like before I close the public hearing, and we might
curtail some of the speaking time.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The motion would be to approve the
staff's recommendation.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Larson. You'll be followed by Mr.
Anderson.
MS. LARSON: Karen Larson for some of the homeowners in
the south. I represent specifically Henry and Beverly Hawk, and we're
involved in litigation which has not at this point directly involved
the county and could down the road. One of the issues -- We represent
the class, the plaintiff class, and one of the concerns we have is
that there is blockage between the south and the northern end of
homeowners. My clients live on Sea Dune Lane, and they cannot access
South Beach Drive and get to the amenities within the subdivision. So
one of the issues before Judge Carlton is whether the county, in
effect, has allowed a private community to block off access.
One of the concerns we have, and one of the questions I
have, is whether by amending this PUD with this 50-foot setback and
moving the road, whether this, in effect, will be having an impact
upon whatever Judge Carlton will be ruling in our litigation. If
they're moving that particular road since we have already -- and one
of our arguments is, is that block -- blockade is illegal and that a
road pre-existed, will they, in fact, be obliterating part of our
argument.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's not the issue that's
before us today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's not the issue.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think we have any -- any
intention of hearing that issue at all today.
MS. LARSON: Well, the only question I have, Mr. Norris,
is whether this amendment will have an impact on that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think the answer is --
MR. ARNOLD: My answer would be, no, it should have no
impact on -- on that issue.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The only road relocation is the
extreme north.
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. And that's actually not
even a part of the PUD per se. That was a part of the separate
settlement agreement.
MS. LARSON: And so then you're saying that there would
have no impact upon the properties on South Beach Drive that are in --
going to be impacted by that Sea Dune, South Beach access?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm going to ask -- I'm
not going to ask our staff to make a comment relative to a case that
is ongoing for other parties that are not involved in the settlement
we're discussing. I think that's improper. Mr. Weigel, her -- her
request implies certain knowledge of her case which we don't have --
MS. LARSON: Well, I think you --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and I -- I think that's
improper.
MS. LARSON: Well, if I could explain, I don't think
it's --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Could I get my county attorney to
respond to that quickly, please?
MR. WEIGEL: No. Well, I -- I agree with your question
to the extent that staff is comfortable and with knowledge that they
have. Generally they could -- they could respond. Of course, they
don't have to respond at all if they don't want to. Wayne didn't
appear to -- to have any understanding -- have any problem
understanding the gist of the question, but his statement is purely on
facts as he knows them relevant to the discussion today, and if
there's any linkage with -- with her case, it's not official and --
and he's not responding in that regard.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because it's implied that
they may be bringing the county into litigation at some point, and I
didn't want some cross-examination occurring here for the purposes of
bettering your case. That's my concern.
MS. LARSON: Well, I think the question, Mr. Hancock,
was not whether or not you're going to be brought into the case. The
question was, my clients that own property on the south end of
Hideaway, are they going to be impacted by this amendment to the PUD.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And he -- And he has said no.
MS. LARSON: That's right. But what I'm trying to do is
I'm not trying -- All I'm asking is a question that I think is pretty
relevant --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The issue here --
MS. LARSON: -- to the issue.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And it was -- it was answered.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's been answered.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: My concern was with your
follow-up.
MS. LARSON: Well, the second point that I was going to
make, okay, and the second question is -- is, has the county in making
the comment or their planning staff making the comment that this
particular road movement is consistent with the comprehensive plan,
will the board also be voting upon that particular statement?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't think it requires a separate vote
by this board but -- but our recommendation -- our staff believes that
the proposal is certainly consistent with our comprehensive plan.
MS. LARSON: That's all I have. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Anderson and then Mr. Gregory.
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson on behalf of Mr. And Mrs.
William Gibson, owner of lot 14, block one, Hideaway Beach. We support
the PUD amendment and would ask for purposes of protecting the county
and my clients' interest, that you accept into the record all
submittals and exhibits that have previously been entered and all of
the public proceedings here so that we have a record in case any
disgruntled third party would try to challenge it. I have a listing
here, and I've given it to the -- to the court reporter and would just
ask you to formally do that, please.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, is there any reason
why we -- we would not want to do that?
MR. WEIGEL: No, there's no reason. Just for
clarification for Mr. Anderson, when he says all of the documents and
other material in proceedings here, do you mean before this Board of
County Commissioners or any other boards?
MR. ANDERSON: All boards, including the Environmental
Advisory Board and the Planning Commission as well as this county
commission.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, I would note for the record --
and Bruce may want to respond to that -- all of that information may
not be -- directly have been before this board, either in previous
board meetings or this board meeting. This board has met previously
and -- and been exposed to a lot of material. You're -- If you are
asking this board to take into account materials which have not been
before them as a board, I think we may have a bit of a problem with
that --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
MR. WEIGEL: -- the expansiveness of that request. They
have received information and recommendations from other boards, but
they have not necessarily had all of the information that was before
other boards, the physical documents before them, and if you're asking
for that to be placed before this board, I think it's a little too
expansive.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, my only -- only comment is that it
does service the basis for the staff report and the -- and the
recommendations from those -- those boards, and they -- they were
connected to the PUD amendment, those matters that came before the
advisory boards.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. So you are not stating or attempting
for the record to show today that this board has necessarily seen all
of those documents, but that those documents have been referenced as
part of today's proceedings?
MR. ANDERSON: That's -- That's correct. They form the
basis for the advisory board's recommendation to this board.
MR. WEIGEL: I'm comfortable with that statement and
with that recommendation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Gregory and then Mr. Kobza.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I presume the board -- the board
will agree to incorporate the documents Mr. Anderson is asking.
MR. GREGORY: Neil Gregory on behalf of Hideaway Beach
Association. Some members of the association and the board have
raised a concern that if the PUD amendment is approved with the
five-foot front setback prior to the relocation of the roadway, when
we leave here today, we'll have that five -- five-foot front setback,
but the road has not yet been relocated. The association just wants
to make it clear to -- to the commissioners and to all the other
parties that we will not be approving any construction within five
foot of the front lot line until that roadway becomes a reality.
That's the only comments.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wouldn't expect you to.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Kobza is your final speaker.
MR. KOBZA: Madam Chairman, members of the board, for
purposes of the record, my name is Kim Patrick Kobza, the firm of
Treiser, Kobza, and Volpe. I represent Mr. And Mrs. Vasey, owners of
lots 12 and 13. We support -- The purpose of my appearance before you
is to support the staff recommendation. We believe it's a fair
recommendation. We believe that it serves the purposes that you have
directed the staff in terms of environmental protection, and there is
ample supporting evidence of the record. Like Mr. Anderson, I would
ask that you admit into evidence -- I have a certified copy of the
transcript of the EAB meeting to the extent that that served as a
basis for your staff recommendation and the staff review. I have also
submitted to the court reporter the documents that were previously
provided to you as a board and also the -- the report of Mr. Richard
Armalavage which was the analysis on the buildable lot. So I want to
ensure that the record does incorporate those things which, in fact,
you have seen and considered.
I would like to thank the board for its patience in this
matter. I know it's been a long, drawn-out matter, and it has at
times tried all of our patience, and I appreciate your patience. I'd
also like to recognize and thank my co-counsel, Mr. Dudley Goodlette,
who could not be here today but that was pivotal in reaching this
conclusion, also the members of our team. And I think, again, it's a
very fair conclusion, and we've accomplished the goals that we've set
out. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Is that --
MR. KOBZA: I should say just for purposes of the
record, I do have Mr. Armalavage and Mr. Boggs here to answer any
questions that you may have. Although I don't anticipate questions,
the record should reflect their presence.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, that was the last
speaker?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the final -- the
public hearing. Is there a motion or discussion? Wayne, you need --
MR. ARNOLD: Hay I please make one final comment for the
record? Just so that -- so that we are clear, there is one other
provision that was a part of the settlement agreement that had been
incorporated, and that was a non-conforming provision that -- that
essentially says that any non-conforming structure if -- if destroyed
for whatever reason and they decide to rebuild within one year,
they're entitled to their old setback exceptions. I just -- It is
part of your executive summary packet, but I just wanted to -- to make
sure that I had that on the record.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. That was a concern of
mine, and I -- I did note that it was a part of the -- the end
product.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve staff's
recommendation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve petition PUD-80-20(5). Is there any further discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero. Thank you, Mr. Arnold.
Let's --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're quite welcome. Enjoy
wherever it is you're headed.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Not likely.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not likely?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not likely.
(Commissioner Norris exited the board room.)
Item #lib
STAFF TO DEVELOP AN ORDINANCE DESIGNED TO REDUCE AND ELIMINATE FALSE
ALARMS - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item is ll(B), a
consideration and direction of staff to develop an ordinance to
eliminate false alarms -- reduce and eliminate.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What number item is this?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: ll(B).
UNKNOWN VOICE: I was going to do it, but the sheriff
would like to start off. It will be one second and he'll be here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: ll(C) is also the sheriff, his
confiscated trust funds.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can do that building
construction or development services advisory committee.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Let's move to -- Oh, he is
back. Let's go. ll(B), an ordinance to reduce or eliminate false
alarms.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes. The item before you, vote yes.
We -- We've been discussing ways to -- ways to put patrol back in the
neighborhoods, take some of the load off road patrol officers. Talked
about clerical help. We talked about putting more people out there,
but here's a real practical way of reducing workloads over time,
long-term benefit through the adoption of an ordinance to limit the
17,000-odd false alarms that we're responding to, consuming hours and
hours of deputy sheriff time because we -- we estimate that we spend
anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour on these calls plus backup when we
have backup available for alarm calls because they are generally
perceived to be obviously very serious and either a burglary or a
robbery in progress.
We are proposing through the assistance of your capable
staff that we look at the adoption of an ordinance that would merely
make it more accountable on the part of an owner of an alarm system or
the -- those people who lease an alarm system to make certain that
their alarm system is properly working, that they're operating their
system properly, and that if they are not, after the second or third,
depending upon what the board chooses to adopt, but second or more
offenses of false alarm, they would be charged with a number. I think
we began in our proposal at about $25, and we moved that up depending
upon how many violations occur over a six-month period, and we can --
we can structure that any way the board wants to go. But what I'm --
What I'm looking for is a little relief for road deputies and for this
agency and for you in regards to false alarms.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I like the idea. Obviously if
we're wasting a lot of time and effort -- Doug -- probably 25 -- Three
of his 25 calls were on false alarms. The-- I'm wondering a couple of
things. What do we anticipate for fines? Do we know what court time
or cost will be if, A, either someone refuses to acknowledge or
protests and takes it to court, you know, whatever the associated
expenses are, and the money collected will be used for --
SHERIFF HUNTER: To fund the budget.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- some sort of law
enforcement --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- purposes or --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Right. Next year we're going to be
discussing other funding sources. To respond to the first part of the
question, we would naturally like to see those -- those fines become
attached to the dwelling somehow or become a lien. There needs to be
some hammer. There needs to be some enforcement vehicle so that the
owner or lessee of a system will have to pay the fine. That needs to
be worked out with staff, but we're using an adopted policy. It's --
It's something that's happening in other jurisdictions. We'll work
that through the courts if necessary.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Other county violations that your
deputies write citations for, is non-payment of those a misdemeanor
offense? I mean, how do we handle non-payment of other violations?
And I would assume that there's -- We do have some hammer on those?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Right. Right. What -- What would
happen typically is the Court would recognize the fact that they --
this person was responsible for payment of a fine. They would either
issue contempt or some other infraction and note a warrant would be
issued or a pick-up would be issued at some future point if we stop
them on the roadway or whatnot. Typically the Court will issue an
order that this person owes and they are to be picked up, and we will
get the money from them before they're released again.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I want to remind the board that
this is consideration and direction to develop an ordinance. We -- We
are not discussing the ordinance itself. I--
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve that --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- consideration and
discussion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the consideration and direction to staff to develop such an
ordinance. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes four to zero,
Commissioner Norris being absent.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Item #11C
PAYMENT OF TRANSFER AND ASSOCIATED FEES FROM THE CONFISCATED TRUST
FUNDS FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE ACCEPTANCE OF FEDERAL SURPLUS AIRCRAFT
FROM THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION - APPROVED
Next item on the agenda is ll(C). This is -- Sheriff,
stick around. That's your airplane, confiscated trust funds. And I
only know it's an airplane because I read it in the paper this
morning.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As a front-end note, no problem
with buying it. It's that maintenance line, cost-of-operation thing
that -- that I need to know about, how does that fit into your budget,
what does it do to it, what can we expect. Again, we're talking
about, in essence, a budget increase in your operation side if I'm not
mistaken.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Slight. What -- What we are asking for
and what we've gotten consideration from the Drug Enforcement
Administration on is the capability -- a twin-engine capability for
offshore flights when we're searching -- assisting in searches for
missing watercraft, disabled watercraft, missing people, looking for
the replacement of ground pursuit with air-to-ground pursuit for
high-speed pursuits, especially out towards the east county line where
we see individuals who can rev their car up to 120 miles per hour or
so. We're looking for the use of the aircraft for eradication
programs, some limited inmate transportation programs, but I don't
consider this to be a large, significant impact on the budget per se.
This aircraft would be tethered or hangared, whichever we can arrange
for. It really was a request for consideration of helicopter and twin
engine, and it comes to us via that request, a government-sharing
program surplus. I don't consider it a major impact. We're not going
to be using it on a daily basis.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we know -- You don't know
-- You're not sure dollar-wise what it will be to operate it? I just
know there are certain requirements, some of them flight-hour-oriented
and some of them are time-oriented as far as switching, trading out
parts and such.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes. We do have the answer to that.
Hark Cherney, the chief pilot, will respond to that question.
MR. CHERNEY: Hark Cherney, Collier County Sheriff's
Office. The operating cost on that airplane are computed out to be
$115.82 an hour, and both engines will take us several fiscal years
down the road before either one of them need overhauls. So outside of
any just normal hundred-hour maintenance and currently it's -- it's
hard to say -- or I guess the answer to your question, is the fiscal
impact going to impact the budget -- yes. I can't stand here and say
that we budgeted for that. We didn't. We had no idea we were going
to get these so fast, and that's one reason we're operating and
bringing this before you in such a quick fashion, as we have to give
them an answer immediately on these aircraft. Friday we got a fax
across our machine. We just put this request in less than 30 days
ago. They popped it up. This deal is too good to refuse. We can get
too much back when we go to sell this aircraft down the road. It
wouldn't matter if it costs us $500 an hour to operate. I'm fully
convinced with the price we're spending for it, we will recoup that
money down the road when we eventually get rid of this aircraft.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What -- What does an overhaul
-- What does this have for engines on it, or what does an overhaul
run on that? Because I assume you'll put reserves away each year in
preparation for that.
MR. CHERNEY: No. We don't do that because we can't
carry minus forward in our budget from year to year. Overhaul on this
engine is about 20,000 an engine, but we're looking at one with 157
hours on the engine. It will go to 1,800. And the other one has 857,
and it will go to 1,800 too. So we're talking almost -- almost a
thousand on one and over a thousand on the other. And even if we flew
this thing a couple hundred hours a year, that would be -- take us
five fiscal years from now. So we've really got a good deal here in
the airplane. And what little bit we are going to operate built into
the current aviation budget, we always have some funds built in there.
Should we have a catastrophic engine failure or something like that,
we can draw from those funds, and then if one of those things were to
happen, at that point we would have to ask for some type of amendment
and come back for monies, but we don't predict any of that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My question is for the sheriff to
just kind of state for the record. Are we viewing this more or less
as an opportunity to gain a disposable asset? In other words, we're
not building an aviation budget that we'll have to replace when this
thing peters out? I mean, for what we're paying for it, it looks like
use it until it's done, sell it and -- and -- and we're in good shape.
I'm just -- I want to make sure we aren't, in essence, building an
air fleet out there that five years from now, you know, this board
will feel --
SHERIFF HUNTER: We're not building an air fleet. One of
the attractive aspects of this deal is -- is the value of the hull and
the engines. When we do turn around to trade it in for some other
vehicle, aircraft, it certainly looks attractive from that aspect.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I -- I knew that was the
case. I just --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, that for-the-record
thing. Madam Chair, if there are no public speakers --
MR. DORRILL: There are none.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pardon me?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There are none?
MR. DORRILL: I take that back. Mr. HcGilvra again.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He's a busy, busy man today,
isn't he?
MR. DORRILL: Don't we have a limit of three?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ride around with a deputy one
time and --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Should we put a limit on this,
Mr. Dotrill? Mr. HcGilvra.
MR. HCGILVRA: Doug HcGilvra, once again, a private
citizen. The sheriff I don't think is trying to start a fleet. They
have a 172 Cessna right now. Come on.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just worried about, you know,
if we need to replace that plane you guys gave us.
MR. HCGILVRA: I think if you can buy a plane for
$22,000 and five years later turn around and sell it for $250,000 and
get 200 years -- 200 man-hours of use out of it a year, it makes sense
to me. It sounds like a pretty good situation, and I don't think you
can lose money on it, and it gives us a capability that we don't have
now.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I think we were about to
have a motion to approve before we were told that you were speaking.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But now that you've spoken, I
don't know.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Dorrill?
We've all changed our minds.
Oh, no.
Madam --
He's the last speaker, Mr.
HR. DORRILL: Yes ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a motion or further
discussion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I'll make a motion
to approve the expenditure -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- from the sheriff trust funds
for the purchase of the identified plane.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the recommendation to authorize the sheriff to use confiscated
trust funds to buy the sheriff's plane. All those in favor, please
say aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's five zero, Barbara
HcGilvra was --
yOU.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion passes four to zero. Thank
SHERIFF HUNTER: Thank you.
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 95-60, DEVELOPHENT SERVICES ADVISORY COHMITTEE REQUESTING AN
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 93-76 TO ADD ADDITIONAL CATEGORIES OF
INDUSTRY MEMBERSHIP REPRESENTATION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda -- We are
finally into the afternoon. It's 12(C)(1), community development,
environmental services, and ordinance to amend Ordinance 93-76. Mr.
Cautero.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just, before that wonderful
presentation I'm sure you're going to make, say that I have served on
this committee. It's a wonderful, wonderful input in the process, and
to broaden it in the ways that you've suggested here I think will be a
great improvement. So I'd like to move approval of staff's
recommendation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just quickly for my benefit, what
are we adding, what categories?
MR. CAUTERO: Categories added, Madam Chairman,
Commissioners, are clarification of the residential or building
contractor classification, the contractor classification of electrical
and plumbing, structural engineer, and an attorney. Currently an
attorney sits, but there's no mandatory classification that that slot
be filled, and that's one of the --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we exclude attorneys? I'm
just --
MR. CAUTERO: Not if you approve as amended.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Obviously they have found having
an attorney there to be useful.
MR. CAUTERO: I believe they do and --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just teasing Miss Macky
(phonetic) down there. Okay. I'll second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. I
-- I guess my -- my question on the attorney is, are you specifically
looking for land use attorneys or just any --
MR. CAUTERO: Excellent question. Excellent question,
Madam Chairman. No. The committee specifically stated that the land
use attorney should not specifically be sought in instances where they
might want to appoint or recommend that you appoint -- excuse me --
someone who has a construction background, for example, that could
serve a useful purpose on that committee. So they prefer that the
term genetically state attorney in the ordinance, not land use
attorney.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with that. Avoid the
fox-in-the-hen-house attitude.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. There would be a lot of
mechanics lien kind of discussions. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the amending of Ordinance 93-76. Any further discussion?
I need to close the public hearing. I'm sorry. We have
a motion and a second to approve --
MR. CAUTERO: Madam Chair --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- the amending --
MR. CAUTERO: I'm sorry, Madam Chair. There is one item
for clarification. The committee at their meeting last week added --
asked that one sentence be added which may be understood, but they
wanted it clarified. I gave Miss Filson that document. It was
reviewed by Harjorie Student and found acceptable. It's in your final
ordinance that would be signed. The handout that Miss Filson gave you
is on page two, lines five, six, and seven. The committee in the
event that they cannot fill all of these classifications, they wish
that a sentence be added stating, in the event that members cannot be
secured filling all the classifications listed above, other
individuals may be considered. The reasoning is, again, in case they
cannot fill those classifications, they would ask that you entertain
filling those positions with other people who are interested.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So you're asking that the --
MR. CAUTERO: Just the one sentence be added.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're asking that the category
be a recommendation rather than a -- that --
MR. CAUTERO: No. The -- The -- The categories would be
mandatory, but in the event that they could not fill -- could not fill
them because people's resumes were not forthcoming, you could fill
them with anybody you chose.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. CAUTERO: That's what they're asking. It's one new
sentence, and it's on page two, lines five, six, and seven.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
-- I'll call the question.
Opposed?
Does the motionmaker accept that?
Yes, ma'am.
Does the second?
Aye.
The public hearing is closed. We
All in favor, please say aye.
Motion passes four to zero.
Item #12C2
ORDINANCE 95-61 AMENDING ORDINANCE 95-16 THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATIVE CODE - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is 12(C)(2), a recommendation
the Board of County Commissioners adopt an ordinance amending
Ordinance 95-16.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, this is a
follow-through of previous board direction to staff. So I will move
-- move approval of the item.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. I
need to close the public hearing though. You guys are moving a little
bit too fast even for me.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I assumed nobody was going to
talk about it.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Empty room.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. We have an empty room, so
there are no public speakers.
We have a motion and a second to adopt an ordinance
amending Ordinance 95-16. Is there further discussion? All those in
favor, please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes four to zero.
Item #14
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS' COHMUNICATIONS
That concludes our agenda for today. We're at
communications. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Quickly, this is a procedure
question, probably for Mr. Dotrill. The Clam Bay system is getting a
-- is going to get a comprehensive and fresh look over the next few
months due to the recent die-offs occurring there. The money
appropriated by this board for the NRPA for water quality testing
probably is not the best long-term expense of those dollars for that
system and will probably be shown in the next few months that those
monies could be expended better to preserve the system in long-term as
opposed to doing water quality testing. I would like to bring to this
board a temporary halt in the expense of those funds on the NRPA until
the following -- the upcoming study and task force is completed,
probably in the next six to eight months. Rather than throwing good
money after bad, I think that money can be better spent within the
NRPA boundaries on the system for its viability. What method do I
need to bring that back to request board direction on, and how quickly
can I do that? Does it need a minimum advertising time, or can it be
brought back as an item on next week's agenda?
MR. DORRILL: It can be back on next week's agenda.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I would like to ask that
it be placed on the agenda for discussion next week, and I'll have a
specific written request to the board before Tuesday's meeting. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Good idea.
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, yes, just a
communication to the county attorney, that there was a meeting this
week of some Bayshore Drive area property owners where they discussed
the possibility -- a state's attorney described enabling legislation
where this commission could adopt a nuisance abatement ordinance,
basically that the law enforcement can't do much about, for example, a
crack house or a house of prostitution in Collier County because we --
and they exist, and we have not adopted an ordinance that the
legislature has given us permission to adopt whereby if -- if a
property is used and it can be shown it's been used for illegal
purposes, it could be declared a nuisance by this board, and then
there are a long list of remedies that go so far as a loss of the
property. And I'd like to direct the county attorney's office to put
that on as fast a track as everything else they've put on a fast track
today but -- but to let you know that that's something I -- I'd like
to see us consider and hope that the county attorney can bring us a
draft.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sounds good to me.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm in favor of -- of reviewing
that. I think it's a good idea.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Sounds good. Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no further
communication today.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do want to thank you for the
proclamation for Elizabeth Dole today. That was very well done.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That was well done.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're not talking anymore.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I've done enough.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've got two -- two short items.
These are items that I'd like to have on the agenda for next week, but
I'm not sure the board is even wanting to entertain if they don't want
to spend the staff time. I've got a request from both Dixie and
Nassau County to pass a resolution regarding the proposed ISO ratings
be delayed by the Commissioner of Insurance, and I have another
request for resolution from Southwest Florida Regional Planning
Council regarding fair share of the national gas taxes. Would we like
either or both on the agenda next week?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The regional planning council
one might be worthwhile. We had a great discussion on that at the
RPC, and maybe we can get Wayne Daultry or somebody down here to give
a little synopsis on what we're trying to do here.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I would like -- The second
one peaks my interest. The first one is rather vanilla to me. I -- I
don't know that we have a problem we're facing that that would --
would help in this county. I don't know anything of the issue.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I don't either. I'll be
glad to pass them around now.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Circulate those to the
rest of the board. If it sparks anyone's interest, we'll see.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You've got them.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. That's all that I have.
Mr. Dotrill, do you have anything?
MR. DORRILL: Two quick things. We received a request
from the Naples City Council to hold a joint meeting with the county
commission. My only reason for bringing it up is that the only item
scheduled for the agenda would be a beach renourishment update, and
that's being done at the request of Councilman Pennington, and I'm
just asking whether or not that same sort of update might not be
incorporated into the kick-off meeting and dedication of the beach
renourishment project this Thursday unless there's something I'm not
aware of.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think that requires joint
action by any means. So I'm not in favor of setting up a meeting for
that --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're doing it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- single purpose.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My God, we're --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was going to say, the joint
meeting was scheduled for tomorrow. I understand it's been cancelled.
(Commissioner Constantine exited the board room.)
MR. DORRILL: Well, I'll -- I'll need to -- I'll need to
confirm that because they're trying to reschedule it, I believe, for
the 20th or some point later in the month.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If there's something else on the
agenda that -- that joint actions needs to set a direction for, I'd be
willing to consider it, but beach renourishment is under way and
happening. So I -- I'm not interested in doing that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If they run into snags -- no pun
intended -- we may need to do something.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or stumps or --
MR. DORRILL: That was all.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That was all? Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Nothing, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Nothing. Miss Filson, we're
done? We're adjourned.
***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner
Hancock and carried unanimously, that the following items
under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
THE FINAL PLAT OF "MAPLEWOOD UNIT THREE" WITH CONSTRUCTION &
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Item #16A2
See Pages
RESOLUTION 95-615 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "LAKE AVALON
PROFESSIONAL CENTER".
Item #16A3
See Pages
RESOLUTION 95-616 APPROVING FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "LES
CHATEAUX", AND CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE & ESCROW AGREEMENT.
Item #16A4
See Pages
THE FINAL PLAT OF "CLIPPER COVE", WITH CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT.
Item #16A5
See Pages
WATER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR HUNTINGTON LAKES, UNIT ONE.
Item #16A6
APPROVING FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "ROBERTS RIDGE".
Item #16A7
APPROVING A CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) TO CONTINUE TO PERFORM PETROLEUM
STORAGE FACILITY ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE COUNTY, NOT TO EXCEED
$121,596.00.
See Pages
Item #16A8
APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF "STELLAMARIS", WITH CONSTRUCTION,
MAINTENANCE & ESCROW AGREEMENT.
See Pages
Item #16A9
APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF "MELROSE GARDENS", WITH CONSTRUCTION
& MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT.
See Pages
Item #16A10
RESOLUTION 95-617 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "VILLA VISCAYA".
See Pages
Item #16B1
REAPPROPRIATION OF TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX FUNDING FOR CATEGORY "A"
PROJECTS FOR FY95/96 IN THE AMOUNT OF $657,699.
Item #16B2
AWARD CONTRACT TO ABANDON PERCOLATION POND NO. 1 AT THE SOUTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY, BID 95-2442, TO MITCHELL &
STARK IN THE AMOUNT OF $331,800.
Item #16B3
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NUMBER 3 TO THE CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH GREINER, INC. FOR COUNTY BARN ROAD (CIE #33).
See Pages
Item #16B4
CHANGE ORDER FOR THE GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BID NO.
94-2263 FOR RESOLVING CITY OF NAPLES UTILITY CONFLICTS. SEPARATE CHANGE
ORDER NOT TO EXCEED $62,074.08.
See Pages
Item #16B5
FUNDING FOR OCPM FEES TO MANAGE CONTRACTS TO DESIGN MPS 1.02 AND MPS
1.04, $15,000 EACH.
Item #16B6 - Withdrawn
Item #16B7
RESOLUTION 95-618 APPROVING A JOINT PROJECT AGREEMENT, RESOLUTION AND
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH FDOT TO CONSTRUCT A 12-INCH WATER LINE
CONCURRENT WITH THE FDOT S.R. 951 PHASE II ROAD WIDENING PROJECT.
See Pages
Item #1688
AMENDMENT NO 1 TO WORK ORDER WHBP-11 WITH WILSON, MILLER, BARTON AND
PEEK FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO THE CHLORINATION SYSTEM AT
GOODLAND AND AT HANATEE IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,725.
See Pages
Item #16C1
CONTRACT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND TECH OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC.
(FORMERLY TRAINING AND EDUCATIONAL CENTER FOR THE HANDICAPPED, INC.)
TO PERFORM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995/96.
See Pages
Item #16C2
A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING AND SIGN THE
SUBSEQUENT CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH MORNINGSTAR NURSING SERVICE.
COUNTY HATCHING FUNDS OF $7,387.
See Pages
Item #16C3 - Deleted
Item #16C4
A CARRY FORWARD BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR PROJECTS IN FUND 193 (KEY MARCO
CAT EXHIBITION) IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,100.
Item #16C5 -Deleted
Item #16C6
TO PAY A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,406.82 UPON LAND
ACQUIRED BY DONATION FOR PUBLIC USE AS A COHMUNITY PARK.
Item #16C7
WORK ORDER CT-2 WITH THE CHRIS-TEL COMPANY FOR THE GULF COAST LITTLE
LEAGUE CONCESSION BUILDING ALTERATONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $51,450.
See Pages
Item #16C8 - Moved to Item #8C3
Item #16C9
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT AND COLLIER
HEALTH SERVICES, INC. (CHSI) TO PRIVATIZE CERTAIN FUNCTIONS OF PUBLIC
HEALTH.
Item #16D1
See Pages
BUDGET AMENDHENTS RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD FOR PROJECTS WITHIN THE
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
Item #16D2
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUHENTS FILED
AGAINST REAL PROOPERTY FOR ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE AND DIRECT THE CLERK
OF COURTS TO RECORD SAME IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
Item #16D3
See Pages
TERMINATE BID #94-2125 FOR ANALYTICAL SERVICES.
Item #16D4
APPROVE AND EXECUTE THE SATISFACTION OF CLAIM OF LIENS.
See Pages
Item #16D5
APPROVE AND EXECUTE THE SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND
AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF SEWER IMPACT FEES.
See Pages
Item #16El
AMEND THE COST CENTER OF THE PELICAN BAY SECURITY OPERATIONS AND
PROVIDE FOR THE TRANSFER OF $10,000 FROM RESERVES INTO COST CENTER
182800 FOR ADDITIONAL START-UP COSTS.
Item #16E2 - Deleted
Item #16E3
TRANSFER $25,400 FROM GENERAL FUND TO PUBLIC GUARDIANSHIP FUND TO HATCH
FILING FEES AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE.
Item #16E4
CONTRACT WITH NAPLES AREA ACCOHMODATIONS ASSOCIATION FOR $6,070 OF
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT REVENUES FOR FLORIDA ENCOUNTER.
See Pages
ITEM #16E5
BUDGET AMENDMENT 95-606 & BA 96-52.
Item #16E6 - Deleted
Item 16E7
ADOPT THE BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD AND EXPENDITURE
BUDGETS FOR OPEN PURCHCASE ORDERS AT THE END OF FISCAL YEAR 1995 IN
FISCAL YEAR 1996.
Item #16G
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following items under the miscellaneous correspondence as
presented to the BCC was filed and/or directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #16G1
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN CERTIFICATE FOR CORRECTION TO THE TAX
ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE.
1992 REAL PROPERTY
NO. DATE
207 11/03/95
1995 REAL PROPERTY
1-22 10/26/95-11/01
24-25 10/31/95-11/01
33-35 11/03/95
1-17
Item #1611
1995 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
11/01/95-11/02
95
95
95
RESOLUTION 95-619 AUTHORIZING THE BORROWING OF NOT TO EXCEED
$15,000,000 FROM THE POOLED COHMERCIAL PAPER LOAN PROGRAM OF THE
FLORIDA LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE COHMISSION TO FINANCE CERTAIN BEACH
RENOURISHHENT AND PROTECTION PROJECTS IN COLLIER COUNTY AND TO REPEAL
RESOLUTION NO. 95-487.
See Pages
Item #1612 - Moved to Item #9B
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:46 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Shelly Semmler, RHR, and Christine E. Whitfield, RPR