BCC Minutes 11/21/1995 RREGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 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 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F"
of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
CHAIRPERSON:
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
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to call to order the Board of
County Commission meeting for Collier County for November 21, 1995. Mr. Dotrill, would you lead us in an invocation and pledge?
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, during this week of Thanksgiving we
do have so much to be thankful for in Collier County. We're thankful
for health and safety. We're thankful for good jobs and a wonderful
place to live and raise a family or enjoy retirement years. Father, we
would ask that you bless each and every one of us this Thanksgiving.
We in public service are especially thankful for our families, those
who support us throughout the year, as well as the hard work of our
staff and the dedication of the citizens who in this community choose
to participate in their government. We ask that you would bless each
and everyone of us and that you would bless our time together this
morning. We pray these things in Jesus' name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, we have some changes to the
agenda.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am, we do. Good morning, Commissioners. I
have one add-on item and the balance of the items are all continuances.
So, hopefully, we'll have a fairly short meeting today. The add-on
item is 8(B)(4) as it pertains to our beach renourishment project, and
we meet the process for change order number one in order to bring our
project into compliance with the state and environmental permitting
conditions.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have we physically begun pumping sand yet?
MR. DORRILL: We haven't, but these are our friends from
Tallahassee, and they would like to make a modification to it. The
beach profile characteristics is going to cost you a little more
money. That will be 8(B)(4) under public works.
I have one item that I would like to move off of the consent
agenda and onto the regular agenda for a discussion. It is item
16(B)(3). It is moving and will become 8(B)(5), also public works.
It's a recommendation pertaining to a certain purchase by a gift and
easement interests, the road right-of-way, and associated utility and
maintenance purposes for the four-laning of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road --
excuse me -- 951 from Rattlesnake up to Davis. That will be 8(B)(5).
I have a request to continue for three weeks until your
meeting of December 19th item 7(B), which was a public petition
brought by Robert Elwood of WCI communities pertaining to the ball
field lighting at Veterans Community Park. I think that is the second
or third time that's been continued.
I have another request to continue item 12 --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I interrupt, Mr. Dorrill? Is
it normal to continue these public petitions like this?
MR. DORRILL: We generally will a time or two, and then
the office will make an inquiry and see what, if anything, can be done
to expedite their request or whether they need to start over or
something like that. We will probably do that in this case.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Item 12(C)(1) will be continued
indefinitely. It will be rescheduled as necessary to consider a
public hearing to establish the Islesworth Community Development
District.
We are also requesting to withdraw item 16(A)(3) on the
consent agenda under community development which pertains to the
approval of a list of hydrological consultants and contractors for RFP
95-2380.
Then I have one final item that is requested to be
continued, which is item 8(E)(2), under the executive office report.
At the request of the petitioner, the item is pertaining to the use of
tourist development funds for the World Tennis Center tennis
tournament.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, it is my
understanding, too, that the item that's in our package is going to be
probably substantially changed? There has been a new grant
application.
MR. DORRILL: That's my understanding. I spoke with Mr.
Goodlette, and he gave me the courtesy of providing some of the
rationale for the request, and they will reschedule that for one week
until your meeting of the 29th. And that is all that I have this
morning.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay, fine. Thank you.
Commissioner Norris, do you have any changes?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Nothing further.
Commissioner Hancock.
No, ma'am.
Commissioner Hac'Kie.
No.
Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I have three items. I
had asked our county manager -- I don't know what happened in the
meantime. We apparently miscommunicated -- the Treeline Drive item I
mentioned a week ago, and we set for 11:30 today, that would be 10(A).
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You did set a time certain on
that last week.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And a couple of items from
the consent agenda. 16(B)(6) is the operation plan for the landfill.
I know there is the some interest in that and in reviewing that. I
wondered if we might continue that a week and have that as a regular
agenda item as opposed to merely breezing through on the consent
agenda?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And 16(D)(1), I just need a
couple of pieces of information, and that is the sheriff's maintenance
facilities, a three-year plus lease.
MR. DORRILL: And that should be under support services
which will become 8(D)(1).
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 8(D)?
MR. DORRILL: D as in David.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I have to back up for
clarification. You mentioned 10(A), Commissioner Constantine? Is
that Treeline was left off of the --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- agenda for this week.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So that is an add-on. So
we now have a 10(A) which is a discussion of Treeline time certain at
11:307
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We also have -- I believe we also
granted the sheriff a time certain last week at 1 p.m?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He may be all alone at one
o'clock if we keep cutting this agenda.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we give him notice that may
be sooner? This agenda is getting smaller.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those are all my changes,
Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The changes that you had
suggested were on my list.
If there are no further changes, is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the agenda and
consent agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second to approve
the agenda and the consent agenda as amended.
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to nothing.
Item #4
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 1995 REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Chairman, I will make a motion
that we approve the minutes of October 24, 1995.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the minutes of our regular meeting of October 24th.
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Next item on the agenda are proclamations and service
awards. Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. I'm proud this
morning to issue four service awards, four different employees all
having ten years of service each. The first in public works, Ms.
Susan Copeland.
(Applause.)
The second from utilities, Mr. Berry Getlack.
(Applause.)
And also in utilities, Ms. Cynthia Long.
(Applause).
And one of our favorites from the county attorneys
office, Mr. David Weigel.
(Applause.)
Item #7A
MRS. MARIE TORTU REGARDING A SOLID WASTE ASSESSMENT - STAFF DIRECTED TO
AMEND THE ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO HANDLE THIS MATTER
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Commissioner Hancock.
The next item on the agenda is under public petitions, item 7(A), Ms.
Mary Tortu regarding the solid waste assessment. Ms. Tortu, as you're
coming up I'll remind you that we limit our public petitions. The
microphone is there, ma'am. We limit public petitions to ten minutes
of discussion and comment. We take no action on public petitions the
day they are presented. However, we may direct staff to bring it back
as a board agenda item where we may take action.
MS. TORTU: I don't know where to start.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: At the beginning.
MS. TORTU: I live at 1276 North Collier Boulevard.
When the waste management started, I went up -- and I have proof that
Mr. Raley gave me -- what do you call it; a request for hardship --
and I told him that as soon as I get back on my feet I would start
paying. Now, I paid for '94 and '95, and a couple of weeks ago I get
three letters from them stating that I owed '91, '92, and '93. I want
to pay what I owe, but I am not -- I don't want to pay for the
interest because it was their error. If I had received these letters
prior to the time of '94, '95, I would have come up and paid them, and
that is what I'm here for today.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dorrill --
MR. DORRILL: It lasted about 30 minutes, so let me fill
in some of the blanks and then Ms. Tortu can help you. In 1991 -- she
is a permanent resident who lives on Marco Island. They'd run into
some personal difficulties and they came in. It is my understanding
that we have about two dozen members of the public who have filed and
taken advantage of the board's hardship mechanism under your mandatory
solid waste ordinance.
When you make application for that, the application does
say -- and I believe Ms. Tortu understands -- that we don't waive
solid waste bills. We will offer a deferral. In the event that you
take a deferral, the board's ordinance clearly says, as does the
application, that interest accrues at 1 percent per month for the
annual solid waste assessment. She feels that there has been a
misunderstanding or that she did not receive, it is her contention,
the annual notice of both the bill and the ever growing assessment.
I believe now the interest has accrued since 1991 and
may be some $300 or thereabouts, and that's in particular what her
concern is. She is asking you for a mechanism to waive the interest
that has accrued on her solid waste bills from 1991. Unfortunately,
there is not a mechanism to waive that under the ordinance. And we
have provided her the opportunity to be here today as a courtesy of
you, and I have some folks from the revenue and billing department
should you have any particular questions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: These are the instructions for
completing the hardship application, and it clearly says 1 percent per
month.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My question is whether or not Ms.
Tortu received notification along the way of what her bill was
including interest. That is my only concern. If she did receive
notification at least once a year of what the bill was including
interest, then there is no reason for us to take action here. If she
did not, and there was a problem in her receiving those bills, then I
have some questions.
MR. DORRILL: Well, it was not under -- and we did not
have a department of revenue and billing. Mr. Yonkosky is here and
other members of the staff, and I've asked them to be prepared to
answer these types of questions. So I'll ask Mr. Yonkosky to shed a
little light on that.
MR. YONKOSKY: John Yonkosky, department of revenue.
Bills are sent out every year, Commissioners, and so everyone, we
believe, has been notified of receiving bills and what the amount has
accrued every year. In the case here, there is actually, as of the
end of last month, $140.09 that's accrued on the three years. She
actually had a deferment for 1991 and '92, and '93. She has paid her
1994 and 1995 bills. She did receive a deferment for the first three
years. And the system of accumulated interest on these particular
deferments is accruing interest at the rate of 12 percent a year or 1
percent a month. And when this particular ordinance was passed by the
board in 1991, there was a question as to whether or not interest
should be applied to deferments because for a very short period of
time the interest could be larger than the actual bill itself.
Next year you have decided to put these on the ad
valorem tax bill, and this problem will not come up in the future, if
the board desires to remove interest from deferments. The county
attorney's office and the manager's office right now is going through
the rewrite of that ordinance and that could be made very clear if the
board were to decide not to have interest accrue on deferments.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Tortu, have you been at the
same address for this entire period?
MS. TORTU: Yes. I have been there since 1970.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we know we have the
correct address. My question is simply did she receive a bill on an
annual basis at that address and if she didn't '-
MS. TORTU: I haven't. Believe me, I haven't. Why would
I pay '94 and '95 and not pay the old bills first?
MR. DORRILL: That's her contention. Our indication '-
MS. TORTU: I didn't receive those bills, and I --
MR. DORRILL: Our records show '-
MS. TORTU: -- got three all at one time.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's talk one at a time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
MR. DORRILL: This has been very important to her, and
we have tried to assist her as we can. The bottom line on this is
that the system shows that the bills were prepared and mailed as they
have been every year. This is not a large-scale problem because,
frankly, there are very few people who ever avail themselves of the
deferment option. Ms. Tortu did have what I believe to be some
genuine personal and financial problems during that particular period
of time. She was widowed during that particular period of time. A
great deal of her personal affairs got behind, and we understand that.
During that period of time -- we even need to get her caught up.
You need to make and give us some direction concerning
either processing some amendment to allow us to waive the interest,
because we don't otherwise -- nor do you have the ability or the
authority currently under your ordinance to do that. In this case, I
think we're talking -- has she paid the principal that was due for
those three years?
MR. YONKOSKY: No, she has not.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. So my point is that we're about
three or four hundred dollars total, and she wants to pay the
principal but she does not want to pay the interest. We don't have a
mechanism to do that. It's $140 --
MR. YONKOSKY: A hundred and forty dollars in interest
has accumulated.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Let me ask this. Ms. Tortu,
you're prepared to pay the bill for '91, '92, and '93? MS. TORTU: Just the principal.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The interest is the question.
MS. TORTU: No, because I feel it is not my fault. If
these bills were mailed to me, I would not have paid my '94. I would
have paid these first and then keep it up in rotation. But I never
received these bills. I received these bills October 17, 1995, the
whole three of them at one time, and that was the day I received them.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. What we have here is
Ms. Tortu says she didn't receive the bill. Our staff says she
probably did. Who is to know?
Ms. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we direct staff to
bring us back some sort of remedy for this situation so that we can do
something about the interest on this.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are we talking about a onetime
remedy for this particular problem or a change in our --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My understanding from listening to
staff that this is not a major problem and will disappear with the new
ordinance anyway. And we just need to take a bit of curative action
on this one particular case which may or may not apply to any other
cases.
MR. YONKOSKY: Commissioner, you actually have 21 -- or
there's 24 deferments that have taken place in the county. Next year
there will not be any more deferments, because they will go on the tax
roll if the board decides to do that. But those people can reapply
every year and continue the deferment indefinitely until they sell the
residence or some changes title. So the cure that we would bring back
to you would be to waive interest on those 24 deferments.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What I want to do is have the
ability to look at these cases on an individual case basis and make a
determination case by case.
MR. DORRILL: We can do that. If the majority of the
board feel that way, we could probably accomplish that before the end
of the year.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with that direction.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that a second?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, that's a second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
direct staff to bring back an agenda item where we can address these
hardship cases for waiving interest on a one-on-one position. Is
there further discussion?
There being none, all in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Can you have it back to us by December 47
MR. DORRILL: We need to revise the ordinance amendment,
but we'll meet whatever minimum advertising, and I'll presume that
your offer, your gracious offer is conditioned on her fulfilling what
she said she would do which was to pay the three years of principal
payments that were there?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. And if someone would
summarize that for Ms. Tortu.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman, December 19th would be the
next advertised ordinance hearing date. And if that is the date that
we are expecting to bring back the solid waste ordinance with the
other amendments, that would be the date to have this before you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. December 19.
MR. WEIGEL: December 19.
Item #7C
MARK F. FREEMAN REGARDING A WAIVER OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FEE FOR BOY
SCOUT TROOP 274 - STAFF DIRECTED TO WORK WITH BOY SCOUT TROOP TO ISSUE
WAIVER OF FEE AND MAKE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the
agenda is item (7)(C), Mr. Mark Freeman regarding the waiver of
temporary use permit fee for Boy Scout Troop 274. MS. JOYCE: Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think you are Mark
Freeman.
MS. JOYCE: I'm not Mark Freeman. Mark Freeman could
not make it here today. I am here in his place. My name is Star
Joyce, and I am here from Boy Scout Troop 274. Boy Scout Troop 274
seeks a waiver of a temporary use permit fee in the amount of $75.
This is for a car show that they are going to hold on December 9th at
Sam's parking lot on the corner of Immokalee and Airport Road. As you
are aware, the Boy Scouts is a nonprofit organization, and Troop 274
is going to use the funds from this event to purchase various camping
equipment and supplies. That is the reason we seek the waiver. Were
there any other questions?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other further questions?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The only question is we're being
asked to give a waiver and why is it on the public petition and not --
MR. DORRILL: Same reason we're dealing with some high
finance issues this morning. There's no mechanism to waive. Your
decision would be to ask the staff to process a budget amendment from
the general fund reserves to reimburse the community development fund
for the cost of processing this permit.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Last time we addressed a waiver
or paying the fees in a charitable bazaar or event, I thought we had
asked to have a presentation to make a resolution or something which
we directed staff for mechanisms for either administratively waiving
these or have it on the agenda so that we don't hear it twice?
MR. DORRILL: I can't recall, but I would be happy to
follow-up on that. This is sort of a historical issue. We have
certain groups -- you know, I bet we don't do ten of these per year,
but otherwise the board's rationale and the staff time to process
these sort of permits is sound for special events. And in the event
they need coordination or barricades or sheriff's deputies for larger
events, then there's a good reason for that. In some cases, though,
they would like to come petition the board to help save some money
that they would otherwise use for whatever is always a good purpose.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The discussion was as a result
of, I believe, the waiver of permit for signage for Special Olympics,
and the concern raised at that time was that if all not-for-profits
know that any event permits they need will be, in essence, funded by
the county general fund, we may be opening up a door that we are going
to have difficulty closing or limiting. That was the concern not
directed at the Boy Scouts.
MR. DORRILL: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm a little concerned about if
you're not-for-profit then county tax dollars will pay your permit
fees. That, I think, is a very -- you know, I was a Cub Scout myself.
I think it is very worthwhile. I know what it's about, you know,
just as Special Olympics was. But I'm still working on my bear badge,
Commissioner Constantine. I found a way to get it, too, by the way.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Then you're not working on it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But, again, I don't have a
problem with doing this today. But we're going to have to develop
some rational policy for handling these and for what minimum
qualifications are, because I think it easily could become, you know,
a thousand or fifteen hundred dollars a year that we end up spending
on these.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. And I think that was
Commissioner MAc'Kie's point when she said that a couple of weeks ago,
because we need to have some parameters for when we do this and when
we don't. Otherwise we're going to be asked to address them in a
rather haphazard manner, and we may deny one when we shouldn't and
give to another when we possibly shouldn't.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Brilliant point. That's a
brilliant point.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So I would like to see something
come back. In the meantime, I would like if our -- we can direct on
this particular one. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I understand what you mean
there. It seems to me that what we need, once again, is the ability
to look on this on a case-by-case basis. There is a lot of
not-for-profit organizations that I don't necessarily think deserves
the taxpayer funded fees given to them. So we seem to have a
mechanism by which we can accomplish this and that is simply to make a
budget amendment. Maybe what we should do is to leave it in place
where it is and, therefore, we do have the ability to look at these on
a case-by-case basis and what we need to do is make a budget amendment
to take care of them.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Last time we gave direction for
staff to bring the budget amendment back on the consent agenda. What
is the pleasure of the board today?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would like to do the same thing
with this one. It's just that I wish we would develop a procedure so
that we don't get ad hoc about this.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not re-discuss it every time.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, to give Ms. Joyce the
opportunity to sit down, I'm going to make a motion that we direct
staff to work with Boy Scout Troop 274, to issue a waiver and do the
proper budget amendment for the temporary use permit. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
direct staff to work with the Boy Scout Troop 274 and issue a
temporary use permit and to make the proper amendments to our budget
to pay the fees for them.
If there is no further discussion, all those in favor,
please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero. Thank
you, Ms. Joyce.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, on a broader matter, is
it the direction to put it on the consent agenda and then if a board
member has a problem with it they can pull it to the regular agenda
for discussion?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, but we need to give Mr.
Dotrill a policy on how we want to do it. If that's what our policy
is going to be, then let's do it in a formal meeting. This is a
period in the meeting where we don't take specific votes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand. I'm just trying to
set a specific stage for Mr. Dotrill to bring this back, and I'm
asking if that is a --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I could support that, to see them
on the consent agenda and if any of us has a problem, we pull them
off. Mr. Dotrill, if you would look at that and --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or we could just leave them on
the regular agenda and spend less time talking about them.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I would prefer leaving them on the
regular agenda, but that's up to the board.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, would you take a
look at what you feel is the best administrative way to handle this
and give us your opinion on it?
MR. DORRILL: Absolutely.
Item #7D
JACK POINTER REGARDING PETITION FOR STREET LIGHTS IN WILLOUGHBY ACRES -
STAFF TO WORK WITH CITIZENS TO GET ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES AND VERIFY ALL
SIGNATURES
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the
agenda is 7(D), Mr. Jack Pointer regarding the petition for street
lights in Willoughby Acres. Mr. Pointer.
MR. POINTER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Jack Pointer. I'm a resident of Willoughby Acres. I am here this
morning representing Willoughby Acres Property Owners Association.
Over the last couple of years, Willoughby Acres Property Owners
Association had collected about 200 signatures to have street lights
installed on the intersections on Euclid and Wickliffe Avenues in
Willoughby Acres.
The board of Willoughby Acres Property Owners request
the BCC waive the minimum signature requirements and initiate an
amendment to the countywide street lighting ordinance for the purpose
of providing street lighting service to Willoughby Acres. Sixteen to
eighteen street lights will meet this particular request. About 500
residences use the streets to be lighted for vehicular, as well as
pedestrian traffic. This installation is expected in the year 1997.
Willoughby Acres' residents expect to bear the cost of
maintaining and operating the street lights. This will probably be
plus or minus $20 per year per residence. We request that the
commission cause the staff to take the proper action to bring this
matter before them at an appropriate time. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you Mr. Pointer. How many
property owners are there in Willoughby Acres?
MR. POINTER: I think that in the line to be drawn
around there I think there will be around 500, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: About 500 and your petition is at
200?
MR. POINTER: We have about 200 signatures, yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Does that represent 200 separate
property parcels?
MR. POINTER: No, just individuals.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do all 200 live on one property?
MR. POINTER: The probability is that one person lives
in a residence, but it might be that two people live in one residence.
When -- we spent 17 years getting the number of signatures necessary
to put the drainage system in, and it just takes a little while, and
we're confident that we will find no difficulty as far as the
opposition to the thing. And this has to go through a process of a
couple of years before those street lights can go in. There would be
one on each intersection is what it would be. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Pointer. Mr.
Weigel, are there any legal difficulties to waiving this and not
having those standard 50 percent plus one?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's one of the considerations.
The board really has the option of determining if it wishes to go with
a 50 percent plus one or not. They're in the ordinance. In the
street lighting ordinance, there is a provision for that, but the
board could overcome that by a determination of the particular
petition before it.
Another consideration, Neil or staff may wish to chime
in, is the capital of construction of street lighting which typically
is not a part of the countywide street lighting district. It is
usually maintenance once the capital improvements are in, and then
it's brought in to the county -- call it the countywide street
lighting district -- and, therefore, you don't have people already on
line in the countywide street lighting district paying for capital
improvements for those who have not already paid that cost. I think
that may be a more important consideration for the board this morning.
MR. DORRILL: Those are the only two issues that we
have. The board's current policy says that you need to have at least
half of the residents sign a ballot petition, and in this case they're
fairly short of meeting that requirement. My suggestion would be
perhaps to either ask Mr. Pointer to extend their petition time to see
if they can't go back out and shake the trees and get 51 more
signatures that are valid.
The other concern that we have is the fact that they're
asking for, again, another waiver that does not exist, because they
want everyone else in the county to build and install their street
lights. And to my knowledge we have never done that before. So it
would be a little hard to turn around and tell the people in Victoria
Park or Naples Park or Vanderbilt Beach, just within that district in
the area, you had to pay to install your lights, but now you're also
going to have to pay a small portion to install lights in Willoughby
Acres.
I understand what they're trying to do. But if we can
come up with a different mechanism to allow them to install their
lights, then it would be automatic for them just to pay the same
proportionate cost to pay the annual maintenance and electricity to
own those lights. But that waiver is different enough that I at least
feel compelled to mention it to you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It seems to me the proper
procedure there would be to decide whether by petition or board action
an MSTU is established for the construction, the capital improvements
of the installation of street lights. Then the cost of annual
maintenance and operation of those would fold into the MSTU; is that
correct?
MR. DORRILL: That's currently what your policy says.
You build them, and then the Board of County Commissioners will own
and maintain them in perpetuity.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The exception this board made in
Naples Park and, Commissioner Constantine, you and I had this
discussion at that time, because of the fact there were 3,500 property
owners that there were probably somewhere around eight or nine hundred
properties outside of the physical confines of Naples Park that were
part of the taxing district and the high seasonality of the area.
Those all combined to create a very unrealistic situation but obtained
50 percent plus one of signatures.
Willoughby Acres, on the other hand, does have some
seasonality to it, but there are a lot of families and mostly
year-round residents. Is that correct, Jack?
MR. POINTER: Yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mostly year-round residents. I
think with a little help from producing a list -- I just did a quick
figure, Jack. You could probably do it by mail for about $160 and get
out to everyone and get responses from everyone. I would just really
like to see that effort pursued a little more fervently before the
board takes on an MSTU for the simple reason that neighborhoods of
similar size had to go through the same steps.
And I don't think it will take 17 years this time. But
rather than just committing today to establish an MSTU, I would like
to see if there are ways that we can help Mr. Pointer get to the
residents in Willoughby Acres a little bit better, a little more
efficiently so we can cut down on that time and see if we get that 50
percent plus one. That makes things a whole lot smoother for
everybody.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me ask this question, because
we probably have a time limitation problem. The MSTU that we're
discussing doesn't currently exist and in order to tax the citizens in
this area next fall, we have to establish that by December 31 of this
year; is that correct?
MR. DORRILL: It is, but there is a mechanism, and we
have in the past created districts after January knowing that we
wouldn't have the available money until the following year where the
board went out and then had a tax anticipation note or a small draw
against -- I can't imagine it's going to cost a lot of money to build
or install 16 to 18 street lights. And then you can make that up in
subsequent years. And so we can get them on a little faster schedule
than telling them, I'm sorry, it's after December 31st you're going to
have to wait until 1997 before we can create your district. We can do
it quicker than that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That was my concern, because the
question of the street lights in this area has been something that's
been discussed for five or six years now, and they have worked at this
for quite some time. And they're apparently stymied at getting only
200 signatures when they need 250 or 260. So if we can create it and
do some tax anticipation notes, fine. I can agree with that.
Commissioner Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Still I have the question that if
we have 200 signatures, we need to know how many properties that
represents. We need to have 251 properties represented, not the
signatures.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So that's true, and I imagine
that the petition would have to go to Mrs. Morgan for verification and
so forth. Is there other discussion on this?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I would agree with that. If you
gave me all the rope that I needed to hang myself in Naples Park, and
I will reciprocate in this situation.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I didn't realize we were hanging
each other. But, anyway, Mr. Dotrill, is that adequate direction to
work with the citizens to see if we can't get the additional
signatures and verify that they're property owners and so forth?
MR. DORRILL: We, in fact, received this morning a very
nice letter from Nancy Dykes, who is president of Mr. Pointer's
association. I think we can contact her and even send staff up there
and maybe have a series of meetings or a meeting in someone's home to
get people from throughout the community -- you know, it is a fairly
large subdivision -- and try to bring some organization to getting the
last 51 signatures. I don't think that's going to be a difficult
thing to do.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good.
direction we will take on that.
your neighbors. Thank you.
I guess that's the
Hr. Pointer, we'll be meeting with
Item #882
REQUEST FOR BOARD DIRECTION ON EXTENSION OF ROADSIDE SWALE ENCLOSURE
MORATORIUM IN NAPLES PARK SUBDIVISION - CCPC TO HEAR ITEM ON DECEMBER 7
AND BCC TO HEAR ITEM ON DECEMBER 19, 1995
Next item on the agenda is item 8(B)(1) to request the
board to give direction of extension of roadside swale enclosure
moratorium -- 8(B)(2), I'm sorry -- and the Naples Park subdivision.
Mr. Boldt.
MR. BOLDT: Good morning. For the record, John Boldt,
your stormwater management director. There comes a special condition
in Naples Park drainage project with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection permit. An ordinance that is currently in
place prohibits the practice of property owners in closing their
roadside swales with culverts in Naples Park. And that moratorium is
going to expire at the end of December -- December 31st. A recent
board action has delayed any final decision of the Naples Park project
until after the first of the year.
So in order to keep our options open on this project and
not invalidate our FDEP permit, staff is recommending that you give us
direction on drafting the necessary ordinance and extend the
moratorium for another year to go through the public hearing process
that would be necessary to do that. And also should there be a short
brief period of time between when the permit -- when this ordinance
expires and the new one goes into place, that we direct the planning
services not to issue any more permits for enclosing the swales during
this short period of time so that it would not invalidate it.
We have some questions about the public hearing process
and your wishes here concerning new procedures. It's not real clear to
staff, at least from my point, the type of the meetings we have and
what time of day they would be. In the past it's been through the
planning commission and then through your board twice at the 5:05
meetings in the evening. I think under the new policies -- I look to
David Weigel to give us some direction -- I don't think that's
necessary. I think that on your call it could be simplified.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: On that point -- and I bought
that up in the meeting last week -- the recent change in our Land
Development Code requires only one evening hearing, but we said we
would continue the practice of two. This item, however, has been
heard and extended and heard and extended. I think only -- I think
one evening here would be sufficient on this particular matter, for my
two cents.
The other question is, Mr. Boldt, we had a 90-day period
for what I am going to call the final decision on Naples Park drainage
to come back, and that would occur sometime in early January? MR. BOLDT: Late January.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Late January, okay. If the
decision at that time is not to move ahead, my motion, if that were to
happen, would follow that we lift the moratorium immediately. And is
that a possibility?
MR. BOLDT: I'm sure that we could -- confident that the
ordinance could somehow have that language in it.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: So that's what we're talking
about, a 30-day extension, not a full year because the decision is
going to be made in January, and that decision is not to move ahead,
and we're going to lift the moratorium on it. If the decision is to
move ahead, then the moratorium would stay in place regardless. Does
that frame it correctly, Mr. Boldt?
MR. BOLDT: That is correct. It sounds good.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we word the extension or this
issue in that manner?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. A date certain would be preferable or
an event. We can word it either way.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Harjorie Student,
assistant county attorney. I wanted to bring to the board's attention
that I have listened to the tapes from the LDC meeting, and the motion
was to approve the changes. So what is in the LDC is the requirement
of one hearing. It can be during the day or at night. And when we
did the LDC again, if it's the pleasure -- because there was
discussion but there was no final vote on whether it was going to be
two nights or one night it was discussed. And like I said, the motion
was to approve the changes to the LDC. So we can bring it back and
make it a one-night hearing. Then you have the flexibility to have a
one-day hearing or a one-night hearing. So, again, it is your call on
that presently.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With that being the case and the
matter in which this item has been heard, and we're really talking
about a 30-day extension, I am comfortable with putting it on the
regular agenda at some time in the month of December. And I will make
a motion that we go ahead with one daytime hearing on a regular agenda
for the moratorium. That is it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will second that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: This ordinance, however, has always gone
through the CCPC first. And with their advertising requirement, we
would not meet our last regularly scheduled board meeting of December
19th. We could bring it either at the first meeting or the first
regular public hearing meeting of January. That is why Mr. Boldt had
mentioned that there might be a brief hiatus during the latter part of
the holiday season. There would probably be very little permit
requests anyway at that time. But there may be a hiatus between when
the CCPC has had its meeting in mid or late December and when the
board would hear it subsequently.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there some other
opportunity to declare an emergency or some unusual declaration in
order to go ahead and move this so that we don't even by mistake have
a permit issued?
MR. WEIGEL: There is -- John or Harjorie can tell me
the date that the CCPC will be meeting. And, in fact, about three
years ago we had to do that very thing on this very ordinance on one
of its extensions.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because as Commissioner
Hancock mentioned, this isn't exactly new news. This is something
we've talked about annually and talked about over and over and over.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Again and again.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will amend my motion to direct
staff to bring this item back to us at the earliest possible point no
later than December 19, if I can hear from Ms. Student that it could
be legally possible.
MS. STUDENT: The CCPC meets the 7th of December and
also the 21st. I think we're trying -- we can't meet the advertising
requirements for the next CCPC meeting which will be the 7th. Isn't
that correct, David?
MR. WEIGEL: That's fine. And incidentally when we come
to situations like this, county attorney policy -- and I'm glad to
bring it to your attention at this time -- if we know ahead of time
there's going to be an emergency ordinance situation with the
inability to give a full statutory advertisement -- we're advertising
anyway, so it may have less than ten days before that meeting. But we
will have gone beyond any minimal statutory requirement for an
emergency ordinance anyway to give the public and any interested party
the best possible notice anyway. And we would do that in this case.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Were asking the CCPC to hear this
item as an emergency item.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I don't know that we're asking them
to hear this emergency item on the 7th.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the advertising
difficulty, if I understand.
MS. STUDENT: Yeah. I believe the advertising
difficulty is the result of the planning commission meeting on the
7th, and there's a 15-day advertising requirement for that.
MR. WEIGEL: But it's the board's advertising
difficulty, correct, not the -- not to hear it before the CCPC?
MS. STUDENT: Well, I was under the impression that we
would not be able to meet the advertising requirements for that
December 7th meeting.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Either way. The policy is
analogous. We provide and can provide advertising. It may not be the
10- or 15-day requirement, but there will be advertising so that the
public interested persons will have the best possible notice
available. And we will adhere as closely to a regular statutory type
of advertised hearing that we can, although technically it's an
emergency.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Would it be appropriate for this
board to ask the CCPC to hear this item on an emergency basis so that
we make it clear at this point they're going to hear it?
MR. WEIGEL: I think it's appropriate for you to create
that record, and then they can act appropriately.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I will restate my motion
that the board direct the Collier County Planning Commission to hear
this item on an emergency basis at their December 7th meeting and at a
subsequent board hearing on December 19th.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the second accept the new
motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
give staff direction and the planning commission direction to hear
this item on an emergency basis at the December 7th meeting and to
bring it back to this board on December the 19th.
If there is no further discussion, all those in favor,
please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero. Thank you, Mr. Boldt.
Item #883
BID NO. 95-2438 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR-LANING IHPROVEHENTS TO
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD (HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE TO AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD) -
AWARDED TO APAC-FLORIDA, INC.
Next item on the agenda is 8(B)(3), award bid number 95-2438 to
APAC for the Vanderbilt Road. Mr. Gonzalez.
MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Adolfo Gonzalez with
your office of capital projects management. Back in November of last
year you directed staff to expedite the design of the Vanderbilt Road
project so that we could get under construction as quickly as possible.
I think we have done that and accomplished that.
We have received six bids in October. The prices range from 5.9
million to 6.9 million. The apparent low bidder, APAC of Florida, is
below our construction estimate for both the roadway portions and the
utility portions of the road.
A couple of key points you may be interested in. One is
we are directing the contractor not to do any work west of U.S. 41
until after April 15th so we can get by this season without a lot of
disruption. The contractor has indicated to us he is confident that
he can do that work west of U.S. 41 during the summer months of this
year and not actually encroaching into the next tourist season. The
other item is the Hickory Road, Casino Road vicinity. We're not doing
any work on Hickory Road until we get at least two lanes of traffic
open between U.S. 41 and Goodlette-Frank Road. And we worked out the
sequencing of the contractor amenable to efficiently operate his
equipment and move his materials without affecting that area. We also
have some right-of-way consideration we're trying to rap up in that
area so that both of them work well.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you said there would be no
closure on Hickory until two lanes are completed? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And what time frame would those
two lanes be completed?
MR. GONZALEZ: We have an interim milestone date in the
contract. The contractor is required to have two lanes open to
traffic between 41 and Goodlette-Frank Road within seven months after
the notice to proceed with a no-later-than date of July 31st of next
year.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So by July 31st of next
year, two lanes are open, and the work can begin that involved
Hickory?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, between Casino and US41. They can
start work prior to that, but they have to have-- can only work when
they have two lanes open.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The drop-dead date is July 31st?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You mentioned there wasn't to
be any work done west of 41 until when? MR. GONZALEZ: April 15th.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What work is being done west
of US41?
MR. GONZALEZ: We're building a six-lane section and the
intersection, and that goes with tapers out of U.S. 41 west to Hammock
Oak Drive. And we're not doing any work west of Hammock Oak Drive per
your previous directions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hammock Oak Drive is where the
new park is?
MR. GONZALEZ: Just east of there. It's the last
entrance to the Pavilion, the western-most entrance.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
95-2438.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
award bid number 95-2438.
Further discussion? Is there a
Motion to approve bid number
Second.
We have a motion and a second to
Any further discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #8B5
RESOLUTION 95-654 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY GIFT, PURCHASE OF
CONDEMNATION, THE EASEMENT INTERESTS FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, DRAINAGE,
UTILITY AND MAINTENANCE PURPOSES FOR THE PROJECT PARCELS REQUIRED TO
COMPLETE THE FOUR-LANING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FOR C.R. 951 PHASE II
FROM RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD TO DAVIS BLVD. - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is 8(B)(4). This is the beach
renourishment item added on, change order number 1. We don't have any
information in our packet.
MR. GONZALEZ: I apologize for that. We need to get you
-- not even the executive summary?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The beach renourishment change
was a total add-on.
MR. GONZALEZ: I apologize for not giving copies to you.
It was --
MR. DORRILL: It was distributed with the change list.
It had a funny looking cover on it like this. It was attached to the
morning change list. And if you don't have it, we'll skip this and
make you some copies because I'd like for you to be able to have it.
Apparently not, so we'll make some real quick.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we skip over this item and
get some copies and then come back to it?
Next item is item 8(B)(5). This is the Rattlesnake Road
item that came off of our consent agenda. Mr. Gonzalez.
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. This is for County Road 951, the
second phase north of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road. The request of that is
for approval by acquisition by gift, purchase, or condemnation of the
road right-of-way, drainage, utility, and maintenance easements for
the subject roadway as described in the exhibits.
Staff has reviewed alternative locations and farm road
considerations, cost factors, health and safety and welfare
considerations and, hopefully, you as a board will find that the most
feasible cases of what is shown on the attached exhibits -- staff's
recommendation is that you approve a resolution to allow us to secure
by either gift, acquisition, or condemnation the road right-of-way,
drainage, utility, and maintenance easements.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Gonzalez, this was pulled out
at the staff's request. What is it that you want that we couldn't do
on the consent agenda?
MR. GONZALEZ: My understanding is that it's customary
that when you include condemnation in the resolution that it has to be
a regular agenda item for your discussion.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve item 16(B)(5), a recommendation that the board adopt a
resolution --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
the item?
Excuse me, it's 16(B)(3).
16 (B) (3), S (B) (5).
Right.
Is there further discussion on
There being none, all in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez.
Item #8B4
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. 95-2425, COLLIER COUNTY BEACH
RESTORATION PROJECT - APPROVED
We have the information now on the amendment to the
contractor for the beach restoration project. It is a rather short
item and if we can just take a minute or two to review it, we'll vote
on it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Gonzalez, when this project
bid came in, how much underneath our estimate was the total project
bid? I know it was under estimate. How much?
MR. GONZALEZ: The estimate was 11.4 million and the bid
came in at 8.9 million.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm talking about the
first number.
MR. GONZALEZ: Eleven point four mil was the
construction estimate.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. This was for 300,000
additional cubic yards of material?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. The board awarded the contract in
September. We received the original permits in October. One of the
stipulations was that over-boarded burden from one of the borrow areas
be laid at a certain elevation or deeper. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. GONZALEZ: And, essentially, we're building a
double-layered base in that area. And it's the cost of having the
contractor make two passes in the area versus one pass. So there's
additional days and the estimated increase is what would cost them at
his current unit prices to make that second pass.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is the Vanderbilt Beach
area, because the upper material in that borrow area is a little more
shelly, that's got to be laid as a base material, and then the more
sandy granular material is on top?
MR. GONZALEZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Gonzalez, wasn't this project
bid as such originally or not?
MR. GONZALEZ: Unfortunately not. We had had
discussions with the permitting agency. We tried to convince them
that the process of excavating materials from the borrow area,
circulating it in the barge, and then placing it back on the beach,
that their concern with the higher shell content, all of that, would
have been mixed in with a larger volume of material, and that problem
should have gone a way. We were not successful in proving that
argument to the agencies, so they want us to take one step further and
stipulate that. We have taken that extra burden and put it below, I
think, with an elevation at one and a half.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve change order number 1 for the beach renourishment project. Is
there further discussion?
There being none, all those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez.
Item #SD1
AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF THE SHERIFF'S
MAINTENANCE GARAGE AND FUELING FACILITY - APPROVED
Next item on the agenda is -- this is an item moved,
Commissioner Constantine, from the consent agenda. It's now 8(D)(1) on
the sheriff's maintenance garage.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A recommendation that the
Board of County Commissioners approve an amendment to a lease
agreement. And in here somewhere -- and there it is, I have it
circled -- both the sheriff's office and the lessor are desirous of
extending the lease term for an additional term of not less than three
years. And I know we've talked about having a facility on these
landfill sites, and I didn't know what our construction time frame
was. I just wanted to make sure if we're going to be four years
before that's done, we can let them know, and if we're going to be in
two years, we'd hate to have them --
MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Tom Conrecode from
public works. This lease is consistent with our time frames assuming
that the budget -- that the board approves in the budget construction
dollars that is consistent.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have motion and a second to
approve item 8(D)(1). Is there further discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #BE1
REVISED GUIDELINES FOR TOURIST DEVELOPHENT CATEGORY C GRANTS AS
RECOHMENDED BY THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL - CONTINUED FOR ONE WEEK
Next item on the agenda is under the county manager's
report, item 8(E)(1) which is to adopt revised guidelines for tourist
development category C grants.
MS. GANSEL: Good morning, Commissioners. Jean Gansel,
from the budget office. The board had suggested that the TDC review
the guidelines and the application process for category C, because we
have been having some difficulty with people complying with the
guidelines. The TDC formed a subcommittee who looked at the existing
guidelines and proposed revisions to simplify the process to make the
application a little less cumbersome. And they brought this forward
to the full TDC. The TDC did unanimously recommend that these revised
guidelines be brought forward.
Some of the changes that the TDC is recommending to you
is to eliminate the not-for-profit and the matching funds. They also
have requested that instead of annual allocations that we look at
quarterly applications because events do come up throughout the year
and this gives them a better opportunity to prepare a full application
with all of the information that they have.
One of the other elements that they would like for the
board to consider is to amend the ordinance and to allow category C
funding that is not allocated at the end of the fiscal year to roll
over to category B, which is the advertising and promotion. That
would only be done at the end of the fiscal year, and it would be
allocated to the next fiscal year for category B applicants.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That was the item, I believe,
that the subcommittee came back with that the board had not
specifically asked them to look at. And I would like to ask this
board that if that is something that is difficult to approve these
revised guidelines, that we continue this one week because the
representatives from the Tourist Development Council who are in
support of this change would like to have the opportunity to discuss
it. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: First of all, that's going to be
a little bit difficult for me to discuss, not because I think it's a
totally bad idea. I have two concerns. The first is that the funding
request exceeding $500,000 require six affirmative votes of TDC
members. If I am correct then that means that any petition could not
even make it to this board over $500,000 unless it got six votes by
the TDC.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, it can.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was my question. I want to
make sure this is not intended as a mechanism to keep something from
getting to this board if six members of the TDC do not approve it.
MS. GANSEL: Okay. But that is an existing guideline
the way it is now. That would be that we would have to have six votes
to have an affirmative recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners. Applicants that do not receive favorable recommendation
from the TDC can request to come to the board.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So that doesn't change?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No.
MS. GANSEL: No.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And my concern about the other
one is that, you know, I don't mind the flexibility of being able to
allocate unused category C funds to other categories whether they are
B or even potentially A. I think if there is an aggregate of unused
funds, and we're looking at trying to pay off the debt of a beach
renourishment, if we're going to have flexibility, let's have it both
ways. So I would like to have that as a point of discussion, because
I'm not comfortable just saying category B.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other -- Commissioner
Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The change -- a couple of
changes you mention -- what is the change in the matching funds?
MS. GANSEL: That there would not be matching funds
required. This was to -- again, to loosen up the guidelines to
possibly allow for more applicants.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I'm a little
concerned with that, because we just changed maybe three or four
months ago and not very long ago from a 100-percent match to a
50-percent match.
MS. GANSEL: That's correct.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I don't know that we've
gone through a full application season to see if that would have any
impact. So I need to have absolutely no burden on the applicant. It
seems if they are looking for some money from their local government,
they ought to be putting up a little of their own money along the way.
The 50-percent change, I know, was to make it easier. But I would like
to go through a full year and see if that works or if that doesn't or
if we need to make it lower before I'm ready to say absolutely no
matching funds, just come on in and get money.
The second item, you mentioned, a change as far as
groups no longer have not-for-profit. I think that's a great idea. I
don't think it really makes -- should make any difference to us. Our
purpose of this is to generate tourism in the area, expenditures by
tourists in the area. And if someone happens to make a dollar
bringing in a few thousand people into Collier County, that's not a
bad thing. So I think that particular idea is a good one.
And like Commissioner Hancock, I have a concern with the
suggested change that year-end category C funds would be rolled into
category B. This was attempted and failed in front of the TDC a year
ago at this time, and I think maybe even once since then I'm not sure.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. There was an attempt to
move $800,000 into category B.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I don't think that's
appropriate at all. I appreciate the hotels just want to get as big a
piece of the pie as they can in advertising the area. However, I'd
like to look at what-- if category C isn't being used, that was our
purpose in changing some of the category C rules earlier this year.
And, again, I'd like to go through a full season with those rules
before I'm ready to say they're not working. And, secondly, if they
are not working, and if we decide we're going to roll those monies or
have the option to roll those monies, I would like to look at what all
the options are rather than simply saying that we'll automatically go
into advertising. So I agree with your points.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I also have a concern with the
actual wording of that recommendation in the TDC to allow category C
funding to be transferred to category B. This says recommended
amending the ordinance to allow the funding. That, I assume, does not
mean that it's mandatory that it be rolled into category B.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That is --
MS. GANSEL: That would be correct -- my interpretation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So it will still take commission
board action to move any money from any category?
MS. GANSEL: Yes. It would take this at a minimum of
budget amendment certainly to do that, and I would think some other
action.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But what we're looking for is the
ability to do that through the amendment to the ordinance; is that
correct? Okay. As long as it's not automatic, I think that's what is
important. But also I agree that if we're going to amend that
ordinance to allow that, we also need to include Category A in there,
because it may be more appropriate at any given time to put it in
category A or another time category B, and I want the flexibility to
be able to do that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that what the Tourist
Development Council is trying to achieve here -- and Commissioner
Norris, you're absolutely correct. We're looking for some sort of
flexibility. Our attorney continues to remind us every time we want
to move money around that we've collected it for the specific purpose,
and we must spend it for that purpose. And the TDC is looking for a
method in which it can begin to move money around if it is not being
expended. And that is really all that the wording here is trying to
achieve. So you're absolutely correct in what you're saying on it.
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just in case someone is trying to
count votes here, I like the proposal the way it was made. I think
that the concern about it being an automatic flip into category B is a
valid one if it were automatic. But since it's not, I'm happy with
that proposal the way it is. And I am not anxious to go through
another season with the 50-percent match. I think that we have seen
that this is a program that doesn't work, and let's move forward and
make a bold step and not drag our feet on this. I am supporting the
proposal the way it came out of TDC.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It is not another season
where that changed that in the spring or summer months. This would be
the first season we would have gone through the 50 percent.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think moving the not-for-profit
will actually open that up tremendously. Now, granted I would still
like to see not-for-profits come in, because I think they stand the
most to gain, and they're generally part of the community, but I think
removing that is going to have a very fluid effect on how the funds
are used.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I had thought when we last
discussed this at a board meeting that we had wanted to see
not-for-profits be able to request these funds. But we did, I think,
want to see matching funds required from for-profits but not required
from not-for-profits. And that's the way I kind of remembered it, that
if it's a not-for-profit, matching funds are very difficult to put
together. But a for-profit, if they are looking to make a profit on
the thing, they certainly ought to be able to put up their money and
make some sort of match.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. On the surface that sounds
good to me.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we take a motion to
continue this?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we
continue the item for one week. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
continue the item for a week so that we can rethink some of this and
maybe talk to some TDC members -- my colleagues, not me. I can't.
But if we can do that and investigate what the thought process is.
MS. GANSEL: Also just -- I understand that there is as
part of the match for profits and nonprofits, the ordinance, what we
were requesting here was a direction from the board to have the county
manager -- the county attorney's office prepare an ordinance. I don't
know if you want to give them some direction or would you just prefer
to take it all at one time next week?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It sounds like we may want to
think about this in the intervening week and contact the tourist
council members.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think we're ready for
amending this issue.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a question before we
vote on the motion. I would like a chance to sit down with the TDC
members between now and then. We're not open either Thursday or
Friday.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You know the interesting thing is
the tourist council is meeting next Monday to discuss and examine the
grant applications we have received so far. It probably would be in
order if the commissioners wanted to listen to a discussion amongst
the tourist counsel to see if they wanted to attend that meeting at
5:30. We could even put a short discussion period on the agenda and,
hopefully, answer some of these questions before next week. Does that
sound --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Why don't we put that on
the agenda --
MS. GANSEL: I will put that first thing on the agenda.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and perhaps the commission
members could attend that. We'll do it first thing, so we won't tie
their time up. Okay, thank you. With no further discussion, I'll call
the question.
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero. We continue it in one week.
Item #8E3
RESOLUTION 95-655 TRANSFERRING CABLEVISION INDUSTRIES' FRANCHISE
AGREEMENT TO TIME WARNER CABLE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is 8(E)(3), a recommendation to
approve the transfer of the Cablevision Industries franchise
agreement.
MS. GANSEL: Good morning, again, Commissioners. The
council had received a request from CVI to transfer their franchise to
Time Warner. The county manager has an advisory franchise committee.
We've reviewed the application and had requested some additional
information and had received that. The advisory board does recommend
transfer, and they had been satisfied with the legal, technological,
financial, and ownership data that was provided to us regarding Time
Warner.
We did have a couple of issues that we wanted to bring
to the board's attention before they took action on this transfer.
The first was in the application Time Warner had indicated a number of
lawsuits that had been filed against them. We corresponded with them
to ask for some assurance that the actions in the past from the
lawsuit would not impact on the services that they would provide to
Collier County. We have received a letter from them indicating that.
Staff is satisfied with that letter and feels that pending lawsuit
will not impact on their services to us.
Also there is a draft of a social contract between Time
Warner and the Federal Communication Commission which seeks to resolve
946 outstanding complaints against Time Warner. In the draft it
indicates that Time Warner, at their option, may include any of the
CVI transfers within the provisions of the contract. When we have
reviewed this draft, staff does not feel as though it would be
beneficial to the Collier County residents to be a part of this social
contract and as part of this agreement would ask that the board
request that Collier County not be made a part of the social contract.
If you would like for me to go into some of the provisions of that
contract that we feel would be detrimental, I would be glad to.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just the name social contract
scares me.
MS. GANSEL: I had never heard of this. I checked --
Ms. Ashton's been working with this from the attorney's office and
neither had she. It was a method of resolving rather than having to
deal with individually each of the complaints, group them all together
and that was the term that they used.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would just as soon hear
some of those points.
MS. GANSEL: Some of the points, okay. What they have
-- in the social contract it provides that Time Warner will reduce
the rates of the basic service by 10 percent for their customers that
are included. It also allows them to increase by that same amount or
to recover any losses that they have on upper tiers. Many of the
subscribers, Collier County subscribers of CVI, do take the upper tier
services, so the net gain to them would be nonexistent.
The other provision that we felt would not be beneficial
is that Time Warner would be allowed to increase costs by one dollar a
year, and also they would be able to increase their costs for
inflation or costs to them. Now, according to the 1992 Communication
Act, rates can only be increased by inflation or costs to the
provider. So this would allow them actually to go up a little more
than the Communication Act allows them to. So based on those two
things, we felt as though it wouldn't be beneficial for Collier County
residents to be made a part of the social contract.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MS. GANSEL: Also currently Collier County is not
regulating the basic rates for CVI customers. Again, the 1992
Communication Act allows local government to regulate basic rates
where there wasn't competition. CVI services 30 percent of the
county. Now, they're franchises for the total county. So based on
that, the Federal Communication Act ruled that they were not a
monopoly and so, therefore, would not -- should not have their rates
regulated. The county took the position that although they have a
franchise for the total county, their service area is, in effect, much
smaller than that, the Immokalee and Golden Gate area. And in those
areas they do not have effective competition.
We have asked the FCC to reconsider their ruling. At
this point we have not received a ruling on our petition for
reconsideration. Just to give the board a little idea because of us
not regulating the rates, in Golden Gate and Immokalee those rates are
probably about 60 percent about what they would be allowed based on
this form that needs to be submitted.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Did you say six-O percent?
MS. GANSEL: Sixty percent, right.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Gansel, just to clarify, if I
live in Golden Gate or if I live in Immokalee, do I have any choice if
I want cable?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, you don't have no choice
other than to get the little 18-inch dish.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those are only about nine hundred
bucks.
MS. GANSEL: No. Also one of the other things besides
the rates, they also -- and with the Communication Act, you're not
permitted to charge for a second outlet, and CVI does charge their
customers for that outlet. So these are two areas that if the county
were regulating the CVI consumers, they would not be able to have in
their rate structure.
Again, we request that the board consider as part of
this transfer requesting that Time Warner may assist us in regulating
these rates or not resist our petition to the FCC. These are some
things that we would just like you to consider as part of the transfer
agreement.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. Go ahead,
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I don't know if this is a
question for Mr. Weigel or whom, but what is the scope of our
authority? Can we tell them today we, no, we don't approve the
transfer, go away? I need to know what our bargaining position is in
negotiating with this company to get the rights where we'd like them
to be.
MS. ASHTON: For the record, Heidi Ashton, assistant
county attorney. The items that you are looking at is the legal,
technological, financial, ownership data concerning -- our ordinances
are fairly silent on the criteria we're supposed to be looking at.
I have looked at the guidelines and the criteria that the FCC looks at
when they approve their consent, and that's why I recommended that we
look at that criteria.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If, for example, we found that
today some of those criteria were not met so that we could not approve
transfer, the result would be what?
MS. ASHTON: That the CVI would continue to have a
franchise, but we would not be approving Time Warner which is the
proposed transferee.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What does that look like on
somebody's TV set? Is there any difference?
MS. ASHTON: I guess you have to ask the cable company
how they would respond to that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it a checkbook difference? Is
it -- somebody tell me what's the effect of our decision today.
MS. ASHTON: Well, Time Warner, Inc. Would be stepping
into the shoes of CVI or a franchise.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand that, but the
results would be --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Time Warner wouldn't-- but
they can answer that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I guess this question is for the
petitioner perhaps.
MR. DUDLEY: Fred Dudley for the petitioner representing
them as legal counsel. First of all, we represent CVI here this
morning. We do not represent Time Warner. They are the folks that
we've entered into a merger agreement with. I'm sorry that you've
gotten sidetracked by a lot of these issues, but I think the
information is correct. As I understand it, the county did petition
the FCC. They have sole jurisdiction to decide whether or not a local
entity can regulate rates, not the state, not anyone else. The FCC
ruled that in these particular facts under the cable act, the county
could not regulate rates. Now, that's their decision. If the county
chooses to appeal it or ask for reconsideration, I don't think anybody
has a problem with that.
So the issue has been decided by the commission at this
point that the county does not have the authority to regulate rates in
this particular setting. There's a number of legal issues that have
been raised here. I would submit to you that's there really only one.
Under the 1987 franchise agreement, which by the way runs out in
March of 1997 -- it is one that I negotiated with this county
commission on behalf of CVI -- it provides specifically for transfer
and assignment of the franchise. Frankly, it does not provide for and
cover the exact situation we have here, because CVI stock is being
acquired by Time Warner, Inc. Under this merger.
CVI owns Florida Cablevision Management, Inc., a Florida
corporation, which is the franchisee. So, you know, really the issue
here today is is there any legal impediment to approving this
transfer. The county has the discretion but they don't have -- in my
view, they don't have that discretion absent federal authority. You
know, the League of Cities, the National League of Cities, the
National Association of Counties worked very, very hard to get the
present cable act in place. And those are the provisions that are
there. It's not something that we can change or this commission can
change, at least not today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But my question, Mr. Dudley, was
what is the effect of a denial today assuming that we review the
criteria and find that they're not met. What will that look like?
What is the effect on the consumer? What will happen?
MR. DUDLEY: If the transfer is not approved, then CVI
will continue under its current franchise until it expires and, you
know, will continue providing the same service. So I don't think the
consumer will see any difference if you deny the application.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And CVI will continue to resist
our petition to the FCC that you be regulated?
MR. DUDLEY: They will continue to oppose local
regulation under the federal law whether they win, lose, or draw, just
like the county, I'm sure, will continue to pursue their options. And
I think that is fair. And we can't -- I don't believe it would be
appropriate today for us to negotiate this transfer. We've either met
the criteria and filled out the proper paperwork and gave you the
proper disclosures or we have not. And to my knowledge the only issue
that is outstanding is an audit which is currently ongoing, that we
have to come to terms on with the county, and we have to reach a
settlement on that. But I know of no other issue, and, certainly,
this issue of rate regulation is a loss leader. You can either
regulate rates or you cannot under federal law.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ms. Ashton, there are
obviously some concerns with rate regulation among other things, but
is the more appropriate time to deal with that in the franchise
renewal time period?
MS. ASHTON: I believe, yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're due to make a decision
on that in 14 or 15 months anyway, because that is when their current
franchise agreement expires, I believe.
MS. ASHTON: I believe that part of the reason to raise
some of these issues is for informational purposes so the board knows
what is going on since we don't appear before the board that often on
cable matters. So I think that staff has advised that the
requirements that they're required to meet and are recommending you
approve the transfer subject to a couple of items that are mentioned
on the resolution.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. My question, though
these other issues that are being raised are more appropriate for when
we negotiate a new franchise agreement or we don't with either CVI or
Time Warner, is there a more appropriate forum than this to deal with
those specific issues.
MS. ASHTON: Possibly. We are awaiting a response from
the FCC on our petition for reconsiderations, so that will resolve
some of these issues concerning rates.
MR. DORRILL: Short of voluntary compliance, and I think
Mr. Dudley has already adequately answered that question, there is
really no incentive for them to voluntarily agree to local rate
regulation in the final year of their franchise. Then, yes,
Commissioner, when we hope to leverage a better position would be when
we sit down next year.
There is one main consideration that we are recommending
subject to approval, and that is the one concerning the audit as being
done by the clerk's office. I don't know whether or not that is
pertinent to discuss here today, but until we get satisfaction between
myself and Mr. Mitchell as acting financing director, that would be
the primary condition we are concerned about.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just had a discussion yesterday
with the clerk and Mr. Mitchell regarding the audit. And the
difficulty -- it appears that the difficulty in completing the audit
is not with the local franchisee but with New York with Time Warner in
obtaining adequate data. So if it's Time Warner or the New York
office that is creating the difficulties in completing the audit and
assessing up to a hundred thousand dollars worth of franchise fees,
then what behooves us to accept the transfer if they're not going to
cooperate?
MR. DORRILL: Well, I think there may be an
administrative remedy there. Failure to get into administrative
remedy would mean we'd be back in front of the board, and that's what
both Mr. Mitchell and I are going to have satisfaction as to what the
accrued and unpaid franchise fees are or whether we are going to have
to come back here and argue that in front of the county commission.
MS. ASHTON: And there's a provision in the resolution
that they have until December 20 to resolve the 1990 -- the '91
financial statement issue to come to a negotiated settlement with the
county and if they failed to do so, this resolution shall be null and
void. So they have 30 days to come to a resolution.
MR. DUDLEY: Madam Chairman, if I could on those two
points. First of all, let me clarify, Mr. Dotrill, what I said. What
I said was we cannot stipulate to your jurisdiction or your lack of
jurisdiction.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: You could lower your rates.
MR. DUDLEY: Well, we cannot stipulate to any rate
regulation where the jurisdiction is not confirmed by federal law.
Federal Law governs us. They are other issues, Mr. Dotrill, that
you're well aware of that where we would like to make some changes
that the county has requested, and we will make them if Federal law
allows us to. But our franchise agreement requires, and I think the
law otherwise requires, that we comply with the Federal laws and the
FCC regulations. So this is not a matter of you want us to agree and
we won't. We can't. That's a decision the FCC will make. We have no
problem with the county pursuing whatever legal remedies they have.
I'm not sitting here today saying, you know, we want you all to agree
not to pursue it. That's not part of our application.
With regard to the audit, this is with CVI. And, again,
I do not represent Time Warner. And in the draft resolution --
frankly, while I have no problem with your consent being subject to
all of the existing regulations and ordinances, here is what I would
suggest to you on paragraph 3 of the draft. First of all, we should
have within 30 days of completion of the audit -- we're not doing the
audit; the county is. We ought not have a date in here. And I just
spoke to a gentleman who, I guess, is doing the audit. He may still
be here. He indicated to me that he thought he would have a report for
the county a week from Friday. It's not my job to speak for him, but
that's what we were just talking about.
What I am saying is we don't have any control over when
the county audit is completed. And I don't want a date in here where
we don't have time to negotiate a settlement. So my first point is we
would like 30 days from the date the county has completed their audit
to have this -- you know, 30 days within which to negotiate a
settlement. And I think that is only reasonable.
Second of all, frankly, while it makes a lot of sense
from perhaps the staff's point of view to protect the county, to make
this resolution null and void if we don't pay a negotiated settlement
means that there's really a gun to our head. What I would suggest we
say that if we have not paid -- we have not reached a settlement
within 30 days of the audit, let us pay the money into escrow or let
us pay it to the county exactly what the county alleges is owed but
allow us to pay it under protest so that our legal rights are
preserved and the county's legal rights are preserved. But to hinge
the entire consent on what may or may not happen 30 or 40 or how many
days down the road, frankly, is unfair.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With the exception of your last
comments, Mr. Dudley, we have gone somewhat far afield of what has
been put on the table today. I agree with Commissioner Constantine
and Mr. Dotrill that when we negotiate the overall contract is a more
appropriate time for the question of rate regulations. And,
Commissioner Mac'Kie, I don't think we're getting a voluntary
reduction here today, but I appreciate the effort.
The question that I have and two concerns I have may be
needed -- may need to be answered by someone from Time Warner. When I
see something that says 946 outstanding complaints that result in
something entitled a social contract, I am concerned about bringing a
provider with that record into this community. So I need to know what
that means, 946 complaints that you could not resolve, and I want to
know what the social contract is and why there is a need for it.
MR. GUNTER: Madam Chairman, Commissioners. My name is
Rich Gunter. I'm the director for governmental relations for the
Florida region of Cablevision Industries. My business address is 1655
State Road --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're not with Time Warner?
MR. GUNTER: I'm not. But I can answer part of your
question. Time Warner has nearly 10 million customers. The 900
complaints are a form that is filled out by customers and submitted to
the FCC saying we think our rates for the cable tiers are too high.
Out of 10 million customers to have 900 of those filed is, frankly, a
fairly good record. And that is where the 900 and some-odd number
come from. And that is what the FCC is seeking to settle in one fell
swoop by coming up with an agreement with Time Warner that would take
care of all the matters throughout their system.
As far as raising -- the one point that the Chairman was
discussing a moment ago was the information from 1990-91 on the audit.
That's Cablevision Industries information, not Time Warner's. Time
Warner doesn't even have that information and won't have it until the
closing of the transfer takes place. Cablevision Industries actually
has that information. It is very difficult to get to, and what our
auditors -- our accountants and your auditors are trying to work out
is some ways of interpolating the information from ninety-two, -three,
-four, and -five and then just going back and saying we both agree
that the '90 and '91 information is approximately this, and we will
pay it.
It is not a matter of not paying any of the franchise
fees. We understand that some will probably be owed. Paying it is
not going to be a major problem. There is always discussion about
points and how the calculations were made and where the information
came from. And we would like time to work that out. I hope that
answers your question about the 900 complaints.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With the exception of this social
contract, does it involve more than rate discussion?
MR. GUNTER: Yes, it does. And raising -- the point was
made that Time Warner would be able to raise its rates by a dollar a
year. That will only occur in the areas where Time Warner expands its
services. If they don't expand their services, the rates will not go
up. They will have to expand the system. That is if they have a
system that provides 550 megahertz of service or less, they will have
to raise the system to a level where it can provide that broad a band.
That means they would have ability to provide more channels.
Cablevision Industries, this system here is a very big
-- that is we have a lot of channels compared to most of the cable
systems throughout the country. What we're looking to do here is to
make a change in ownership two levels away. Florida Cablevision
Management Corporation will continue to hold the franchise here. All
the rates and the obligations stay in place. The franchise fee
obligations, whatever they might be, will be settled by the FCC when
they make their decision pending the petition that the county has
filed before them and also whatever conditions are made when the
franchisee fee is due.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You said that the social contract
does involve more than rate discussion, but you didn't elaborate as to
what that is.
MR. GUNTER: I'm sorry. It does relate to them
expanding the level of service. Mostly it is about rates, but it does
talk about Time Warner building more expanded cable systems.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we're not talking about
programming?
MR. GUNTER: Programming will not go away. They have
the ability to provide more programming.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Of the 946 -- yeah, programming.
He's talking expansion of service. Commissioner Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When you talk about expansion
of service, are you talking about service directly to the customer, an
expanded cable product, or are your talking about expanded -- MR. GUNTER: That and more.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- cable franchises. What
does expanded level of service mean?
MR. GUNTER: If I have a pipe that will bring you a
thousand gallons of water a minute, I'm talking about expanding that
pipe to bring you 5,000 gallons of water a minute. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: More channels.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So instead of 60 channels --
MR. GUNTER: When I'm talking --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The CVI service is primarily
the Golden Gate area and points north of that. I think Commissioner
Matthews and I are the only ones that are CVI customers. There are
certainly questions about level of service. There are certainly
questions about price. And those questions are valid or those
concerns are valid, but I don't know if this is the forum in which we
can address those.
Ms. Ashton, you said they have met the technical means
required for a transfer. Frankly, our staff has been extremely
thorough when we've done the Colony, now Continental Cablevision work,
when we did the Marco Island Cable work. I don't think any of you all
made it easy along the way. If anything, we made higher hurdles for
the cable companies to meet. So I have some level of confidence if
you all say they have met the technical means for a transfer that they
have met the technical means.
I don't have any trouble with the transfer to Time
Warner, particularly after the explanation that Commissioner Hancock
questioned. I will have a number of questions, and perhaps we can
head some of these off when we meet sometime early in the new year.
But if you all intend to pursue a further franchising agreement in
March of '97, there are a number of specific concerns that I have, and
it sounds like some of the other board members do too. That
discussion isn't for today, but that discussion isn't going to go away
either.
So I'm comfortable. I'll go ahead and make a motion
that we approve the transfer, but I do want to note that we'll have
some discussions as far as the franchise agreement.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I will second the motion. I agree
with what Commissioner Constantine said. I am looking forward to that
future discussion, but I will withhold it for today, because it
doesn't appear to be appropriate.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would like to ask the motion
maker if his motion includes the conditions stated in our --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. That needs to be
subject to the points Ms. Ashton raised, particularly the
clarification on the audit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As does the second.
MS. ASHTON: For a point of clarification, did you want
the null and void language as is -- as staff has recommended it?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would like it to have to come
back if they don't settle the audit.
MS. ASHTON: Okay. And also the attorney for CVI has
requested a change in paragraph 3 to replace Time Warner with CVI so
CVI is the primary responsible for the franchise fees, not Time
Warner.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That makes sense.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That is fine.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. The motion maker accepts
those changes. The second does?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dudley.
MR. DUDLEY: There was another point with regard to
paragraph 2 on page 2 of the resolution where it says that Time Warner
agrees that your master ordinance 8890 applies. Again, I don't
represent Time Warner. I will tell you CVI agrees with that. When
issue -- when the county issued the '87 franchise, I was helping the
county draft the master ordinance which is 8890. The question came up
to us should the county grant the '87 franchise before the master
franchise agreement was in place -- the ordinance was in place. We
said, yes, but in exchange for that we agree that the master ordinance
will always apply to our franchise agreements. So if I can, for the
record, make that clear. But I can't agree for Time Warner. I can
only tell you that I have no problem in paragraph 1 with your
assignment consent being subject to all the terms of 8890. And I
might add, as amended, Heidi, because it was amended, I think, in '92.
MS. ASHTON: If I could respond to that. One of the few
conditions we do have in our ordinance is under Section 17.13 which
says the transferee must agree to comply with all provisions of this
ordinance before the county may approve such a transfer. That is one
of the conditions that I can't agree to that change.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it seems to me like this is
legal technicalities that Mr. Dudley can't represent Time Warner, but
we can make it a condition of our transfer.
MR. DUDLEY: Absolutely. And that was my point. Your
resolution says Time Warner agrees in two places. To my knowledge,
there's no one here representing Time Warner. I just don't want to
mislead you. If you want to say subject to them agreeing, that is
appropriate.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if they don't agree we'll hear
from them.
MR. DUDLEY: I'm sure.
MS. ASHTON: We have a signed affidavit in the file that
indicates their consent to go ahead.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're fine. That sounds good.
MR. DORRILL: We do have some speakers, too.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Before I call the question, how
many speakers do we have, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: I think we have two.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Two from the public speakers.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins and then we'll have Mr.
Erlichman.
MR. PERKINS: Good morning, Commissioners. A1 Perkins,
Belle Meade Groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights and a
whole lot of other people. Obviously, when Time Warner got involved
that means that there is gold in the gate. It's just that simple.
Now, when you look at that from that angle, you're going to find out
there's a lot of other things out there that there is gold, and
everybody wants to grab it. My concerns -- I welcome these people who
have gone out to put the people to work. But with this agreement my
concerns are the programming. Is there going to be any deviation from
the programming that is provided to the schools, a freebie, that the
teachers have their option for using them as visual aids? This is
very important to me. Okay. It pertains to all the kids in Collier
County, and you people out there got kids, you better pay attention.
When they talk about 30 percent of the population of
Collier County, God, at a buck a shot, man, I'll take that any day.
That's just like having the keys to Fort Knox. Are these people
willing to provide free public information programs such as the
meetings that are going on and the effect that this county and this
state have on your lives that you people are sleeping at the stick
while it happens to you?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Perkins, if it's not part of
the current franchise, then Time Warner is just assuming the current
franchise, and we'll discuss those issues in 1997.
MR. PERKINS: Right. Okay. The only two other items
that I have on here is the same amount of channels and the type of
programming, because I'm not into rap music, and I'm not into
pornographic programming. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman is your final speaker.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Good morning. For the record my name is
Gilbert Erlichman. I live in East Naples, and I'm speaking for
myself. Everyone knows that television, cable television is a
monopoly. In other words, wherever you happen to live you are limited
-- usually you're limited in your choice to one cablevision network.
Be that the case, just like electricity or any other utility,
telephone that you use, you are dictated by where you live as to who
you are going to patronize and what service you are going to use.
Therefore, in this particular case, since there are only, I think, two
networks or cablevision outfits in Collier County, and I think the
largest one is the one that is under discussion now, I think that the
commissioners should not be rushed to rubber stamp this approval. I
think that you should let this present contract expire, and then on
the expiration date have a discussion, as you are doing now, as to the
takeover by Time Warner. I don't see why it has to be done now. I
heard that the contract doesn't expire until 1997, so I see no reason
why there has to be any type of takeover at this point and approval by
the commissioners. Please reconsider that motion and do not approve of
this transfer. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Erlichman. That
was our last speaker?
We have a motion and a second on the floor. Is there
further discussion?
I'll call the motion.
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes four to zero, Commissioner Hac'Kie being
absent.
We're going to take a short break for probably 15
minutes. I would like the board to remain here at the dais for
another minute or two. Ms. Fasulo is going to take our annual picture
for the annual report.
(A short break was held.)
Item #9A
REPORT ON LELY BAREFOOT BEACH GATEHOUSE - COHMISSIONER HANCOCK TO WORK
WITH MR. BRYANT TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the Board of County
Commissioners' meeting for November 21, 1995. We are at the county
attorney's report, item 9(A), report on Lely Barefoot Beach gatehouse.
Mr. Bryant.
MR. BRYANT: Good morning, Madam Chairman. Hay it
please the board. We have discussed this matter at length with Mr.
Hazard. We've had two meetings on it. We have got a working draft of
an agreement to move the guardhouse to the area that the board wanted
along with the removal totally of the old guardhouse. And it covers
the other point where the board was concerned about. One issue that
I've talked with Commissioner Hancock and also Commissioner
Constantine know about this is that the underlying fee or land where
the new guardhouse will be moved to belongs to Lely. And if you
remember from having been out there, it's in the parking lot area
right adjacent to where the two-story building is that was called the
old guardhouse.
I believe that there have been discussions or will be
some discussions with the Lely people. And, hopefully, if that comes
to fruition, I sincerely believe that we'll have some type of
agreement with them that we'll be able to put all of this to rest and
accomplish the board's desires. I spoke with the attorney general's
office yesterday and told them about what we were discussing. I told
them that we wanted them to be part of the settlement. We want to
cover -- because I know the board does -- all the issues at one time
and wrap everything up so that this board doesn't have this problem in
the future or future boards won't either, and everybody will know
where they stand.
The indication I got from the attorney general's office
was they were very happy with what we were doing. There was no public
statement that I can attribute to anything. You know, we agree with
you. They specifically told me that they couldn't say they did. And
I understand, because they haven't seen the agreement. But in
principle I believe that they are going to be happy with what this
board wants to accomplish.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just to let the rest of the board
know where the discussions with Lely are or will be going, I've made a
preliminary call but have not met with anyone from Lely Development
Corporation at this point. I'm going to try to accomplish that. This
is a short week. If I can't get it this week then early next week.
And if those preliminary discussions are positive, I will then ask Mr.
Dotrill to put something back on the agenda anticipating an agreement.
Where the guardhouse is proposed to sit, it would
actually be in a landscaped -- what is currently now in a landscaped
area and one parking spot, if my measurements are correct. And,
again, the property belongs to the development, not to the property
owners out there. So it is just a matter of sitting down and
discussing with them, seeing what they are amenable to or not amenable
to. And if I get either a very positive or a negative feel from that
first meeting, I'll bring it back to the board immediately. Otherwise
we'll just work toward some solution on that location.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there other comments? I,
myself, have a little bit of concern about the county interjecting
itself in discussions, I guess, between the master association and
Lely Development. That is a matter between them, and I'm not sure the
county should be involved at all. If you can resolve this issue in a
week or two, fine, but I don't want the county to be the impetus for
arguing between those two people or those two entities.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There will be no arguing.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, our part in this is the
guardhouse in the middle of the road and what happens from there. I
mean --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Matthews, I'-
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- What Lely does about the
gatehouse is what Lely does.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With all due respect, unless that
area is secured, this proposed solution goes nowhere. I'm not
representing the Board of County Commissioners, nor am I representing
everyone else. I'm representing myself as someone to try and
facilitate discussions and bring this to closure. And I will do that.
And I will at no time represent you or any other members of the
board.
MR. BRYANT: If I could share one thing with you, Madam
Chairman. Mr. Hazard was asked initially to talk with the Lely
Development people about this. He ethically cannot do that, because
there is litigation among everybody out there. And so I think that's
why Commissioner Hancock was kind enough to offer his good office, if
you would, to just talk with them.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, the lawyers could certainly
talk to each other. I mean, I assume Lely Development has a lawyer
that Bill Hazard could talk to.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We know how quickly that will
move things along.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I think the point is
__
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We are trying to resolve a legal
issue, guys.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the point is that
this conversation has gone on for years. A couple of weeks ago when
we talked about this we finally came to what looks like an agreement
all sides can live with. Commissioner Hancock has graciously offered
to go and sit down with Lely and try to make that final step agreed to
by them. I think you may not be representing the board as a whole,
but I think we set a position a couple of weeks ago as a board that we
would like to make that happen, and reality says the only way to make
that happen is to get Lely to go along with it. So go do it and make
it happen. And I compliment you for the effort.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I get resistance I'll bring
back that resistance, and we'll proceed with enforcement action as was
proposed. It's just to see if the avenue is there. If it's not, then
we're done.
MR. BRYANT: And if it doesn't go anywhere like
Commissioner Hancock said, the ball will immediately get rolling as
soon as we start the code enforcement. I mean, that is what will be
the total impetus for everything because they quickly -- they'll move
for an injunction, and we will be down the road to a full-scale
battle.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess that's what my concern
is. If Commissioner Hancock can accomplish this, what I think may be
a defeat -- but God bless him for trying -- in a ten-gun hat -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I thank God for being in winning
situations these days.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We all do. But if he can
accomplish this in a week or ten days, then I think that's great, and
we get it resolved and it goes away. But I'm concerned about the
county getting dragged into the middle of what could be a contentious
discussion between what is actually a civil matter.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will make it clear to them that
I am not representing the county nor binding the county to anything,
simply acting as a facilitator. Either the discussion is there or it's
not. That is all I'm trying to establish.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And perhaps I'm an optimist,
but there really isn't a downside to Lely for helping make that
happen.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. I can find some reasons they
would like to, but that is up to them.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question. I want to
endorse what Commissioner Hancock is doing. I just wonder if we want
to put a time limitation on it that if this isn't settled by
Christmas, then we go forward with the code enforcement action?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, I certainly -- by the
December 19th meeting there will be a direction. I would hope
actually the first meeting in December I would be able to come back to
you with something. I think that the first discussion will tell us if
there is a path of least resistance or not.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I just want to continue to
make a point that if this goes forward, wonderful. And if they're
positive, great. And if they're not, then we have code enforcement.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Your stick, my carrot.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I love it. I guess that's the
direction of the board. We're looking for Commissioner Hancock
working with Mr. Bryant to move forward on this and get it resolved.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, can we go --
oh, we have speakers on that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, we have speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. First is Mr. Pires.
MR. PIRES: I'll pass. Thank you very much.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Ward.
MS. WARD: For the record I'm Harjorie Ward representing
CABB and also representing a lot of beach goers that want to get to
Barefoot Preserve. We had nothing to do with these negotiations in
the last two weeks. They were between the staff and the lawyers and
also the people that represent Barefoot. So we do not know about
anything other than what you've just talked about right now which
happens to be with the guardhouse. There -- as we said last -- two
weeks ago, and I think Commissioner Constantine made the comment that
there are going to be a lot of I's that are going to have to dotted
and T's that are going to have to be crossed before all the agreements
happen to be in order.
And I just wanted to take this opportunity to pass out
to you just a list of some of the things you have already committed
yourself to some of the things have been concerns of some of the beach
goers as to what was going to happen in the future and where they were
rather firm on certain rights of their own. So I am just going to
pass that out to you so that when we do get to the dotting of the I's
and the crossing of the T's that you do know some of the other things
besides just the guardhouse. We don't want this -- as was said before
by that gentleman, we don't want this to come back again either with
this board or with a future board and we get back to square one. We
want to make sure that we've got everything that happens to be in that
line. And we appreciate very much everything that you have done and
thank you for considering the rights of the beach goers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Ms. Ward.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Keller, are you registered on this
item? He will be your final speaker.
MR. KELLER: George Keller, concerned citizen. I'll be
very brief. I sat here when we gave away access to that beach by
commissioners permitting the beach gatehouse to be built. And the
reason why they did it is that somebody else would control the beach
to keep vandals from being on the beach at night. And under no
circumstances do I think where they put the gatehouse as long as they
put it on their property is not our business. But under no
circumstances should we permit anybody to put gates that are going to
control the entrance to the park or the exit of the park.
If there are any problems out there that require some
kind of police force, either the county park department should have a
man out there or the sheriff's department should be called to quell
the problem. We should have open access to that property and open --
and a way to get out of that property at any time the park is open.
Please make sure that the public knows that we have a park out there
and that it's not a private development. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Keller. That was
our final speaker, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bryant, I
guess you have direction from the board.
MR. BRYANT: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock is going to
work with you in getting this resolved, and hopefully we'll have a
resolution in a week or two. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Bryant is to be commended for
his time and effort on this. I appreciate it.
MR. BRYANT: Thank you, Commissioner Hancock.
Item #10A
DISCUSSION REGARDING TREELINE DRIVE - BCC TO MAKE COMMITMENT UP TO
$500,000 AS A SHARE IN THE PROJECT AND COUNTY ATTORNEY TO DO THE
NECESSARY LEGAL WORK AND BRING BACK SAME TO THE BCC
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is a time
certain item. We'll move to 10(A), a discussion of Treeline Drive.
Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've had a great deal of discussion
about regional activity. Yesterday, as a matter of fact, we had our
meeting with the Lee and Charlotte commission. This morning we have
Commissioner St. Cerny from Lee County with us who will share some
thoughts on this.
The Florida Gulf Coast University, as you know, becomes
a reality next fall, fall of '97. And it was the combined effort of a
lot of people from all over Southwest Florida who have made that a
realty as far as becoming the tenth university site. Lee County, as
host for this site, had put in an enormous amount of effort and spent
an enormous amount of money. I think you may have seen over the
weekend some press accounts that credited as much as $22 million going
towards the effort for them. And that ranges from what I refer to as
the environmental blackmail money of $2 million to all the
infrastructure and so on. There is a pile of money in making this
thing a reality.
Lee County is asking us to contribute $500,000 toward
the regional infrastructure needs there. Treeline Drive will
eventually connect, on the long-term, with Collier County roads
planned to the extension of County Road 951. What that will do
long-term is provide the primary access to the university for
virtually all of the eastern portion of the county. And we talk about
the build-out numbers or the calculation numbers 20 years from now, 25
years from now. We're talking about 30 -- we're talking probably
150,000 people living in that portion of the county, and this will be
their most direct access.
One of the things we've talked about a lot this past
year is transportation north and south and the shortage we have. DOT
tells us they don't want traffic depending on 1-75 as their
north/south route. We, of course, are moving forward with Livingston
Road and 951 eventually will be the north/south route.
At the airport, the numbers range depending on who
you're talking to and what the topic is, that Collier feeds 30 to 40
percent of the passengers in and out of that facility. I suspect that
we'll have a great number of the students at the university as well.
So there is clearly a benefit to us helping make that a reality. One
of the concerns I have is in the late '70s the idea of the airport,
the then regional airport, now international airport, was to benefit
everyone in Southwest Florida. All five counties went on board and
thought it was a wonderful idea until it came time to pony up and make
it a reality. And at that time Lee County carried the whole burden as
far as paying the freight.
It's not until now, almost 15 years after it was built,
that we are able to get and have somewhat of a voice now in the future
of that airport, even though we're feeding 35 to 40 percent of the
people in there. Lee County has the authority, and considering the
background, probably rightfully so. They have been very good in the
past year including a member of this board on the Special Management
Committee for the airport. I don't want to see us make the same
mistake and say, gosh, it's located in Lee County, it's your problem,
when clearly there is a benefit to Collier. Not only do we benefit,
but we want to have a voice in how that university develops over the
upcoming years.
With that I would like to introduce Commissioner St.
Cerny, and I know that he has some specific thoughts on where Lee has
been with this and where we're headed.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I believe,
had some comments while he is coming up.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just while you're coming up,
Commissioner, I just wanted to right up front tell you that you do
have at least two votes on this request.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Now you have three.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to say we've talked
about so many times that water doesn't erode political boundaries and
neither does learning, and this is a regional effort, and I want
Collier County to be a participant in it. And I appreciate you're
being here, and we'll listen to your presentation and look forward to
supporting it.
COMMISSIONER ST. CERNY: Thank you for your kind words.
Madam Chairman, Commissioners, thanks for giving me an opportunity to
come before you today.
If we didn't find ourselves in Lee County in somewhat of
a precarious situation, I wouldn't be standing before you today, but
we've done intensive research on what it is going to take to bring
this into fruition. Right now Lee County has probably committed
somewhere around $21.8 million to the total project and networking of
the roadways in and around the university. And not knowing what the
proportionate share is going to be from the Board of Regents because
their traffic impact study has not been completed, we find ourselves
somewhere around a $3 million shortfall.
And we have proceeded to go out with an RFP for a
four-lane design as well as a two-lane design because, as you know, we
have to have funds identified prior to going out for an RFP. We think
it would be a drastic mistake for us to build Treeline at two lanes
only. We are assuming from our staff's position that the university's
proportionate share should come in at somewhere between two and two
and a half million dollars. That's where we come in with being
$500,000 short.
Not all of you are probably aware but the Florida
Department of Transportation has committed to the airport $12.8
million for acquisition, design, and study for Treeline from Daniels
Road to Alice. We have already committed funds for the interchange
from Alice, where the two Treelines will meet, Alice to 41 and the
Corkscrew intersection and Corkscrew Road to 41. I don't have to tell
you that what we're doing in Lee County as far as F-DOT is doing to 41
in and of itself is not going to be enough. Six-laning 41 through
Benita Springs is not going to do it. We know we need reliever roads.
Treeline will and should be one of those. We have designs to State
Road 82 all the way to the Collier line with Treeline.
Right now we just find ourselves at a point where I took
it upon myself to come before you to ask for your consideration to ask
for your help. Commissioner Constantine has been most gracious
through all of this process. We had discussions when we were going
through all the permitting problems, and we committed an additional
$200,000 in legal fees. We committed $1.7 million to pay for the
mitigation on behalf of the Board of Regents and the Florida
legislature. That was their responsibility, because we know how vital
this university was going to be to all of Southwest Florida, and we
went ahead and did that because we felt it was essential that Lee not
let this waiver in the wind.
It has been projected that the first year the university
reaches 10,000 enrollment it will have a financial impact in Southwest
Florida of $860 million a year. Now, I can't speak for Collier
County, but last year in Lee County all of teurism amounted to about
$774 million. So the first year we reach 10,000 enrollment, you can
see that that university will be the financial engine that is going to
surpass teurism for Lee County, and I'm sure it's going to have the
same carryover effects here.
If you look at the proximity of the university, I'm not
sure that the university isn't going to have more of a financial
impact on Collier County than it is Lee County. So in your
deliberations -- and believe me, I know what it's like to have people
come before you and make requests, no strings attached -- I put no
pressure on any one of you. You always have to vote your heart. I
do. But we do need your help, and we would like to go forward with
our partnership with Collier County. There is going to be more and
more joint ventures coming forward.
I see the day in the near future where we're going to be
called upon Collier County to enter into joint agreements with Lee
County when we can come to the table and help you. And this is bigger
than all of us. It's bigger than our four years or whatever amount of
time we're going to be serving in public office. This is far-reaching
for generations to come, and I think it would be a shame to drop the
ball now and to go into a project with what few short dollars we might
have and not design it appropriately so that we can all share in the
enjoyment of it from day one, that we're doing the right thing with
the right design.
We've addressed the fact that we're going to pay for
undergrounding all the utilities. We've got -- the private sector
developers are going to pay for all the landscaping of Treeline. And
we've got everyone coming to the table to truly have a joint
partnership in this endeavor. The only unknown that we're dealing
with right now is the Board of Regents and the legislature, and we
think we've pretty well identified where that is going to be.
So if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them
at this time. Or if you have any questions as far as staff, Dave
Loveland is here from the Department of Transportation.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have one question for Mr.
Weigel. Mr. Weigel, the only question that I have, and it's been
running through my mind since I first heard of the project, not
because we said we would support it, but the legality of doing it.
How do we legally commit Collier County tax funds to infrastructure
projects in Lee?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's exactly what I was continuing
to talk about there. Pardon that you had to get my attention. It
appears that there are some issues that need to be handled, that need
to be addressed to lay the basis or the predicate for an expenditure
of this type so that it is defensible. And I see from Commissioner
Constantine's memo referencing a connection with the 951 extension up
to Treeline Drive, some of the basic questions that would need to be
determined is if Treeline Drive is going to be a public road as
opposed to a private road, because we already have some cases and
other legal precedents that says that a county in and of itself cannot
fund maintenance and repairs of private roads, and we faced this in
recent board meetings.
Beyond that, I would suggest that if it has not been
done yet, that our county working with the Lee County staff come to
recognize, so that the record would show, that this is part of an
intra-county road system if that formality has not been achieved yet,
so that there is a basis upon which we see that there is county
benefit of an expenditure of funds for an infrastructure that is
outside of specific county territorial lines. I think all of these
things can be achieved so that we do have and pass the court test that
have been created right now. And I suggest and I fully expect that Mr.
Yeaget of the Lee County attorney's office would assist us as we put
this in place.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner St. Cerny, what is
the time frame that we're looking at that you need to have the actual
funds in hand?
COHHISSIONER ST. CERNY: We're actually going out --
correct me if I am wrong -- we're going out for an RFP in December.
To go ahead and to do the entire road, we're bidding it both ways,
four-lane and two-lane. We would expect at this time that the bulk of
the funds probably won't be needed until early summer of '97 at the
completion stage of it. If we can identify funds going into it, then,
you know, we're okay until that time. But we can't slow the project
down now.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: When do you need a formal
commitment from Collier County? What I'm asking for is time for our
respective attorneys to work out all this legal whatever it is they
need to do to make this work.
COHMISSIONER ST. CERNY: We have a time frame. We're not
going to know for sure what the commitment is going to be from the
university. We hope within 30 days that they'll have their traffic
impact study completed, and they'll know what the numbers are and what
their proportionate share is going to be. At that time we've already
been working with the legislative delegation to see that that comes
out of budget this year. So we're talking, what, March.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, if I could make a
suggestion since the county attorney's input is going to be necessary
before this board moves ahead, if that's the case, rather than having
a protracted discussion today on the matter, I think it would be more
appropriate to get a time certain that the county attorney will bring
this back to us or a date certain, and we can have a full discussion
at that time.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I would suggest instead
of that is that the board make some sort of commitment today that
either they like the idea or they don't, and they would like to move
forward with it or they wouldn't, and then give direction to our
county attorney to go do that voodoo that he does so well and put
together whatever paperwork he needs to so that we can then take the
legal steps. But I don't think we should just put off the discussion
until another day. We've got Commissioner St. Cerny here, and we have
the information. Either we like the project, we like the idea of the
regional vision for the university or we don't.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We need Mr. Weigel to dot the I's
and cross the T's so that we can do it.
MR. WEIGEL: If I may, just to add that obviously
whatever we endeavor to do is work within the rules as they exist
presently. There is sort of an extra rule that could come into play
and that is a special act recognizing that these roadways and
something that the county, Lee County, Collier County addressing the
legislative delegation could, in fact, do to make it an absolute
certainty that there's no issue or question or defensibility problem
whatsoever. And there may not be anyway. I just thought I would take
this early opportunity to say that that is one avenue of which there
is absolute certainty if that were to come into effect. But beyond
that we will endeavor, I would expect probably achieve what we need to
do anyway with what we have before us.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll be meeting with our
respective legislative delegations in December and just as a safety
matter, we will bring it up to them so that they're prepared to enter
a special act if we need it, then we will be ahead of the game.
MR. WEIGEL: It would be great insurance, quite frankly.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, okay. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have couple of preliminary
questions here. What funding source will we be considering?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a couple of thoughts
in mind there. We actually, in our five-year plan, now have in excess
of about $4.5 million. Also our--
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Our five-year plan of what?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: County transportation plan.
And in -- today we just approved an item, a roadway that came in
$350,000 below what we had projected within that five-year plan. So
we'll have an additional 350 over and above that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. The legality of spending
road funds that are collected here in this county and in some other
county is a question that I've had all along. I mean if we have
districts within our county, you can only spend money collected in one
district in that district and so forth and so on. To take money out
of this county and go to another county out of the road program, no,
we need to answer that one for sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, the question I
had asked to you prior to bringing this forward was if there could be
demonstrated a clear benefit to Collier County did that make a
difference. And I believe that you gave me an affirmative answer.
MR. WEIGEL: It absolutely does. And part of
demonstrating that benefit, I think, is also a recognition of an
intra-county road system or something to that effect that isn't
necessarily titled; it has to be used for that subject. But to do
that, in fact, there is an interplay and a benefit that comes from the
road system of Lee County and Collier County -- in this case, working
together, meshing together, and it builds into and recognizes part of
-- conceivably even part of your capital improvement of county road
-- you will have a county road that meets or will ultimately connect
with Treeline Drive, for example, if you don't have that now.
These are just various demonstrable things that create
the record so that we don't succumb to the hurdles that have been
posed before us, because there is significant case law and case law
tests that have been provided for that we can legally expend money
outside of the territorial limits of the county. That is not to say
it cannot be done.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I am still going.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry, Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question for Commissioner
St. Cerny. I think I understand you to say that you won't be funding
this until the summer of '97?
COHMISSIONER ST. CERNY: We would have some latitude on
that, John. We just have to be able to identify it now.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: My question then becomes if you
get to the point where you need the funds or it's time to expend the
funds in the summer of '97 and you find out you that your
transportation department has done as good a job as ours has done and
comes in under budget on a number of projects and you don't have a
$500,000 shortfall, are you still going to expect the funds from
Collier County?
COHMISSIONER ST. CERNY: I think that's your call. I
think in the spirit of cooperation and what we've tried to achieve by
both our counties working together, I think that would be your call
that you would still want to be a participant in this ongoing joint
endeavor. You know as well as I do if we come under budget on a
project, we have a lot of places that we can use the money also.
This is as much good faith as it is money. We can
rearrange our budget tomorrow and come up with the $500,000. But we
thought this was another ongoing endeavor for both counties to work
together on something that is more long lasting than just a road
project, and this is something for both of us to come to the table and
do something, I think, really great together. I mean, we can scrap
projects tomorrow in Lee County and find the money. You know that.
I can move things back into priorities and move dollars
forward and do it, and we could shoulder the total expense. That
isn't as much the issue as trying to reach out for Collier County
support and saying, look, we're in this together, and we would
certainly appreciate your help. And I think it sends all the right
messages to the majority of the constituents in both our counties that
this government and our government are on the right track. And I
think it sends a real positive message.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner MAc'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just -- three points. I think
there are three really good reasons to do this. One is legally we can.
I am confident that we can. If this request were for landscaping of
the campus then that would be an inappropriate expenditure of Collier
County funds. However, this is very simply stated, if I understand
correctly, Commissioner, correct me, that we can either have two lanes
or four lanes of Treeline Drive which is the connection to Collier
County. We need four lanes to connect this university access to
Collier County. And it's a very valid expenditure of public funds in
my judgment, and I'm confident that whether it's by a special act or
otherwise we can accomplish the -- jump through the necessary legal
loopholes to satisfy that, because in reality it's to the benefit of
the Collier County residents.
The second is politically I don't want to be where this
county has been as a result as what I view as a poor decision as
important as was the airport. We blew that one as a county, I think,
and we shouldn't blow this one. The impacts of this are more
significant even than the airport. We have to be a regional partner.
And then that is legally and politically and then morally, with all
the appropriate apologies if that offends anybody, this is the right
thing to do. It's a regional project. It has significant benefits to
Collier County, and we should be partners with Lee County in this
effort. So I don't know if this is a public hearing, if it's
appropriate to make a motion, but I would like to.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think a motion is in order but
perhaps -- Commissioner Constantine, wanted to make it. Do we have
two speakers?
MR. DORRILL: We have two, Mr. Pointer.
COMMISSIONER ST. CERNY: Thank you very much. And it is
different being on this side.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's a lot different. Stand by,
stand by. There might be more questions.
MR. DORRILL: And then Mr. Perkins will follow him and
that is all.
MR. POINTER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Jack Pointer. The airport in Lee County was alluded to a few minutes
ago, and I don't know if you are aware of it, but Commissioner St.
Cerny and the commissioners of Lee County two years ago had the
opportunity to name -- rename that airport and consider it local or to
consider it regional. And Commissioner St. Cerny and his colleagues
named it Regional Southwest Florida International Airport, and some 35
to 40 percent of the passengers coming in and out of that airport are
indeed from Collier County part of that particular region.
The new university which is proposed and is underway
also has a regional connotation in its name, Florida Gulf Coast
University, and that includes Collier County, Lee County, Charlotte
County, Hendry County and probably Glades County that are in that
particular area. In recent years we have been building elementary
schools at a very rapid rate, middle schools at a rapid rate, and now
we've announced our fifth high school which is about to be built.
When those students get out of those five high schools, they've got to
go somewhere, and they're going to go up the road only eight miles
from northern Collier County to the campus of Florida Gulf Coast
University. So I want to state that, I, as an individual am very much
in favor of this commission doing anything they can to participate
with Lee County in the cost of roads, the road to higher education in
Lee County. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins and then Mr. Passidomo also.
MR. PERKINS: A1 Perkins, Belle Meade Groups, Citizens
for Constitutional Property Rights. When I hear roads and I hear 951
extension clear into Lee County, I'm looking at a map here right, and
I have no -- I do not object to roads going into Lee County because
you people know in the past I have advocated --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Perkins, over here, please.
MR. PERKINS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Perkins, over here. We're over
here.
MR. PERKINS: I have advocated evacuation routes. Now
one of the evacuation routes is not only 951 but Everglades Boulevard
which would go clear up to the back side of this county -- or the
university site. Now, it would bypass Immokalee right smack up
through the middle. Now, along those lines, has any consideration
been taken along those lines to see whether or not -- and I'm talking
about evacuation -- moving people towards the middle of the state and
out away from the coast?
Now, if I can be of any help here with this, all you
have to do is ask. I'll try -- I've got the map here on hand. My
concern is evacuation and the extension and being able to move the
people from Marco Island off the area.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Perkins, I think perhaps the
appropriate forum for what you're talking about is at our next MPO
meeting where we'll be addressing the 20/20 plan. And mind you this
connection to Treeline from 951 is that far out, 30 years.
MR. PERKINS: Right. But you know what I'm trying to
say is 951 for evacuation at the present time, like it's going to be
inadequate is what I'm saying. We're going to be piling up as we get
further north. So we need to take it and look at it a long distance.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're welcome.
MR. DORRILL: Then Mr. Passidomo.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Passidomo.
MR. PASSIDOHO: Good morning, Madam Chairman,
Commissioners. My name is John Passidomo. I serve as chairman of the
Economic Development Council of Collier County. I have not had an
opportunity to speak with members of my board of directors. In fact,
we have not met at the board since this matter developed. The EDC,
however, has had a long history of private sector support for Florida
Gulf Coast University. We urge you to seize this opportunity to make
Collier County a regional partner in making Florida Gulf Coast
University an economic engine for Collier County. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just want to make sure that
each of you also got the letter that came in from Mr. Freidkin
(phonetic). I sent a copy to each of you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is one of those decisions
that you can find good reason to fall on either side, and I think
regardless of what we do today it will be moaned by a few, lauded by
some, and ignored by many. I have a personal experience that is
causing me to lean in favor of this. I grew up just outside of Tampa
which is where the home of University of South Florida. And when I
graduated high school, my father gave my two options. I could go to
USF, a state school 30 minutes away, and he would help pay my tuition,
or I could go anywhere I could afford. The fact that school was
within proximity of my house, that I had the option of staying at home
and made it affordable to go to college may have had something to do
with the quality of the education I got or the fact that I simply got
an education beyond high school.
We've talked a long time about giving incentive for
using this community to be educated here, to stay here, to work here,
to raise their family here. And I think to look at a line on a map
and make that a reason not to make a commitment to helping that to
become a reality would be a shortsighted mistake. However, I am not
in favor of granting money to other counties. But in my estimation
we're granting money for the future of the kids in this community to
maybe give some an option to go to a school that financially otherwise
they would not have. For that reason at this point I'm going to add
my name to the list of support provided that the information from Mr.
Weigel is sufficient and substantive enough to continue that support.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of thoughts before I
make the motion, and that is you've made a good point. This isn't a
matter of giving money to Lee County. This is giving money to make
the university a reality and to make it a reality for the people in
Collier County and to make convenient access for primarily the entire
eastern portion of the county a reality. So I think it would be
shortsighted -- and we've already talked about the airport example --
but I think it would be extremely shortsighted to thumb our nose and
say, no, because of a political boundary we're not going to
participate, in that it clearly benefits the entire region.
With that in mind, I will make a motion that the board
make the commitment to share in this regional project of the
university, and that means Treeline Drive, and make a commitment of
$500,000 for that. And we would give direction to our county attorney
to make the appropriate legal paperwork to make that happen and bring
it back to us.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I, just as an amendment, if
you would consider the language up to $500,000 because the Board of
Regents may come back at a higher level reducing the amount that
Collier may have to contribute.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: The other -- if I could just
comment on that idea. The other way to go on that would be so that we
would fill in the gap. What if the Board of Regents come in lower?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You would be losing one of the
four. I'm just asking. I don't have a problem with $500,000. I just
want to --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend it to say up to
$500,000, and then I'm sure Commissioner St. Cerny will report back to
us on the hopefully good news from the state.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
amendment?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
Does the second accept the
Sure.
Is there further discussion,
Yes, there is. I can see it's not
going to do much good for me to object on this. I certainly understand
the importance of looking at the university on a regional basis, and I
commend Commissioners St. Cerny and Constantine for bringing this
forward to us and presenting it on a regional basis. However, I will
point out that the university is going to go forward whether or not
Collier County puts in $500,000 to four-lane a road that really
doesn't attach to anywhere in Collier County at the moment but could
be four lanes at some point in the future when we extend 951 and Lee
County is ready to extend Treeline down to the Collier County line.
I mean, it's not going to slow down any progress if this road is not
four-laned this year. So you know while I understand the importance
of combining our efforts on a regional basis on projects like this,
this really doesn't have any particular benefit to Collier County at
this moment, and it's really hard to make the case to do it now rather
than at some point in the future.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there further discussion? We
have a motion and a second. I'm not going to repeat the motion as I
think it is pretty clear.
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Are you not voting or did you --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. We're going forward with it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I want to find out --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. I just didn't hear
the aye, and I was just questioning that. Motion passes five to zero. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, before breaking for
lunch, I think that there's some things that we need to clear up
schedule-wise. The Clam Bay conservation legal considerations were
bumped because of time certain for the Treeline item. If we break now
then they will be bumped again at one o'clock for a time certain for
the sheriff. With deference to the sheriff, if he can wait 15 or 20
minutes, we have people that are here that have been here all morning
on that item.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Better yet if we go through
that and if we have time to do the one other item, then perhaps it
will be one o'clock and we can do the sheriff and adjourn for the day
by 1:15 or 1:30.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I like that idea.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that idea.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, well. We're going to have a
long work session and a short afternoon we hope.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where are those animal
crackers?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The animal crackers are on the
credenza in the office. Let's take a five-minute break and see if we
can't get some animal crackers.
(A short break was held.)
Item #9B
CLAM BAY CONSERVATION AREA LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS - DISCUSSED.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK TO REPORT BACK TO THE BCC WITH FINDINGS
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the Board of County
Commission meeting for November 21, 1995. Next item on the agenda is
the county attorney's report of the Clam Bay Conservation Area legal
considerations. Ms. Student.
MS. STUDENT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, MArjorie Student, assistant county attorney. As I stated last
week I would be looking at documents in more detail and come back with
some maps and so forth. I have provided you with a memo, and if I may
I will step over and point out the two areas on the map so we know
where we are.
Okay, this larger area here (indicating) is an
approximately 535-acre conservation area. And the smaller area up
here behind the strand is about an ll-acre that is under the
conservation easements. So we're talking about a much smaller area
under the easement than was actually deeded to the county by the
quit-claim deed. And basically the county -- that was deeded to the
county, the larger conservation area, in April of 1982. And it was
for conservation purposes. It was also to remain subject to a
declaration of restrictions and declaration of restrictions and
protective covenants.
As I outlined in the memo, the declaration of
restrictions deals basically with what types of uses can be placed
upon that property. And I have listed them for you in the memo. The
protective covenant deals with other activities on the property such
as structure, landscaping, whether -- refuge on the property, flags,
and tennis and things like that. It is much more detailed. And also
to shed light on this, we looked at the agreement between the county
and the Pelican Bay Improvement District. And in that agreement the
county delegated certain authority to the improvement district to take
reasonable actions under circumstances to protect the property and
preserve it and so forth.
As you know, in MArch of 1991 the county got back, if
you will, from -- the Pelican Bay Improvement District was dissolved
and the county acquired all its rights and obligations and so forth.
So basically as to the conservation area, we conclude that we couldn't
permit any uses on it. They're in violation of the covenants and
restrictions. And we have the right that any other property owner
would have to protect the property from any overt action. In other
words, if someone came along the property and cut down the trees or
poisoned the trees or something like that, we would have the right to
prevent that action from happening. If --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Like we could post
"trespassers-will-be-shot-on-sight" signs, that sort of thing?
MS. STUDENT: Some people do that. Also if we could --
if the die-off of the mangroves is a result of some natural phenomena,
it's our position that the county doesn't have any responsibility in
that regard -- it is a natural phenomena -- unless it wishes to do so.
So basically, again, the county as the title holder has the same
rights as any other property owner would have. If we could determine
if there was an impact on property from an outside source and could
trace that source, we could pursue actions in court to either enjoin
the activity that was causing the problem, and we may also be able to
sue for damages.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If it is as simple as this,
Marjorie, that I abuse the land, and I, therefore, can make people
stay off of it, I can make them not destroy it. And if somebody pours
poison onto my land and kills my grass, I could sue them for that or
make them correct it?
MS. STUDENT: Yes. Because the county, as the owner of
the property, has the same rights that you as an individual owner of
your own property have. And as to the conservation easement, as I
stated last week, under that easement the county has the right to do
certain things. Some of that -- just let me flip that over.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It is a right but not an
obligation?
MS. STUDENT: It's a right but not an obligation. And
under the common law, an easement holder has certain duties, but they
don't have to exercise those duties. There is recent case law that
says there is such a fact that if you can't turn the duty of an
easement holder into a requirement or an obligation to do something as
I allude to in my memo, so then as to the conservation easement, the
county has certain rights of conservation and so forth that's set
forth in the document. And I just wanted to turn to it and quote from
it. To identify, preserve, protect and in consultation with
Westinghouse, enhance the natural scenic and ecological features of
the property including with that limitation topography, soil, water,
vegetation and wildlife.
Again, that's a right. So, you know, that basically is
our conclusion that it's a right and not a requirement or an
obligation as to the conservation easement. I've included a map that
shows, as of the January, 1995, the area of the die-off, and that is
attachment one. And on the map you can see at the point, at least,
the majority of the die-off that is taking place in the easement area.
Staff is present here. I believe that area has spread,
and they may be able to enlighten you as to the degree and location of
where the additional die-off is taking place.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Other questions on
Ms. Student's research?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You already said this, but I
want to clarify that we have certain rights, we do not have
obligations.
MS. STUDENT: As to the conservation easement, that is
correct. We have -- we may have a deed, but we don't necessarily have
to exercise that duty because that would turn it into an obligation or
requirement. And under the common law it's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ms. Student, in the information
that I assume everybody got from Byron Koste at WCI Communities, he
passed along a letter from George Varnadoe that I think the major
point is that the restrictive covenants -- that we accepted the
properties subject to the restrictive covenants.
MS. STUDENT: Yes. I explained what they were, and I
can turn to them in my memo -- I can turn to them here, but they
basically have to do with uses.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But not with an obligation for
maintenance. That is what -- I am just having --
MS. STUDENT: Right. Okay. The first one, that is
called the declaration of restrictions. It has to do with uses. And
there is a whole list of permitted uses, about six, that are
specified. And then another more general one for such things as
nature trails, boat docks, paths and bridges for access, beach sun
shelters, and a non-profit marine research laboratory. And then any
accessory uses that are customarily associated with those are
permitted as well as signs. And that is on the declaration of
restrictions.
The declaration of protective covenants and restrictions
is more detailed, and it talks about, again, such things as exterior
color and materials of buildings, that you can't have pets on the
site, and things like -- very particularized items.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, there's one in 16 about
maintenance that caught my eye that no refuge or unsightly objects --
MS. STUDENT: -- will be placed or suffer to remain
inside the park's conservation area. That's kind of --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it kind of -- it also says
that the conservation area shall be kept in good, safe, clean, neat --
MS. STUDENT: -- and attractive condition.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And all structures and facilities
shall be maintained in a finished and attractive condition. MS. STUDENT: Yes.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess that would be the
strongest argument that Mr. Varnadoe has on Westinghouse's behalf? I
am trying to find his basis for his position, and I am --
MS. STUDENT: I think that speaks to where there are
structures and things of that nature that, you know, that obligation
rests with the owner of that area. And -- but -- and, again, the
rights of the property owner to, you know, just to keep his property
in good condition or rather the duty to do so such as you would have
as a property owner not to -- it wouldn't apply in this area, but, you
know, being subject to RFP ordinance and things like that.
But we don't think it extends beyond that. Again, when
you are construing a deed, you have to look at what the intent of the
parties is. And I don't know that it can be said that it was the
intent of the county when they accepted this land to maintain it in
pristine condition necessarily from anything and any impacts that may
happen no matter what the source of the impact is because of the
tremendous burden that could result on the taxpayers. But you have to
look at the what the intent of the parties was when the deed was made
and accepted by the county.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As I read your memo, and it is
rather comprehensive, I thank you -- to put it in a nutshell, what
this is saying is the county although has ownership, has no legal
obligation to correct things that occur within the system. However,
where it also states is if it's an occurrence of nature, nature
happens. And if it is determined that it's a natural cause, then
knowing there is no obligation, we shouldn't.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do I hear a bumper sticker
there -- nature happens?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Nature happens. It's on the back
of Gary's truck.
The second side of that is if in determining what has
caused a problem in there, if we find another party to be in part or
fully responsible for that particular cause or that action, we do have
an obligation to pursue that party for restoration.
MS. STUDENT: Yes, I think the county may pursue that
party and could possibly have an obligation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. But in other words, no
one else really has the legal right to pursue that party unless they
do it as a class action suit. It really falls --
MS. STUDENT: I would say because the county is the
property owner.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if something happens in the
Clam Bay system, it's important to assess the cause that we know
whether the county has the responsibility to pursue restoration or
action. If the cause is nature, then you know we are where we are --
the famous Ken Cuyler statement. But if it is and in part caused by
other actions, then the county may, as you say, pursue those parties
that are responsible.
MS. STUDENT: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did I just summarize about 20
pages?
MS. STUDENT: Yes, you did.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there other questions or
comments?
MR. DORRILL: You have the registered speakers.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have two speakers, okay. Why
don't we hear from the speakers.
MR. DORRILL: Richard Hamilton followed by Raymond
O'Connor.
MR. HAMILTON: Madam Chairman and Commissioners, thank
you for this opportunity. My name is Dick Hamilton. I live at the
Claridge in Pelican Bay, and I'll be very brief. I really only have
two things that I would like to say. First, to express the
appreciation on the part of -- on the behalf of Pelican Bay property
owners for the task force established by Commissioner Hancock to
address this problem and to try to come up with a solution. We think
it is the right thing to do. We hope that it will continue to have a
sense of urgency.
The second thing I would like to advise all of you is
that the problem continues. The large die-off now has reached the
southern point, which it is just about at the Sandpiper Restaurant
which is at the west end of the north boardwalk in Pelican Bay. And
as you look out over the southwest from our building, for example --
and we have an extremely good vantage point -- there are lots and lots
of new dead spots that are appearing, either dead or light green,
which is exactly the same thing that happened this summer at the north
end of the system. So it is spreading.
I heard this week from the Dorchester, which is a mile
to a mile and a half south of the Claridge where I live, that they are
now seeing these dead spots from in front of the Dorchester. So this
is the first time that we've really had sightings down there in that
area. We got the word yesterday -- it was the first time that at a
the meeting of the task force -- that red mangroves are now dying in
addition to the black mangroves. So the system is -- or it's under
severe stress. We think it's a crisis, and we've got to somehow
prevent it from becoming a catastrophe. If it becomes a catastrophe
and we lose this whole 535 acres, considering where it is along three
miles of beachfront, right in the middle of this magnificent urban
area, I think that it would be a tragedy of great proportions, and the
effect on property values would be significant on commercial interests
as well. Now, that may not bother a lot of people who don't live in
Pelican Bay, but if it has a significant effect on property values,
it's going to have a very significant effect on the tax base in this
community, and I think everybody would take notice on something like
that.
We think it's an urgent problem. We hope that it will
continue to receive your close attention and your support. For any of
you who have not seen it with your own eyes, I would like to
personally invite you to the top of the Claridge, either collectively
or individually. If you can't come collectively because of your
schedules, call me. I'm Dick Hamilton. My number is 598-1114, and I
would be happy to take you to the top of the Claridge so you can see
it. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. O'Connor.
MR. O'CONNOR: Thank you. I will pass. Mr. Hamilton
made all my remarks. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think after reviewing what Ms.
Student has put together, what this board has given its blessing for
me to do and the organization of this task force is exactly in line
with what our responsibilities are at this time. The time line that
we're working under right now is that two weeks from yesterday the
task force will reconvene and receive, hopefully, some final
recommendations on a short-term solution from two different experts in
the field. That is going to be on the 4th of December.
On the 8th of December those recommendations will be
presented to a board the Conservancy is putting together of regulatory
personnel to try and find out other solutions which are viable, which
are possible and then, of course, a cost is assigned to them. You
know, again, I will continue to be a part of this, to facilitate it,
to walk it through. But if and when it should come down to measures
of restoration, I guess you could say right now we're lining up the
fingers in what direction they needed to be pointed.
There are probably no fewer than three or four
contributing factors to what is going on there. One is nature,
rainfall; another may be an accumulation or buildup of nitrogens in
other areas which generally come out of Pelican Bay. A third may be
some construction of the road around Bay Colony. We don't know what
those are. But I think it is going to be a mix of all of those and
going to require a concerted effort. And I guess by virtue of this
memo, we either ignore it or become some sort of a clearing house to
try and organize it, and I think that is what we are doing now. With
that I don't think this memo says that we have anything else that
we're obligated to do, but I think morally we're doing what is in the
best interest of the community.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other comments? I've got
one. Mr. Weigel, you and I were talking yesterday about this, and I
know that we've been hearing that possibly the construction of the
road around Bay Colony and so forth contributed to the stress that
this environment is in right now. And the PUD and DRI for this was
done back in the '70s.
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. You were going to ask --
and I'm not sure you have had time to do it yet, but find out if that
road was in the original PUD.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. I talked with Harjorie Student.
Harjorie has the data, in fact, the documents to refer to respond to
your question.
MS. STUDENT: Yeah. I received a fax from Westinghouse
which shows -- it says April 1977 PUD down here, and I also have Wayne
Arnold that I spoke with about this from staff. It is shown up in
this area on the PUD. It wouldn't be involved -- the DRI wouldn't be
involved because that's more regional, but an internal roadway you
would find it conceptually on the PUD master plan. I think the
alignment is changed just slightly from the original concept as it was
on the PUD master plan.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the answer is the road was in
the PUD?
MS. STUDENT: Yes, it was on the PUD.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Because my concern on the
issue -- and, again, Mr. Weigel and I have talked about it -- is that
was this area committed to degradation in '76 when the PUD was
approved and the permits let? And are we fighting an uphill battle
that can't be won?
MS. STUDENT: From what I understand from talking with
representatives from Westinghouse, there was an area, I believe, in
the northwest corner that was -- and that would be up in this area
(indicating), and it was a nonfunctioning wetland. It existed but it
wasn't functioning. So, in fact, that is why Westinghouse was allowed
to develop that area because at that time they did not have a policy
of no net loss of any wetlands. But something wasn't working okay, and
then they were to do some mitigation in other areas. So I think we
have some information that shows up in that area that there were
problems in 1977 when the project was first contemplated.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Because that is part of my
concern. While I appreciate it is a conservation area and the beauty
of it or what was the beauty of it, I've got a question if actions
weren't taken 20 years ago that have taken us to where we are now. I
have to begin to question whether there is a reason to spend a lot of
money, whatever that might be, to protect something that we really
can't.
MS. STUDENT: I think you also mentioned last week, too,
that in the 1950s you saw some aerials which showed that something was
happening --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Exactly.
MS. STUDENT: -- and lends credence to the argument that
perhaps this is a natural cycle as well. So --
MR. WEIGEL: I would ask the record be corrected that
she saw aerials of the 1950s, but she didn't see those aerials in the
1950s.
MS. STUDENT: Yeah. That's what I meant, aerials in the
1950s. I'm sorry, I meant aerials.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. I saw aerials of the 1950s
that showed a die-off.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to encourage all
board members to take the similar position that we don't know what is
causing this. And the reason for this task force is to try to make
that determination. Now, if it is just natural, and it's going to
come back, and we don't need to worry about it, I hope that will come
out of this. If it is otherwise we still have several options. I
mean, certainly the solution could be prohibitively expensive and
we're unable to pursue it, or the solution could be inexpensive and
we're able to do it. You know, we don't know what those are. But
until, hopefully, this task force in their review on December 8th
provides us with some of those answers, I would just like to keep
pursuing it, because it is not costing us anything at this point.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just a tiny little follow-up to
that. I want to point out that my favorite line in Byron Koste's
letter is that, "We are committed to dedicating our employees,
consultants, and other resources, including financial, to preserve
this natural resource."
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And he's not alone. There are
some other potential funding sources out there. But, you know, let's
determine what the problem is first, and then we'll try and put a plan
together.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, when do
you anticipate after that -- is it December 8th? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: December 8th.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it's after December 8th
when you anticipate coming back, the following Tuesday or --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. The Tuesday immediately
following the 8th or the first meeting following the 8th, I would like
to come back with the results of that meeting. They will be made
public on the 8th. There will be a statement of findings at the end
of that day, and that will be noticed in the paper, press releases
sent out, one particularly to Emma. But, no, so on that following
Tuesday, I hope to give an update and direction at that point. As Mr.
Hamilton mentioned, if there is something that could be done and needs
to be done, then we need to make sure it is done on the short term as
possible as long as it's prudent and wise and not rash. That is the
key concern for me.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I am interested in seeking a
reason for the die-off, but I'm also trying to keep a clear mind that
what we're witnessing may be something natural that is cyclical. I
don't think it is, but it may be.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It may be genetic. We don't
know.
MR. DORRILL: You have one additional speaker
registered.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One additional speaker? Who is
that?
MR. DORRILL: Gary Beardsley.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Beardsley.
MR. BEARDSLEY: Yes. Good afternoon, Commissioners,
Bettye Matthews. I would like to add a little personal observation to
that. I was on the consulting team that did all the permitting for
Westinghouse by Subtropical Bioindustries. And I'm bothered by this
perception that there was already some troubles up in the northwest
fill area. We did extensive studies, and basically we looked at
carbon transport and found that it was a pulsing system at the top end
because it was cut off by Vanderbilt Beach Drive. And my personal
opinion is that should never have been permitted because of the
destruction of the habitat there.
Pulsing systems are typical in black mangrove forests.
The die-offs that were recorded in the '70s -- and I've been in those
areas in the late, middle '70s -- were Buttonwood areas, and that is
typical because Buttonwoods are up in the higher areas. And as high
sea level occurs it starts to flood them out. So I would caution you
into thinking this is just big cycles and this is another cycle. My
personal opinion is it is probably multiple things as Commissioner --
I can't think of your name.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's one black mark, Gary.
MR. BEARDSLEY: What? That's one.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Hancock.
MR. BEARDSLEY: -- Hancock. Thank you -- blank. I
would caution you into saying that it is one thing, but I strongly
believe that it is very much development related that started the
process. Thank you.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, thank you very much, Mr.
Beardsley. On this particular issue opinions are just like DNA
signatures, everybody's got one but everyone is different.
MR. BEARDSLEY: But I am a scientist, and you're not.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. All the scientists
have a different one, too.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that in regards to what
Mr. Beardsley was saying was exactly what I was trying to point out
that the very issuing of the PUD with the road is that the road has
been a contributing fact to the final stress. But that commitment was
made 20 years ago, and we have inherited a roadway that we have been
led to. And I am not sure what we can or should do about it, but we
need to find out what has really caused it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, before we do
the next item, I wondered if someone might call the sheriff. Again,
hopefully, his people are here and we may get started a few minutes
before one o'clock on his item.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Perhaps. Mr. McNees, can you
take care of that?
PUBLIC COHMENT - AL PERKINS REGARDING RESTORATION PROJECTS
Next item on the agenda is item -- oh, we're at the
public petition portion -- public comment portion. Mr. Weigel, is
there anyone registered for public comment? MR. DORRILL: Mr. A1 Perkins.
MR. PERKINS: Well, good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm
back again. This is going to be a touchy situation. This is tough,
nasty, and expensive.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks for the warning.
MR. PERKINS: First of all, I want to thank Fred
Tarrant for defending the people of Collier County and defending the
Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida and for
defending me at a meeting of the Departmental of Environmental
Protection. Also, I want to take and thank Rich King, WNOG, for
permitting me to get the message out about different meetings and for
participation in this county on behalf of all of the people.
And now we start. There should have been a handout
given to you from the DEP that was done last Wednesday night. Diana
Dartman (phonetic) and Greg Brock (phonetic) were here to intimidate
and threaten and put on notice Collier County, the citizens, and the
taxpayers that they intend to take and use eminent domain on any
piece, parcel, land, home, or whatever that they declare on any list.
Now, that means that the Conservancy here in town can see a woodpecker
in your backyard, ask the state, the governor, and his cabinet to put
it on the endangered species list, and then it can start a process on
eminent domain to take your land away from you.
At the present time it is on the coral list which gives
the Belle Meade and the Southern Estates -- the Southern Estates
contain the canals that drain from Immokalee Road, the farms, Bonita
Beach, Bonita Shores, all of Bonita, North Naples, all the way down.
Now, their intention was the South Florida Water Management under
the Golden Gate restoration plan was to take and secure this land, grab
it up, fill in the canals and flood the whole area. We're talking
about an undue amount of punishment to the people and to the taxpayers.
We're going to kill off the animals, and we're going to create a
hardship, and we're going to eliminate the evacuation routes from Marco
Island to Goodlette.
This restoration program is going to cost untold millions and
millions of dollars, because they're talking about pumps, about filling
in the canals, buying up the property. But now with that there are
select private interests whose property are not on the CARL list. With
that in mind, I want you people to remember that we have different
things that are going, and you have to pay attention. For example, we
have stopped them from drilling off the coast of Naples, but we have
operating oil wells off of 29. The oil and gas in this particular area
is worth untold fortunes which reverts back to jobs, tax money,
everything that's involved.
We also have a situation with the water. Now, when the
Big Cypress Basin Board, which was an appointed group by Lawton Chiles
and the Big Cypress Basin Board and the South Florida Water Management
-- these are all appointed jobs -- when they impress the people and
intimidate and threaten them with this, then the people had better sit
up and pay attention.
Water. The Big Cypress Basin Board subsidizes Southern
States Utilities to search for water so they can turn right around and
treat it and sell it back to the county from Marco Island to Goodland.
By last count it was -- at a meeting maybe six months or so ago
they've got a quarter of a million dollars, and they're looking for
more to put down the deep well injection for the bubble at the site at
951 and 41.
Now, you heard me say I recommend recycling,
preservation. You people had better pay good attention to what these
people are trying to do to you. Needless to say, if I don't quit now,
John is going to jump in my face.
On behalf of the people of Collier County, please take a
long look at this, because if I can I want to get these people
registered voters. For your information, we packed that room the
other night with people who have callused hands and a brown neck.
They all work outside. It was at six o'clock at night when it was
dinner time and time to pick up the kids from school. Done, delivered.
Pay attention, Collier. You're getting screwed over.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Perkins. That
concludes the public comment portion of our agenda.
Item #12A1
AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PERTAINING TO THE AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN (ACSC) PROPERTY BY THE
COHMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION AS DIRECTED
BY THE BCC - APPROVED AND TO BE EXPEDITED
We will now move on to the afternoon agenda. We only have one
item which is 12(A)(1), an amendment to the future land use element of
our comprehensive plan.
MS. CACCHIONE: Good afternoon. My name is Barbara
Cacchione with your comprehensive planning department. On September
19th the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to prepare a
comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use element, to
reinstate the exemption for agriculture in the area of critical state
concern. The area identified on the future land use map to my right
outlined in red is the area of critical state concern. That area has
a set of regulations which govern site alteration, drainage,
structured installation, and transportation.
In 1991 and in 1993, the county developed more stringent
regulations in the State of Florida and removed the agricultural
exception. The proposal before you today is to reinstate that
agricultural exemption to parallel the county's regulations with the
State of Florida. The attachment that I handed out to you is
attachment A. There is one other change on page 2 and that is for the
estate area, the southern Golden Gate Estates area, which we also
regulate by local ordinance by these regulations. It is to allow a
broader site alteration above the 10 percent for things relating to
environmental reasons or in terms of fire control breaks they may be
able to clear more for those types of issues.
We have met the agricultural community and the
representatives of the environmental community. They had two meetings
and discussed common issues. There were no resolutions at either of
those meetings. However, I do believe that the environmental
representatives do have some information that they would like to bring
forward to you today.
The planning commission voted on this item on November
16th, a vote of five to zero, to transmit this to the Board of County
Commissioners for them to transmit to the Department of Community
Affairs for their review by a five-to-zero vote with three refusals.
The recommendation today is that the Board of County Commissioners
transmit this to the Department of Community Affairs. And there are
two options. One is to request an expedited review process which is a
30-day review, and if there are no objections, then the DCA will issue
their report.
The other is to send it up under the normal process
which is a three-month review process where they will issue
objections, recommendations, and comment report and send it back to
staff here, and we'll review it and basically prepare a staff
recommendation for you. And there will be two additional public
hearings for adoption; one before the Planning Commission and one
before the Board of County Commissioners. So the request before you
today is to transmit a proposed amendment to the Department of
Community Affairs and to specify which review process you would like
to utilize. If there are any questions, I would be happy to answer
them. Also attached is a legal sheet which identifies the regulations
which currently governs this area by the state agencies. That was
prepared by Bill Lorenz's staff.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions for staff?
Public comment?
MR. DORRILL: You have eight speakers. Gary Beardsley
followed by George Keller.
MR. BEARDSLEY: Thank you again, Commissioners, Bettye
Matthews. I am representing myself as an individual and also
Eco-Swift, which is a coalition -- or a federation, excuse me -- of 33
organizations in the five-county area. I have passed out previously
-- I thought the meeting was starting at 8:30, so I laid them on your
desks. I also have two additional copies, one for the file and one
for the county manager. I won't go through the whole document. We
have five pages of concerns and recommendations. Also we have four
pages of recommended changes to the Land Development Code that came
out of the meetings that Barbara Cacchione mentioned.
The main thing, the executive summary of the Eco-Swift
positions, is the Board of Environmental Confederation of Southwest
Florida, a five-county coalition of 33 member organizations -- and,
again, I have attached the names of the organization -- strongly
opposes the proposed removal of the 10 percent limitation on clearing
for agriculture purposes within the state designated Big Cypress area
of critical concern identified by the county as an A/ACSC/ST zoning
district.
The water quality, quantity, and the interconnected and
dependent habitat values of the Big Cypress Swamp watershed, including
the sub-area identified as the Big Cypress area of critical state
concern is critical to the sustainability of this essential south
Florida ecosystem. Eco-Swift maintains that the current federal and
state regulations and approval process do not adequately protect the
natural resources within this area.
I'm just hitting the salient points. Hopefully, you
have time to read the rest. Eco-Swift will follow, once formally
submitted, both the Land Development Code and the Growth Management
Plan amendment process as it moves through the Department of Community
Affairs formal ORC process, objections, recommendations and comments,
and will continue to intervene where and when its board deems
appropriate.
Eco-Swift thanks the chairperson and the Board of County
Commissioners for allowing our comments and concerns to be presented
for your consideration. I think there is some common ground that we
could probably agree on and that is, I hope, that you as Commissioners
look to the future and beyond your term of office and look into the
future with the same type of problems that developed in Clam Pass.
These same type of early indicators, high nutrient levels, are being
picked up in Rookery Bay right now, and the concern is as I think -- I
forgot your name again -- Hancock, there we go, Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Bill Smith.
MR. BEARDSLEY: Commissioner Hancock mentioned that
we're at the finger-pointing stage, and that's basically what our
concern, Eco-Swift, has is into the future in 2050. Population
projections for Collier County in 2050 are between 800,000 and 1.4
million people. And we're talking about a roughly 300-square-mile
area. And if you do some rough math on developing dwelling units per
acre, you come up with about 600,000 people. Now, where are we going
to put all the rest of the other people?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I lost you there.
The 800,000 to 1.4 million, are you talking about Collier County?
MR. BEARDSLEY: I'm talking about Collier County, and I
can back this up.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I certainly hope you will.
MR. BEARDSLEY: I will. I'll send it to you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Under the current building
code and the zoning and the Growth Management Plan and so on, if you
fill every --
MR. BEARDSLEY: Is this my time or your time?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll give you extra time,
but if you fill every nook and cranny under current code, you don't
come anywhere close to 800,000, let alone 1.4 million.
MR. BEARDSLEY: I disagree with you. We have 190 square
miles of the urban area. Then you take Golden Gate Estates,
Immokalee, Marco Island, and you push those numbers out and you come
up with about 600,000 people. Now, that means that the urban line has
to go out, or we have to redevelop it in the present footprint of what
we're talking about. And what I am saying there are interests in this
county who feel that we should push the urban zone out. And Eco-Swift
is very much concerned, not with the landowners out now in the
108-square mile area we're talking about that is under private
ownership. But they might sell this off and what future land use
changes -- we're really saying we need to know now, not in the future
when we have problems like Pelican Bay. What are the issues out
there? How can we do logical and sensible land planning out there?
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Beardsley. Mr.
Keller. Who is next after Mr. Keller? MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman.
MR. KELLER: George Keller. I'm speaking for the Golden
Gate Estates Civic Association. I think most people that moved to
Collier County 27 years ago, like I did, came because it was a
beautiful place. And I know that any place in the world that is
beautiful is going to -- people are going to go there. I spent the
first 21 years of my life in Long Island. I was 15 miles from New
York City. There were farms and vacant land all around, and I can
tell you in about 12 or 13 years it was a mess and every single bit of
waterways around became polluted.
I'm afraid that basically speaking if we don't do
something to go and regulate the growth in Collier County -- and in
this particular instance it bothers me that we're reducing the
regulation instead of increasing it for the rural areas. And it's
only a matter of time. I can see the handwriting is on the wall that
people that own property in Golden Gate Estates -- for instance, I've
got two and a half acres, and if I can build five or six houses on
that two and a half acres, my children are going to be so rich that
they won't have to work for the rest of their lives. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But you can't.
MR. KELLER: But the point is if you start reducing it
out in the rural areas, it is going to come to us, and we're worried
about it. We're extremely worried about it, because a lot of people
are constantly talking about setting up cjuster homes and things in
the estates. Don't do anything in that whole big area there. Don't do
anything that's going to make it possible to develop it more. And
when you have farms, and you can start clearing more land, the next
stage -- all of the developments we've got in this part of Collier
County one time were farms. They're all big developments, and there's
loads of money all over the world that are buying in here and expect
to go make this a metropolis, and we're going to be living in a
stinking place with dirty water and sewage all over the place. And if
that's what you want, fine. But do not degrade any land that is there
right now. Don't do anything to go and remove restrictions. What you
need is more restrictions, not less.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Erlichman. Who
is next?
MR. DORRILL: Followed by Mr. Jim Gore.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Good afternoon. Gil Erlichman, East
Naples and also representing TAG. In the past few months that I've
really come to know Mr. Perkins, A1 Perkins, my eyes have been opened
as to what is happening in Collier County insofar as the situation
with water and our environment is concerned. And so I've developed '-
I've always had a latent interest in the environment, but what has
been happening now in Collier County has been brought to a head. And
I'm looking at this executive summary on page 2. Down near the bottom
it says, "At the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, staff
met with the representatives of the affected agricultural interest and
the environmental interest. The consensus was that the agricultural
exemption would be reinstated and that the sensitive treatment, ST,
overlay would be reviewed for content and procedure."
Well, that sounds all right. But where is the concern
about the people, the urban element, the people that live in Naples
and in the areas of Collier County that we have our homes and other
commercial developments? It so happens that in this past August,
recent August and October, we had a lot of flooded areas in Collier
County, seventy-five or seventy-seven, I think, to be precise.
And all I've heard is the reason for that was that, oh, we've got
sheet flow, and the water was coming from the areas of Collier County.
Farms were pumping water, because they didn't want too much water
where the orange groves are, et cetera, et cetera. Well, I don't
understand why we want to take -- and take and give an exemption now
or remove the exemption -- pardon me -- reinstate the agriculture
exemption within the area of critical state concern. Why do we want
to do that? Because to me what would happen now is that it is going to
aggravate the flooding conditions more in the future when we have
these abnormal rainfall amounts that could occur over the next five or
six years. We may be in a wet cycle now.
And I really don't understand why you would want to go
and reinstate this exemption, this agricultural exemption. If you
look at a map -- I have a map here -- and I was amazed to see that all
the canals that are leading from Okeechobee, draining from Okeechobee,
all go over to the east coast. There aren't any canals that run from
Lake Okeechobee to the west coast. I said, well -- and I was talking
with someone else, and he said, well, don't forget we are going to be
the water reservoir for the east coast, Collier County and parts of
Lee County.
So, please, do not vote to reinstate this agriculture
exemption. Let's leave the situation as it is in Collier County and
also make sure that our canal and drainage systems are looked into and
maybe -- not maybe -- but we have to improve the present system that
we have or else we're going to wind up with flooded areas again this
coming year. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Dr. Gore.
MR. DORRILL: And then A1 Perkins.
DR. GORE: Right before A1. For the record, Jim Gore
with the Conservancy. I participated in some of the conversations
with the environmental groups, and I want to indicate to you that I
don't think anybody in any of those environmental organizations really
objects to the reinstatement of that exemption. Certainly, if we were
landowners there we would not want those kinds of restrictions as
well. On the other hand, we are still very concerned about the
expansion of agricultural activity and what that might -- what effect
it might have on downstream water resources, both ground water and
surface water resources.
And what we're really concerned more about -- not so
much the ag exemption, I think -- is that we really want to make sure
that those water resources are protected both in quality and quantity.
And the draft of the suggested or potential changes in the Land
Development Code particularly have to do with the ag clearing permit
really is an attempt to address and to make sure that we have the
ability -- that is, Collier County has the ability to protect those
water resources and other environmental resources that might be
protected or might be impacted by those expanded agricultural
activities. And we really would like to encourage you to seek some
advice from county staff about the possibilities of improving in
particular the ag clearing component of the Land Development Code to
address some concerns that we have.
Unfortunately, as it stands now, the corps of engineers
and the water management district have the authority to ask for water
management plans but very little ability to enforce those kinds of
things. And we would ask that some stricter language be placed in
there so that we do have some monitoring information, so we do know
whether or not water quality and quantity issues are being addressed.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Dr. Gore.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins and then Brian Hunt.
MR. PERKINS: A1 Perkins, Belle Heade Group, Citizens
for Constitutional Property Rights. I highly recommend that you do
approve and put this agricultural exemption back on the area because
you're totally discriminating against the people along property --
it's just that simple. Now, along with the water quality -- now don't
forget, people don't get me wrong, Mr. Gore and I go head to head all
the time. I have no time for the Conservancy, because they get a 3
percent commission on most everything they do. He is being paid to be
here; I'm not.
The point being when we get right down to it, and if you
own a piece of property, and that property says you're only allowed to
take and clear 10 percent of it, you may only be able to clear a
driveway to get to your house. Meaning that when the place goes on
fire out there, there goes your house, there goes your investment.
You've got nothing but a bunch of ashes and a bunch of burnt animals.
Everything we're trying to preserve is being totally destroyed because
of water. They're flooding out the animals. And what you don't flood
out we kill them with fire and with the hunters.
Now, I don't know when these people are going to wake up
to the fact that what they're saying and what they're doing is in
direct opposition to what they think they believe in. The property
rights issue and the tax right is a big thing. The areas designated
for recreation -- how do you get to it, and what can you do with it,
yet you're paying for it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The ACSC?
MR. PERKINS: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's private property.
MR. PERKINS: It's all private there?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The part we're talking about is.
MR. PERKINS: The part north of the Alley which is under
this is farmland. It could be private land. I am not sure on that.
But, anyhow, back to the farms. Without the farms what are you people
going to eat, because I dare say you don't grow anything, and you
don't raise anything. Needless to say, put things in perspective.
But fires are a big issue out there. Peoples lives are a big issue.
The animals are a big issue. The water is a dollar issue. The gas
and oil is a dollar issue. With that, I don't think I have anything
more to add to that. I just hope you take a good long look at this,
because it's a discrimination factor. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Perkins. Mr. Hunt.
MR. DORRILL: Followed by Fran Stallings.
MR. HUNT: Thank you for this opportunity. I'm Brian
Hunt with Florida Biodiversity Project. The Big Cypress watershed
needs to be looked at as a whole. Our organization is intimately
concerned, intensely concerned with the Big Cypress National Preserve
and the other public lands in that area as are other groups. And I
can say that the number two problem, or certainly among the top two
problems to the land in this area is water quality.
The public has made a substantial investment in this
watershed, an enormous investment. And we need to protect that. We
all need to participate with the protection of that. I'm very
encouraged by meetings that I have as recently as yesterday with the
Seminole Tribe who abut this same watershed, a group of people who are
taking extraordinary efforts to design their activities in such a way
as to ensure high quality water passing through and still allow them
to maintain the economic independence within their people on that
piece of land. They're taking a lead in trying to cooperate, to come
up with ecosystem consistent designed activities such that will
protect and guarantee the quality of those areas.
We concur with Eco-Swift and with the other groups and
the notion that development, as defined under the code, certainly
contemplates clearing and landfilling. It must. When you're talking
about development in a watershed, it is illogical to exclude the
activities of clearing and land filling. Those are precisely the
types of activities that are jeopardizing directly the quality of
water from many of our watersheds in south Florida.
It only takes one bad project, only one bad project to
substantially defeat the objectives of protecting that entire
watershed area below it. For that reason we feel that we must take a
very comprehensive and broad view of this, a protective view. I want
to congratulate Collier County for the fact that they have exercised
their legal authority, under the law, under their home rule
provisions, to exercise greater constraints and restraints and
regulations upon this area than the state has. It is appropriate.
You're to be applauded for that. It shows that you recognize that
these issues are interrelated.
I would recommend that this watershed area, that Collier
County recommend to this Department of Environmental Protection that
this be a place-based ecosystem watershed under the ecosystem
management division or initiative of DEP. I think that process will
allow the various interests within the ecosystem to have their issues
addressed while at the same time guaranteeing that a comprehensive and
overarching view of the area will be watched and will be considered.
I do not believe, and I urge you not to change, your
provisions as they currently are, not to remove this restriction on
land clearing in the Big Cypress area of critical state concern.
Thank you very much for your attention.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Dr. Stallings.
MR. DORRILL: Dr. Stallings followed by Barbara Cawley.
DR. STALLINGS: Fran Stallings, Florida Wildlife
Federation. Our concern is that you seem poised to reinstitute the
agricultural exemption, and we just don't feel that there is adequate
protection for the resources out there at this time. That's our real
based concern. I don't know that I would agree with Mr. Keller that we
need more regulations, but we certainly need better regulations.
The enforcement of the regulations that we have is
extremely lax. So we do have a lot of concern here, and we hope that
down the road when some of us perhaps come back and ask for some
protection for these resources that we feel will be lacking, that you
will give us a favorable hearing. We did participate in the position
statement that Eco-Swift has presented to you. We support that
statement, and we urge your careful consideration of it.
I think when Gary was talking about the large population
numbers potentially in the county, this board has the authority, if it
so chooses, to move that urban boundary eastward and to thus allow for
the possibility of a much, much higher level of population in the
county than we presently have. It does have to have DCA approval, but
you do have the authority to adjust those boundaries. I think that's
where Gary was coming from, and some of the rest of us, too, are
concerned that we could have much more in the build-out projection of
600,000 or whatever it is. Thank you for your consideration.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Dr. Stallings.
MR. DORRILL: Barbara Cawley and then your last speaker
would be Brad Cornell.
MS. CAWLEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I feel like
I am in the wrong hearing. All the discussion today has nothing to do
with the amendment that is being proposed today. I am just
overwhelmed at the discussion. First of all, I would like to say we
would like to agree with staff's recommendations to reinstate the
agricultural clearing exemption. Second of all, I just -- I know
we've been through this before, but I guess I need to put it on the
record, that this exemption has been in place since 1972. It is not
something new. It is something that was by the state legislature,
adopted by the governor and cabinet. It's a property rights issue.
You can't prohibit the use of somebody's property down to 10 percent.
It's not a rape and pillage issue. It is not a water
quality issue. It's a use of private property issue that was
recognized by the state legislature and by the governor and cabinet
when they adopted Chapter 3805. It's a very simple amendment. If
there are problems in terms of water quality, if there are problems in
terms of monitoring, this is not what we're talking about here. This
is not the place to deal with that.
First of all, I don't agree that there are. I believe
that there are adequate regulations in place. I mean, all of us have
dealt in our public and private lives with the amount of regulation
that is on private land these days. Even at the federal level, we're
trying to find ways to get government out of people's lives instead of
trying to increase government into people's lives. But if, if fact,
there needs to be regulations, it's a bottom-line cost issue. And is
the county wanting to take that responsibility? Does the county want
to hire staff to go out and do monitoring and water sampling out
there? Is it something that you're going to put back onto the
agricultural community to do that? The bottom line is we have that.
And I truly believe that we have that. We now have a new
environmental resource permit that's required every time an
agricultural permit is issued out there. This is not exempt property
from any of the state and federal regulations. And part of that is
stormwater management, part of that requires you to make sure that
your stormwater discharge is not polluting downstream areas.
So that is why Iwm kind of confused as to what wewre
talking about out here. The farmers have been absolutely the best
stewards of the land of anybody in this county, bar none, including
the federal government. And I believe that if we are given the chance
to continue doing what wewve been doing since 1920 -- wewre not
talking about something that wewre going to be changing at this point
-- that we will continue to have the best maintained land in this
county.
It is a fairness issue. Itws a legal issue. Itws a
takings issue. And I believe that what wewre asking for is for you to
transmit this forward to the Department of Community Affairs and ask
for an expedited review of the Growth Management Plan amendment and
then to reinstate the Land Development Code language -- identical
language into the Land Development Code.
If I could answer any questions -- I could go on for a
long period of time on this, but I think wewve been through a number
of public hearings, and I think we have covered most of the issues.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, we have been. Commissioner
Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Cawley, help me clarify
something. Under the proposed language, a requirement that
agricultural use of the land and any drainage facilities associated
with that shall release water in a manner approximating natural flow
and so forth, is that eliminated under the language proposed?
MS. CAWLEY: Yeah. Let me explain a little bit about
what the reasoning behind some of that is. And I know it when you
read it, it sounds like itws giving carte blanche to go out there do a
lot of --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It sounds like youlye been
bermed, diked, do whatever -- MS. CAWLEY: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- without regard to sheet flow
and water quality.
MS. CAWLEY: But you have to think that was passed in
1972. And since 1972 other regulations have been passed which
regulate the use of the property out there. And they kindly put
together the three pages of regulations that cover those types of
issues.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was my question, because I
donlt see that particular issue covered. I see stormwater quality of
discharge, which is good. I see addressing environmental criteria. I
see addressing stormwater quality of discharge again. But what I
donlt see -- and I guess itls just the recent rains that highlight it
-- is any regard to, you know, how the water is discharged in a
manner that does not impede unnecessarily sheet flow.
Obviously, this whole area is sheet flow now. If you go
in to use it for agricultural uses, youlre not going to allow the
sheet flow to continue through the property. But the way in which you
route it, youlre berming a dike on, if that backs water up behind it
it creates other problems. Iim just saying that right now it looks
like welre saying that that needs to be a consideration. I donlt see
where that is a consideration.
MS. CAWLEY: Itls part of your ERP permit. You have to
look at all of your entire water quality issues when you do your ERP
permits. Remember this is an environmental resource permit. Theylye
expanded it to cover all the various issues regarding your
environmental issues out there.
And we're not talking about -- I think what you've got
to get into your brain, we're talking about agricultural uses and
property out here. We're not talking about urban uses. We're not
talking about putting in a house someplace out there that somebody is
going to have their front yard flooded or their backyard flooded.
We're talking about farm fields, pastures, citrus groves where the
issue of backing up water into somebody's property isn't as critical
as it is when you're talking about it in somebody's home or where
you're having flooding in somebody's home.
And these people have dealt with this issue of flooding
and droughts for years, and they have to deal with it. They pump off
it, and they use their property in a way that handles the water. They
have to or their fields will die.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So these are current standards
for the ACSC?
MS. CAWLEY: These are current standards for everything,
not just for ACSC. This covers ACSC as well.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And I read through the
ERP, but by the addition of number 4 on page 3 of the proposed
language it says, "None of these rules regarding drainage facilities
would apply to agricultural uses."
MS. CAWLEY: None of the rules above.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. Which is the one that I
cited, new drainage facilities shall release water in the manner
approximating and so forth. You're telling me that the environmental
resource permit addresses '-
MS. CAWLEY: It supersedes; that's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that the state is, in fact,
addressing that issue?
MS. CAWLEY: That's correct. And remember -- I keep
coming back to the fact that this was adopted in 1972 when there were
no regulations. And, in fact, in 1972 the state said we don't believe
agriculture should have to do anything, that we believe that
agriculture is so important to our communities and to our state that
they don't have to do any of these things that would be required --
extra things that would have to be required in an area of critical
state concern.
Since that time, of course, we've had a myriad of
regulations and we continue to update the regulations that cover those
issues. I mean, you could look at almost any of these man-made lakes
and ponds, and containment shall be constructed a maximum slope of 30
degrees, blah, blah, blah. Well, that's all been updated in terms of
how the South Florida Water Management District looks at how they make
lakes out there. We just can't go out there and say we'll do whatever
we want in terms of lakes. So most -- these things have been
superseded in terms of these things (indicating). And we are covered
in terms of water quality and water discharge issues.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions?
Thank you, Ms. Cawley.
MS. CAWLEY: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cornell.
MR. CORNELL: Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
My name is Brad Cornell. And I'm here on behalf of the 1200 members
of the Collier County Audubon Society and its volunteer board. I'll
be very brief. We also are very concerned about the resources
particularly in the Okaloacoochee Slough, which is part of the area of
critical state concern. We echo what many of the speakers have
already said before me; water quality, quantity, wildlife issues,
habitat and also notification of the public land managers that are
downstream when any development is pending. They should be involved
in the process.
We do feel that county regulations and state and federal
permitting processes are not adequate to protect this resource if we
remove -- if we reinstate the exemption as you are proposing. And we
-- the Collier County Audubon Society is specifically asking that you
make today some sort of assurance that these resources will be
protected if this exemption is reinstated. Specifically, we would like
to see the proposed LDC language that has come before you, I think, at
the October 18th meeting, be considered for adoption, and if you would
consult with your staff on that language. The LDC does need to be
strengthened in order to protect the resource. It's not adequate
without that.
And, finally, I would like to just comment that people
want growth and development to be controlled and well planned in order
to protect the living, the quality of life that we have here. And an
integral part of that is the natural resources which we all enjoy. I
don't think that anybody really cares what agency's jurisdiction it is
who is going to do what. All they want is to have it taken care of.
And I believe that it is really incumbent upon us here at the local
level, and you as our local leaders, to take the leadership in that
protection. It is our responsibility to take care of our own
backgrounds. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Cornell. That was
our last speaker?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing for
this. Is there discussion amongst the board or questions of staff?
Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a couple of thoughts.
When we started out there was a suggestion by Mr. Beardsley that our
population is going to balloon to 1.4 million. I think that does
nothing but tear away at the credibility of those comments. Both the
first two speakers, Mr. Beardsley and Mr. Keller suggested a number of
terrible scenarios, but those are based on hypothetical happenings and
future action of the boards that might change the urban boundary or
might do something else. That's completely hypothetical and none of
that is based in facts that we have here. None of that is based in
the current Growth Management Plan or the current Land Development
Code. So those aren't realistic numbers.
I do appreciate Dr. Stallings comment, we don't need
more regulations; perhaps we need to fine tune some regulations we
have. But Mr. Keller's assertion that we need more restrictions, I
think, is a terrible thought. There is a thing called private property
rights. If I own a piece of property, I don't need the government to
tell me that I can only use 10 percent of that or I can't use it at
all. And if I have invested in that property, it is wrong for the
government to tell me I can't use my own property. So I think to
suggest that we need more and more restrictions is a disgrace.
I'm going to make a motion that we approve the item as
staff recommended.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Commissioner Norris, you have a comment.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I do. A couple of things
also. We're talking about an area of critical state concern. It is
the state that has the critical concern, and they have designated this
area. And what we are proposing to do here very simply is to apply
state regulations; that is it. Applying state regulations to an area
of state critical concern seems perfectly reasonable.
The other thing is the private property rights issue.
While I understand the thoughts of the various groups that want to do
something to protect the water out there in that area, asking local
government to, in effect, take the property rights away through
regulation, may not be the very best way to do it. A suggestion for
the groups that feel strongly enough about protecting that watershed
out there, perhaps they could take a cue from the state and simply
purchase that and get it off of the ability for development or use it
for agricultural purposes. And that way you're not infringing on
somebody's private property rights. It will be your private property.
You can even deed it over to the county as a conservation easement
and in perpetuity it will not be -- cannot be altered. So that's a
much more reasonable approach than to try to take people's property
rights through regulation.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've expressed some concern about
sheet flow, some concern about water quality, but the reason we're
here today is the 10 percent that was developed initially was
arbitrary. Nobody can find why it was 10 percent, why it wasn't more,
why it wasn't less. It was just 10 percent. There's no real basis for
it. It has no regard to the use of the land or the location of the
property or what is upstream or what's downstream, just a flat 10
percent.
And what it does, it puts this board in a position to
say we are going to limit 90 percent of the use of your land under
current property rights legislation. We're putting ourselves in the
position to require us to begin writing checks with your money to buy
the property unless we do something about this. So I don't think we
have much of a choice as to whether or not we want to mirror state
guidelines or not. If we don't mirror them, we have to have
justification for any additional restrictions. If we don't we're
going to end up in court, and we're going to lose. So I think
regarding the private property rights issue, our hands are tied a
little bit in moving in that direction.
I would like to see, however, as Dr. Stallings has
mentioned, the environmental resource permit I think we would like to
see more about. If this is an area of critical state concern, and the
state has an environmental resource permit, and the state is not
enforcing that, then let's get on the state. But locally developing a
whole other department for review and permitting is difficult.
And, Mr. Beardsley, when you and I talked, we talked
about a joint effort, about everybody coming together on a single
plan, and I think that is a great idea. But to put the county in this
whole responsibility for enforcement for that is a burden that I don't
think our taxpayers want and one that I think is unfair. So I am
going to support this. But what I am going to look for in the future
is more information on the environmental resource permit that is
issued by the state, how it can be improved and maybe localized. But
I think that burden falls upon the state more so than Collier County.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine, does
your motion select which of the review processes we are going to use?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It does not. I'm open to
your suggestions.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Expedite would be my suggestion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was the second's assumption.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will include that as part
of the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the second accept that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The only comment I am going to
make on this is that when this discussion started out several months
ago, I spoke of the research that I had done over the summer and that
the fact that I could not find a single word in the public record
about the elimination of the ag exemption in 1991. I couldn't find a
single word about it. And that's what is going to move me to support
this motion, because in my estimation the property owners have been
deprived of the right to develop their land without any public
comment. And if we need to start this process over again when we see
that it generates problems, we'll be glad to discuss it again. But
I've had specific problems of taking property rights without any
public comment whatsoever.
With that, I will call the question. Is there further
discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, A1.
MR. PERKINS: Thank you on behalf of the people of
Collier County. And they don't know it yet, believe me. Thank you,
guys, right across the board.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ms. Student.
MS. STUDENT: Madam Chair, I just wanted to state for
the record -- I assume we have discussed this before, but this is
subject to how things may play out with our ER report, but we feel
that there is a window of opportunity to make this ER based amendment
as well. I will have to work some details with DCA on that, so we
think we will be able to go forward with that.
Item #11A
REVISED JOB CLASSIFICATION AND PAY PLAN SCHEDULE IMPLEMENTATION PER THE
PAY PLAN STUDY PERFORMED BY DAVID M. GRIFFITH AND ASSOCIATES - APPROVED
WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the
agenda and the last item today is item ll(A), a recommendation to
approve the revised classification and pay plan schedule with the
sheriff's office. Sheriff Hunter, are you going to handle this?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me share a couple of
thoughts with the board to see if there is any general agreement here.
I know we've all had an opportunity to meet with the sheriff and/or
his representatives. I appreciate the information you provided since
we got together two weeks ago. I don't have any trouble at all. I
fully support the idea of adjusting the salary range for your law
enforcement officers, particularly the information you provided
comparing like counties. It shows that we are woefully deficient on
most if not all of the law enforcement positions.
I am particularly concerned about those who are bumped
against the top of their salary range and who have been for some time,
as well as incoming and new hires. And so hopefully by some sort of
adjustment we can correct that. My main concern -- and really this is
the only concern of the board from our authority standpoint -- is from
where do we get the money to do this. There are a couple of different
ways which you can implement this, and you and I talked about that
Friday and the cost impact on those different ways.
I don't know about the others. I am fairly comfortable.
The deputies need their increase. I am much less comfortable with
where do we get the money to accomplish this between now and the next
fiscal year. For me that is the point that I would like to see you
work on with us today.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: When you said that we could work
toward adjusting these pay scales, you didn't mean the Board of County
Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, that's not our purview.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's where my point about
-- my thought about today's discussion is that the question is
whether or not we approve the budget amendment requested that I think
we're getting too much into the sheriff's business about how he spends
the money after it's allocated, appropriated to him. And that part of
that has made us a little uncomfortable like why is the constitutional
officer asking us about raises for his staff.
Well, he isn't, because we don't have authority over
raises for his staff. However, because of the time of year, it is
necessary to have a budget amendment to process those raises. And he
warned us that that was coming in the budget process. I would like to
have us today just focus are we or aren't we going to approve the
sheriff's request and not talk about how he spends the money that's
appropriated to his constitutional office. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then, I'll make a motion that we
approve the sheriff's request.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know that it is that
simple. Again, we had this discussion. I would love to hear from the
sheriff as part of this, but there are different scenarios in which --
we can't totally separate a plan from a discussion because when you
ask for a budget amendment, it has to be for a particular reason. As
I said, I am comfortable that the deputies need some sort of
adjustment there to catch up. But to suggest that the numbers put out
here are absolute and without fully understanding the implementation,
to understand how this affects the 28 new positions and 900,000 that
we set aside for that, to understand how this is going to impact our
millage rate going into next year are all important things, and we
can't simply ignore those.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the basis for my
questions. I'll put them up front and then you can address them as
you feel appropriate. This request consists of three parts; the
current $904,000 that was set in the reserves that is for salaries
next year if all hires are to occur. The second part is $619,000 in
excess turn-back that would be, in essence, credited to next year's
budget or make things easier next year. And the third part is
approximately $300,000 in realized savings above and beyond what was
expected in some area of workmen's comp. And so forth that has been
explained to me.
So those three total $1.8 million. Here is my concern.
The $619,000 alone represents a 1.4 percent total of the sheriff's
proposed budget. You add $300,000 in additional realized savings and
you have another .7 percent increase. My concern is not so much that
the pay plan as proposed is not needed. I don't think anyone here is
arguing that extensively. My concern is that you are already starting
next year 2.1 percent over the current budget without any salary
adjustments, any additional capital expenditures. We have already
looked at next year -- we don't have a crystal ball and it's foggy at
best -- and it's not looking like a good year. It's not looking like
the kind of year that can absorb heavy impacts.
So my concern is not just the immediacy of today but how
that is going to apply to your budget next year, and it's going to
make -- you know, it's kind of pay me now or pay me later. There is
only so much we can look at each year. And we are talking about an
additional 2.1 percent increase over a previous 4.6 percent that was
approved. That is going to carry into next year. That is where my
concern comes from is how this plays out year after year and the
accumulative effect.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Is that in the form of a question? Are
you requesting a response on that?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I'm requesting --
SHERIFF HUNTER: I would like to make a statement. I
would like to make a comment on that. To begin with, I think
perceptions are everything. And in the public's mind they need to see
this in the global view, the way that this has all come to pass from
back in 1988 when we participated with the Board of County
Commissioners in the pay study adopted by the then seated board. And
we implemented in 1989, January of 1989, a pay plan. It was to be
looked at again every other year, so we would make market adjustments
as the numbers would dictate so that we would remain in a competitive
position relative to other law enforcement agencies of our size.
And in that state-wide competitive market that we
participate for law enforcement, unfortunately those pay studies never
occurred. We did surveys each year on our own, and we tried to
maintain pace in terms of the cost of living and whatever adjustments
the board would permit as we worked with those seated boards and with
this board trying to meet your imposed caps on the budget each year
during the budget proposal process. That is a matter of fact, and
that's the way the process has worked.
I have left, since 1988, the base pay of deputy sheriffs
in place. And we hire people today at what we paid in 1988 numbers,
$20,751. That is no longer a competitive figure. What we have done
over a period of time though, for the public's benefit, is stay
exactly with the Board of County Commissioners in your policies
pertaining to budget caps and no adjustment to the pay plan, the pay
study that was conducted in 1988.
And the point is that that has all caught up to us now.
I am unable to fill positions the way that we need to fill positions
to maintain public safety. In order for us to be in a competitive
posture, we must pay money now regardless of what it costs me. I have
tried to reduce the cost of implementing this pay plan so that we
aren't faced with such a huge liability in future years. We are
phasing it in. We're trying to shoot for a midpoint and be
competitive, but we're certainly not going to top the scale. We're
not going to be the most competitive. We're not going to attract
people based on wages alone. We're hoping that other amenities and
benefits are going to continue to play in our favor so that we will
attract the right candidates into this area and put them into law
enforcement positions.
I know of your concern, Commissioner, because it's my
concern as well. It's my budget. You authorize the monies, but I
will stand responsible for the expenditure of the funds and for the
amount of money requested. I, too, am concerned about the numbers and
the way they came out. I tried to minimize that as much as possible
but still derive the benefit. The benefit is to put qualified law
enforcement and civilians in positions of public safety in the agency
in the numbers necessary to perform our duties so that we continue to
have a safe county.
I will be approaching you next year in rolling into our
budget proposal a number consistent with the pay study. And we will
try to find ways in the 1996-97 budget proposal of trying to minimize
impact so that the millage and the concerns over taxation are all
preserved, that we have those same concerns, we cooperate with you, we
try to do what we can to reduce the cost of government. I make that
promise to you as we have done in every other year.
And, again, we'll be talking about HSTU the end of the
calendar year. You may have adopted an ordinance that will separate
the sheriff's office from those other concerns of county government.
I will stand, again, alone to represent that budget. I will take
responsibility for it. I will explain it. I will justify it and,
hopefully, as I asked before, we will talk about other types of
funding sources when we come to this budget proposal process next
year. I'll work with you.
But I would like to see adequate pay, competitive pay
for the members of the Collier County's sheriff's office so that I may
attract and retain those qualified people necessary to perform public
safety here in Collier County. I am looking for your support.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, I've got a couple of
questions before we get into this really deep, because I am a little
bit concerned about the magnitude of the differences that this pay
plan study developed. You're currently undergoing a pay plan study
also; is that correct?
MR. DORRILL: As is the clerk.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: As is the clerk. The
implementation of this plan -- and I know we have heard a lot of
discussion over the last couple of days that the sheriff's deputies
ought to get an increase, but I never hear anybody talk about what the
magnitude of that increase is. We're looking at 30 percent for the
sheriff. Are you anticipating anything close to that?
MR. DORRILL: I am not, but I'm not going to try to
speculate on what they will be, because we're not even in receipt of a
draft yet, but it is surprising to think that they might increase by
30 percent of what I would call the civilian support positions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We don't have yet a first draft
on the pay plan?
MR. DORRILL: We expect one just prior to the holidays,
and the final draft would be sometime in January. We would hope to
present that as you prepare the budget policy and priorities, usually
February.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How would you expect -- and we're
always talking about improving morale -- how would you expect your
employees to feel if your pay plan study comes in at somewhere between
8 and 10 percent increase, yet the sheriff's comes in at 30 percent
increase, and we have now a disparity between secretary ones working
for the sheriff and secretary ones working for the manager? Are we
then going to have an employee drain going to the sheriff's department
who is proposing -- it looks like paying about $2,700 more a year than
ours would be if we had a 10-percent increase?
MR. DORRILL: I think that's probably a good question.
The understanding that I had from last week in my individual private
conversations with the commissioners is that you wanted to distinguish
between the two. And, frankly, I haven't heard or had a single
commissioner tell me that they were not willing to be an average
appropriator of road patrols sworn sheriff's positions. But I also
have not had a single commissioner tell me that you were anticipating
providing unbudgeted salary increases across the board in the
sheriff's department. And I don't think that we would have a
wholesale flight of employees, but I would think there would be a
morale problem. But I guess my question is that your number one
priority -- because I haven't heard any of you tell me thus far that
you're willing to --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need to clarify for a
moment, because I am assuming the board's direction two weeks ago was
to look at law enforcement officers now, and then we would look at
others. And I realize there are proposals here for the other -- what
we determined were two other tiers. But when we talked about how much
money we're talking about, somebody mentioned the 1.8 million. That
would be for the entire plan. So I want to make sure today that we're
following our direction of a couple of weeks ago and that today's
discussion is limited to law enforcement officers. And then after we
decide what to do here, we will move on and look at the other tiers.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It wasn't my understanding that
we told the sheriff we would only talk about law enforcement officers
in the last discussion. I thought we asked for him to please to go
away and divide his employees into three categories and let's look at
them in those three categories, but that today we would only talk
about law enforcement.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, you
made the motion that --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The motion was, in essence, to
look at how the study was structured because I felt that just a
straight agency comparison of all positions in the sheriff's office
was not truly appropriate because there are positions that compete at
statewide such as a deputy wants to work as a deputy he is going to
apply to several agencies throughout the state, or she is going to
apply to several agencies throughout the state. So you have some
statewide competition. I think the agency-to-agency comparison of
similar size is fair there.
Tier two, and these are not in -- and this is why there
was some great misunderstanding that these are levels of importance.
That's ridiculous. It was never stated nor implied. Tier two is a
position that generally you draw from a local pool. You may draw from
outside of the county, but really where we are is on-the-job training,
specialization and so forth. In other words, attracting those people
is not as difficult as retaining them once they get trained.
And tier three is what I call local pool, the type of
position that you have to advertise locally for that you aren't going
to draw somebody from St. Lucie County to come do the job. It was for
purposes of comparison.
Now, there was a very clear statement that we all
recognized what was presented that the entire report was structured
the way we would look at tier one. You had a certified law
enforcement officer, the jail deputies, the ones that have to go
through academy-type classes. You know, that is a statewide
competitive position. The entire study was done on that basis for all
employees.
And so my motion was to structure -- look at the
structure of the study and tailor it to what the competitive group of
potential applicants would be. Now, what has come back is the study
was changed to include only those agencies that we identified, but the
study was still structured the same.
COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: I emphasize that, too, because I
hope everybody got the same packet that I got from Ms. Kinzel when we
met. And one of sheets of paper that is included in there is an
implementation cost by tier. I think they have been very responsive
to what I thought -- the information request I had anyway. Maybe we
all had different things in our minds, but I just wanted to point out
that they have divided the request into tier one, which is the
certified law enforcement officers that wewre talking about; that
request is about a million three fifty; that tier two, which I think
is described as you just described it, is $300,000 of the request; and
tier three, again, following the description that you just gave, is
about $150,000 of the request. So I think that they did break it
down. They didnwt give a new report from their consultants, but they
did give us to my satisfaction those numbers.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. One of the things we did
was compare to like positions. And before I am going to be prepared
to vote on tier three, for example, secretary positions, I want to
know -- and I donwt think wewre prepared to do this today -- I want to
know from Mr. Dotrill what ours are, what we anticipate perhaps what
our checks will be.
I received yesterday from the clerk of the circuit court
what they may do, and I would just like to go and compare those. And
the sheriff and his staff were kind enough to pull all of that
together for the sworn officers, and I am prepared to take some action
on that today. But we do not have all that information on the other
divisions, so my recollection of the motion was that we handle these
one at a time, and that wewre prepared today to handle tier one.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Youwve done what I initially
asked for in tier one and that is you separated out the number of
positions as I understand from my meeting with your representatives
yesterday, you were talking about road patrol through captain, law
enforcement officers. Wewre talking about certified jail deputies.
Wewre talking about servers of, I guess, dangerous warrants or heavier
conflicting situations. And there is one more that I am missing there.
But it seems that tier one were all academy-type -- you know, I
mean, statewide competitive positions and so forth.
So I donwt argue the accuracy of the tier one numbers.
But what I noticed yesterday when we were talking about this, we
classify as certified positions from what the sheriff classifies it
for, the classifications may read the same, but the explanation I was
getting was the job description is completely different.
COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: Thatws the same explanation that
I got.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, again, I donwt want us
to get off too far. The intent in my understanding is I am not
prepared for tier two or tier three today. Let's deal with tier one
which is -- correct me again Commissioner Hancock if am mistaken. I
thought that was the focus today. We were going to look at that. We
have all our comparative figures here for tier one. Let's deal with
what we do have instead of saying, well, we don't know this, we don't
know that about two and three.
I don't think there is any urgency. We can do tier two
a week from now or two weeks from now. As long as we continue to move
forward, I suspect we can still deal with those. But let's take care
of the law enforcement officers immediately and not fool around with
the other stuff.
SHERIFF HUNTER: If I may make a comment --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sheriff Hunter.
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- pertaining to some of the issues
that we're raising during this discussion amongst board members.
First of all, I would like to make certain that the record is clear
that the agency has been responsive to the request for information, to
the manner in which the information was requested to be formatted,
that we have even followed up to make certain that we were responsive.
I hope that that is the case. If not I would be hearing it for the
first time today.
I believe we have been responsive in terms of providing
the information. I would like to remind the board in our last meeting
and in the meeting before when Bakingham Griffith (phonetic)
representative Carol Long spoke, she was very careful to make the
board aware of the fact that even in these so-called tier two, tier
three positions that are not certified positions, that local market
information was included in the study and has resulted in the
findings, the results that even these tier two and tier three local
market positions are out of sync with the competitive market
conditions here in Collier County.
And that I believe -- we have the representative here.
Carol Long is here to address those issues and respond to your
questions. But my understanding is that that was a region-wide study
that was conducted that she rolled into this overall study. And it
did look at the local market -- the local market position that you're
concerned with, Commissioner Hancock. So that would be incorporated
in the study.
Those positions are as much a concern for me as any. We
can't compete against the county manager for a couple of reasons. The
clerk typists in the sheriff's office -- just as an example, records
bureau work shifts or we try to have them work shifts. As you noted
in an article today, not necessarily complementary to the agency,
we're down about half of what we're allocated. I can't retain those
people. I can't retain our clerk typists in records bureau. I can't
hire them. I can't hire them new because we're not competing well
against board and similar other governmental agencies. Why would a
person come to work for me for less wage, same benefits or less,
working shift work, missing holidays, missing evenings with their
family, missing weekends with their family if they can come right
across the street and work for you or some other governmental agency,
the tax collector, Guy Carlton or Abe Skinner? That's really the
issue.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me just a minute. Can
we poll the board and see if the general consensus on the board -- and
if we're looking at all three today, that's fine. My recollection is
that we're not, but if we weren't, then I would just assume not waste
a lot of time doing that. If we are I need to know.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have the same problem. I'm
finding some discrepancies between what the sheriff is proposing as
entry level wages and what -- I got the same report from the clerk and
what the clerk is proposing for his entry level wages considering the
fact that the manager is also doing a pay plan study. And his
probably won't come out this high either if the whole study isn't
flawed with just these being as high as they are. And that is what my
concern is. We're not just talking about $2,000 or $2,500 an employee,
we're talking about a lot more.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we have a long
discussion on this, can we determine, yes, we're dealing with two and
three today or, no, we're not? Because if we're not, there is no need
to go on with that discussion today. We can do that another day and
let's focus on --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have consensus on tier one?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, that's what we're trying to
find out. Commissioner Norris, are you prepared to deal with tiers
one, two and three?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it's my understanding that
we were going to concentrate on tier one today and perhaps save two
and three for another discussion at a time to be determined, but I
don't recall that we were going to do all three today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, I think we are comfortable
with tier one because the sheriff has identified what that includes
and a dollar amount with that, so I'm ready to go ahead on that. I do
think if we do have issues with tier two and three that we know of
today, we need to articulate those to the sheriff and his folks can
answer that so that we don't start from scratch. So I would like to
do that on tier one and maybe a little open discussion on two and
three with any concerns discussed.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That is also my opinion that we
were only going to be materially addressing tier one.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My recollection is like
Commissioner Norris. We'll deal with tier one. I think once we have
concluded that discussion, Commissioner Hancock's idea is a good one
that we could give you whatever questions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have just a question maybe for
the county attorney. It seems to me that this position is odd in the
face of our all having to see these constitutional officers requesting
a budget amendment. We approve it or we don't. Can we divide this
up? I guess we can do whatever we want. Are we going to divide up
his request or tell him to go away and come back for part of it next
time? I just think it's not appropriate, I guess, is what I am going
to say. I think that absolutely we have to do a pay plan study, and
we absolutely have to be sure that the county manager's agency is
paying for specialized positions in its labor pool, clerical kind of
positions in accordance with the market. But we have dragged this for
so long that I would like to at least get the information on the table
today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you what I think is
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I could finish this,
Commissioner Constantine. You're so touchy about that. I would
appreciate the same sort of courtesy that you would require. I would
like to hear from -- at least hear from the sheriff on tiers two and
three today. I was prepared to make decisions on all of those,
because I think out of deference to a constitutional officer we ought
to respond to the entire request. I would lose on that discussion.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I think when you say it
is inappropriate that we not do this and that we need to all today or
drag it on too long. We have continued it from two weeks ago. This
is the first time we've heard this. So it hasn't gone on too long.
There is no rush. We need to come to the appropriate decision and
take care of the personnel here and make sure they have appropriate
pay. But whether that happens 14 days after the sheriff first brings
it to us or 21 days, I think that what we have a responsibility to do
and what is appropriate is as guardians of the public tax dollar and
know what it is that we're spending and for -- what request it is,
have some basis in fact and when we're going to do that.
Two weeks ago it wasn't complete, and we asked the
sheriff, and he has responded and much of it is complete now. It is
not complete in levels two and three. To go another seven days is not
going to do any harm to decide what is appropriate. What's
appropriate is to be able to clearly answer the question before we
vote to spend nearly two million tax dollars.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think the majority of the board
has already agreed that we're only going to vote on tier one today, so
what we agree or disagree about is irrelevant.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Instead of sitting here and
discussing what we're going to discuss, let me ask a pertinent
question. I have a couple of questions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sheriff Hunter, our material here
says that this budget request would represent a full year
implementation of the plan alone. Actually we're part of the way into
the year already and then it will take you some time to gear up. So
my question is you probably don't really need for us to budget in the
full request even for tier one because we're dealing with a part year
already?
SHERIFF HUNTER: I assume we're referring to the
executive summary, October 30, 19957 Would that be correct?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. This is just a little
material that we got today in our executive summary and it says the
full year implementation of this plan would cost an estimated $2.4
million including benefits.
SHERIFF HUNTER: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The full year is the point that I
am getting to.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Right. The one that is before you this
morning is just a partial-year funding of 1.8 million which would be
the cost of the pay adjustment to market with the benefits included.
And then, of course, next year for a full year's implementation we
would be looking at -- we estimate $2.4 million. So that would be the
full year that we're referring to there.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. Now, someone answer
the question for me. If we budget the sheriff's request for tier one
today, does the sheriff still have the latitude to place that in any
of the tiers that he wants to?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the point.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So it's immaterial for us to sit
here and discuss which tier we're going to discuss.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The point is to discuss how much
money we are going to give him.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Hay I -- for purposes of clarifying the
record for one more time? There was a suggestion made earlier -- a
comment from Chairman Matthews -- that we had a 30-percent adjustment
to the wages to come to competitive status, and I want to make certain
that members who are watching this telecast or members of the audience
or members of the media recognize that I believe the 30-percent figure
is to the base wages for the entry-level members of the agency and not
a 30-percent adjustment to the personal services.
I believe the personal service adjustment is going to be
about 5 percent if we add this 1.8 million in to the current personal
service budget of the agency which is about 82 percent of the budget
-- and I recognize that law enforcement is very much labor intensive
-- and I think if you compare us to other agencies, law enforcement
agencies, you will find the same thing, about 82 percent of budget is
personal services.
So just for record clarification, it's about a 5 percent
adjustment to personal services. Some of the positions in the agency
will receive more than others. We're only going to midpoint in the
study of the comparative agencies, and we did use other local agency
comparisons as well. As far as this -- I think I must say for the
record that I have been cooperating. We have provided the board all
the information necessary to make the decision, we believe.
We've got a legitimate, bona fide, valid study before
you. I have asked for $1.8 million dollars as a budget adjustment. I
have given you some ideas where to come up with the money. I can't
determine that because that is not permitted by law. But I can say
whatever you give, I will use to my best benefit to make the Collier
County sheriff's office whole again, to recruit, to retain the
qualified people of the agency.
Now, what I need is $1.8 million. I am prepared to
discuss as long as you want to discuss all of the various tiers as the
board wants it broken down. But ultimately what I'm really asking for
is $1.8 million. Let me implement my pay study as -- my pay grades as
we see fit. The pay grades are set by the agency and not by the
board, just for the benefit of the public. It is a separate agency.
It's a separate constitutional agency, and I'm providing you the
information because you're interested in that.
Certainly, the board has a concern. You're going to
have to pay competitive wages for similar positions. So if you find
shift workers in your group that might come over to the sheriff's
office for one reason or another, certainly you need to be informed
about that and pay competitive wages. The clerk typists or
secretarial positions -- sometimes those will be similar positions --
although we type rape reports, homicide reports, things that we're not
permitted to release to the public, very sensitive confidential
information, information on terrorists groups. I can go down the
whole list.
We try to compare job tasks to job tasks, not position
title to position title because they aren't similar in the sheriff's
office, not in fire department, nor in other types of related types of
agencies. CIA secretaries are different than Department of Labor
secretaries or secretaries in the Department of Transportation. That
is just the way it is. The titles are the same, but they're different
functions.
I invite the board to look at the function descriptions
and to analyze the study as we have to look at job task analysis and
job function. This is what really this is about. But I'm really only
here to ask for an amendment -- a consideration of an amendment for
1.8 million which would satisfy the implementation for the partial
year and then know that.
Again, for the record, I will be coming back in future
proposals to adjust this to the tune of about an estimated $2.4
million to fund this pay adjustment so that we remain competitive.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At the beginning of that
comment I believe that you had suggested in certain ways in which we
could fund this. Obviously it is up to us to decide. Can you run
through a "60-second-or-less" synopsis of what you see as those
alternatives or those options?
SHERIFF HUNTER: In the executive summary of the 30th of
October we made reference to three different items, if you will,
categories of funds. One was the $300,000. This has been alluded to
earlier by, I believe, Commissioner MAc'Kie. I don't recall who it
was. But $300,000 in savings -- Commissioner Hancock. $300,000 in
savings on the health program that we have, that we have been working
with local providers on. $600,000 in turn-back monies from last year
that was unbudgeted formerly. We also turned back about $619,000 that
had been obligated, I understand. So really about 1.2 million that
the agency turned back. We're asking for consideration of 600,000 of
that 1.2 in savings that we returned to the board.
And then there was the reserve for attrition, $904,600
that as we go along this year, we're not being competitive in this
market, we're not filling positions. We're still running about 75
short. Of course, we're spending unbudgeted overtime monies to try to
accommodate the agency right now. And I don't know where we are going
to be at the end of the year in terms of our overtime budget, but
right now it's a very bad omen if we continue going it the way we are
going. Two hundred and fifteen hours of overtime just for the Cracker
Barrel investigation that is going on right today. And we can't
predict that any better than you can.
I can say that the public safety positions left unfilled
will consume overtime monies that we intentionally didn't budget,
thinking ahead, thinking that we were trying to come in with this
millage neutral budget this year. We tried to -- and I know I went
over my 60 seconds, didn't I? Okay. 904,000 from the attrition
reserve, 600,000 in unbudgeted turn-back, and $300,000 in health
program safety.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me run through these one
at a time. $300,000 health savings, that is money that you didn't
have to budget this year because it was cheaper than it was last year;
is that right? Help me with where that $300,000 is sitting right now.
Is that somewhere in your budget?
SHERIFF HUNTER: That's right now in our budget.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In your budget?
SHERIFF HUNTER: And we think we're going to have that
as a turn-back next year.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So theoretically you could
include that as part of your pay plan investment. We would never see
it as a turn-back next year but, in essence, we're shuffling paper
there?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Right. I'm just making you aware of
that. We believe we are going to save that based on some of the
discussions we recently had with the providers.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So setting aside the paper
shuffling, your request for unbudgeted funds drops then to 1.5 million
because the 300 would be turn-back? SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The turn-back. I need the
county manager's help on this. We have 619,000, is that right,
turn-back this past year?
MR. DORRILL: In excess of a million. The actual
turn-back is 600,000 higher than what was actually budgeted.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was budgeted. Six
hundred over and above. Help me with how -- there is a state statute
requirement if there's money left over it is turned back. I know
that. But then what is the county's practice with whatever is turned
back? What happens to that money?
MR. DORRILL: The money that is turned back becomes your
beginning fund balance on October 1st, because you don't begin to
receive new tax money at the earliest until the end of November when
property taxes are due. And we use that for cash flow and to meet our
obligations for the first two months of the fiscal year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So that is used for a
particular purpose. That is just not money that is given back to us
set aside in a piggy bank somewhere?
MR. DORRILL: We try to budget that as close as we
obviously can, because otherwise we would be making that up with new
property tax dollars, and we don't want to intentionally under budget
our estimated turn-backs from all of the agency managers. And we
don't want to over budget either. But that is a very, very important
source of beginning fund revenue at the beginning of the year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the last one on the
904,000 that was set aside in reserves, we talked about this on
Friday. Help step me through this. My recollection was that that was
essentially for the 28 new positions that as they were filled, that
money would go toward that and you said it could be for additional
positions -- or coincidentally 28 equals 900,000. My question is if
we do the pay plan adjustment with 900,000, how then do we pay for any
of those 28 new positions that are filled?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, to begin with, those 28 new
positions -- I reviewed the minutes from that workshop and from
subsequent public hearings. The $904,600 was referred to as reserves
for attrition representing about 3 percent of the personal service
budget. The actual cost of 28 positions is about $933,000. And what
we've done, of course, is try to attract and begin hiring those
positions, but that's phased in over the course of a year. Already
there's some savings there because for three months we haven't been
able to attract and retain people. We're also running vacancies in
some positions we haven't forecast. There was 3 percent of the
personal service budget on the civilian side that was deducted
immediately that we took out of the budget that did not -- we never
say that. We didn't ask for that.
What happens to those positions as we go along, of
course, unable to fill those positions, we are building what you
consider a reserve as a vacancy factor. Of course, some of that is
going to overtime. I do have a concern about those 28 positions being
funded. Ultimately if you use the 904,000, this is a way still of
funding this pay study.
I would remind the board that the 600,000 in the
turn-back -- unobligated turn-back -- that the board might use from
October to December for your initial start-up year, we're not
requesting that 600,000 until after January. So you would be well
clear of your three-month start up period, your first quarter before
we would request any drawn down on the 600,000 unobligated. I think
we would be beyond that period.
MR. DORRILL: If I could just to make a little more
clarity here. The board actually began this discussion the preceding
January or February. You adopted the fiscal policy and at the
recommendation of the Greater Naples Citizen Association and your
productivity committee, put in the budget the fiscal policy that all
agency managers were to budget for attrition at 3 percent.
And as we got late into the summer, the sheriff had a
concern about that. As he stated at the workshop, he didn't have
attrition on the sworn deputy side. Whether he does or he doesn't, we
never really have seen the figures to support that one way or the
other. In any event, at the final budget workshop, the board made the
decision to require or to force the sheriff to budget for attrition as
had every other agency manager, and you elected to put that in a
separate reserve. And the rationale for that at that time that if he
experienced problems during the course of the year because he was not
having attrition, then you would let him come back and have a
supplemental budget request.
Somehow we've gotten this confused where this is special
money to help give across-the-board pay increases or somehow
associated with the new deputies that were separately approved.
Frankly, that's just a coincidence. The money for the 28 new deputies
has been in his budget from the very beginning of the year. The 3
percent was to bring him into compliance with your attrition policy
requirements from the preceding January.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one final question.
This is to the manager rather than the sheriff. We did a -- on a
system-wide -- but we did a pay plan adjustment of some sort sometime
in the last two years. Mr. Ochs came in and picked particular
positions that needed to be adjusted. When we did that, did every
employee in those areas get the raise? Did only those who were coming
in new or on the bottom level? Did we take care of those who had hit
the ceiling? How did we do that?
MR. DORRILL: That would bring me to my final
recommendation. Again, this has nothing to do with the sheriff's
position, pay plan, or what he chooses to pay employees. But because
you are the source of appropriation, you are the only one that can
dole out the money. The implement -- or how he implements or how he
intends to implement his pay plan isn't important. When we have done
pay plan maintenance in the past, we only did it in those individual
instances where we felt we were not competitive and only those
employees were adjusted for those specific instances.
Under the sheriff's plan that has been prepared by the
consultant, practically every sworn position in the department is
going to get a pay increase. And my concern is that we are sort of
backing our way into this. We backed our way into it because our entry
level salaries were not sufficient to attract new deputies. And then
somehow now we're talking about today where everyone -- practically
everyone over there in a sworn position is going to get a special pay
increase.
And I had some discussion with Ms. Kinzel and asked the
sheriff specifically for some information last week. That is what I
said. I don't think there is a commissioner here who is not willing
to fund increases to make us competitive, but I don't -- I want you to
distinguish between that and giving every single person sworn in the
department some sort of pay increase, because there are less costly
appropriation options that I think you're entitled to.
And I think, frankly, if you go to the proposal that I
had made to the sheriff which is to bring everyone to new entry, of if
he has employees who have some seniority or some longevity to take
them to step one or step two where everybody either goes to new entry
or 5 percent, you can cut in half the proposal and still remain
competitive, which I thought was the key phrase here. Because to do
otherwise then is going to have some serious implications to next
year's budget. And I sent you a memo a month ago saying that fully
funded and everything else being equal, this would take at least a
tenth-of-a-mil increase in the property tax rate just for the sheriff.
And that doesn't take into account the fact that all of the sales
tax is going to be used to build roads next year and the general fund
will not have any sales tax in it, and I think that you should proceed
cautiously as it relates to the appropriation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, can we tell the
sheriff how to spend the money, how we appropriate or is our role
merely to appropriate the funds? I need to get that clear, because
from what Mr. Dotrill just said, I may think that Mr. Dotrill is
right, and so I may vote to only give 500,000 for this budget
amendment. Can I then require that the sheriff implement Mr.
Dorrill's suggestion or is it his $500,000, and he can spend it how he
sees fit?
MR. WEIGEL: I believe that it's the latter part of your
statement that ultimately you make or approve a request for an
amendment. Whether you do it all in one occasion or not is your
prerogative, but the amendment request shall be heard in its entirety
and decided in its entirety ultimately.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For example, if we give the
sheriff a million dollars today and urge him to adopt what Mr. Dotrill
just described, because that's the way his agency does it and that's
the way -- five to nothing, we think that's the way it ought to be
done, we have no control over how he spends the money after it leaves
the room. So let's just not be confused about that is my only point.
SHERIFF HUNTER: May I make another statement just for
clarification, actually two or three statements? There are a number
of members, we estimate anywhere from 80 to 90 members, who will
receive no adjustment under the pay study, the competitive wage study.
We also have looked inside the pay study. We looked at
this wage analysis as an effort to determine who should be adjusted
and who should not be adjusted. I did not give any marching orders to
the consultant to direct them to adjust everybody in the agency. I
merely said look at the market, determine who needs to be adjusted up
to a competitive wage based on their job tasks, on their comparative
job tasks, and tell me what you find. And she found that there were a
number -- maybe it's a hundred -- we estimate around 88 that will
receive no adjustment under the wage analysis, because they are
currently being paid at what, I believe, is a reasonable wage.
The remainder -- and each one was analyzed to determine
what their current competitiveness would be with the rest of the
market -- the remainder of them should receive some number. It's not
30 percent. It may be only a couple of percent and it varies
depending upon position. But I don't want the board to believe that
we have indiscriminately gone and said that everyone who is receiving
some across-the-board wage adjustment -- it is a very definitive and
complex analysis that has looked at each of the pay grades, each of
the members inside those pay grades and has defined what level of
adjustment is necessary to maintain some competitiveness.
The other part is that $904,600. Again, I believe I was
responsive. It certainly was my intention to be responsive during the
budget process when you asked that we consider the 3 percent attrition
figure as the Greater Naples Civic Association had suggested. I did
budget out -- I took out 3 percent of the civilian side of the agency,
which is a large portion of the agency. We've been trying to
civilianize those portions of the agency that can be civilianized that
don't require a certified deputy sheriff either in jails or law
enforcement to perform.
That 3 percent was budgeted out. I didn't even ask you
for that money. The other portion of that 3 percent of law
enforcement side or jail side, the public safety side of the agency,
we discussed. We had that discussion during the proposal process, and
that was set aside. Now, we're asking that some consideration be
given. If you need to find some money, perhaps some of that money can
be spent. We're already three months in. You know, it takes me three
months to hire a person. Our outlook is not that good for the next
three months, because we're not competitive. We need to find some
money to become competitive, otherwise I am not going to fill
positions. And you know it will be true, it will come to pass that
the 3 percent that has been reserved will not be spent because we
can't fill patrol positions.
So I am asking that that be a consideration. There may
be a portion of that money or it may be all of that money that we can
spend to get the pay back up to competitive so that we can fill
positions in the agency. We're also running some civilian position
attrition beyond the 3 percent that will continue as long as we are
not competitive with market. So I guess my point is that $904,000
still represents candidate money that can be applied towards as
partial funding toward this wage adjustment so that we can become
competitive and fill positions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions, Commissioner
Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions?
MR. DORRILL: Public speakers.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sure we do. Public speakers,
Mr. Dotrill.
MR. DORRILL: There are -- Lieutenant Nickel. Mr.
Walker if I could have you stand by, please.
LIEUTENANT NICKEL: Good afternoon. For the record my
name is Lieutenant Doug Nickel with the Collier County Sheriff's
office. I'm going to read a letter to you which I would like to
submit to you for the record. My reason for being here is that I
supervise a large number of civilian employees with the sheriff's
office, and I would like to state, as I think Mr. Hancock pointed out,
it is important for us to recognize the relative contribution of the
civilian employees as compared to the law enforcement officers. I
would like to point out that when you look at the effectiveness in law
enforcement in Collier County, we're not just talking about the
deputies that drive the patrol cars around and carry the guns, we're
also talking about the civilian employees who are the backbone.
What that brings us supports the jobs of those certified
deputies who give then direction, and in the case of the people that
work in my bureau, the crime intelligence bureau, give them specific
direction as to specific areas where they should address most of their
attention. So I would just like to state when we look at this I would
like for you to seriously consider -- if this is not the time for you
to look at it, then later, but it is important that we keep these
civilian persons in mind and how much they mean to us.
I'll read this to you and submit it for the record.
"For several years I have supervised a very specialized and
professional group of civilians and certified personnel in this
agency's crime intelligence bureau. Among these are the crime
analysts who produce a great amount of tactical and strategic
information which is extensively used by agency certified deputies.
I'm concerned that their training and experience, their contribution
to the agency enforcement operations, and their commitment to these
duties as a career, may have been underestimated.
"It is my understanding that crime analysts are
considered by the commission to be part of a lower tier of importance
to the public safety," and if I have misunderstood that, I apologize,
"and that these positions may be easily filled as needed. Neither
premise is true; in fact, much to the contrary they play a vital role
in support of agency efforts to prevent, reduce, and solve crime. And
due to the depth of knowledge required to perform their duties, they
are very difficult to replace.
"Crime analysts identify areas of concentrated criminal
activity to targets for focussed enforcement effort. They analyze
great amounts of data to identify potential leads and suspects, saving
certified deputies countless hours of legwork. And, finally, they
provide a significant amount of statistical information to the general
public, information that is used to increase awareness in safety and
to stimulate area growth.
"As you consider your position on sheriff's office pay
increases, I urge you to carefully consider the importance of the
contributions of crime analysts and all other civilian personnel to
the overall effectiveness of enforcement operations. Host persons
entering law enforcement do so with a career in mind. And those
pursuing civilian positions are no exception. They're every bit as
dedicated as their certified partners, and they deserve to be treated
accordingly. Thank you very much for your consideration in this
matter."
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Walker and Mr. Baker, if we could have
you stand by, please.
MR. WALKER: Good afternoon. My name is Jake Walker. I
work for the sheriff's office in the Immokalee substation. I just
want to take a few minutes to briefly go over some things. I was
there for the last meeting when one of the commissioners raised the
point of maybe threat level in the community, and I think it was maybe
taken out of context, perhaps. So I had planned to speak on that. I
would like to briefly touch on that, but I have some other things I
would like to go over as well.
I compiled some numbers just to the four deputies --
four of those deputies are sitting in this room today -- of actual
physical arrests that were made by the deputies during this year.
These four deputies have made 8 grand theft auto arrests, 5 robbery
arrests, 2 murder arrests, 19 burglary arrests, 10 possession of
narcotics arrests, 8 for aggravated battery, 1 for escape, 2 for
sexual battery, 2 for possession of concealed firearm. These numbers
only total 57 felony arrests made by these four deputies this year
when, in fact, we've made 109 of felonies this year and a total of 453
arrests for the year, just these four deputies.
My point is these are arrests where someone has done
something that is extremely bad, and they don't want their freedom
restricted because they know they're going to be going away presumably
for some length of time. And we have deputies out on the road that
are making these kinds of arrests every day in every community in this
county. It's a very dangerous job. Even mine are misdemeanor arrests
that you may think the perpetrator won't be violent. His freedom is
still about to be restricted when we get ready to place him under
arrest. So even those type of arrests are extremely dangerous.
I would like to tie these numbers into some of the
civilian employees, our dispatchers namely. That's a job that I think
personally myself and most road deputies within this agency would not
have that job for anything in the world. Those people sit in a room
in front of a computer console and blinking lights and ringing
telephones. It is an enormously stressful job, and they deal with it
for eight hours a day. There's no way on earth I could do that job.
And we could not be effective without them. It's an enormously
technical job that requires a lot of training. And it's a division
within the agency that pays a lot of overtime because of attrition, I
believe.
I would also like to say something about the proposed
starting salary and the top-out fee, the top-out figure. I'm in the
United States Marine Corps Reserves, and there are a lot of college
students in the reserves, a lot of college students who are planning a
career in law enforcement. So I have the ability to talk to a lot of
my fellow reserve members about possible employment here in Collier
County. Our reserve unit is located in Palm Beach County, so we have
a lot of east coast reservists. Many of them are working on their
four-year degrees in criminal justice. And I can tell you, and I'm
not proud to say this, but in speaking with several members of my
reserve unit, when they ask me what the starting salary is, because
they're serious about searching for a job around the state, they
literally laugh when I tell them what the starting salary is, and it
is embarrassing.
It is not embarrassing for me personally only. It's
embarrassing for this community, a community of this size with the
wealth that we have and with the up-and-coming crime problem that we
have for people to have that kind of an outlook. But they're not only
asking about the starting salaries, they're asking about what kind of
salary they're going to be making 10 or 15 years from now, because law
enforcement is an endeavor that you get into as a long-term career.
I'd like to make a comment also on Ms. Matthews'
statement where she questioned the validity of the pay survey. I had
the occasion to work for two years in Palm Beach County as a police
officer. The starting salary over there for most agencies -- there
are 33 police departments in Palm Beach County -- is around twenty-six
or twenty-six five for most agencies up to or above $30,000 a year.
So if we're going to remain competitive or if we're going to become
competitive with other agencies around the state, I think we're in
dire need of passing this pay survey.
My final comment I would like to make is on the crime
problem here in the county. A lot of us like to think that there
isn't a problem, and it is a beautiful community to live in. That was
one of the deciding factors in my wife and I moving over here. My
wife is from this area. We wanted to raise our children in a
relatively conservative community where we could raise them with the
kind of moral values that we wanted to in a nice community.
I'll go ahead and close now, but the crime problem is
here; it's growing. And we need to head it off by getting qualified
law enforcement and civilian employees to be working within the
community here. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Baker.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As soon as the next speaker
comes up I want to mention one thing there. I thought I had corrected
this one, Jim, last week, and maybe I wasn't clear enough, because I
got some comments during the week. My intent surely was not to
suggest that officers, as they go about their day-to-day duties have
any less stress anywhere. And I think I referenced my hometown of
Bangor, Maine last week because it's a small town, 30,000 people, and
it doesn't matter whether you're there or in Miami. When people pull
their car over, you still don't know what awaits you when you get to
the window. That wasn't my intention.
My intention when I made that comparison last week was
as the last speaker just said if you have a choice of where to live,
often times what we have is a reputation is that conservative, quiet.
And unfortunately as evidenced this past week, it's not always true.
But when you think of in the big picture -- certainly not day-to-day.
But when you think of the big picture, often Collier County is thought
of anyway as a more quiet and conservative place than, say, Dade
County. And that's why I apologize if that wasn't clear a couple of
weeks back.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Baker and then Mr. Minch.
MR. BAKER: Good afternoon. My name is Mark Baker, and
I am a deputy with the sheriff's officer here in Collier County. I
work in the road patrol division in Immokalee. I'd like to address
the commission on a couple of points in reference to the proposed pay
increase. I am going into my seventh year as a law enforcement
officer. I've worked in Collier County, Monroe County, and Dade
County and Broward County with the state agency.
Being a police office or deputy sheriff is no different
there than it is working here. Law enforcement lives are on the line
every day no matter where we are employed. What most people don't
realize is that police officers -- it's not an ordinary nine-to-five
job. As Sheriff Hunter said, even our civilian staff is not nine to
five. We do work shift work. And being a police officer is
definitely not nine to five.
We're police officers 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
This includes being under public scrutiny in everything we do no
matter if we're off duty or on duty. We have to set examples and take
action in every -- and any violations of the law whether we're in the
patrol unit, on the way to work, at work, coming from work, or just
going to dinner with our families. If a violation of the law happens,
we should by rights take action, because we are under scrutiny.
All law enforcement officers strive to be number one in
performing in the utmost professional manner. The Collier County
commission should want the sheriff's office to be the best it can be
and be number one and aid us in the battle of winning our streets
back.
At this time, I would like to finish with just a short
story or a poem, if you would, on what policemen are made of. A
policeman is a composite of what all men are, a mingling of saint and
sinner, dust and beauty. Cold statistics wave the sand over the
stinkers, underscore instances of dishonesty and brutality because
they are exceptional, unusual, not common place. Buried under the
froth is the fact that less than 1 percent of policemen fit the
uniform. That's a better average than you find among most clergymen.
What is a policeman made of? He of all men is at once
the most needed and the most unwanted. He is a strangely nameless
creature who serves his face and flows to his back. He must be such a
diplomat that he can settle differences between individuals so that
each will think he won. But if the policeman is neat he is
conceited. If he is cheerless, he's a bum. If he's pleasant, he's a
flirt; if he's not, he's a grouch. He must make instant decisions
which would require months for a lawyer. But if he hurries, he is
fearless. If he's deliberate, he's lazy.
He must be first to an accident and infallible with a
diagnosis. A policeman must be able to start breathing, stop
bleeding, tie splints and above all be sure the victim goes home
without a limp or expect to be sued. That's personally and the
department. The police officer must know every gun, draw on the run,
and hit where it doesn't hurt. He must be able to whip two men twice
his size and half his age without damaging his uniform and without
being brutal.
If you hit him, he is a coward. If he hits you, he is a
bully. A policeman must know everything and not tell. He must know
where all the sin is and not partake. The policeman must from a
single human hair be able to describe the crime, the weapon, and the
criminal and tell you where the criminal is hiding. But if he catches
the criminal, he is lucky. If he doesn't, he's a dunce. If he gets
promoted, he has political pull. If he doesn't, he's a dullard.
The policeman must chase bone leads to a dead end, stake
out ten nights to tag one witness who saw it all but refuses to
remember or cooperate. He runs, files, and writes reports until his
eyes ache to build a case against some felon who will get dealt out by
shameless shamus or an honorable who isn't. The policeman must be a
minister, a social worker, a diplomat, a tough guy, and a gentlemen.
And, of course, he'll have to be a genius for he'll have
to feed a family on a policeman's salary. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Minch.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You don't handle recruitment for
the sheriff, do you?
MR. HINCH: And he's darn good at it. My name is Harold
Hinch, and I'm a deputy for the sheriff's office also. I work out in
Immokalee. I'm one of the four deputies Jake Walker spoke about.
I've worked on the other side of the state also. I was a sergeant for
the City of Delray Beach up until 1990 when I returned to the
University of Florida to get a degree. I think I am typical of a lot
of the people we have here who have moved back to this community
because they love it, because their families live here, because their
mothers, their sisters, as mine do, live in this community, and we
find it important to protect it.
Unfortunately, what we're faced with at this point is
whether or not, with our education and our abilities, we can afford to
stay here and spend 25 years guarding your citizens as you guard our
tax dollars. I appreciate your fervor in trying to save us money.
However, what do we get for that money? That is what you need to ask
yourself.
I'm also on the recruiting team. I went to my own alma
mater in October, October 12th and attempted to recruit people to come
here from the college. I stood in front of all of them and told them
about the great things we have here. My wife is a school teacher. We
have a wonderful school system. It's a beautiful place. But
unfortunately most of us are paying off school loans. And when they
look at school loans, the rent on their apartment, the small car loan
most of them have, and what it costs to eat here, they can't do it.
You can't put it together.
I'm lucky my wife works for the school system. We're
very well paid or I certainly couldn't do it. I would be standing
here in tattered clothes I'm afraid. And all I ask is that when you
guard our tax dollars you realize we pay them, too. My taxes are
going up. I live in Lakewood. And they're certainly going to go up.
But unfortunately you have to bite the bullet at some point and say we
deserve the best, not middle of the road. We deserve the best.
I think in Collier County there is no reason we
shouldn't be first in absolutely everything. That's the way we
approach it. That's all I accept, that's all I hope Sheriff Hunter
accepts. I know that's what he expects of me every day when I go to
Immokalee. I love my job. I want to keep doing it. I know the rest
-- I've been here for every meeting you've had on this issue, and
I'll continue to come if we put it off again. I'll continue to come
for the civilian employees who support me everyday, for the
dispatchers, for the clerk typists, the people that do the job so I
don't have to do it, so I can be out there watching your mother, your
family, your sisters, your cars, your property, and everything else.
So I hope when you vote for the money, you include us
and you include them, and you think about what we did in exchange for
those tax dollars and who we can bring here because there is no makeup
in law enforcement. To make a police officer takes a long time for a
community. It's not something that we can go buy. If we get five
years behind the eight ball, we can't go out and buy five-year police
officers. It's not possible. We have to make them. We have to craft
them. We have to mold them, and it takes a long time. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Nind and then Ms. Riley.
MR. NIND: Commissioners, good afternoon. Christopher
Nind, communications director for the Collier County sheriff's office.
Commissioners, I'm merely going to deal with the dispatch -- the
civilian dispatch within the Collier County sheriff's office, and I
know Susan Riley will cover other civilian posts. In dispatch there
are 54 civilians. Presently there are seven vacancies out of that 54,
and there are 14 people in training. Over 21 of the slots out of 54
are, in effect, not functioning. They're not cost effective. We have
people training or we have vacancies.
Now, within communications you often think of just
dispatch. But actually there are many other areas of communication.
There is a validation section for every entry into the Florida
Department of Law Enforcement of which there were last year over
850,000 entries from the sheriff's office. Those have to be
validated. People have to make sure that those entries are correct
and when items are found that they're taken out of that system,
because otherwise there is a huge liability which falls on the
sheriff's office.
There is a switchboard. Some of you have spoken to the
two switchboard operators that man the switchboards from eight o'clock
until five o'clock in the evening. On average they're taking 70,000
calls a month, and they do maintain their sense of humor. I do
believe that.
Now, let's look at dispatch. You talked about --
Commissioner Hancock, about academy training. The dispatcher goes
through a 40-hour basic telecommunications course. The dispatcher
then has to do teletype. He has to be certified or she has to be
certified by FDLE. They have to do 911 training. They have to be
certified in emergency medical dispatch because, again, they have to
fire those first-aid instructions before the paramedics get there.
Then they sit with their trainer for four to six months
before we honestly can let that dispatcher handle calls or handle a
radio. They do all that right now for $8.19 an hour. We talked about
-- or Sheriff Hunter requested $1.8 million for this particular
salary. You have -- I heard today that you agreed to tier one which
is 1.3. We're only talking effectively about half a million being the
other two tiers. What I want to stress to you is that within the
sheriff's office whether they're certified officers, or whether
they're civilians, they are all interdependent. The actions of one
have effects on the other. It is the civilians in dispatch who
dispatch the deputy to the call. It is then the civilians within the
sheriff's office that are going to be handling warrants, that are
going to be handling the civil process. They are all interdependent.
All I would ask, Commissioners, please, is Sheriff
Hunter put this pay review to you. Okay, he may have been ahead of
the game, and it may have been something for you to look at, but the
fact of the matter is he has done it. He wants to get parity for his
staff and equal in the rest of the market. I would ask you, please,
to reconsider the three tiers and the total amount. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Riley.
MS. RILEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Susan Riley, and I'm the director of the judicial process division of
the sheriff's office. And that encompasses fugitive warrants, court
bailiffs, central records, and civil process. And I am in the unique
position to where I have civilian and certified within my division so
I feel that I have a pretty good perspective of the liabilities and
the responsibilities that they face in their daily duties.
I currently have the most civilian staff within the
department. I have clerked -- entry-level clerks that begin at
$13,990. These clerks are expected to come into any of my bureaus,
for example, records. And the training in there is as intensive as it
is in any of my other bureaus. Before they're even hired they have to
go through intensive background testing because the material that they
handle is very sensitive.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I interrupt you just to ask a
question?
MS. RILEY: Certainly.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The process you're describing,
does this apply to what this board has called tier three positions;
clerk, typists, secretaries, file clerks?
MS. RILEY: They're tier two is my understanding, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
MS. RILEY: And to give you an example, as I had said
they have to have specific testing criteria that they go into. If you
were to come into records right now and have us train you just to get
your basics on what goes on in records, it would take a minimum of
three months training. It would take an additional three to six
months to train that same clerk on the understanding of our reporting
system and how those reports have to be entered into the system. And
it would take yet another three to six months beyond that to train our
clerks for the UCR state mandated coding.
I have the same situation in civil and warrants. Our
girls have to understand how to process the warrants. They have to
know how to extradite the prisoners in and out of state. The civil
people, my noncertified, are out on the road serving nonenforceable
writs. They have to understand public record laws, laws of civil
procedures. And it takes them a minimum in any of these positions of
one year to feel comfortable and be able to handle the public and
answer the questions.
Just this last week -- I have taken over the past two
years in central records -- I had three shifts. This past week I have
taken the staff that I have left and made one shift, and that shift is
now a straight eight to five because I do not have adequate staff to
have the other two shifts. And I find that increasingly difficult to
recruit these people in for the amount of responsibility when they can
go to the Naples Daily News and the want ads and they can get their
cleaning jobs, jobs as food servers, and selling bagels for between
six fifty and seven fifty an hour with not even one-tenth of the
responsibility that they have.
So I would ask you today that you would consider all of
the tiers together because we are a team. They can't function out on
the road without our help from the inside, otherwise they have to be
inside to do the work. And we are interdependent on each other, and it
is something that I think you have to look at as whole. And I would
ask your support in funding the sheriff's plan. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. That was our last
speaker?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Dorrill.
Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One thing I learned in meeting
with representatives of the sheriff's office is there's one thing
different about attrition over there and that is that in most of the
county positions if someone is not there, they're just not there that
day. But a position of a road deputy or a jail deputy, if they're not
there they have to be filled. They're usually filled in overtime
rate. So although the attrition rate may be similar, the funds
available or, I guess, the fund -- after you pay your overtime is
significantly lower.
What budget increase that we can handle in looking at
our current and future budgetary constraints is the only consideration
that this board has today. It's not -- when I asked for three tiers, I
asked for three methods of review, not three separations of
importance, not three divisions among the sheriff's office. I looked
at -- I was asking for three different ways to review these positions.
What I got back is a separation of the original proposal with not
additional work. So this is useless to me. There are not three tiers
as far as I am concerned based on this report.
To propose less than what you're requesting today,
Sheriff, is in no way a reflection of or reduction in the perceived
value of the employees of the sheriff's department. But we, as the
board, have to hold the purse strings of the taxpayers of this county.
An immediate increase in your payroll of $1.8 with an additional
600,000 to follow next year in my opinion is not in the financial
picture of the county.
I'm going to propose -- there was already a motion on
the floor very early on --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Factionsly.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I would like to propose is
the sheriff retain $300,000 in realized savings from your benefit
changes. In addition, retain an additional $300 (sic) in excess
turn-back.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: $300,000.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: $300,000.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. You caught me.
$300,000 in excess turn-back. These monies plus the $904,000 in
reserves will permit you to make the priority salary adjustment as you
see fit. It's not 1.8 million, it comes out to be about 1.5 from the
same revenue sources that you've directed. But looking at the
percentage breakdown this year and how it impacts next year, I think
it allows us to continue next year possibly with more salary increases
without breaking the bank, so to speak. So, in essence, that's my
motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Would you mind
repeating that so we can get the numbers right again?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The only think I'm changing in
the sheriff's request is -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The total.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, the total amount. But the
only budget transfer is the $619,000 that you proposed to keep in
excess turn-back. I'm proposing that we do a transfer of 300,000 of
those dollars. The other two funds are already in the sheriff's
budget; the $904,000 in reserves and the $300,000 in realized savings.
So, in essence, we're talking about money the taxpayers would have
-- would get next year. We're talking about $600,000. That is about
83 percent of what your original request for this budget year is.
The reason I arrived at that amount is that it puts us
in a position next year that we're 1.3 percent over what your current
budget is now, and you and I both know you're going to have increases
next year and to try and, I guess, not take the scale out of range so
that next year we're making even harder decisions, I think it's an
appropriate step. It gives you over 80 percent of what you are asking
for, and it doesn't cause me great concern over our ability to meet
your budgetary request next year.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask the sheriff a couple of
questions here. The $1.8 million request was to cover the period
January 1 to September the 30th? SHERIFF HUNTER: Correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And that would be full employment.
That would represent full employment at that rate; is that correct?
SHERIFF HUNTER: No. That represents pay adjustments
for the positions within the agency that have been allocated.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that would be pay
adjustments for full employment within the agency?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Theoretically, yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Then I don't have a problem
seconding that, because I think to try to attain full employment by
January 1st, to fill all positions is probably not going to happen
either because it's going to take some time to do the recruiting. So
I think the $1.5 million proposal probably is going to get us all
where we want to be.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And understand, I'm not approving
a pay plan; that's not my job. I'm allocating funds for you to do
with as you see fit and make priority decisions in your department
that you make every day. So, you know, I'm just stating an
appropriation amount.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Was that a second, Commissioner
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That was a second. I would like
to clarify, Mr. Dotrill, before we move forward with this. The
$300,000 that Commissioner Hancock is referring to and the $904,600
are currently in the sheriff's budget, and we really have no control
over those funds right now?
MR. DORRILL: That is not correct. The $900,000 is not
in his fund. It's in your fund. I realize that you're the policy
makers, and I am just the county manager, but you do at least know
from my perspective I am your budget officer, what the implication of
your motion could be. Were you to ask my opinion, I would say that
what I think you can afford would be to allow the sheriff to have the
use of his $600,000 beyond a forecast turn-back, and I think that you
should realize that if he's found $300,000 or he overbudgeted in his
insurance, he ought to be able to spend that as he sees fit. But
aside from that, the fact that he has already phased in the 28 new
positions, and if you give him the increase that he has asked for by
virtue of your motion, you run the risk of needing two-tenths of a mil
increase to fund this salary proposal this time next year.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So --
MR. DORRILL: That's anticipating average growth and
millage. That's anticipating no other increases in operating costs
for any other constitutional officer or any other special adjustments
that you may see after the holidays. And I just want you to
understand from my perspective the difference between where the motion
is and what I think you can afford without having to have significant
tax increases next year is $900,000 versus a million five hundred.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just clarify what you
just said. I think I understood, but I want to be clear. Is -- the
six hundred nineteen thousand in turnback and then the three hundred
and whatever it is that was overbudgeted or -- or excess healthcare,
where you've saved the money on healthcare, those are the two sources
here?
MR. DORRILL: That would be my recommendation to you,
and then you -- you maintain the contingency separate and apart from
that in the event that you have some real problems in terms of meeting
other operating expenses between now and the end of the year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that would provide
950,000.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Nine nineteen -- nine nineteen is
what it provides for him.
Commissioner Hancock.
CHAIRPERSON HANCOCK: When you said two-tenths of a
mill, you -- you left me behind, because the current budget at the
current millage rate includes the 904,000 that's in reserve.
MR. DORRILL: No. No. I'm sorry, the 900,000 that is
in the separate reserve.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of course it does. Yes.
CHAIRPERSON HANCOCK: So what we are really dealing with
here, the $300,000 that the sheriff has realized in savings in his
healthcare or -- or -- I'll call it healthcare, but I think we know
where it is -- was budgeted also. So our current ad valorem rate and
fees includes the 904,000.
MR. DORRILL: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON HANCOCK: Includes the 300,000.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON HANCOCK: What we're really talking about
here is a $619,000 excess in turnback. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON HANCOCK: We have the ability without
raising current ad valorem rates to allocate all of that. However,
the reason I'm reducing that to 300,000 is because I'm looking at next
year. If we put all 600,000 in this year and then next year the
sheriff comes in and asks for another 600,000 to complete his pay
plan, then we're in deep trouble. Now we're talking a significant
percentage increase and a real ad valorem increase.
MR. DORRILL: What -- what you didn't take into
consideration was that the -- the new positions that he had received
this year weren't phased or staggered over the course of the year.
You have the -- the full 12-month annualized expense of that next
year. If he goes out and hires these people because he's phased some
of them in -- I don't think he ever intended to, frankly, hire anybody
in the first quarter. I think you're going to see some in January,
and I think you're going to see some in April. But if he fills them,
they're going to be here for 12 months next year.
CHAIRPERSON HANCOCK: Point taken. I understand.
MR. DORRILL: And I think if you take those costs and
the benefit costs and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The full expense --
MR. DORRILL: -- this particular pay increase --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Full expense next year would
then be 2.4 as opposed to just an additional 600,000.
MR. DORRILL: And I -- you know, I'm trying to think
quickly off the top of my head. But before you go and vote, I at
least want you to know what the implications of that could be.
CHAIRPERSON HANCOCK: That's -- that's where I look at
-- if we played hands off next year and granted the sheriff
everything he came in for, you're right. It would result in a
two-tenths of a mill. But what I don't anticipate is the sheriff
raising people's taxes two-tenths of a mill next year. What I don't
anticipate is this board approving an increase in two-tenths of a mill
next year which means somebody's going to have to be creative.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I'm -- I'm a little
unsure how we do that. If -- if the -- the bump now, the 1.8, then
that is carried over next year plus the additional 600,000 to bring it
up for the full 12 months. So, I mean, I don't know how we -- I hope
he can get creative, but I don't know how we fill that void created by
almost two and a half million dollars or that addition of two and a
half million dollars. That's -- the fact is that's a bump.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think we have a motion and a
second, and -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- we have to call the question.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've got -- we've got a motion
and a second. I just -- I just want to clarify what it is we're
voting on because I -- frankly we need to know. The sheriff has under
his control $300,000 right now.
MR. DORRILL: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
another $300,000.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
CHAIRPERSON HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Correct.
The motion wants to pass to him
Of the 619.
Of the 619.
Correct.
The sheriff will only have
$600,000 to distribute in whatever pay plan adjustments or how ever it
is he wants to spend it because Mr. Dotrill tells us the $900,000 is
under our control.
MR. DORRILL: Well, that's not my understanding.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the motion contemplates --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I know. I know. I'm -- I'm '-
I'm saying that I think the motion maker thought the 900,000 was under
the sheriff's control.
CHAIRPERSON HANCOCK: No, the motion maker did not. The
motion maker -- I'll say me. The 900,000 is still in a reserve area
for payroll only. In other words, I'm not saying transfer that to the
general account for the sheriff. You know, let's say he has increased
attrition or is unable to fill positions. All of that money may not
be necessary. So I'm not saying that money changes accounts in any
way.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It has to if he's going to spend
it, though. He's got to --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, it's got to.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: He's got to have a budget
amendment to go from the reserve account to the sheriff's payroll
account.
MR. DORRILL: My -- my understanding of your motion
would -- would direct me to prepare a budget amendment for $1,200,000
and transfer that to fund 040 which is the sheriff's proprietary
fund. And then he will take that in addition to what he alleges is
$300,000 in overbudgeted insurance and spend it as he sees fit.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, how much do we
budget annually in general fund reserves, say, the past five years?
MR. DORRILL: Four million.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Four million.
MR. DORRILL: Annually something less than that. We
have -- we have tried to build reserves up anticipating a million
dollar sales tax transfer to road and bridge and also an increase
subsidy for EHS next year. And then, you know, I -- I -- I apologize
for beating that drum, but it -- I'm trying to make a point.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why I ask is the point is,
when that 900,000 transfers out, we need to replace that next year.
So yes, it was budgeted this year, but it was budgeted in reserves
inclusive in the amount we usually budget for reserves. So it will
need to be replaced.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- excuse me. I remember the
900,000 as being taken out of the sheriff's budget and put into a
special reserve account --
MR. DORRILL: It is separately budgeted.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and is not part of our general
fund reserves. Particularly this is -- this money --
MR. DORRILL: There's what we -- there's what we call
the general fund reserve for contingency, four million dollars. And
then you directed me to prepare a separate -- and there's --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right.
MR. DORRILL: -- a separate line item reserve called --
sheriff attrition is what I believe that it's called at 900,000.
the $4,000,000 would be there. That would be the source of the
$300,000 transfer that you're asking me to move money -- the 300,000
out of his turnback would need to come from the 4,000,000. The
900,000, if you direct me to give that to him, would also come out of
your reserves albeit a separate line item.
CHAIRPERSON HANCOCK: Let me -- since I made the motion,
let me clarify. You know, everyone's talking about what the motion
maker meant. What the motion maker meant is that 904,000 remains in
the same account and budget amendments will be processed as the
money's necessary.
MR. HUNTER: That's fine.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're -- we're not just going to
dump it in the sheriff's account. That way we can at least monitor
and see for ourselves the progress in his hiring, in his pay plan, and
-- and what's going on.
So I'm saying that 904,000 stays as allocated
originally. The budget changes would be $300,000 that the sheriff has
in his budget right now. We don't have to do anything with that.
MR. HUNTER: Right.
CHAIRPERSON HANCOCK: That's already there. He's
relocating internally. The only budget amendment we would need to
make in -- in increased return of 619,000 is give him back 300, we
take 319, and off we go.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what I thought you said.
I just wanted to clarify because that's not what I -- I was hearing.
MR. DORRILL: And then the 900 would only be on an
as-needed basis subject to some reporting or verification mechanism
that -- that he would submit to you.
CHAIRPERSON HANCOCK: I'm not going to grill him every
time he's -- every time he comes in for it. But as his budget
requires it in payroll, he comes and makes the necessary budget
requests.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, I wouldn't want to have to
go through a board action for budget amendments every time it's time
to make payroll either.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, does that still
have the same two-tenths of a mill implication because that sounds
like we're stepping it off a little there, and I need -- when you say
two-tenths of a mill, I mean, that's a heck of a jump. We don't have
a very high millage anyway. I need a -- you to walk me through how
you anticipate us getting there, I guess, because I -- I didn't
realize we were -- had the 900 over and above general fund. And
that's what I was counting on as part of that two-tenths of a mill, so
you need to help me here.
MR. DORRILL: The -- the estimate that I have tried to
give you off the top of my head takes into account the 28 positions
that are sitting there that are staggered over the course of this
year, and I'm trying to apply an annualized value to that. I'm trying
to apply the annualized value of special pay adjustments for the other
individuals that may or may not get a pay increase for some equity
purposes. And I'm trying to apply that it could be upwards of two
million dollars this time next year and then in order to -- to do that
in giving some factor for growth in the tax base it could be up to two
mill -- two-tenths of a mill. It will probably be slightly less than
that. But I'm trying to err on the conservative side if you factor in
benefits and you factor in 12 months of full salary for everybody that
is apt to be hired or apt to receive a special pay adjustment.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that two-tenths we're
only dealing with here, that two-tenths of a mill does not take into
consideration an adjustment for the clerk or an adjustment within our
agency.
MR. DORRILL: No, obviously not.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
CHAIRPERSON HANCOCK: What you're talking about is if
the sheriff's department is at full employment going into next budget
year, has no attrition, and complies with this pay scale, we're
talking at potentially two-tenths of a mill.
MR. DORRILL: If -- if you also include the civilians, I
-- I would say it would be at least two-tenths and could be possibly
more.
CHAIRPERSON HANCOCK: The point I'm making is that we're
allocating funds today. If the sheriff wants to take action based on
this pay plan that puts him in that position, that's his doing. And,
you know, maybe next year he buys fewer computers and fewer ashtrays
and whatever he has to do to avoid that increase so -- sorry, we don't
buy ashtrays anymore, do we?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Bullets.
CHAIRPERSON HANCOCK: Bullets, more bullets.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, they buy their own bullets.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So, you know, I'm putting the
decision back in the sheriff's --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, they don't.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, they do.
CHAIRPERSON HANCOCK: -- lap, but what I'm saying is
that assuming normal attrition, assuming other budgetary constraints,
I think this is doable.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: They don't buy their own
bullets.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But, again, the sheriff's going
to have to implement it, and he's going to have to implement it such
that it doesn't cause his department to request a substantial increase
next year. So I'm -- I'm not going to sit here and make that decision
for you.
MR. HUNTER: I appreciate that. I assume my own
political responsibilities and liabilities, and I don't know if
two-tenths of a mill is an accurate projection or not. I don't know
what the board has planned, and nobody has a crystal ball. Maybe --
maybe we can eliminate some programs next year because some other --
something comes along. I hope that you don't base your decision on
some crystal ball that we're looking at a year and a half in advance.
I -- I can't see that far out.
We are going to continue to be very careful stewards of
tax dollars. Everyone in this room recognizes everyone else in this
room as taxpayers in this county. Whether you're paying as a tenter,
you're being passed along those ad valorem tax dollars, or whether you
own your home, you are a taxpayer. I don't want to pay any more taxes
than anyone else, but I do want to see deputy sheriffs get a fair,
competitive wage, and I know that you do as well.
We will implement -- I will implement based on my own
policy internally for which I will be liable, as I am for all my
decisions just as you are, and I appreciate -- I appreciate all the
board is doing to give us the -- the latitude to make the right
decision. And I think this goes a long way in doing that.
I expect reports back. We will be talking with the
county manager about attrition as we go along and you in regular board
meetings whether we're able to fill the positions or not because I
think you need to know those things.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion, and we
have a second, and I think everybody understands what the motion
entails now. We are -- we're gonna, I guess, get budget amendments
along the year on the 900,000.
I'm -- I'm going to support the motion, but I -- I do
want to caution this board that we are talking about increasing
starting salaries 20 and 30 percent. And when the clerk comes in with
his pay plan and the manager comes in with his play -- pay plan study,
everybody who works thinks their job is as equally as important as the
next person. And we're probably going to be hearing requests for 15,
20, 25 percent from those agencies as well. So I just want you to
keep it in mind.
CHAIRPERSON HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I take exception
to that. I'm not increasing anyone's salary. This man will do it or
won't do it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm -- I'm just telling you
what's coming, what's probably coming. I -- I -- I don't have a
crystal ball either. But everybody feels that their work is equally
important to the next person's. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to support it
because I support trying to take care of our employees and the
sheriff's employees. And we are clearly behind on the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- curve there. But I would
ask -- each of the last three years I've put together my little
preferred budget cut list, and I would ask that all of us do that this
coming year --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Because we're gonna need it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- because with this along
with -- and I'm not pointing the finger at you, but along with what
you just stated, everybody else will be looking for it. We have done
very well five years in a row. We've lowered the millage rate, and
that is, contrary to the editorial in the paper, not due solely to the
fact that real estate's expensive in Naples. I think the
constitutional officers and the county manager and everyone have done
a very good job at trying to be frugal. And I'm not anxious to end
that streak and suddenly raise taxes next year. And I'm not sure I
can say with any definition that we are gonna be able to accomplish
our goal there.
So I'll support this for the employees. I am very
worried where it takes us tax-wise.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I am too equally so. But the
employees' pay plan tells us they need something.
I'm going to call the question. All those in favor
please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
MR. HUNTER: Great. One final --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You've got some creative
financing to do.
MR. HUNTER: Absolutely. One final comment. I wanted
to make sure that the board remains confident that the agency is not
overbudgeting. Our health programs, the estimate comes from our
recently received assessments from the people who are qualified to do
that, on our actuaries. That's just last week. We're merely trying
to identify those areas where we can save money.
But we did not overbudget intentionally. We find
ourselves with some excess money based upon our experience. And --
and -- and we control that through our policies, as you know.
But our experience is showing us through the actuary's
estimates that we may have $300,000 in that account. So again, that's
from hard work. That's not from you being misled or from some
misjudgment.
I just wanted you to be assured of that. And we'll
continue to work with this board in trying to find additional ways of
cutting money.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
Item #14
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
That concludes the agenda for today.
communications.
Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
hours ago.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
CHAIRPERSON HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
We're at
Lunch. Lunch?
Yeah, lunch.
We had that opportunity three
Yeah, I know.
Commissioner Hancock.
Dinner.
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
Lunch.
Ah, you still want lunch, huh?
(Commissioner nodded head.)
Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good night.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't have anything either.
Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: Nor do I.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, briefly. The sheriff's HSTU
ordinances have been drafted, distributed. We are receiving comment
back, city of Naples. I'm meeting with the attorney for the sheriff
tomorrow. The budget office is talking with us. We continue to go
forward to look to have those developed and -- and potentially heard
by the board and adopted this year so it would be effective for next
year.
Secondly, the public nuisance ordinance a la Bayshore is
going forward full-bore. We've met and we have -- in fact, have a
mental draft in mind, have talked with it conceptually with the
sheriff, the -- the code en -- code compliance people, Vince Cautero.
It's formally going on the Code Enforcement Board's November 30
agenda.
The one caution that I have is that with all speed we'll
be very close, but it may be possible to advertise it for a December
19 hearing on the ordinance. There is a potential that we wouldn't
make that date and it would have to therefore come under the, quote,
emergency rubric. And -- and the attorney for the sheriff strongly
recommends that we not go that route, that we have full advertising
and bring it forward if -- if we can't make that December 19 hearing
at the very next available hearing which would be in the first of the
year.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Miss Filson, we're done?
MS. FILSON: We're finished.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're adjourned.
***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner
Constantine, and carried unanimously, that the following items under
the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted:
Item #16A1
ACCEPT SEWER FACILITIES FOR KENSINGTON PARK, PHASE TWO
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A2
ACCEPT LETTER OF CREDIT FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59-309, WOODFIELD
LAKES, LOCATED IN SECTION 3, T51S, R26E
See Pages
Item #16A3 - Withdrawn
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 95-648 RE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER
AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "QUAIL WEST, UNIT ONE,
REPLAT BLOCKS E AND F, FIRST ADDITION"
See Pages
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 95-649 RE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRINAGE, WATER
AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "QUAIL WEST, UNIT ONE,
REPLAT BLOCKS G AND H"
See Pages
Item #16B1
POLICY TO ADDRESS OUTSTANDING TRANSPORTATION INVOICES, BOTH PAST AND
FUTURE OUTSTANDING INVOICES
Item #1682
DOCUMENTS WHICH SERVE TO CORRECT PREVIOUSLY RECORDED DOCUMENTS FOR
UTILITY LAND RIGHTS AND FACILITIES IN BENTLEY VILLAGE-RETREAT
See Pages
Item #1683 - Moved to Item #885
Item #1684
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUSITION CASE NO.
94-2934-CA-01-TB FOR BONITA BEACH ROAD FOUR-LANING IMPROVEMENTS
Item #1685
BUDGET AMENDMENTS ESTABLISHING A BUDGET FOR PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
ADMINISTRATION
Item #1686 - Continued to 11/28/95
Item #1687 - Continued to 11/28/95
Item #16C1
CONCESSION AGREEMENT FOR THE OPERATION OF THE COCOHATCHEE RIVER PARK
BOAT LAUNCH FACILITY
See Pages
Item #16D1 - Moved to Item #SD1
Item #16D2
STATE CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT PURSUANT TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF ALL OF ALL PHASES OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT WORK PLAN
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 95-650 RE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
See Pages
Item #16D4
RESOLUTION 95-651 RE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
See Pages
Item #16D5
RESOLUTION 95-652 RE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
See Pages
Item #16D6
SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND
PAYMENT OF SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
See Pages
Item #16El - This item has been deleted
Item #16E2
RESOLUTION 95-653 RE APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR OFFICE EXPENSES INCURRED
FOR SPECIAL OCCASIONS
See Pages
Item #16E3
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 95-56 AND 95-66
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1994
TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
No. Dated
138 11/03/95
1995
TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
No. Dated
18/25 11/03 & 11/06/95
28/29 11/09/95
1992
REAL PROPERTY
No. Dated
208 11/07/95
1995
REAL PROPERTY
No. Dated
23 10/30/95
37/77 11/07 & 11/09/95
81/82 11/09/95
Item #1662
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
See Pages
Item #1663
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspndence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:10 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Catherine Hoffman and Shelly Semmler