BCC Minutes 12/05/1995 RREGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 5, 1995,
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F"
of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
CHAIRPERSON:
Bettye J. Hatthews
Timothy J. Constantine
John C. Norris
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager
Hike HcNees, Acting Assistant County Hanager
David Weigel, Assistant County Attorney
Item #3 and #3A
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call to order the Board of County
Commission meeting for Tuesday, December the 5th, 1995. Mr. Dotrill,
will you lead us in an invocation and pledge.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, as we did last week and
as we're in the holiday season, we pray for your blessings and your
continued good grace on the people who are assembled here and who live
and reside in Collier County. Father, we are amazed at your power and
your wonder and your good blessings that you have bestowed on us over
the past year and our prayer is that you would continue to bless
Collier County and its people in the year to come.
Father, we think briefly quickly of our friend and
colleague, Norris Ijams. We are glad he is home from a brief stay in
the hospital, and our thoughts go out to he and his family this
morning. And as always, we would ask that you bless this time here
together today as this county commission makes the important decisions
that affect this community, that you would guide and guard and direct
each one of us. And we pray these things in your son's holy name.
Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, I only see three
changes to the agenda.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am, and it would appear that we're
going to have a short meeting today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And it's going to get shorter.
MR. DORRILL: I have one add-on item and two
continuances this morning. One add-on item will be under the county
manager's report under the regular agenda under 8(E)(2). This will be
a discussion concerning some proposed amendments to the countywide law
enforcement HSTU. We have called and made arrangements to have both
the city manager and the mayor here as well as a representative from
the sheriff's offices if necessary as close to 10 a.m. this morning.
I indicated to them that I thought the meeting would be short and that
they would need to be here.
As part of your change sheet this morning, we did
prepare a summary for the board that shows the various levels of
appropriation and the funding sources, of which there are three, that
support the 45 million dollar sheriff's budget. I have showed a
budget comparison on the bottom, and at the appropriate time I'll walk
you through that. That will be item 8(E)(2).
The two continuances, the first is item
8(C)(1), which is under public services, requested to continue for one
week until your regular meeting of the 12th. That item that has to do
and pertains with a lease agreement between the Board of County
Commissioners and the local public health unit.
In addition, there is one item on the consent agenda,
item 16(B)(7). It is continued for two weeks till the final meeting
of the year on December 19th, which pertains to a request for
additional funds necessary to construct the Orange Tree emergency
medical station. It's continued for two weeks until the meeting of
the 19th, and that's all that I have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, could you provide us
with some information as to why staff is asking for that to be
continued?
MR. DORRILL: I'll look to Mr. Conrecode. The EHS
item?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Tom Conrecode from
public works. This item was originally budgeted in your budget for
this year as a two-unit station to support that area of the county.
What the EHS department has done is looked at that facility, and if
it's to operate in conjunction with the backup BOC that's located at
the ag center next door, they would need some additional capabilities
there. So we're looking at expanding the scope of the project
somewhat and looking at available funding sources in order to do
that. That's the reason for the item; that's the reason for the
continuance. We have to work out some of those details.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay, fine. We'll see it then in
two weeks.
Mr. Weigel, do you have changes to the agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: No, none, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Thank you. Commissioner Norris?
Commissioner Hancock?
No, ma'am.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
No.
Commissioner Constantine?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no changes to the
agenda.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have none either.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we accept
the agenda and consent agenda with changes as noted.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second that motion.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Noting the round of applause from
the rear of the boardroom on no changes.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're so easily thrilled.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. Any discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #4
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7, 1995 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'd like to
make a motion we approve the minutes of the November 7, 1995, regular
meeting.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the minutes of November 7th regular meeting. Discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #5A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING DECEHBER 1, 1995, AS WORLD AIDS DAY - ADOPTED
Next item is proclamations and service awards,
Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm pleased to get to read a
proclamation this morning for World AIDS Day and I hope that Hodalynn
Renee (phonetic) is here to receive the proclamation. Thank you, sir,
if you'd come forward. If you'd come here and stand and face that
camera so we can read the proclamation. MR. RENEE: Good morning.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good morning.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Whereas, World AIDS Day is
annually observed on December lst; and
Whereas, the theme for 1995 World AIDS Day is shared
rights, shared responsibilities; and
Whereas, CARES is Collier County's only not-for-profit
nongovernmental AIDS education support organization; and
Whereas, CARES is encouraging intensive city-wide
participation in recognition of World AIDS Day to maximize community
awareness and to raise the funds necessary to provide the services our
city's residents so desperately need.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the day of December 1,
1995, be designated as World AIDS Day in Naples and urge all our
citizens to actively work together to help bring the AIDS epidemic
under control.
Done and ordered this 5th day of December 1995, Board of
County Commissioners, Bettye J. Matthews, Chairman. I'd like to move
we accept this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
accept the proclamation.
Any discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
The motion passes five to zero.
(Applause)
MR. RENEE: Good morning. Good morning, everyone. On
behalf of CARES I wish to accept this proclamation, and on behalf --
especially on behalf of those individuals who are residents and
citizens of Collier County who are either infected with the HIV virus
or affected in terms of family or friends, we do want to thank you for
the acknowledgment that you present us with today. Thank you again.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
(Applause)
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda, service
awards, Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. We have one award
today, a five-year pin for Michael O'Hara from facilities management.
Michael, are you here?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
right now.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
morning.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
forwarded to him.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
He's probably fixing something
Or making some repairs this
Fixing something.
We'll make sure that this gets
Thank you.
Item #7A
ADRIENNE SHOLNIK, PRESIDENT OF THE GULF COAST ROWING ASSOCIATION,
REGARDING THE USE OF CAXAMBAS PARK AND CAXAMBAS PASS FOR A ROWING
CENTER - STAFF DIRECTED TO EXPLORE THIS ISSUE AND BRING MATTER BACK
Next item on the agenda as we move to public petitions,
item 7(A), Adrienne Skolnik, president of Gulf Coast Rowing
Association.
MR. DORRILL: Who is here and registered and will
present this item to you this morning. Just -- you may want to --
this is the first time she's ever been here. She indicated she wasn't
quite sure what to do, but I reminded her she has 10 minutes to make
her presentation, that you may have some questions, and then you will
refer this to staff or perhaps our parks and recreation advisory
board. Good morning, Miss Skolnik.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good morning.
MS. SKOLNIK: Good morning. I am Adrienne Skolnik, and
I am president and founder of the Gulf Coast Rowing Association. The
GCRA is bringing the sport of sliding-seat watercraft to the Collier
County area, which is sculling, sweep rowing, as you see in the
Olympics. GCRA serves a diverse population with our students ranging
in ages 13 years old to our oldest student who is 80 years old.
GCRA is working to demystify the elitism of the sport
and break through the economic and cultural barriers through our
community programs. We plan a youth at risk program. We have already
met with the shelter for abused women, and we are planning a program
with them. We plan and adapt the rowing program for special needs
individuals and are already working with a special person. We have a
great program which is ongoing for our high school and college
students which is no fee, and an adult program which is fee based.
We are opening centers throughout Collier County and
wish to address Caxambas Park and Caxambas Bay today as a GCRA rowing
center. What is unique about this site is that it has the potential
to be not just a recreational rowing center, but to become what is
called a developmental center, which is avenue for winter and spring
training for college and Olympic crews and a future regatta site. The
course is like a racetrack, as you can see from the handout, which is
approximately 4 to 5 miles as a racing track and has long, wide, calm,
unobstructed protected waters.
I just returned from the U.S. rowing national convention
in Augusta and had the opportunity to meet with college and national
coaches to assess their interest in the Naples area as a winter and
spring training site and was delighted with their response. To name a
few who have indicated an interest; Hartmut Buschbacher, who is the
U.S. woman's national team coach training our women for Olympic
trials. He will bring 50 people, would make one or two trips in
November and February, plans three weeks at a time, and would spend
approximately $25,000; Igor Grinko is the U.S. men's national sculling
coach training for the Olympic trials, also would bring 50 people and
spend approximately $25,000; Princeton University, Dan Roock, head
coach, brings 150 people, has seven days' stay and spends $15,000;
Northeastern University in Boston, Buzz Congram, men's university crew
coach, brings 60 people, spends 10 days and approximately $15,000;
George Washington University, Paul Wilkins, head coach, 100 people,
spends eight days and $16,000; Kansas State, A1 Coch, head coach, 65
people, eight days with $11,000; and University of Iowa, Handi Kowal,
head coach, brings 70 students, spends eight days and $12,000.
Revenues generated to our economy from just these few
that I have mentioned would be approximately between a hundred to a
hundred fifty thousand dollars per training season. Also we could
charge a small dock fee of 50 cents which would generate a few extra
hundred dollars to parks and recreation. They have advised me that
they prepare their budgets in January for the following year.
GCRA had originally requested a small dock with a very
minimal cost of $5,000. However, since meeting with the coaches, in
order to provide docks long enough for their competition shells, which
are 60 feet long, as you can see from the photographs, we need to
provide a 90-foot dock which could range from fifteen to twenty-five
thousand dollars to construct. They bring an average of 10 to 15 of
these boats by trailer.
Because the coaches will be planning their budgets in
January for next season, we need the board to give some direction at
this time. We can't wait for the next budget meeting. If we are to
provide facilities starting in November of '95 through March of '96,
we have to know facilities would be available soon so I can advise the
coaches and send information as soon as possible. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Are there questions
for Mrs. Skolnik? Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Skolnik, we've discussed
this in my office some months ago, and I found myself thinking of
different parts of the county where we could have a rowing center. My
experience in Tampa with the coast guard was they used to have
regattas there during the winter season, and we would set up
perimeters and stuff, but kids would come in from Yale and everywhere
-- I mean, all over the U.S. for these regattas, and it was kind of a
neat event. The problem we have -- if I understand you correctly,
you're asking for the board to make a financial commitment for the
construction of these docks; is that correct? MS. SKOLNIK: Yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. First of all, that's, you
know, not just a commitment of dollars but a commitment of permits
which, you know, even if we found the money, the permits would be
tough to get. The second thing is that for that type of expenditure
-- I know that your association is broadening the horizons for
rowing, and the people are getting into it and interested in it, but I
wouldn't call it exactly a broad-concept sport at this point, because
there hasn't been a lot of exposure locally to it, and that will
change over time. I understand that.
Some of the physical problems with the routes you've put
in Caxambas Pass are that that is a navigable waterway from the canals
all the way out to the gulf. Both of your courses cross where all of
that traffic has to traverse. So without having structured security,
the ability to even have a 2-mile course there would be difficult at
best. So I think there are a lot of questions that we probably can't
answer today.
I don't know if this is the -- the best place -- maybe
one of the only places you can find, and it may be workable, but right
now -- do we have -- you know, we're talking fifteen to twenty
thousand dollars out of a park budget that this year we cut back
several hundred thousand dollars due to budget constraints. It's
already operating on a shoestring, so to speak. So to find fifteen or
twenty thousand dollars -- I hate to be the grim reaper -- is probably
unrealistic by January. I just want to be honest with you and not
paint a picture that we're going to send staff away to go find money
that they themselves are having a tough time finding for their own
maintenance programs.
MS. SKOLNIK: We're also asking for approval to use the
Caxambas Park and Caxambas Pass as a recreational rowing center which
would be a more informal environment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was the part that I was
confused in my discussion --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Commissioner Norris
had indicated questions.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Am I on?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: When you said a 90-foot dock, were
you visualizing a 90-foot linear dock along the seawall, or are you
thinking of extension out from the seawall 90 feet?
MS. SKOLNIK: If -- if I think about the traffic pattern
there from the residential area, probably along the seawall. It
doesn't really matter as long -- that's why I brought along those
pictures. Those are from the Miami Beach Rowing Center, which I took
some of the kids to regatta recently, just to show you some of the
activity that goes on.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. -- Mr. Olliff, have you worked
with Miss Skolnik, the rowing realtor, on these -- these issues?
MR. OLLIFF: I haven't personally, but I know that
they've actually been to the parks and rec advisory board twice
already, and in both cases the park and rec advisory didn't support
the request and primarily for the reasons that Commissioner Hancock
raised. There are concerns that Caxambas were more from the boating
traffic safety standpoint, if I understand from their minutes and
talking to them, but they -- they didn't recommend that. And I think
that they had asked for some additional information and asked for them
to come back actually a third time through the parks and rec advisory
board, so I don't think they've seen that the last time as yet.
MS. SKOLNIK: Can -- can I make a comment? You know,
our other locations are all surrounded by power boating activity, and
it's something we have to live with. We tend to row along the side
areas of the bays and rivers where that's shallower. We could row in
a foot of water. So even in the Naples Bay area that the city is
proposing, we'll probably be rowing on the east side of the bay so
that, you know, we have ways of getting around all this, and Gordon
River is a perfect example, I mean.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me make a suggestion that we
ask Miss Skolnik to work with Mr. Olliff to see if she -- if they can
develop a site or two that might be appropriate, and if there's some
issues involved, bring it back to the board.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to agree with that
suggestion. Just a couple of comments. I've had a chance to speak
with you a couple of times on this. And it's a wonderful idea, and
it's a great program, and I think it can develop into something very
nice. Interesting, when I was in -- I was in the Leadership Florida
program this past year, and at our first session up in Orlando they
talked about the economy of sport. And I think most people when you
talk in that manner think of the impact of the Orlando Magic or Hiami
Dolphins or big things. But they were -- what the program was about
was things like this, whether it's bringing archery tournaments to
your local area or bringing rowing. You outlined as much as $150,000
a year suddenly pushed into your local economy. And often it's the
smaller programs -- sporting programs that you don't generally think
of. It's not necessarily the NBA or NFL that help communities and
boost the economy in local communities.
So I agree with Commissioner Norris. If there is a way
we can play a role -- Commissioner Hancock's right. We've got a tight
budget, and I'm not sure we have that kind of money. We can look, but
I don't want to get your hopes up, because I'm not sure we're going to
find it. But I think if we can explore and play a part in making it a
reality, particularly with the location, I think everybody benefits.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think everybody has already
said it. I'd just like to add my vote of support. I think it's a
wonderful program. I'd like to see the county find a way to make it
work. I hope that we can and just encourage it to work with Tom and
go back with the park and rec's advisory board with the knowledge --
with the park board that this board is endorsing the concept at
least.
MS. SKOLNIK: Is it possible to retrieve this money from
impact fee funds?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it's a capital improvement,
so we'd be talking -- it is something that impact fees are available
for legally, but then it's a budgetary question.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It would come out of parks and
recreation as far as the impact fees that are collected, if I'm not
mistaken.
MR. OLLIFF: It would -- in most cases that project
would come out of the regional park impact fees, and that's where
we're really thin.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Really strapped.
MR. OLLIFF: That's the project at Lake Avalon to try
and get something open in a phase one project this current year.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We already talked about it's not
quite wide enough from one side to the other for a full course. MS. SKOLNIK: Just as a closing comment --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You have to make a left turn all
the time.
MS. SKOLNIK: This venue we're talking about becomes an
income-producing tourist attraction for the county which can be
advertised internationally and takes place during the height of our
tourist season. So there -- you know, there's such a wonderful
jelling here of -- of the sport and our economy and revenue that we
hope you'll give it consideration.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think if the hotels want to
pitch in and build that dock, we'd be happy to -- I'd like to narrow
-- I'd like to kind of narrow -- I know that we can look at Caxambas
Park quite easily to determine whether or not it can be a staging area
and provide the location for the venue. Then the physical
improvements are where, I think, are going to be the tougher
question. So those are in my mind two separate points. Can it be a
staging area? In other words, if -- you know, if there's an area in
that park that can be improved to allow for the staging of equipment
and so forth, great. Then what is required minimally to get off the
ground is the next thing we need to look at. So if we can look at it
in those stages, I'm fully supportive of your motion. MS. SKOLNIK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I believe that sounds like at
least five of us in support of trying to make this work and see if we
can't get it off the ground and -- and have another venture for our
tourists, for our citizens. We got to find some money, though. MS. SKOLNIK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Olliff.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Olliff, you may also -- I'm not
familiar with the sport at all. But I do know that the Golden Gate
Community Park is adjacent to the main Golden Gate canal, and I don't
know what the necessary width would be. But, I mean, they could row
their little hearts out from there west all the way back to Airport
Road, and you may want to -- to look at a facility at the Golden Gate
park as well and use the canalway there.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I think that makes the
width, but you need a mile and a half to two miles between weir
structures.
MR. DORRILL: Well, as soon as they cross under the
bridge that is there at Santa Barbara, it would be a clean shot for
the main weir that is just, I'd say, about a half a mile east of
Airport Road. It's probably worth looking at.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Worth looking at, I agree.
Item #SA1
AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE LOCAL FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED PROGRAM IN COLLIER COUNTY - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED
INCLUDING $25,000 TO BE RESERVED IN LAST FISCAL YEAR QUARTER PENDING
REVIEW & STAFF DIRECTED TO WORK WITH MR. LAWSON AND TECH AND RETURN
MATTER TO LDC IN FEBRUARY AND TO BCC IN MARCH
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Next item on the agenda is
under the county manager's report, item 8(A)(1). This is approval to
execute an agreement with Transportation Disadvantaged program in
support of it. Mr. Perry.
MR. PERRY: Good morning, Madam Chairman,
Commissioners. The item for you today is the annual agreement with
Tech Incorporated, the county's supplements Transportation
Disadvantaged program currently budgeted in the HPO budget as
$75,000. The agreement that's in your agenda package is -- regards
that $75,000. In addition to that, I'm also bringing forward a
recommendation of your local coordinating board for the Transportation
Disadvantaged which on October 18th requested that an additional
$25,000 in county funds be requested so that additional resources
would be available to offset some of the shortfalls that are now being
experienced from some of the other agencies that have in the past
purchased transportation services from Tech for their clients but have
had to cut back because of their own cutbacks and entitlements and
contributions so that it's sort of a cycle of -- of when one agency
cuts back, their -- their contributions, it has to come from someplace
and typically transportation for their clients is oftentimes the first
area that suffers those kinds of cutbacks. So the coordinating board
has requested that Tech seek an additional $25,000 to provide
additional transportation services for the disadvantaged.
In the audience today is John Lawson, executive director
of Tech, and Dick of Community Transportation to answer specific
questions that you might have about the program and about the
requests.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I'd like to expand on what
Mr. Perry has had to say so far in that Tech is experiencing a little
over a hundred thousand dollar shortfall, and the TD or the local
coordinating board has -- has asked Mr. Perry and Tech to bring this
item to us to ask the county to make up about $25,000 of that
shortfall. And we've all been getting phone calls and letters in the
last several days about increases in -- in costs to the ridership, and
that was one of the other items that the local coordinating board also
decided, and that was to increase nonmedical, nonwork-related trips to
$6 each way so that we could still try to keep our medical-related
trips as low as possible. It's just some additional background on
it.
Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So this -- I got a series of
questions. But this increase then of $75,000 plus 25,000 will not
lower those prices back down in any way?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. It's -- it's part of -- it's
part of the program to try to continue to provide aid and adequate
service for the medical disadvantaged and the -- and the employment
work.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because I guess I have a real
problem. We went through this a few weeks ago with the Special
Olympics. I'm not sure that we corrected that completely. I think
we've corrected some of the problem with that.
But a great example, the Collier County Association for
the Blind currently being charged $6 each way to get to their
headquarters. I worked with them for probably a year and a half
trying to get them in a specific location where they have readers and
have machines that are readers and such. But it's not considered,
quote, medical.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So they're paying 12 bucks
just to get in and be able to do the daily functions that you and I do
every day. And many of them cannot afford it, so now they sit at
home. They can't read. They can't go through their own mail. They
can't do a number of things that you and I take for granted every
day. And it seems to me -- and that may not be John Lawson's fault.
I know he's had some unusual circumstances, but it seems to me Special
Olympics was one example. Association for the Blind was another
example. We've come to a point where the system isn't working
completely to its necessity. And I think, yes, we need to take care
of those medical people first, but defining other things as
recreational when they aren't necessarily recreational, defining other
things puts us in an awkward position.
I'd like to see us pursue some agreement with private
enterprise. The manager and I have spoken about this some. But let's
see if there's a way to solve the problem comprehensively rather than
simply carry over the medical and ignore the rest of the community.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think that's the
intent, but I think that's the position Tech's been put in.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, exactly, but obviously the
problem here is the lack of -- of funds to provide the ridership that
is being -- being requested. And -- and obviously that's -- that's
part of the problem. And the only viable way at this point to reduce
those fees for nonmedical, nonemployment ridership would be for the
county to subsidize even to a larger degree than -- than we're being
asked for. They've got a hundred and ten thousand dollar shortfall,
and we're struggling to find ways to make that up to keep the program
viable at all.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, we've had a
discussion that there are possibly some other alternatives out there
as we look in the spring for the new fiscal year '96-97 might be
available. I don't know if you've had a chance to talk to any other
commissioners about that, but --
MR. DORRILL: The -- what I have had a chance to do
after our joint meeting in Lee County -- I'm in receipt of a brief
analysis from our management budget office that explains the Lee Tran
budget, how it is comprised and the various sources of funds. I do
not know whether there's a Transportation Disadvantaged program in Lee
and if it is provided by a different contractor or if Lee Tran does
that. But, yes, I would at least like us to determine what options
that we have if this is going to be a trend where increasingly they
are running short or being limited on the other sources of revenue. I
think the service demand is there based on the cause and the concerns
that we get, and I think we ought to look and propose to use the very
best agreement --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When we have different
expenditures proposed to us, you will often hear me say that, in my
opinion, the county's only role is to provide health, safety, and
welfare and that we don't need to make expenditures beyond that except
in the case of special taxing districts and such. I think this does
fall in the category of health, safety, and welfare. When you have
someone who has a medical condition, in this case blind, or the
Special Olympic folks who -- by having $12 to get to and from
somewhere, they can't afford it, so in effect they are now confined to
their home. They -- unless they have a friend who can come and read
the mail and read the paper and do all those things for them, they in
effect can do -- can't do many of the things that they were up until
the extra charge able to go and do at the center for the blind in this
case. And I'm sure that is not the only organization. I'm sure there
are any number of them in town that --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- are impacted. So when --
when we talk about financial shortfalls or anything -- we're talking
about so many different issues that we give money to, to FOCUS or
these different groups which are all good groups and benefit the
community. But when we talk about health, safety, and welfare, I
think nothing could be clearer under that category than this. And so
if -- if we need to get a little extra money not only to carry the
medical costs over, but if we need to give a little money to make sure
that those -- I mean, itws named Transportation Disadvantaged, and
those who are in some way able to provide transportation for
themselves because of physical impairment or other, then we need to
try to take care of those people.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I make a suggestion then,
because I believe Mr. Dotrill is -- is intending to continue his
discussions with Mr. Stillwell on Lee Tran and to bring a proposal to
us in the early spring, is that correct -- MR. DORRILL: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- that until that time we donwt
have Lee Tran to relieve some of the ridership problems that Tech is
experiencing. And I -- I would like to suggest that we -- that we
either approve the budget amendment today or we at least continue it
until Mr. Dotrill brings a recommendation on Lee Tran so that we can
combine the two together. But certainly Tech is experiencing a
financial shortfall, and theywre going to need some sort of funding to
get them over this problem until -- until Lee Tran, if and when it
does expand itself.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I donlt disagree. Iim just
suggesting that perhaps we canlt wait until spring to address the
issue. Maybe in the -- as part of our direction we need to ask our
staff to look at what are the costs and from where, what -- what are
the potential sources that we can take care of some of those other
needs, because I donlt think we can leave the people I was talking
about sitting home from now till June while Mr. Dotrill talks to Lee
County. And -- and so Iid like to give our staff that direction at
the same time, have that come back, you know, maybe in two or three
weeks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is -- this is a good
discussion. Iim enjoying it. I -- I think -- can we do this then?
Can we ask our staff to examine the costs of providing the
transportation and possibly give direction to Mr. Perry to take these
-- this idea of the fares back to the local coordinating board and
see if we canlt work a way with Tech to reduce the cost of these fares
at least in the interim with -- with this $25,000 budget increase? I
know hels looking at it to carry him the fiscal year. And if welre
only really having to look at six months of the fiscal year, we may be
able to accomplish exactly what youlre talking about, and the LCB
meets again in February, I believe.
So why donlt we hear from Mr. Lawson and see if he can
tell us if that will work.
MR. LAWSON: For the record Iim John Lawson. Iim the
executive director of, the coordinator for Transportation
Disadvantaged services in Collier County. And we are currently using
the support of the county to help match federal grants through Section
18 for the rural areas as well as to provide a support for over 7,500
different disadvantaged individuals in the community.
And we need to -- to proceed with some sort of funding
authorization in order to continue the program. Right now for the
last couple of months -- and this would carry it through December --
we have been trying to utilize other funding sources to continue the
program awaiting the contract which is for the last five years, I
guess, has been available effective October 1st. So what we're
looking at is a -- a funding problem in continuing some of these
services, allowing to come down with the match to draw down these
federal funds. So as far as the -- the urgency, there's a need to
proceed with some sort of contracting.
As far as the local coordinating board, I would be happy
to bring to them a recommendation for a reduction in fees or a
redefinition, which there is a current committee to -- to actually
explore a redefinition of what is a recreational service. I do know
that many of the people that benefit from the services that go to the
Collier County Association for the Blind actually do get a lower fare
than the $6. Some of their activities are higher. Some of them are
lower.
One avenue that the county could explore as an
alternative is actually to sponsor specific types of services that you
-- you wish to -- to do in a priority fashion. That would be one
option, and we'd be happy to work with staff to -- to accomplish
that.
In relationship to Lee Tran and options in terms of the
potential for drawing down other federal support to help meet the
demand for the Transportation Disadvantaged and the general public in
our area, we are meeting within the next couple weeks with Jim Fenset
(phonetic) who heads up the Lee Tran program in -- in Lee County. And
we're going to explore some of the possibilities for the -- the
program to -- to improve for the public good in Collier County and --
and possibly the region as well. There are some options.
Related to that we have made a request to the
Transportation Disadvantaged commission to explore the possibility of
using the funds that we receive from that to match service development
grants. It's my thinking that before any of that could proceed with
-- with any confidence, certain plans would have to be developed and
to -- to look at whether or not those priorities would be in place and
whether those plans would be -- the transit plans would be what the
community really desires.
So I'm available for questions if you have -- but my
commitment is to -- to help serve the populations that -- that
Commissioner Constantine has -- has pointed out. That's certainly
part of our mission.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the largest vehicle
you all -- vehicle or vehicles that you all own and utilize for this
purpose?
MR. LAWSON: We have one bus. Actually it's a school
bus, and it has about 40 -- 40 passengers. We use that for some of
the after-school programs that we help provide support to, including
to the county parks and rec; Girls, Inc.; and Parents As Teachers. A
lot of the after-school programs need transportation. And we're one
of their only links to providing that in the community. And I've had
to get special authorization from the state in order to provide those
services because of certain limitations in terms of how they need to
be done legally so --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there any circumstance
under which -- which that 40-person bus would be utilized for
individual travel?
MR. LAWSON: It's a rarity, but if it is just finished
picking somebody up on a group trip and is within a block of that --
that person and they're in great proximity, then it may make sense to
use that bus at that point in time to transport just one person before
going back to the bus barn type of thing. So it -- it's a
possibility, but it's not -- it's not scheduled that way as a -- as a
general rule.
We have just installed a computer scheduling program
with two county mappings, so we actually can know where all the Lee
Tran routes are, where all the streets are and -- and can say here's
where Tim Constantine lives and put him right on the map and know
exactly where he is and then schedule our programs and routes related
to that. So we're expecting as part of our plan to -- to deal with
these federal cutbacks from all these agencies to -- to look at and
increase efficiency in the program through the use of this scheduling
program. So we're taking several different tracks in terms of solving
some of the problems.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Isn't a realistic time frame
-- I'll ask both of you that. If we go ahead with this request today
but at the same time ask you and our staff to get together and look at
what we can do as far as stepping down the expense on some of those
travel items and what that -- you know, what the associated cost of
doing that is to the county and -- Bettye said it much better than I
did, the whole framework there of where we just went. If we do that
in the next few weeks -- and the LCB meets in early February; is that
right? Is that a realistic time frame to sit down and go through
that, have something back to them in February?
MR. LAWSON: Yes. In fact, we're -- I think that's a
realistic time frame. At that same point we will be making requests
to the Federal Transit Authority through the Florida Department of
Transportation for additional vehicles that we might use in the system
and what vehicles that might be appropriate to meet that demand and --
and working with Lee Tran in terms of what models might be appropriate
for a cooperative venture.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
MR. PERRY: Well within our time frame.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions? Commissioner
Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I really don't have a question
for Mr. Lawson. I'm not going to -- to oppose moving ahead today,
because I do recognize the need in the community for this. But I do
want to caution that this is, in essence, a public-private
partnership. The TD commission went out and received grants from
which they matched the funds from collected fares to provide a
service. The county became a participant to expand that service by
funding an additional level. As this program has seen some cutbacks,
the county is now being asked to step up and make a part of that --
that loss up. And I don't really have a problem with this particular
request except that a concern of mine is that the county continues to
become a larger and larger financial player, a larger and larger piece
of the pie, so essentially this becomes a county program. That
concerns me greatly. And I know we'll sit here and talk today about
segments of the population that are not being served, but if we
continue to use that as a basis for funding, there will always be
needy segments of the population in Collier County we cannot serve.
So I just want to issue a little bit of a caution that
this is a public-private partnership. It needs to be driven by what
initially kicked this off and not just by funding shortfalls and. You
know, again, I'm going to support this today, but there's a little
gnawing feeling there that we're going to become a too large a
participant in this, and the last thing we need is the county
basically funding half or more of this program.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As part -- I don't disagree.
As part of this -- first of all, I'm not sure what the private part of
this is, because Tech is a not-for-profit, so I'm not sure who the
industry in this is but --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I didn't say
industry. I think there's a vendor providing a service.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Anyway, as part of what I'd
like to see us do and I think I mentioned, is the manager will be
looking at some alternatives as we go into the new fiscal year where
we can get into more with private enterprise and, I think, relieve
some of the public portion of that burden. So I think this is a
stopgap. We've got, as I said, a health, safety, and welfare issue
facing us in the immediate. But I think you're absolutely right in
that we don't want to take on this burden and be carrying the majority
of the load long term.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think -- I think we all can see
that. Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm going to -- depending on the
motion, I'm probably going to support it today as well. I would just
like to ask my fellow board members to clearly remember the
difficulties we're experiencing with this program so that we may use
that information in some future discussion if an expanded public
transportation system is proposed to this board.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a motion? Is there a
motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: MAdam Chairman, motion to
approve the recommendation in our executive summary and to give our
staff direction to work with Mr. Lawson and Tech to fill that gap as
earlier outlined here in your and my discussion and return that to LCB
in February.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Perry?
MR. PERRY: Yes. Just for clarification on the motion,
does that include an increase or just the 75,000 that's currently
budgeted? The HPO budget currently has 75,000 into it that you
granted during the normal budget cycle. What the -- what is -- the
second part of this request is what would I assume have to come from
contingencies, because there's no money in the HPO budget for it. It
would have to come from your budget someplace else.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You can't turn the lights off a
little early each day?
MR. PERRY: No.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Lawson, what happens if
the extra 25,000 isn't budgeted?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Right now.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If we don't do it right now.
MR. LAWSON: As of right now? There would have to be
continued service cutbacks, and it would be much more difficult to --
to work out an arrangement in terms of reduction in fees. I mean,
just from a practical financial standpoint, that would -- that would
put us even that further out of -- of sync with the needs. I would
encourage you to approve it and --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No kidding.
MR. LAWSON: And -- obviously. But I am sensitive to
the needs of -- of taxpayers as well being one, and I'm trying to hold
down this -- the county's burden in this as much as possible. And so
if -- if --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. I'll approve --
MR. LAWSON: If we're not -- if we don't have to use it
for whatever purpose, it would just remain in the funds of the
county.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll include the $25,000.
I'll also suggest that above and beyond the discussion between our
staff and Mr. Lawson that we put Mr. Dotrill on some sort of a time
frame, and I'm open to suggestions on what that would be, but -- for a
proposal for the upcoming fiscal year. Obviously that one isn't as
time sensitive as the other issue.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, I'd
like to propose something that may accomplish the end objective, which
is to go ahead and approve the -- the full 100,000 but reserve the
25,000 until the last fiscal quarter until we get from Mr. Dotrill
what this proposed Lee Tran impact may or may not be. I don't think
the Lee Tran extension is going to be some panacea. I don't think
it's going to be something that we're going to be ready to jump on,
but should it remove some of the encumbrances upon the TD program, our
funding should be commensurately either reduced or maintained. So if
we can phase the hundred thousand so that the 25,000 additional is in
the last quarter of the year, that may give us the time to look at the
Lee Tran extension and how it impacts the TD system and may reduce
their load. It's a suggestion. My support is not contingent upon it,
but it's merely a suggestion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no objection.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If that's the motion, I'll second
it. Is that the motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
accepted an amendment to --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
but I missed the words.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
Okay. And the motion maker has
To phase '-
I'm sorry. I know what you mean,
To approve the -- to approve the
immediate $75,000 amount and to approve an additional 25,000 for the
last fiscal quarter of the upcoming year pending the review and
decisions -- potential decisions by this board regarding Lee Tran
extension and how it may impact the operation of the TD program.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And to give staff direction
to deal with Mr. Lawson between now and February to correct the
immediate problem and to put Mr. Dotrill on a time frame. I'm open
for a suggestion on what that time frame is.
MR. DORRILL: End of March.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Late March?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's plenty of time. And
there's also the point in here of $4,200 being set aside for senior
services as a recommendation. Is that a part of your motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Does everybody understand the motion? Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just -- I think we ought to
encourage Mr. Lawson to understand that come the last quarter there
may not be $25,000. That's part of the motion. So you need to plan
appropriately for that. MR. LAWSON: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there further discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
MR. PERRY: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Perry.
Item #8A2
PROVISIONS OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM - ALL
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS TO BE DISCUSSED AT A
WORKSHOP SESSION
Next item on the agenda is item 8(A) -- I'm sorry. It
is ten o'clock, and we have a time certain for a discussion of the
sheriff's HSTU. Mr. Dotrill.
MR. DORRILL: I'm looking to see if the city manager and
the mayor have arrived yet.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: They are not here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They are not here yet?
MR. DORRILL: I think it's important that they be here,
so if we can just continue on until the mayor and city manager are
here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Hihalic, you're back.
MR. HIHALIC: Thank you, Commissioners. Good morning.
I'm Greg Hihalic of the housing urban improvement staff. We're before
you this morning to discuss the affordable housing density bonus
program. This comes about from a request from Commissioner Norris a
couple weeks ago saying he wanted to look at the system and see how it
operated and see what changes might be appropriate for the system. I
gave you an executive summary to talk about how the system was
developed and how it worked.
Essentially it gives extra priorities to large
apartments, those apartments that have more bedrooms, three bedrooms
or more, as a -- as a -- certainly an extra benefit and in those
apartments that serve increasingly lower income individuals and
families. And on your agenda in your package, page 8, is really the
matrix that sets up the formula for how an affordable housing density
bonus is derived.
I should also mention that, if you notice my executive
summary, that this program was entered into as part of a stipulated
settlement of an administrative hearing case, and it also says that
this was the minimum criteria, and you stipulated that these were the
minimum criteria that were necessary. I think you're going to need
some guidance from your county attorney's office as to what kind of
changes you can make to this program and how it affects those
stipulated settlements.
I gave you a couple of examples in the executive
summary. And if you have a community with large three-bedroom units
that serve very low income people, you could have as -- as few as 30
percent of the units be affordable, and the rest would be market
rate. I gave you a couple other examples, but there's many ways --
yes, Commissioner.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me stop you right there.
MR. HIHALIC: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's really the crux of the
question here. My concern is I don't want a developer to be able to
translate his density bonus into market-rate apartments. And the --
the wording here is ambiguous enough to where I can't tell what you
meant when you wrote this executive summary and -- and your statement
right there. If 30 percent of the units are -- are qualifying units,
does he get his full bonus for the entire acreage of the project that
he can, therefore, have an increased number of market-rate
apartments? That's what I -- that's my question.
MR. HIHALIC: Yes, he can, Commissioner. If only 30
percent of the units are required to be affordable and he gets the
density bonus on a hundred percent of the acreage, he essentially
would have two-thirds of those units or 70 percent of those potential
density bonus units that would be market-rate units. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. HIHALIC: So it's absolutely true.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's -- that's exactly --
that's what I thought -- MR. HIHALIC: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- was occurring, and that's
exactly what I don't want to occur. I don't think that's fair at
all. If -- if there's any bonus to be allowed, everything that is a
bonus apartment must be --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Affordable.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- an affordable unit, otherwise
the county's getting rooked on the deal. That's --
MR. HIHALIC: I'm not sure we're getting ripped, because
there's no cash cost to the county to this, and this encourages
affordable housing within --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, density -- density rooks
us. I mean, if we -- if our base density is 4 units and somebody can
have 12 market-rate units per acre just by providing 30 percent
affordable housing, well, we're getting rooked on the deal.
MR. HIHALIC: Well, I think -- I call that your
incentive to encourage affordable housing at no cost. And that's the
reason for the affordable housing density bonus program, so that the
county does not have to put cash up to encourage affordable housing
but has programs that work at no cost -- no cash cost to the county.
And then --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, see, Mr. Hihalic, the
problem is we're not trying to encourage additional bonus units of
market-rate apartments, only affordable units. And if somebody is
getting market-rate units that they don't deserve, then they're --
they're subverting our policies and increasing densities that I don't
feel they're -- they're entitled to.
MR. HIHALIC: Well, Commissioner, I think that's the
reason for the affordable housing density bonus program. Right now
all the affordable communities that have been built in the county are
a hundred percent affordable, but that's primarily --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What about Osprey Landing?
MR. HIHALIC: Osprey Landing is a hundred percent
affordable, Commissioner.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: A hundred percent?
MR. HIHALIC: A hundred percent, yes, Commissioner.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's where I think we may --
this argument is occurring right now in theory. MR. HIHALIC: Yes, it is.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because in practice what has
happened is everything has become a hundred percent affordable. So I
understand, Mr. Hihalic, your feelings and your -- it's really your
job to push for the affordable housing and the availability of it.
MR. HIHALIC: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: However, the change that
Commissioner Norris is talking about, one which I conceptually
support, it would have no impact.
MR. MIHALIC: Oh, but it would, Commissioner.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it would not have any
impact on current existing projects because they all are 100 percent
affordable. They all would have received their bonus, and they all
ended up going a hundred percent affordable. MR. HIHALIC: That's right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mention in here that Collier
County has actually been very successful in increasing the number of
affordable units in the time period in which this program has been in
place.
MR. HIHALIC: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we're really doing something
right for affordable. So if we see what's coming out on the market
end, and we see that a policy change that institutes what this board
may feel is a fairness concept is not really going to have an impact
on the way in which it's being done right now, then we're saying that
-- that we don't mind continuing down the same path. So we -- we
could probably have a very long discussion on the fact that if we give
-- if their base is four and they request eight additional units as a
density bonus, but only four of those additional units, in essence, go
to affordable housing, are we encouraging affordable, or are we
providing the -- the avenue for someone to go get the other matching
funds that make their project even more affordable -- or more
profitable? And I think we're wrestling with that. I think we're
wrestling with whether or not to give incentive versus give the cash
cow away.
And there's probably going to be a theory basis
difference between your position and Commissioner Norris and possibly
between mine. But if in practice they're all going a hundred percent,
and if in practice by saying every density bonus -- every density unit
you get, every bonus unit you get has to be affordable, I don't see
how we're going to change in which the way business has been done on
these affordable projects, and if it will, please enlighten me as to
how.
MR. HIHALIC: Yes, I'll try to do that, Commissioner.
The reason we're getting a hundred percent affordable communities is
because of the federal low income housing tax credits. That is the
driver that's making these -- these communities a hundred percent
affordable. By their affordable housing density bonus, they may not
have been required to have been a hundred percent affordable, and
maybe that was some of the confusion on Oprey's Landing, which was not
required to be a hundred percent affordable by the density bonus that
was given to that community. However, the tax credits are what's
driving it.
An unbuilt development, Leawood Lakes, which is a home
ownership development, we split the density bonus on that
development. And so of the 84 density bonus units, 42 were set aside
for affordable houses, and 42 were given to the developer to develop
extra density for his development.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Market rate.
MR. HIHALIC: Market rate, market-rate units. That
would -- is probably what would happen if the low income housing tax
credit is cut back or eliminated as they're talking about in
congress. So what's happened in the past, I'm not sure you can
consider that happening even in the near future, because it has to be
economically feasible to develop this housing, and -- and the
economics come not only from the density bonus, but primarily from the
low-income housing tax credits. But by making these changes, you'll
dramatically affect any home ownership of affordable housing you're
producing in the future.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just as a quick follow-up, you
made the case for exactly how this board set its priority. We would
like to see more affordable home ownership. I mean, the more we can
do of that, it helps, you know, the tax base, longevity. Everything
is -- you know, if we are going to make an exception to the rule, it
should be for ownership, not for rental units. I think we're seeing a
heavy proliferation of rental units come in, and that's not bad, but
this change, unless congress does something else, isn't going to
affect that. So I understand your argument, and -- but I think that
this just becomes a policy decision for this board.
MR. HIHALIC: It does, Commissioner.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm happy that we're having the
discussion and -- but a little disappointed that we're having this
discussion only on this particular issue when I recall Commissioner
Matthews and I and maybe others having asked for some time; let's
discuss the affordable housing program and what incentives, what extra
incentives we can give for very low income housing. MR. HIHALIC: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And so I'd like for our
evaluation of this issue to -- to be broader. Even though the theory
of what you're discussing, Commissioner Norris, is perfectly agreeable
to me, I'm concerned about the repercussions when the SHIP program
falls off, as we expect it's going to, what the repercussions of the
change would be.
And in addition to that issue, which I agree is very
important, there is also the other matter that some -- some members of
this board have shown some interest in, and that's in some additional
incentive for very low, even very low rental, because I don't think we
can talk about very low owner.
MR. HIHALIC: Well, we can talk about very low home
ownership in some cases. We're doing about 25 percent of the units
through as part of the SHIP programs that are very low income in the
-- in the down payment and closing costs. We're doing half of our
impact fee waivers and deferrals in very low income ownership. So we
are making cross -- headway in that area.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'd like to see some more
incentive for very low. I'd like for the incentive to be greater for
very low and less incentive for low and moderate.
MR. HIHALIC: We have discussed that. I set aside
225,000 in SHIP funding to be able to encourage impact fee waivers for
very low units. However, we could not find any additional funding
that the commission is willing to set aside. And you need at least a
half a million dollars a year to have any kind of basic program.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe this is a dumb question,
but what about more density for very low? Aren't there other
non-economic incentives to give for very low?
MR. HIHALIC: Well, you're already giving incentives
where you could have 30 percent of the community to be affordable for
very low income and have the rest to be market, and that's not enough
to drive it. So the economics are not there now, because it costs a
minimum of $18,000 in extra subsidies for every very low income unit
that is built, and the economics aren't there, Commissioner.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I make a suggestion; that the
idea of the density bonus program, I think -- I think I'm hearing that
-- that Commissioner Norris has concerns about the way we're going
about the density program. But at the same time we've got a
stipulated agreement that we entered into also; and these are, quote,
unquote, the minimum requirements. And at the same time Commissioner
Hac'Kie is looking for ways to encourage additional affordable
building, and so is Commissioner Hancock. We all are. Is it possible
that we could defer this discussion to a workshop environment where we
can bring our affordable housing waiver deferral program in and
discuss it in conjunction with the density bonus program so that we
wind up with a program that's cohesive and workable?
MR. HIHALIC: Certainly, Commissioner. I mean, those
things go hand in hand and must work.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But we're only discussing one
right now.
MR. HIHALIC: Both of them have no cash cost of county
taxpayers, and that's why those programs are successful and
politically salable to this group, and so keep that in mind.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The cash cost and impact to the
community are not necessarily related, though. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The same.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I mean, if we're going around
encouraging 12 units an acre in areas that abut -- areas that have 4
units an acre, we're causing impacts to the community. Whether it
costs the taxpayer a penny or not doesn't necessarily mean that it
doesn't impact the community; that's what I'm trying to get at.
Besides that, and my main concern is that by doing -- the way we're
doing it now, we are allowing developers to use our -- our regulations
and our policies to increase the density on their market-rate units,
and that's, I don't think, proper.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, Commissioner Norris, at the
same time I agree with that theory, but I am -- I believe I'm right
about your position on this, that it's not your goal to do anything to
reduce incentives for affordable housing, just -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's true.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That you don't want to give a
bonus to market-rate projects.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's true again.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- so somehow those have to be
balanced. I just don't want the message to be delivered that
Commissioner Norris is trying to cut incentives for affordable
housing. I don't hear you saying that. I hear you saying you don't
want to give some sort of an unfair advantage on market rates.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's exactly right. Thank you
for clarifying that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What I'm hearing is that
Commissioner Norris would like to see 100 percent of any bonus units
going to affordable housing and not market rates.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Add Commissioner Hancock to that
list also.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unless that significantly
interferes with and provides a disincentive so that it kills the
affordable housing program.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which we've proven is not the
case unless there's some significant change at the congressional
level.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which we expect.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ms. Student.
MS. STUDENT: Madam Chairman, Harjorie Student,
assistant county attorney. For the record I just wanted to remind the
commission that we're going through the EAR process of the comp. plan
which has really set up the framework for this. So it may be
appropriate at some point to fold in a discussion along with the EAR,
which does an evaluation to see if our plan and of the implementing
regulations are working, and I just wanted to mention that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. I'd like to suggest
that perhaps one Tuesday afternoon when we've had a light schedule
that we spend a couple of hours discussing our density bonus program,
our deferral waiver program, bring the entire impetus for our
affordable housing program in its entirety to -- to us and discuss
ways that we can enhance it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why don't we just set aside
Tuesday the 26th for that?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think Tuesday the 26th probably
won't be all that light of an agenda. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But if -- if this board would
consider doing that, I think that's probably the best way to sit down
and discuss the pros and cons.
MR. HIHALIC: I agree. I think there's other provisions
here. There's a provision that says a developer does not have to
fezone the property at all. He's forced to go through that process if
he wants a density bonus. I think those are some considerations that
should be looked at within the program also.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And we -- we need to know all
those little things that --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can provide sufficient
trade-offs to make you happy, Mr. Hihalic, I'm confident. MR. HIHALIC: Good. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, can we assume that
that's direction for one light Tuesday? I know we've got public
speakers.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sometime in March.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What's going on in March?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's happening in March?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Anyway, can we look for you to --
to take that under advise --
MR. DORRILL: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. We have public
speakers. I presume Mr. Keller is one of them.
MR. DORRILL: He is, but he's not first. Ms. Gust will
be first. Mr. Erlichman will be next.
MS. GUST: Good morning. My name is Joan Gust, and I'm
a member of the City and County Affordable Housing Advisory, and I'm
here as an individual. You create and you appoint people to advisory
committees. I think that this needs to be referred to our committee
so that we can study it and advise you and lighten some of the work
and the load that you have. And that's just my sole suggestion.
Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Thank you. Mr. Erlichman and then, Mr.
Keller, you'll be the final speaker.
MR. ERLICHHAN: If Mr. Keller wants to proceed me --
good morning. My name is Gil Erlichman and a resident of East Naples,
and I'm speaking for myself.
I have observed the actions of Mr. Mihalic at most of
these affordable housing meetings. And in my opinion, he's one of the
best advocates for the builders and the developers and does not
benefit the taxpayers of Collier County. In fact, it was brought out
just now by his own statement that, oh, does -- this -- this no cash
involved -- no cash cost involved to the county. And, of course, Mr.
Norris refuted that by saying that, well, it's not the cash involved;
it's the -- it's the density in the -- of the affordable housing bonus
and all the machinations that go into that. And I don't -- I really
don't understand what Mr. Hihalic is gaining by working against the
benefit of the taxpayers of Collier County. I would like him to
explain that to me.
MR. HIHALIC: Well, Mr. Erlichman, one of the wonderful
things about affordable housing is that the taxpayers of Collier
County save between two hundred and two hundred fifty dollars a month
for each one of those people that can reside in affordable housing and
live in housing that's affordable to their income level. So I think
affordable housing is a good thing for the county and good for the
taxpayers of Collier County.
MR. ERLICHHAN: But not when you advocate the -- the
density bonus, which is actually not fair to the taxpayers, as Mr.
Norris and Hiss Hac'Kie's brought out.
MR. HIHALIC: Well, we have a difference of opinion on
that.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Keller.
MR. KELLER: George Keller, concerned citizen. In the
first place, there's no such thing as affordable housing. It costs
from forty to fifty thousand dollars a unit, and the people that come
in here with affordable housing stated that. So that means you have
to charge about anywhere from four fifty to five hundred dollars a
month for the smallest apartment pretty well. So let's face facts.
It's either subsidized housing, or it's this density problem. And we
have to realize one thing. Collier County was always a decent place
to live, and it is still yet -- yet, but when we -- when I see places
like Osprey Landing and Headowood being built out of plywood and junk,
and when I realized that when the federal government was involved in
affordable housing they built red brick buildings and now they're
dynamiting to get rid of them, it really disturbs me, because what
you're building is a bunch of shacks. You're building submodel
buildings, and you set -- you claim you're doing something to the
county. We're degrading this county with -- by building this type of
stuff. If we can't build decent stuff and make it affordable, then we
shouldn't even attempt to build affordable housing. Basically there's
only one way to build an affordable house; go out and buy a lot like I
did and build it yourself. Then you build it for 50 percent of the
cost.
And most of these contractors like Osprey Landing and
Headowood, the original construction companies made a fortune on
that. That's what they did with most affordable housing over the last
60 years. They make a fortune and walk out. And then what happens is
you get a bunch of slum -- slum developments, and you have slumlords.
Let's not get Collier County into the position where we've 17, 18
units to the acre. We should confine ourself to four units to the
acre if we want to keep the standard of living the way it should be.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Hihalic.
MR. HIHALIC: I'd just like to make a correction to what
-- Mr. Keller, Headowood is not an affordable housing community. MR. KELLER: It's a dump hill.
MR. HIHALIC: A dump market-rate community, but it's not
affordable housing. We also should understand that affordable housing
is built with all the regulations of Collier County, all the building
standards of Collier County.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve Mr.
Keller's definition of Headowood. All right. I withdraw the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we will look for next time we
have a Tuesday agenda similar to this one; we get to spend the
afternoon -- I would just say spend a couple of hours -- let's say
minimum time necessary to just really have, I guess, a broad-based
discussion on what incentives can be made to get where we want to go.
And I'd like to find out -- we set a goal in our Growth Management
Plan. When we get there, hey, we're there so --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's talk about that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- how far along are we?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think we'll ever get
there.
MR. HIHALIC: Our Growth Management Plan says we have to
provide affordable housing for all the low and moderate income
residents who are here right now and will be here in the future.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, Greg, if you had to say sort
of where we are, could you tell us what percentage of that goal we
might have reached with our present incentives?
MR. HIHALIC: We're making tremendous progress. In the
1990 census 10,500 families were living in affordable housing.
MR. HANCOCK: And that's my point, is we're seeing a
proliferation of these requests. I just want to know where it is
we're trying to get to and how we're making progress on it, because
there's -- obviously we could go to the end of time doing affordable
and --
MR. HIHALIC: We will.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We will. We probably will,
unfortunately.
I -- the recommendation is that we have a workshop
discussion of all the affordable housing programs and -- and
regulations that do exist and see if we can't put together a program
that will accomplish more of what we are trying to do. And, Mr.
Dotrill, I hope you'll have that early in the new year. Okay?
MR. HIHALIC: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Anything else? Anything
further? Thank you.
Item #8E2
DISCUSSION OF THE SHERIFF'S HSTU - COUNTY ATTORNEY TO PROCEED AS
ORIGINALLY DIRECTED AND STAY ON SCHEDULE, BUT TO ALLOW FOR A TWO YEAR
SUNSET AUTOMATICALLY
We'll move on now to item 8(E)(2). This is a discussion
of the sheriff's MSTU.
MR. DORRILL: This is an item that I had asked to be
added to today's agenda. The board has previously instructed the
staff to prepare a countywide MSTU for the purposes of budgeting and
showing separate the millage necessary on the sheriff's budget. I
might add that we found a typo on our handouts. I'm having it
revised, and it should be up here any second, and we'll pass it out so
that there will be no confusion on the handout.
Mr. Weigel has currently advertised your review of the
countywide HSTU that would be at your meeting of the 19th of
December. The City of Everglades will take action on a different
version of that ordinance at their first hearing this evening. And
it's my understanding that the city's scheduled for their first
hearing tomorrow as a result of a workshop discussion that they had
yesterday.
My reason for bringing it on the agenda today is that
the city's proposal in terms of the amendments that they would like to
see to the ordinance is sharply different from, I believe, the intent
that you had. And I felt best to bring that to your attention, asked
them to be here to explain their rationale, because if they approve
one version of an ordinance and you approve a separate version of the
ordinance, then we would not have accomplished anything by the
necessary end-of-the-year deadline in order to create either a
countywide single district for law enforcement or some combination of
two districts.
So that, you know, you currently split your funding of
the sheriff's budget in two different funds; the general fund, which
is countywide, pays 38 million dollars, thereabouts, to the sheriff's
45 million dollar budget. And the other 7 million is currently in the
unincorporated area fund, which obviously is for those residents who
do not live in either one of the two cities. That was established as
a result of a settlement in a lawsuit that went back to 1979 and 1980
where the city and the county agreed to have a one-year HSTU split
between the two in order to settle that lawsuit. It was for only one
year, but since that time as part of the settlement the county agreed
to annually review and use its best efforts to recognize that the city
does not lay claim to an ongoing double taxation claim against the
county. So we currently fund the sheriff's budget from those two
separate sources.
At this point the only items in the unincorporated
budget as they pertain to that old lawsuit are the sheriff's road
patrol activities in Immokalee and Everglades City and the support of
those. Obviously they have a certain amount of administrative cost,
substation cost and the like, and also a portion, I believe -- and
I'll need to verify this -- of your community park program in
Immokalee, but aside from -- from that, all of the other county's
costs as they pertain to the sheriff.
The sheriff breaks his budget down into several areas.
He has administration. He has what he calls road patrol. In
addition, as part of that in expanded, includes operations. There's a
separate line item for corrections in the budget that from my
perspective is a countywide or equal benefit and also judicial, which
is his required support and security in bailiffs within the courtrooms
at the courthouse. And the sheriff's budget is broken down into those
major cost centers as part of his separate fund.
The main issues -- I've had a chance since last Friday
to review the city's proposed amendments, and I'll go through these.
I do see that the city manager is here as well as the sheriff, and I'm
going to ask them to participate in this.
Essentially what the city manager is proposing and was
discussed at their workshop yesterday is that we would determine 1995
to be the base year for the sheriff's budget. And any increases in
cost to the sheriff's budget that we define here for your purposes as
expanded service requests would have to go into the unincorporated
area fund. The city would like to still see two separate funds, one
countywide and one unincorporated. Well, I think that's as easy as I
can explain that.
The way we define expanded services can most easily be
shown as an example. In this year's budget the sheriff asked for 28
new deputies that has been much discussed. Under the city's proposal
those 28 new deputies would have to be in the unincorporated area
fund. City residents would not pay into or support that. I think
that is -- is perhaps a major distinction over what you had -- had
anticipated.
Another distinction is the city is proposing that -- and
under the statute there needs to be a separate governing board,
because we're joint venturing, if you will, between the city's and the
county's. So this is more than an advisory board. This is a
governing board. The city is proposing that in addition to five
county commissioners, that there would be four city council
representatives, three from the city and one from the City of
Everglades, and there is some rationale for that. The concern,
frankly, being, though, that the balance of power on the governing
board is not commensurate with the taxes paid.
In 1980 as part of the settlement agreement, the City of
Naples at that time was paying approximately 34 percent of total taxes
paid in our community. In 1995 that has dropped to about 24 percent.
And increasingly as we see growth in the unincorporated area, the
city's total share of taxes paid is going to diminish over time. But,
again, there is a distinction that I at least wanted to make you aware
of.
There are some items in Section 5 and 6 that, frankly,
need to be explored a little further with staff, and Dr. Woodruff and
I have not had an opportunity to do that. But they are referencing --
and the term that they use is a millage offset as established and
defined by the 1980 agreement. And so that they're not
misunderstanding it, it would behoove me to have a better
understanding of that.
The sheriff, in addition, has given us some comments as
to how he would like to see the MSTU developed as they pertain to
other revenues. And specifically if you begin to try and prorate for
1995 being a base year between other nonproperty tax revenues that are
currently in the general fund -- I mentioned a couple of those to you
before; state revenue sharing, fines and forfeitures and the like --
you wouldn't have accomplished much, because you're going to be
allowing the sheriff the same access to revenues that you need in your
general fund. And I had preached to the board long enough about the
general fund issues, and I'm not -- I won't belabor that today.
So to set this item up -- and because the two cities are
scheduled to go to hearing on an ordinance that has substantial
changes to it, I thought it would be best to discuss this today to see
if you're willing to support their ordinance amendments with the level
of changes that they have as a courtesy to them, because if you're
not, then they won't need to take this under emergency hearing in the
case of Everglades this evening and then the city tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have one question before we get
going. You gave us some percentages early on of the percentage of the
sheriff's budget from the general fund and the percentage from the
unincorporated area fund. Can you give those to me again?
MR. DORRILL: I didn't give you any percentages. I gave
you actual dollar amounts. The current year's adopted budget has
about 38.5 million dollars from the general fund. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: And then approximately 6.5 from the
unincorporated area fund.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner
Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd just like -- I'm sorry. Did
you say Hac'Kie?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just would like to ask the
county attorney to lay out sort of a fundamental basis so that we know
what our parameters are here. Can the county commission say thank you
very much, city council, we don't like what you proposed, and we
reject it, and that's the end of the discussion? What exactly is --
what can we do? Are we required to have two resolutions -- two
separate ordinances? What are the parameters here? Can we tell them
to go away, we don't like your idea, and that's the end of the
discussion, or do they have some more significant influence than
that?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Commissioner. The -- the
authority for the Board of County Commissioners of a county to provide
or create a municipal service taxing service units that include
municipalities within the county derive from Section 125.01 of the
Florida Statutes known as the powers and duties statutes for boards of
county commissioners. It specifically provides that the county has
the ability to create ordinances for HSTUs that include
municipalities, but it also provides that the municipalities that are
to be included within the boundaries of such HSTU must by ordinance
approve being included. In fact, it also specifically states that
such approval shall be for a term of years or provide some specific
amount of time that their approval is to be accounted for.
Beyond that there is nothing further that's required.
The approvals that comes from the cities that are prospectively to be
included in such an HSTU may not necessarily have to have any further
provisos or requirements upon the county but merely the -- the
endorsement of the HSTU concept including the cities. It also
provides -- another section of that statute, 125.01, provides that the
Board of County Commissioners may include members of the municipality
governing bodies in the governing body of the HSTUs. It's a
discretionary ability of the county to so choose.
The linkage, though, that appears to occur is that the
endorsement of the cities may have provisos such as indicating that
they not merely desire, but that their -- that their approval of such
HSTU concept to include the city would require representation on the
governing body. Please note that the governing body of the HSTU
essentially is no different -- of this kind of HSTU is not necessarily
different from the governing body of any other HSTU, and that is the
Board of County Commissioners. And then the Board of County
Commissioners in this context -- because of the budgetary
considerations of this HSTU sitting as the Board of County
Commissioners ultimately would review the recommendations of the
governing body of the HSTU in the annual budgetary process. I've
expanded on your question a little bit. But I hope I've answered it
directly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I appreciate what you've told us,
but sort of fundamentally what I'm hearing is -- well, now let me back
up and ask you another question.
Is it possible to -- to incorporate this concept that
Commissioner Norris brought forward without two separate ordinances?
Is it possible to do this without -- I don't question for a second --
I'm confident that we're going to be able to reach consensus between
the county commission and the city council. But in the event that
were impossible, what does that do to the concept of MSTU for law
enforcement countywide?
MR. WEIGEL: The concept of the MSTU in part, I believe,
derives from a desire to distinguish the -- the budgetary
requirements, therefore, the millage and the -- and the tax --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry to interrupt. Let me
ask you this more directly.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If the city says we're not going
to agree to come in without A, B, C, and D, can we do this anyway, or
does that kill the concept of MSTU for law enforcement?
MR. DORRILL: No, it would kill it because --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I --
MR. DORRILL: -- the city's concept effectively rules
here, because you cannot dictate required participation in the MSTU
under your terms.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I was really just
trying to fundamentally get to.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Before we go too much farther in
this discussion, let me just point out that it seems to be getting a
lot more complicated than anyone had envisioned. My whole purpose in
bringing this forward was simply from an accounting perspective to be
able to separate the sheriff's budget from the county commission
budget and let it become more visible, and result at no time did I
ever anticipate changing funding sources, changing funding proportions
or splits or changing the budgetary authority from one body to
another. It was just simply an accounting change. And if we're going
to go a lot farther than that, I'm not sure that I'm going to support
it either. You know, I would like to see us just go right back to
what was originally proposed, and that was just separate it out so
that we can see it clearly, no other changes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I had the impression that we were
merely looking for accountability.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And, gees, the world of
unintended effect and result. Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Clearly the alternative is -- and
what I see here is almost a request from the city to be somewhat
retroactive, to go back and say, well, this is a part of the approved
budget we don't like and we want to pull that out. I don't argue
that. I mean, I think sitting in their shoes of fiscal
responsibility, when they see an area in which they can save their
taxpayers some money to pursue it, I don't take issue with that at
all. But, likewise, I thought we were taking one thing on the tax
bill, and we're making two lines out of it that add up to the same
amount. I mean, in a nutshell that's what we were trying to do. And
what this effectively will do -- if we add every facet of what has
already been raised today, this will effectively kill it. And we'll
go back to doing things the way we've done them, you know, for
decades, and no one gets anything out of the deal. There is no
increase in the public's ability to determine what the sheriff's
budget is year to year as opposed to the BCC budget, and the city
continues paying as they have. So I think that being the other side
of the coin, this -- this could easily be simplified to be simply an
item on a tax bill as opposed to some whole new structure of
quasi-government which is where this seems to be leading.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I just make one last --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, because I'd like to hear
from Dr. Woodward.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would too. I have to just say,
though, that I agree with everything you said. However --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why did I know there was a
"however" there?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: However, if you look at -- you
can see how the City of Naples can't resist the opportunity to make
this point, that 24 percent of the sheriff's budget is paid for by
City of Naples residents who also pay for a separate police
department. So I -- I, you know, acknowledge that we tried to do
something simple but also that this is an opportunity to make that
point, and that will make it better --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unfortunately I can make the same
point with Pelican Bay and Vanderbilt Beach and -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Marco Island.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Marco Island. Yeah, tax
equity is sometimes not -- is not a real easy --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Life's tough. Deal with it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we hear from Dr.
Woodward (sic) and get some of the city's opinions or the mayor.
MR. DORRILL: Is there -- as they're coming forward at
least provide a little levity because -- I should say that Richard was
extremely cooperative. I've actually went downtown yesterday to talk
to him about it. But I was trying to research this because this goes
back about 16 years. In looking at all the records, I couldn't help
but find -- I wanted to share with you that as part of the settlement
of the lawsuit -- it appears that Gil Wyle actually sued the county as
a taxpayer suit. We agreed to pay all of the attorney's fees
associated with the suit, which at that time in 1979 and 1980 for two
years were $2,000 in attorney's fees. And I believe now that's what
they pay for their suits as we're about 16 years down the road.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Gone are those days.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Life has gotten better.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For who?
MAYOR HUENZER: I think the $2,000 suit was from the
bargain rack.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Dr. Woodward, I would like to
apologize. Your name is not Woodward; it is Woodruff.
DR. WOODRUFF: I know some fine Woodwards, so I don't
take offense to that.
MAYOR HUENZER: No, but they may take offense with you.
Put that in there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you want to get this started?
MAYOR HUENZER: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We
appreciate the opportunity to come out and join you in discussion on
this particular item. It's something that came about very quickly.
We just really got into it last week, and I apologize that we weren't
able to talk to you as individuals or, most particular, the fact our
own city representative here, because before Richard or I could begin
to talk to you, we had to talk to council, and we couldn't do that
before yesterday morning's workshop. So we were kind of flying by in
which Richard was trying to talk to some and get some input, at the
same time bringing together a little bit of a packet for us to work on
yesterday. And so it wasn't until late yesterday morning, early
afternoon we brought it to closure, so the best thing is to come out
and let you know where we are.
One of the things that we picked out the October 1st as
a freeze point. That -- and Richard will discuss these items later.
That is a known. We know what's the manpower of the sheriff's
department as you finish the budget year. It's a known. It's your
known factor. We felt there had to be a known thing that we were
considering discussing or adopting, and that was a known thing. You
have so much budgeted; that's the beginning point. That's why we
picked October 1.
The idea of a 5-3-1 nine-person board, that was part of
your packet, that there be an oversight board similar, as we interpret
it, to what you have in the HPO. And with the commission being five
members, you would not want to go beyond nine for a number on the
board. You'd want to retain the control with five members.
The city is currently 27 percent -- or 12 percent of the
population we know, and that doesn't mean three members. However,
you've only got two cities at the present time, Everglades and the
City of Naples. Everglades needs one regardless of percentage.
Normally we'd say, okay, rounding off or such the city might then have
two. But with anticipation -- and you're looking ahead in
anticipation there may be potential other cities we felt to go ahead
and say a 5-3-1 with the understanding as other cities were created
our three would diminish and drop off until we got into a rounding as
to what we had or what the other cities were, depending on their
size. So we just threw out the nine-member advisory board similar to
HPO. That was the reason for the magic number nine, making sure that
you kept the control. Or you could do it if you wish and round it and
do a 5-2-1 and hold one seat in abeyance for the future and only have
an eight-member board. So that's not a rigid thing. We only tried to
put that out as just to be flexible, build in for the nine and allow
it to be there so you didn't have to go through paperwork later to
create the other.
The city is interested in working with this, and, John,
we appreciate your -- your interest and your accountability. As you
said this is what you're looking for. And we, too, are looking for a
degree of accountability.
Just a few things, we heard a gentleman earlier today
from Marco putting statistics out on Marco Island. I happened to
catch that while I was in the office. And just a few things, again,
to show you why the city is interested in accountability, and then I'm
going to turn it over to Dr. Woodruff for more in-depth discussion.
We make up about 12-and-some-fraction percent of the
population of Collier County. Yet we currently are putting 27 percent
of the sheriff's ad valorem money into the budget. That's not 27
percent of his total budget, because some of his budget comes from
other sources, from state and federal. But of the ad valorem source,
approximately 27 percent comes from the City of Naples with 12 percent
of the population. And just to put it in perspect (sic), that's
around 9 million dollars that we are paying into the sheriff's budget
from the city ad valorem money. Our own fire and police budget that
takes care of all of our public safety -- fire and police is right
around 5 million, 5-plus-just-a-fraction dollars.
So to put it in perspective, we're putting 9 million
into the sheriff's budget, and we get some services. We're not
quibbling. We've had good services. We have no problem with what
we're currently paying for. We have no problem to continue paying for
it and their salary increases. But our concern is the fact of a
freeze on manpower as the rest of the county grows and as more demands
grow, we feel that those areas of growth should by HSTU take and pay
for it and support it. And Richard will go ahead and present more.
But we're not talking -- quibbling -- I'm talking of
fixed dollars on October 1st. We're talking on personnel figures as
of October 1st. That's what we're talking about. Whatever those
numbers are as they get pay raises in the future, we'll pay the pay
raises. We'll pay the medical. We'll pay those supplements. But
we're talking of a manpower freeze as a beginning point so we have
something to talk about and you have something. There has to be a
beginning point before you can have discussion or you can have an
awareness. We had to have a beginning point to talk to council
yesterday, and that was our beginning point, October 1 manpower. That
way they had numbers. You budget it. The numbers are written in the
tablet how much is budgeted for. We had numbers to talk to council.
So with that I'll turn it over to Dr. Woodruff to go
ahead and present some more, and then we'll be available for whatever
questions you have. I just want to again say thank you for including
us in your discussion. I think that this makes me feel good, because
in the past previous years leading up to the last few, we didn't have
much discussion. We used to have more harangue and less discussion
between the commission and council. And I do feel that this is one of
the things -- I'm ready to step down, and it's one of the things that
I can say I take great satisfaction in is the new way that we seem to
work and discuss amicably to everybody's advantage and are open
minded. I think this is another example that -- that some in the past
is behind us and let's never look back. Let's just keep looking ahead
and continue. I want to thank you for this, and, Richard, would you
take it from there.
DR. WOODRUFF: Good morning. Happy holidays to you
all. I'd like to recognize that another city council member is with
us this morning, Fred Terrant. I'm not sure that any of the other
council members have joined us. Hr. Terrant is here, and I was
looking for other council members.
HAYOR HUENZER: I'm not sure. I don't think there's
anyone else.
DR. WOODRUFF: On November 15th the city council or the
city manager's office received a letter from David Weigel. And the
letter stated in the beginning paragraph that the Board of County
Commissioners on November 7, 1995, directed the county attorney's
office to prepare two ordinances, one for the unincorporated area and
one countywide to create municipal service taxing units to fund the
sheriff's budget. Later in that letter it asked that we could have --
for us to have our comments back by the 22nd of November.
Unfortunately, we were not able to do that, because the city attorney
was out of town and some other things. But we were able to get to Mr.
Weigel our comments, I believe, about this time last week. So we do
appreciate the opportunity to participate in this.
As Mr. Weigel has mentioned to you, Florida Statute 125
is from where the creation power comes. An HSTU can only be created
by the governing body, and Section 125 gives you as the county
commission the authority to create HSTUs for a variety of things.
There's a litany. One of the enumerated items there is law
enforcement.
Now, when it comes to the law, as Mr. Weigel has stated,
is that you can create an unincorporated HSTU simply by the act of the
Board of County Commissioners. You do not have to get anyone's
concurrence. In this case if you want to create an unincorporated
HSTU that addresses the sheriff, you don't have to get Don Hunter's
approval. You don't have to get the city's approval. You don't have
to get Everglades City's approval. You have that power. On the other
hand, if you are going to create a countywide HSTU for any purpose, be
it landscaping as Neil and I have talked, or law enforcement as we're
dealing with this morning, then that must have the concurrence of all
of the governing bodies, meaning, you, the Board of County
Commissioners, the City of Everglades, and the City of Naples.
The state law lays out other things having to do with
that. Mr. Weigel can certainly give you the briefing on that. One of
the points that is in the law has to do with the governing body, and
he mentioned that as he gave you the briefing this morning, is that
there is the ability to either have the Board of County Commissioners
be the governing body or for municipal representation to occur on that
governing body. I'm certainly not going to try to give you an
education in government. That would be inappropriate and very
unnecessary. But I think one of the things that you should know as I
have discussed with city council members, they feel that they should
have representation relative to the adoption of the sheriff's budget.
The sheriff does tax through you all of the citizens of
Collier County, all of the taxpayers of Collier County. And,
therefore, for you as the county commission to have to judge that tax
puts you in an awkward position. Certainly Ms. Hac'Kie is voted on by
people inside the city, and each of you are voted on by people who
live in your specific districts. But the city council -- as we looked
at this, we see an advantage by expanding the membership simply
because what it then does is it gives Everglades City, the City of
Naples, and the five members of the board of county commissioners the
ability to approve and, yes, take the heat for tax increases or be
responsible for denial of services that the sheriff wants.
I mean, let's say for discussion purposes right now that
in the budget process the sheriff asked for 28 deputies. You are the
folks who have to take the heat for saying yes or saying no. The city
council feels that since those 28 deputies are at the present time
part of an overall budget scheme that includes tax dollars from the
city, that they should be part of the approval process.
As we know from the way this is set up, no one group
here can dictate to the others. City council cannot dictate to you.
Likewise, you cannot dictate to Everglades City or Everglades City
dictating to us. We think that this is a very major step forward.
Now, Neil mentioned the settlement that came out of the
1979-'80 lawsuits. It's very interesting, but if you go back and look
at both consultant studies -- and you were not here at that time, but
the consultant studies both said, the one hired by the county and the
one hired by the city -- the consultant studies recommended the same
thing, and that is that the sheriff's budget should become funded
through MSTUs. Now, we are some 15 years down the road, and
Commissioner Norris has rejuvenated that idea. Now, it's certainly --
the issue of tax equity comes in here.
But I want to explain to you why the city proposal is
written the way that it is. If you will look at the bottom of page 1
and if you will look at the definition of base level of law
enforcement, what we are saying here is that that should be the level
of service provided through the budget which you adopted and went into
effect October 1st.
Now, Commissioner Hancock, you mentioned that the city
was trying to make something retroactive. That was never our intent.
And if there's wording in here that leads to that assumption, then we
need to change that wording. What we are really saying here is that
you all have an adopted budget. We are in the middle of a budget
year. We are not going to look backwards and try to say should 40
percent of this component of the sheriff's budget be part of this,
should 80 percent be part of this. What we're saying is that the
budget that you as the Board of County Commissioners approved that
went into effect October 1st, that budget had a plan to it.
I don't know what the plan was, so I'm just going to
make up some fictitious numbers. Let's say that budget called for 700
employees in the sheriff's area. Let's say it called for 300 vehicles
and 6 facilities. What we're saying is that will become the base.
Next year when the sheriff brings his budget in in June and July and
you go through your hearings and the sheriff says, in addition to
those 700 people, I now need 28 more deputies. What we're -- in our
proposal what we're saying is those 28 deputies will go on the
unincorporated MSTU.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Dr. Woodruff, you may have just
clarified something for me. And real quickly I need to interject
here. I thought I understood from Mayor Muenzer that the city was
asking to go back to the past -- the last final year as it was
completed and use that as a base.
DR. WOODRUFF: No. What the -- reading the definition
again, the base level of law enforcement shall mean the level of
service provided through the FY '95-'96 budget as adopted by the
Board of County Commissioners and shall specifically reflect the exact
level of personnel, facilities, and equipment --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That -- that conflicts --
and I'm sorry. I have read that, but that conflicts with the
statement that the 28 deputies which is a reference to the current
fiscal year.
DR. WOODRUFF: Well, once again, you have to remember
since we have not been part of the adoption process of the county
budget, we really don't know how many deputies are in the sheriff's
budget. So let's use that as an example. When you approved the
sheriff's budget and it went into effect October 1, it had in it X
number of employees. And let's say for discussion purposes that that
number was 700. And let's say for discussion purposes that part of
that 700 was a plan to add 28 new deputies. If that's what you all
adopted, that's what becomes the base.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
DR. WOODRUFF: But let me change my number so we don't
get caught up in numbers. This coming summer Don Hunter will come
back with an additional budget. And let's say for discussion purposes
in that budget he wants 60 or 1 -- 60 more sheriff's deputies. And
you're going to have to look at how do you fund that. That is an
enhancement to this year's budget. You're going to have to decide,
well, Sheriff, do you cut this or do we add taxes, or is there enough
new revenue? Obviously you'll do what you do with any budgetary
request. You'll wrestle with its merits versus scarce revenue.
what we are saying here is whatever is in this year's budget.
The city council, as I met with them individually -- and
I had the opportunity to meet with all seven of them individually. As
we wrestled with this, there was certainly thought by council members
to try to go backward in time. And they all agreed that by going
backward in time, it would put you as a county commission at a very
awkward, and to be quite frank with you, politically unacceptable
disadvantage. You can't create a solution to any inequities of the
past, and that's not what this is intended to do.
What it's intended to do is to say, folks, for better or
for worse whatever inequities exist we will freeze. We'll accept
them. You know, the present ground rules -- we're not going to put
you all at a disadvantage by creating that suddenly immediately you
have to find 5 million dollars. What we're saying here is let's
freeze the picture. Everyone will accept it as it is. The sheriff
will accept it, the county commission, the city, City of Everglades,
will simply accept it as it is. Then for the future as the sheriff
needs three new substations, as the sheriff needs, you know, 60 more
people, that will be decided by you as the county commission sitting
as the governing body for the unincorporated HSTU.
Now, let me go back and clarify something. The base
level has people in it, such as my good friend here who is a -- I'm
surprised to see him sitting here today, because usually I see him at
Naples High School. I'm still a student there. That's my story, and
I'm sticking to it. He is in this base level budget. What we are not
saying is that his salary is frozen. We recognize that this coming
year there is going to be a cost-of-living increase passed along to
every one of the sheriff's deputies, as it will to all other employees
of the county government, whatever is -- is appropriate. What we're
saying is those costs that are associated with the present manpower,
equipment, and facilities will continue to be funded.
So let me just use that as an example. Let's say for
discussion purposes you have -- that what you have is a sheriff's
deputy that's making $30,000. As his salary grows to 32,000, 36,000
and eventually 38,000, that will be part of this base budget. What
will not be part of the base budget is when the sheriff needs 60 more
people and 60 more patrol cars and 5 more facilities. I mean, that's
really the heart of the city's proposal. When you look at the rest of
the ordinance, what you will find are things that simply reflect in
specific points the definition of a base level of law enforcement.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think Commissioner Constantine
has some questions.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First, I got to agree with
Commissioner Norris. I feel like we're getting a little adrift of the
original intent. I think we were just trying to do an accounting
mechanism and have gotten into a whole different ball game.
The mayor indicated that there was at one point, and
then he used a different statistic later, but he indicated at one
point the city had 20 percent of the population of Collier County.
DR. WOODRUFF: Actually it's 12.6 percent. We had a
baby this morning, so it's on the rise.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It was later indicated 12,
and I think that's more accurate.
HAYOR HUENZER: Yeah, I thought I said 12, didn't I?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point, though, is both --
following that both the mayor and the manager said they wanted
representation in determining the sheriff's budget, and I would say
you have representation. You have a person who is elected primarily
from the City of Naples. And even if it was 20 percent and it -- and
we've determined it's 12. But even if it was 20 percent, by having
one of the five commissioners, you have 20 percent of the voice in
determining the sheriff's budget.
What I had trouble with -- and I broke it down
population-wise, and these numbers may be not be exact, but they're
approximate. The City of Naples has what, twenty-two or twenty-three
thousand people?
DR. WOODRUFF: Yeah, it's right at 20,000.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 20,000 people. And City of
Everglades has 750 or 800 people. And the remainder of Collier County
has something like 175,000 people. I think we're supposed to go over
200,000 in the upcoming year. And so I looked, and including your
representative on the board then, for 20,000 people in this scenario
you would have four representatives on the governing board, the three
city counselors and your elected commissioner. For 750 people you'd
have one representative out of Everglades and for the entire rest of
the county, 175,000, you'd have four people. So it -- I'm not sure I
understand from where --
HAYOR HUENZER: Isn't this following somewhat the HPO
breakdown that each city -- Everglades City has representation, and
you have five, and the city three. As I said before, our three new,
and we were not reflecting percentage population. We're on the
building end of --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The HPO has two from the City
of Naples.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And none from Everglades City,
none from Everglades.
DR. WOODRUFF: Well, the reason -- first of all, since I
was the one that came up with the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what I was going to
ask.
DR. WOODRUFF: Let me explain to you from whence that
comes. It was my assumption that you would not want to have less than
all five members of the county commission vote and be on that, because
that's what you're presently doing. I mean, I tried to put myself in
your place and to say, okay, if I'm Commissioner Hancock, although I'm
not as handsome as he is -- I am as young as he is. And that's my
story.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But you are smooth, Dr. Woodruff.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Almost as smooth as he is.
DR. WOODRUFF: I would not want to take one of the five
of you and remove you from that board. But the law says that there
has to be representation on the governing body, that there may be
representation on the -- on the governing body. So then I looked at
the issue, well, Everglades City should have representation. If
you're going to set this up, they should have representation. It's
the same as, you know, with the congress of the United States. It
doesn't really matter how big the population is or how small the
population, every state has representation. So I saw Everglades City
having a representative on there. I then looked at the percent that
the city actually contributes from a population standpoint. And
you're certainly correct. We're 12.6 percent of the population. It
would be nice if we were only 12.6 percent of the assessed value, but
we're not. You know, we are still 26 -- we are 4.2 billion dollars of
assessment in a county that continues to grow. And, therefore, Mr.
Dotrill is correct when Neil says that every year our percent of that
value will continue to decrease. Today, though, we are still a
significant contribution in that one out of every four dollars that
comes to you as the county government and one out of every four
dollars that comes to the sheriff comes from within the corporate
limits of the city.
Now, putting those together, that's where the number
three came from. I don't think that the city council is hard and firm
on that issue. I think one of the important things is to create a
dialog, but as David Weigel has mentioned to me, we're on a very short
time line.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need -- and I appreciate
the answer. But I need to reiterate my support for Commissioner
Norris's position that this is strictly to be done in an accounting
fashion. But just to follow up on a point, the -- true -- and I don't
want to get off on a tax equity argument. If it's one and four, the
formula still leaves almost half of the board from the city because
you have one commissioner and three counselors. So the one-and-four
argument still does not satisfy my question.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just have to jump in there and
say that I do have more. I mean, certainly I represent the city, but
don't count me as just a representative of the city.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. But by the same token
Commissioner Matthews -- you said Everglades City should have
representation, and they do via Commissioner Matthews. And you
certainly have more than just Everglades City. But I think that's
your right, that every area regardless of how small has to have
representation, but it's also true that via this board literally
everyone in the county has some representation.
DR. WOODRUFF: Well, that's certainly a correct
statement. And I will go back to tell you that, remember, it's kind
of like a person. You shouldn't reject a person simply because they
don't have nice fingers. Fingers are part of the overall body. Now,
if the Board of County Commissioners likes the concept in parts, we
need to know what parts you like. You know, you all asked us for our
input, and what we've done is we've given you back our input. But
this is a negotiation. We can't dictate to you, and you can't dictate
to us. And if what you're really saying is as you've had, you know,
very eloquently stated, Pam Hac'Kie represents the city, Bettye
Matthews represents Everglades, maybe the elected officials in
Everglades and the elected officials that I work for, maybe they will
change their position. And I think that there's some things here that
I call Jello, and I think there's some things here that I call
concrete. And if you're not used to those terms, Jello, it shakes.
It has a form. If you don't like it, you heat it up. It melts down.
You can reformulate it. Concrete are things that are bottom lines.
And I think that the bottom line from the city's position is one that
says that we would not have a HSTU countywide that does not have in it
a base level budget.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's concrete?
DR. WOODRUFF: I can't speak for the council. That, I
believe, is concrete from my conversations with them. But, on the
other hand, I think what you need to do is you need to establish your
positions. If we need to have a quick joint meeting, or if you just
simply want to give us things to take back to our elected officials,
we'll -- we'll be happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let me see if I can state my
position for you. It -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I expect it has some steel or
iron or something -- what's stronger than concrete?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Rebar.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The rebar.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The rebar.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Titanium Beryllium alloy. It
applies partly to the governing board discussion, which is, you know
-- can be ironed out, and that's not a concrete item. As you
mentioned, that can be ironed out. But the principle is the same.
On the baseline portion of it, what you -- the city is
really asking the county commission to do is to go along with granting
the City of Naples budgetary oversight and authority that they are not
otherwise constitutionally allowed to have. The constitutional
budgetary authority for the constitutional officers is reserved for
the county commission. And by putting in the ordinance the baseline
discussion that you have you have -- enacting that ordinance would, in
fact, grant the city defacto budgetary authority. And, of course, our
-- my position is at this point I wouldn't be able to support that.
DR. WOODRUFF: Well, I'm sorry that you feel that way,
because I would once again say to you I don't think that we would be
taking that authority away if we were not part of your governing
body. The reason why we're part of the governing body in our proposal
is because the state law says that we have that ability to ask. And I
think you can appreciate for us to be before you this morning and not
asking for that would not be due diligence on our part.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Dr. Woodruff, we just talked
about the representation, each person on this board representing a
certain segment. One of the things we've done this year is have a
liaison to communicate clearly between -- in this case Commissioner
Mac'Kie with the city or Commissioner Hancock with the school board.
And I would think that there might be an appropriate way to use that
mechanism so that the city's voice is still clearly heard on budgetary
issues without necessarily adding the bureaucracy of a governing body,
but still get -- if there are particular issues, still bring those
through the representative to the board and have those heard. I don't
know if there's any interest in that.
DR. WOODRUFF: We will find tomorrow the interest,
because this is scheduled on our agenda. What we can certainly do --
I know that at least three of the council members told me that they
would be unavailable to be here personally but they would be watching
this on television. So for those I would say, hello bosses, it's nice
to have you with us this way. But we will discuss this tomorrow, and
we will find out how firm they are on which sections of this.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, get you in
now.
CONNISSIONER HANCOCK: That's okay. Regarding a board
makeup or a board at all, I find it -- it curious with the exception
of a phone call from Councilman Terrant during the budgeting process
that as we reviewed the sheriff's budget -- and I don't know -- I
can't speak for the rest of the board, but I know here in presence we
had no one from the city council to discuss the budget, to discuss
whether they felt it was appropriate or inappropriate. I think that
was left to Commissioner Mac'Kie to represent those interests. So as
we actually physically discuss the -- the sheriff's budget, there were
no council members present in these chambers to express opinions or
feelings or ideas on the budget.
Now that we have -- that Commissioner Norris has gotten
the ball rolling in an attempt to simply administratively pull that
amount out and separate it for identification purposes, the need for
additional review comes up or an additional level of review through an
HSTU board consisting of members from the city council. And I find an
inconsistency there in past participation when, in fact, you were
being taxed and any increases in the sheriff's budget fell upon the
city.
And I can't speak for the conversation between
Commissioner Hac'Kie and the city council. It may be very well and
the representation was there, and I'll have to leave that to your
explanation if that's the case. But I find that difference to be
unique that now that the opportunity is there to create a greater
voice, that you're using the vehicle. And I don't -- I don't -- I
don't resent that at all, because if I were in your shoes -- again, if
it were reversing, I would do the same thing. But I find that
inconsistency to be unique.
The second element that I think is -- we're losing here
is that if we establish a base level and say that any personnel beyond
that will be borne by the unincorporated part of the county solely,
what we are saying then is that -- that crime knows boundaries, that
crime knows that by stepping on one side of the street or the other
side of the street you're in the city or the county. If we have
pockets within the county that fester and become crime ports, if you
will, that is going to have an overlapping effect into the city.
Crime is directly related to it's socioeconomic factors. And if areas
become depressed, you tend to see more crime in them. And that crime
doesn't know those physical boundaries. It spreads beyond that. It's
as if to say if the city let a crime wave run out of control and its
police did not address the issue that the county would be unaffected.
And I don't think we could make that statement. So, again, in theory
the idea of establishing a base level sounds good on the surface, but
what it almost tends to ignore is the fact that -- that impacts in the
county, if not addressed properly by the sheriff, will spill into the
city. So there is an indirect link, I think, between enforcement
ability and patrol ability in the county and its impact upon city
residents. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
So beyond Commissioner Norris's constitutional problem,
the physical problem of whether or not that constitutionally can
happen, I do have to a base theory problem that, you know, that --
that almost saying any additional patrol in the county has no effect
on the city. I think it does. It's less direct, agreed, but to
freeze that and to not allow expansion of that or sharing in the cost
of that expansion by city residents I think ignores the fact that
there is, indeed, an indirect connection between the two.
DR. WOODRUFF: Hay I make two comments relative to that
-- this is certainly not a debate but -- I would like to mention.
First of all, you're certainly correct. We did not attend the budget
sessions for the sheriff. I can tell you part of the reason for that
is the reality that when we have come to you on specific issues you
have been responsive. You know, we ask you for money to help us with
the pier. You were very gracious in 283,000. We asked you for money
relative to Naples Landing. You have given 160,000 for that.
On the other side of the issue, though, we have really
never been part of your operating budget. We came and discussed in
detail the EMS. To this date we have not seen relief on EMS. And,
therefore, if you pardon the bluntness of the statement, we have felt
that if our voice came and said we're dissatisfied with this or with
this, it would go on deaf ears. Now, don't take that as an affront,
just take that as a fact that when we're not a player in your game and
we represent 25 or 26 cents out of every dollar you get -- we are a
player, certainly through Pam Mac'Kie. But there is a difference
between being a county commissioner and being a city council member.
That's not a critical statement towards her.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There is a difference.
DR. WOODRUFF: On the other side of the issue you also
have to remember that we put together our own police force. Why do we
do that? Because we want a higher level of service than what the
county is giving. That's the basis for the baseline. What we're
saying is if the county needs a higher level of service, the city has
already provided that.
If in the next year's budget Don Hunter wants 60 more
police officers, sheriff's deputies, under the present formula the
City of Naples is going to fund 15 of those. We're going to fund
one-fourth. It is certainly true that when a crime take place
anywhere outside the city, that that crime potentially could have
taken place inside the city. I would also remind you anytime a crime
takes place inside the city, that crime could have occurred outside
the city. When we arrest those folks, we don't come back to you and
say, County Commission, we arrested 3,000 people this year, 25 percent
of them lived outside the county, and, therefore, we want you to pay
25 percent of our police budget. I mean, crime does not know
boundaries.
What we are saying, though, is the City of Naples has
stepped up to the plate, and we have taken care of the enhanced
police. What we're asking is for you to set up a system, not going
back to 1960, not going back to 1970. Freeze the present manpower
where it is, and as this county grows and Marco Island needs six more
deputies, or North Naples needs five more deputies, or Golden Gate
needs five more deputies, what we're saying is that should be on the
unincorporated area. There can even come a point, which Mr. Weigel
and I discussed, that Marco Island may decide to have its own MSTU for
law enforcement, and Immokalee may one day decide they want their own
MSTU, but that should be an unincorporated.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I have to interject, Dr.
Woodruff, that you hit on the very key point. The City of Naples
provided enhanced. You decided -- the city decided the protection --
the base level of service afforded by the sheriff's office was not
sufficient to meet the demands of your population, so you provide an
enhanced service. And the county would do the same thing. We just
recently did it. We provide enhanced service, but the people in that
individual MSTU pay for that. What we're talking about when the
sheriff adds deputies is base level of service.
You know, the concept is not to provide enhanced
services every year, but to provide base level consistent with the
increase in population. You know, again, we could probably extend
this for hours, and I don't think we're really that far apart, but
it's just I do think there's a difference in whether or not -- I feel
that there's a difference in the -- the point of freezing personnel
when, in fact, the jail expansion, which requires additional personnel
to operate, is something that the City of Naples Police Department
uses on a daily basis. So there -- there are too many intricacies
there to do it across the board. There may be some areas where it's
more appropriate than others, but we're probably not going to find all
those today.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Besides, Dr. Woodruff, the first
time you went through your explanation you were very eloquent and we
all understood it. I think you do yourself a disservice by having to
go through it again here. We understood it the first time.
DR. WOODRUFF: I apologize, then, sir.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
MAYOR HUENZER: I'd just like to say a couple comments
since you indirectly jerked my chain on something. And you know me,
if I've got something to say, I like to respond. First of all, I
didn't feel it was appropriate for us to come out here and be involved
in the budget of another elected body, whether here, a school board,
mosquito control, Southwest Florida Water Management. You're elected
to do your job, and we're not to lend our voice and come out and --
because we couldn't win. We're either going to come out and be
critical of some of your actions, and that's going to be picked up by
your antis as reasons that we're now joining them and attacking you
and things, and it's not appropriate. We didn't feel it was
appropriate. You run your ship, and we'll keep our nose out. That's
one reason we didn't come.
We indirectly got that message, as Dr. Woodruff said, in
the EHS before. We still haven't had the response. But we didn't
come out for a reason. If you'd like my big mouth out here next year
and at the school board and other places to go ahead and pick at your
budget and give you comment, I'm available.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mayor, apparently you want it.
MAYOR HUENZER: Let me just finish. So that's one
reason we didn't come out and get involved. As I said before, we want
it, the board. That was only because if you want an advisory board to
share with, fine. If you want the whole blooming five, take the
five. I'm not hung up on that. And as I said, the numbers are only
there to include cities. If more cities came down the line, to be
able to have seats to give them without amended. So as far as the
five or the nine -- as far as I'm -- I can't speak for council, --
take your five, and it's yours. That was just something we put out.
We were asked on short notice to come up with comments
and ideas to meet and negotiate. Now, you want to debate with us what
we put in. So, in other words, did you want us to come out with some
suggestions and compromise or didn't you. I thought the offer was
there. We came out. Okay. Fine. We didn't come out just to haggle
over that. That was only stated so that if future cities came in and
you wanted to give representation to a city you had the provision to
add. Go ahead and do it 5-2 and hold two open for future. Maybe
you'll never fill them. But let's not get hung up on the whole
project on something like that.
As far as the arrests and the county, yes, we do get
more pressure. Crime exists in the county, and it does -- that's
correct. Our arrests -- if you were to look at our arrest logs, the
greatest percentage by far up around 85, 90 percent are non-city
residents. Last week we just broke the ring that broke in the One
High Fidelity. That was all county. That's a normal pattern. We do
get affected. As there's more growth in the county, we get more
pressure on us in our city, and we expand our budget to meet the
challenge.
We also -- as there's more growth in the county, we
expand our budget to meet the challenge that there's more use every
year by county residents on the pier, on the boat launch facilities
that we have, on the beaches, and on our recreation area. As the
county grows our pressure increases, and we respond and also budget to
meet that increase. We recognize it.
What we're saying in this particular case is let's go
ahead and say -- I'd love to do this with you as well on the beach,
the county recreation, and the other areas too, but we're getting into
so many details. You've got to walk before you try to fly, and you
got to crawl before you try to walk.
We weren't asked to come out and do a whole review of
all tax and equity. We were asked on one particular area to give you
input. We've done that in good faith. If you didn't want to in good
faith to go ahead and get our input, then say it. If you want to
change it, good. You have the ultimate thing.
But I just wanted to answer why we weren't here in the
budget. If it's an invitation to come out -- if the school board
gives me an invitation to come out, I'll be out to each and every one
of you. But I didn't feel it appropriate as mayor, because I can't
speak as mayor. The city can't speak without separating our elected
office from what is individuals. In some cases I feel disfranchised
as an elected official over that if I were, you know, an individual.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I apologize that you have taken
affront at any of my comments as if they were -- HAYOR HUENZER: Well, I didn't take affront. I wanted
to clarify why we weren't here.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- as if they were meant or
directed toward you. It was merely an observation, Mayor. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
HAYOR HUENZER: It was not directed towards me, but it
was just -- you're right, the city wasn't here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir, it wasn't.
HAYOR HUENZER: We didn't feel it appropriate to come
out and add our voices and stir things up by getting into another --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie, you have
comments?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, just -- just -- I think that
we're probably not going to be able to resolve this today. But I '-
I've got a couple of -- of ideas out of this that I think could
probably bear further consideration, one of -- one of which is that
this county commission did this year recognize the concept of a base
level of service for law enforcement, and we recognized a community
that wanted to pay a higher price for an enhanced level of service.
And I think I recall, Mr. Dotrill, your discussion with the
administrator in Lee County of this general concept of adopting base
levels of service on all county issues; on storm water management, one
of my personal favorites; on law enforcement; on road maintenance so
that the concept of adopting a countywide base level is appropriate.
And then maybe what we should be talking to the city council about is
some portion, some percentage of -- of increase over the base level
that the city would continue to -- that the city would continue to
contribute to. I think there's been a great deal of confusion here
that -- that -- that perhaps people on the board think that -- that
this base level of service concept freezes for all time. This is the
amount of dollars you're going to get from the City of Naples. I
don't think that that's what's proposed. And I think that we need to
adopt a base level of service for law enforcement. I don't know how
-- if we can do this in time to meet this program for --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Probably not.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- the end of the year.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Probably not and, once again, my
whole intent in here was to bring this forward as merely an accounting
change so that we could separate budgets and have them more publicly
visible. If we're going to go farther afield than that -- much
farther afield, I'm going to be in the strange position of not being
able to support my own project here. But I really don't -- I really
never intended to change any budgetary oversight, any operational
oversight. None of that was ever my intention, merely an accounting
measure. And if we're going to do anything more than that, I'm out.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of quick questions
for the mayor. I'm just looking for a yes or no. I don't need much.
Are you unhappy with the current way in which the sheriff establishes
and implements his budget?
HAYOR HUENZER: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
HAYOR HUENZER: You're asking me. As an individual I'm
answering. I don't want to answer as the city, because I'm only one
voice.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand. So you don't
have any interest in simply creating an accounting procedure to better
educate the public or better allow the public -- HAYOR HUENZER: No, I do have interest.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because I guess that's the
only thing -- I think we've said that several times, was the only
thing we had envisioned as this step of the process, not to create
more bureaucracy and what have you. And I'd like to see us go ahead
and do that, and it seems to make sense to do that. But like
Commissioner Norris, if we're going to have to create more bureaucracy
and create a new governing body and all kinds of things that go along
with that, I don't really have any interest either.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just -- Commissioner Norris
needed to say something, so I didn't mind his interrupting. But what
I was going to suggest on this base level of service concept is that
perhaps we approach this in steps. If perhaps the city council would
consider letting this progress so that this year what we do is we
create this special district. But then in the future we agree to look
at this whole concept of base level of service for law enforcement and
for other government services that maybe we could move forward if we
do it a step at a time. That -- that was --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That was going to be my
suggestion. I note in the ordinance from both the City of Everglades
and the City of Naples that they -- they have this ordinance sunset in
two years with an automatic extension. In the county's version of the
ordinance, I don't see that clause. But it seems to me that in an
effort to kind of get this thing moving, while we still are not in
total agreement of the best way to do it that we -- we may just want
to take the skeleton that we have and put a sunset on it as the cities
have suggested. And if we cannot work these differences out, then it
just goes away.
DR. WOODRUFF: I'd be happy to carry that message back
to council tomorrow and see their response.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: In truth, both the mayor and Dr.
Woodruff have some valid points that need to be looked at, and I think
we're probably talking shades of the same color on many issues. But
in this short time frame, there's no way those details can be worked
out.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Exactly.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And I guess we have to look at --
or if I were in the city counsel's shoes, I would look at -- we really
have two options at this point; continue as we have under the same
funding scenario as has been and the mayor himself individually has
said that he's not real happy with that. Or the second option is to
possibly implement a mechanism that will allow for change, if not this
year, maybe during the course of next year that discussion takes place
and that change can occur. Without the MSTU that mechanism is not
even there.
So I guess we're looking at do we take a step in that
direction if not all of what we want or most of what we want at this
point to allow that to happen or do we just continue as is. And that
may be the only decision this time frame allows this board and the
city council to make. Because I recognize many of your points, and I
have the utmost respect for you, Dr. Woodruff. I think you know
that. And I think across the table we can probably iron out a lot of
those things, but it's just not going to happen in this time frame.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have speakers, Mr.
Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Keller.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Keller. Thank you, MAyor.
Thank you, Dr. Woodruff.
MR. KELLER: I'm George Keller, concerned citizen. And
honestly and truly, where are we going? Are we going to change the
whole method of taxation? We now have a method of taxation based on
property values. What about the school tax? If I don't have any
children in school, I'm not going to pay any school tax? There's so
many things that the county and the state and the federal government
does that we pay taxes on an equitable basis that has nothing to do
with usage. Water, it's very easy to go meter water and charge people
what they use, very easy to charge them on sewage based upon the
amount of water that they use. But how do you ever determine what
usage people are getting and what service they're getting and tax them
according to service? I don't -- if I don't ever have the sheriff
come to my house, I shouldn't pay any sheriff's tax; isn't that
ridiculous? So let's -- let's put this thing to rest.
Mr. Norris -- Commissioner Norris originally had a
proposal which had some sense. The county budget -- when I used to
get my tax -- tax bills, it was spread out in a whole bunch of
different bills showing what I was paying the taxes on. Now, because
-- we add so many different activities, the tax bill would be this
long, so they managed to consolidate it, so I don't know how much I'm
paying, for instance, for the -- for the street -- street
beautification in my district or how much I'm paying for the -- for
the -- for the community center. All I know is that it comes under
one lump and I'm satisfied as long as the total taxes is reasonable.
So let's not -- let's not change the whole method of taxation. Let's
forget it. Mr. Norris had the point. All he's asking for is to have
the county -- the sheriff's budget separated on the tax bill so people
know how much the sheriff is getting to run his sheriff's department.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Is there direction
from this board as to where we want to give our staff direction?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we -- we
direct our county attorney's office to proceed as originally
directed. I understand there's a county -- I mean a city council
meeting tomorrow where the city council will discuss that.
Mr. Weigel, you have this ready to come back on the
19th? Is that my understanding?
MR. WEIGEL: The two ordinances have been advertised.
They had to be advertised in timely fashion so that they could go for
the 19th. They have been advertised for the 19th date.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: My notion is to stay on schedule
as directed then. In case the city council does not feel they want to
join in, then the whole project will be terminated, I assume.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that, and I'll --
just -- I want to compliment Commissioner Hancock. I think your
points were right on the button. What this is is this is the first
step, and it will allow us to further explore things with the city.
And if we don't do this, then we'll essentially put it to death now.
So very well said.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Could I ask the motion maker if
we could include in the direction to Mr. Weigel that we put into our
HSTU or at least the interlocal agreements that come subsequently to
that a sunset clause so that we -- we can begin to work these
differences out knowing that there are differences and accepting the
fact that there are.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What's the process for -- for
dismantling or abandoning an HSTU?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it can be problematical such as --
well, in any event, if an HSTU is scheduled through its own ordinance
to sunset at a particular point in time, there obviously has to be an
accounting for the funds that are within that HSTU to revert back over
to the regular county budgetary process. I don't know that this is
very far afield inasmuch as the clerk holds the funds anyway. It's
more a question of accounting and ledgers as opposed to an actual
district dying, because the services will continue. That is the
distinction from the typical HSTU, is that if the project is
completed, beautification or construction of some capital improvement,
when that project is over and there's money left over, it gets very
difficult to take care of the taxpayers who previously paid. In this
case there is an ongoing service provided, an ongoing service
obligation, an ongoing funding obligation, so it appeared that it
could revert over very easily to the process that we had before the
HSTUs were ever created.
In regard to a sunset time, it is the obligation of the
cities that -- that may endorse an HSTU fund incorporating them to
provide a time frame for review and/or sunset. It is not an
obligation of the county to provide for a sunset, although such a
thing could be done.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I will amend my motion to allow
for a two-year renewable sunset clause.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Automatic renewal? I mean, just
to give a mechanism --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Automatic renewal unless otherwise
specified by the county commission.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. That -- that seems to
agree with the wording in the city's ordinances. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Will the second accept?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I certainly will.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that a lot, because,
frankly, it gives some credence to our message to the city council
that we're asking them to take one step with us now with the
commitment that we're going to continue to look at this on the -- from
the tax equity standpoint. So --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any further discussion?
Sheriff Hunter, did you have a comment you wanted to
make?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or did you just sit here all day
for nothing?
SHERIFF HUNTER: I would like to make one comment, but
it's just for clarifying the record.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You have to come forward, put it
on the record.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I would like to make one -- a couple of
comments, but it's just for clarifying the record. It won't influence
your vote, I don't believe.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Go ahead.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Very good. Thank you. Sheriff Don
Hunter, sheriff of Collier County. I heard a couple of things said
today I'd like to respond to. I'm a law man. I pay close attention
to what words are spoken and what they mean. And I want to make
certain that in the public record when we talk about budget
accountability that it's clear that the sheriff's office attempts to
each year provide enough detail in its budget -- enough of -- a budget
document is disseminated properly to libraries, the city, to various
county organizations, property owners groups, civic associations. We
have town hall meetings each year. We respond to numerous groups
pertaining to the budget, the budget process, where the budget is
being spent. We hope that we're being accountable. And I offer the
board this morning, again, my assistance in -- in preparing documents
and information that provides you with the greatest level of
accountability. We're audited each year, as you are. And each year
we have had good audits with very few exceptions. So I want to make
certain that in the board record and for the viewing audience and for
the public in general that it's known that the sheriff's office is
accountable. We have many levels of accountability by statute, by
process.
A very large issue right now as the mayor and city
manager brought up is this issue of law enforcement, the enhanced
level of service that a city or a municipal police agency represents,
the fact that by statute and by the constitution of the State of
Florida sheriff's offices provide for law enforcement services for the
entire county. That's our responsibility. That's what I do. I'm
considered the chief law enforcement officer for a county. I have
never been approached by the City of Naples, which incorporated, I
believe, well, many years ago, '59. VOICE: '46.
SHERIFF HUNTER: When was it?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Doesn't matter, a long time ago.
SHERIFF HUNTER: We've never been approached for an
enhanced level of service for the City of Naples. What I did offer
last year to the city manager when we began to discuss this tax equity
issue and what types of services are provided back to the City of
Naples, an enhanced level of service for the City of Naples. And
perhaps we could begin again to enter into some of those discussions.
The issue is that the sheriff's office stands prepared today to
provide whatever level of service City of Naples needs for police
services. We already provide their corrections services. We provide
their judicial services. And we provide a large part of law
enforcement service. And we can again open those discussions
pertaining to enhanced levels of service for the city.
There was some mention that we provide various types of
budget detail for you. I want your viewing audience to know that we
are very tightly controlled by the State of Florida, by the auditor
general's office, that there are three basic budget categories; law
enforcement, corrections, and bailiffs. They're all required by law
for me to provide at the moment. And that defines for us what -- what
we will put as far as format into our budget sheet. We're only really
required to provide that to you.
If you open a sheriff's budget today, which is a book,
on the very first page right after the letter of introduction, you
will find a summary page which tells you exactly what the expense of
the office of sheriff as proposed by the sheriff for that year will
be, a bottom line total number broken out in three categories; law
enforcement, corrections, and judicial. There's nothing simpler in
county budgeting practices than a sheriff's budget to understand.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm willing to stipulate '-
I'm willing to stipulate the sheriff does a heck of a job being
accountable.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Great. Well, I appreciate that. But
we think we provide you with easily understood numbers. If there's
something better we can do, please let us know.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there any further discussion?
We have a motion on the floor to give direction to the
-- to the county attorney's office regarding the HSTU for the
sheriff. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Is there interest in taking a short break, or should we
move on? We've got three items left.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Move on.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Move on.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Let's move on.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I think it would
be appropriate to thank Dr. Woodruff, Mayor Huenzer, and Councilman
Terrant for being here today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the sheriff.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And the sheriff as well.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, gentlemen.
Item #BE1
CONSIDERATION OF THE CONSULTANT'S PROPOSAL ON THE REGIONAL JAIL STUDY -
COUNTY TO PARTICIPATE IN STUDY WITH OTHER COUNTIES AT A COST OF $9,880
Next item on the agenda is item 8(E)(1), a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners consider a
consultant's proposal for the regional jail. Mr. Saadeh.
MR. SAADEH: Good morning, Commissioners, Sam Saadeh
from the county manager's office. The item before you this morning is
to ask you to make a decision on whether or not to authorize the
consultant to go ahead with the preliminary study on the regional jail
issue.
On November 20th Dan Wiley, the consultant from Dan L.
Wiley and Associates, and the Board of County Commissioners in Lee
County had told the county commissioners from all three counties that
Charlotte, Lee, Glades, and Hendry County has all participated and
authorized the study, and the only nonparticipant at that point was
Collier County. And the Lee County commission chairman had asked and
suggested that you make a decision and render an opinion by December
-- mid December on whether or not you want to authorize the study or
not. And I'll answer any questions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In essence, what this is
asking us to do is spend approximately $9,000 to find out how we might
be able to save millions of dollars?
MR. SAADEH: That's basically it in a nutshell.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Seems like a no-brainer to
me.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to approve
the item.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the recommendation of staff, and that is to spend $9,880 and
join our fellow counties in this study. All those in favor, please
say aye.
I'm sorry. I failed to ask if there are speakers.
MR. DORRILL: There are none. Mr. Keller had
registered.
MR. KELLER: I don't like to say something on
everything, but I'm a concerned citizen, and anytime you start -- if
it's not going to be a county function, it should be a state function,
not a tri-county function or a half -- one -- two-county function.
Let's keep government the way it is and keep it basic. What we're
doing constantly is little ideas to make government more -- more
difficult to operate. Please, we got -- we need -- we need more
people, more county jail. Let's build it, and let's build it at the
proper price. But to start pushing the things away and setting up
different forms of government is ridiculous. We've already got too
many forms of government and too many laws, period.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Keller. I'm going
to recall the question because we had not heard from the -- the
public. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor, please
say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #10A
UPDATE ON CLAM BAY NRPA - PRESENTED BY COHMISSIONER HANCOCK
Next item on the agenda is item 8 -- no, I'm sorry,
10(A), an update on the Clam Bay NRPA.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Much to your relief, I'll be very
brief on this. Commissioner Constantine being of great concern is
leaving the room.
We had a meeting yesterday in which two experts, Mr.
Robin Lewis (phonetic) and Hr. Hike Shirley (phonetic), the latter of
Rookery Bay, presented some findings. And it appears there is some
common ground that may be workable solutions. That material, those
lists of -- of short-term solutions are being presented to a panel, if
you will, that's coming in on Friday at the behest of the Conservancy,
and some review is going to occur at that time. One week from
yesterday will be a meeting to actually rank and decide on which
short-term solutions are going to provide for the greatest system
benefit and what the participation level of the varying groups that
have come to the table for funding on this will be. Assuming the
county has any part of that financial participation, I would then
bring it back to this board and request a portion of the NRPA funds be
used in -- in what is deemed by the task force in an appropriate
manner, and then the board is left to make that decision.
The one thing I would like to remind everyone is we hear
a lot of sound bites. I've heard from the Conservancy on the radio
and from others about how the county needs to spend hundreds of
thousands of dollars to do a reconnection study of the coastal waters
from Pensacola to Key West. And I -- you know, I -- that is not
coming from me, nor is it coming from this task force. This task
force -- and it's my role on it to stay focused on what the individual
problem in the Clam Bay system is, what the immediate solution to stop
or maybe even reverse the die-off may be, and to proceed in that
within the boundaries and confines set up through an NRPA, not to go
beyond it, not to request additional tax dollars. I made that
statement very clear yesterday to the committee and to the folks in
attendance and didn't get a lot of argument from some of the
environmental organizations who took a different opinion of what the
word maintenance means.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hopefully that sound bite
will get picked up on the radio as well.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, we'll be getting all kinds
of phone calls. But the bottom line is we are looking at the
short-term solutions. When it comes time for long-term solutions,
that's going to be a broader discussion. But right now we're looking
solely at the internal Clam Bay system and how to keep the mangroves
at least healthy enough that the system doesn't become a center of
mangrove death. So -- but anyway that --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mangrove graveyard.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mangrove graveyard. That's where
we are, and next week I'll just put it under board discussion. I will
have an update for you as to what the priority listing is. If for
some reason that is concrete enough to request action by this board on
NRPA funds, that will be on the agenda for Tuesday. If you don't see
it on the agenda, that means it's just going to be a discussion item
and we'll be following it at a later date. That's it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
Item #11
PUBLIC COHMENT REGARDING TDC GRANT APPLICATION; FOREIGN TRADE ZONE AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR AIRPORTS
We are at the public comment portion of our agenda. Mr.
Dotrill, is there public comment today?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. There is today, Hiss Field.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ha'am, you have -- our public
comment is limited to a five-minute '- MS. FIELD: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- talk on any matter. It
doesn't mean the board will take any action. In fact, they probably
Won't.
MS. FIELD: That's fine. Good morning. My name is
Penny Adams Field. Mr. Cox wishes to convey his apologies that he
cannot address you personally this morning and has asked me to read
the following letter into record. Dear Chairman Matthews, as chairman
of the board of governors of the Naples Institute and on behalf of the
Naples Institute, I respectfully request the Naples Institute
application for Collier County tourism development funds submitted for
funds under category C be placed on the Commission's December 12,
1995, agenda for a vote to grant funding for application under said
ordinance. Thank you for your consideration, sincerely, Joe B. Cox,
Esquire, chairman of the board of governors.
CHAIRMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner
Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Has this application gone
before the TDC?
MS. FIELD: It did on November 27th.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And was there some action by
the TDC?
MS. FIELD: The action by the TDC was a five-to-four
vote not giving us the grant application.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It was a pretty healthy
discussion, but a five-to-four vote denying the grant application.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Based on the closeness of that
vote, I think it would be appropriate for this board to hear the item
at a future meeting.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, they're asking for the
12th. Is there agreement on the board that we hear it next week?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is the 12th important to the
institute?
MS. FIELD: It is only that Mr. Cox and I will be making
the presentation. He's unavoidably detained on the 19th, and so we
would not be able to make that one, so we've asked for the 12th.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The 19th is pretty full from what
I've heard already.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I certainly want to hear it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have a problem hearing it
on the 12th. That's fine with me.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, you're looking a
little quizzical.
MR. DORRILL: I don't know when it would come in the
normal course. We've got less than 24 hours to prepare an executive
summary and have it on -- frankly, I don't even know whether Miss
Gansel is here today to do the executive summary. But if you want it
on the 12th, it will be on.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick question. I mean,
what's -- so if we miss the 19th, what's wrong with January 2nd?
MS. FIELD: We are looking at trying to launch this
fairly quickly into 1996, and we are, of course, trying to avoid any
further delays which I'm sure everyone trying to get on your agenda
has the same issue. So we prefer the 12th. Certainly if we have to
push it off to the 2nd, it's less optimistic for us in terms of some
of what we're doing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just would feel more
comfortable I guess if we had some comprehensive executive summary on
it rather then something thrown together in 24 hours.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It may actually do the petitioner
a disservice to try to rush it through without all the proper
information, that the burden of not receiving all the information
could actually be a detriment to them. I think you'd be better off to
let the staff develop a full presentation.
MS. FIELD: If that's your desire.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: January 2nd?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That makes sense to me,
particularly since Ms. Gansel is not here to give us the --
MR. DORRILL: Unless this is otherwise been scheduled.
And if you'll just leave me the discretion if it is ready to go, then
we'll have it on for a week from today. And if not, we'll see them
back first Tuesday in January.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Because I was going to
say, we -- we have a copy of the grant application obviously
available, which is available now, and it could be distributed to the
board this afternoon. And an executive summary, while it may not make
it in the printing package, could be distributed Thursday or Friday
provided Ms. Gansel's schedule will allow the preparation of it.
MS. FIELD: A copy of the application is also included
in the packet that I just presented to you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
going to be available?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
January?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
Yeah, it is.
When are the minutes of the TDC
Well, that is a good question.
What's going to happen in
I would just appreciate the
benefit of the minutes of the TDC to be able to review so that, you
know, we have them as an advisory capacity for a reason.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me ask the court reporter.
Do you normally type those or are they are just not yet typed? Does this board want to have --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would be helpful.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- the minutes typed?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it seems to me the cost of
that should be borne by the petitioner, not by this board, you know.
I mean, I'm -- we're not bringing this petition forward.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I feel like maybe -- I know a
little about Naples Institute. I've heard a little bit about this
leadership program. But -- and I want to be supportive, but I still
don't get why is this December 12th, December 19th, January 2nd.
Could you tell me enough to know? Does everybody else already know
there's something scheduled for January 15th, and we have to do this
right away or something? Why the --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There is nothing.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why the rush? Why the press?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Actually according to the grant
application presented to the TDC, they're looking at getting this
program launched for the summertime.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then why aren't we just going
through the regular course?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They've got advertising
commitments and so forth they're going to have to make.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I'll take a step.
Let's schedule this for January 2nd and that way we can make sure we
have all the information --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second the motion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that's necessary.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sounds fine to me.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We'll schedule it for
January the 2nd.
MS. FIELD: All right. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the
agenda is -- MR. DORRILL: I'm sorry. We've got one additional
public comment today from Mr. Erlichman. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Erlichman.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Thank you. Gilbert Erlichman, East
Naples. I don't know whether this is a proper public comment but I
was just informed that a airplane was intercepted -- not intercepted
by landed at Immokalee Airport and had something like 700 pounds of
marijuana on it. And it was --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yesterday.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Pardon?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yesterday.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Oh, yesterday. I didn't even hear it on
the radio. I was just informed about it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Out of Cuba.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
MR. ERLICHHAN: But anyhow, all I know is that the
airplane was trailed from the Gulf of Mexico, and it landed at
Immokalee Airport, and then it was -- they were arrested there. This
-- this brings to mind about the establishment of a free trade zone
at these airports.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me -- us for laughing, but
it did come from a foreign country.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think they anticipated
this type of cargo.
MR. ERLICHHAN: That's right. So what I'm saying is do
you -- do the commissioners have in mind enough law enforcement and
enough facilities to check for the trans -- shipment of drug at the
airports?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, first of all, the
customs facility at the international airport will be the one used.
We won't be doing customs at Immokalee Airport. Second, the incident
you mentioned yesterday had 380 pounds of marijuana on a flight that
originated out of Montego Bay. They picked -- the federal agents
picked it up on radar out of the Cuba, followed it all the way up the
east coast, and it came across looking for anyplace to land where it
could then try to escape. They realized they were being tailed. And
so how that relates to a foreign trade zone, I don't know at all.
That was someone on the lamb, on the run, realized they were being
chased and landed at an airport where they thought they could run into
the woods and hide.
MR. ERLICHMAN: That -- that -- that's my implication.
That is my implication.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would also suggest that the --
the runways at that airport have been of the length that they are for
50 years now, Mr. Dorrill, and this incident could have happened
anytime in the last 50 years as -- and I would say the likelihood --
with the terminal building and so forth being built in the upcoming
years, the likelihood of it happening again is -- is considerably
lessened.
MR. ERLICHMAN: I mean, are these facility going to be
24 hour -- operated 24 hours a day so that an airplane must be -- must
be identified at night? MR. DORRILL: No.
MR. ERLICHMAN: I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. They won't, but it will be
locked up at night.
MR. ERLICHMAN: I have a lot of questions about that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
Drury.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
those.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
I would direct you to John
Yeah.
He can probably answer most of
Thank you, Mr. Erlichman. That
was the last of our public comment.
Item #12C1
RESOLUTION 95-672 RE PETITION AV-95-017, Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES,
P.A., AS AGENT FOR OWNER, STERLING OAKS JOINT VENTURE, REQUESTING
VACATION OF A PORTION OF TRACT C, OF THE PLAT OF STERLING OAKS -
ADOPTED BUT NOT TO BE RECORDED UNTIL REPLAT IS RECORDED
Next on the agenda is item 12(C)(1), petition AV-95-017
regarding Sterling Oaks joint venture.
MR. MULLER: Hi, Russ Mullet, transportation.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hi, Russ.
MR. MULLER: Item 12(C)(1) is a public hearing to
consider petition AV-95-017 for the vacation of a portion of tract C
of the plat of Sterling Oaks, plat book 23, pages 5 through 20. Our
site location is on north Collier County line between old and new 41.
The reason for the vacation is to replat. It's a companion item to
16(A)(10), Wildcat Cove. Letters of no objection have been received
from all pertinent utilities and government agencies along with the
homeowners association. A resolution was prepared and approved by the
county attorney's office in accordance with Florida Statutes 177.101.
And based on the letters of no objection, the replat, staff recommends
approval and requests that the resolution not be recorded until the
replat is recorded. And if you have any questions of the petitioner,
the petitioner's agent is here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? Commissioner
Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Miller, what's the intent
here? They're going to vacate and create larger lots, smaller lots,
different product? What's the intent?
MR. MULLER: Different lots. They have a larger lot and
they want to go to a straight zero lot line, and they're going to have
four or five less lots. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine, you
have questions?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I was going to say if
the petitioner doesn't have anything to add, maybe we could close the
public hearing.
MR. DORRILL: No speakers.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No speakers? I'll close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to approve
staff's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve staff recommendation. Any further discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #14
BCC COMHUNICATIONS
That concludes our agenda for the day.
We're at communications. Commissioner Norris?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner MAc'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one that I've given a memo
to all members of the board that I'm delivering to our county attorney
today on that issue of how assessments can be collected. I got from
the City of Naples a copy of the resolution that they've recently
adopted. I'm sorry, this has to do with Naples Park and how we might
make the impact of the cost of the improvements more palatable or more
easily borne by less affluent neighborhoods. What I'm going to give
to the county attorney or what he'll get in any minute is a memo that
says -- it lays out the five methods by which the City of Naples
residents are offered the opportunity to pay special assessments,
including monthly, quarterly, annually, interest only, or interest
accrues and the assessment is due upon sale of the property. So in
the hopes that that will help Naples Park be able to afford the
drainage improvements that it needs, I've given that to the county
attorney, and you have copies of that, and I look forward to hearing
from you about it.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And I thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner
Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no items today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have none either. Mr.
Dotrill.
MR. DORRILL: Just to tell you quickly that it occurred
to us recently that it seems in some of our larger commercial areas
that we have an overabundance of handicapped parking that is near the
buildings. And with that in mind, I asked the staff on the day after
Thanksgiving, which is historically the busiest retail shopping day of
the year, to do a survey throughout the urban area of commercial
shopping centers, the number of spaces that were being used both in
morning and mid afternoon, and it appears preliminarily that that only
about half the spaces were being used. And increasingly I think
that's something we may want to look at. I think we have an
obligation to provide for genuinely handicapped individuals -- which
is another story -- adjacent and accessible parking. But our
standards may be so high that we are creating a problem, as evidenced
by -- and I think the best example is the south Naples Wal-MArt store,
very long, very narrow parking lot. There appeared to be as many
violators parking in the handicapped parking because of the apparent
overabundance of them. I just want you to know we're concerned about
that from a staff perspective, and Mr. Cautero did a fine job the day
after Thanksgiving. We'll be sharing that with you real soon.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a question on a
related topic. I don't know if you can answer this or if the tax
collector needs to answer this. But we issue permits out of the tax
collector's office to utilize those parking spaces. You can --
whether you need a temporary use for 90 days or people -- I have a
neighbor who just blew out a kneecap and has a temporary need for
that, and I have another neighbor who is long-term handicapped and has
necessity for that as long as he lives.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there something going on in
your building?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, it's a rough place --
no, a lot of people. The fee is the same whether you're getting a
4-year permit or a 90-day permit. And also the way the permit is
issued right now, if you so choose -- and hopefully most people do
not, but I suspect some do -- even though -- if your need is for 90
days for the 90-day permit, that permit can, in effect, be used for
that full four-year period. And it doesn't seem like a very effective
way of doing it. I don't know if that's our policy or if that's the
tax collector's policy.
MR. DORRILL: Department of Motor Vehicles. But that's
going to be -- understanding the current law and how people go about
getting temporary long-term permits is something that you may want to
take a legislative position on. But the Land Development Code
requirements are a different issue and that's something we'll be
reporting to you as part of the combined report.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other items?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: None, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Filson, we're finished?
MS. FILSON: We're finished.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're adjourned.
***** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner
Constantine and carried unanimously, that the following items
under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted:
Item #16A1
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR RESOLUTION 94-627 ASSESSING A LIEN FOR A
PUBLIC NUISANCE ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT A, BLOCK 16, NAPLES
SOUTH UNIT 1 - OWNER: GEORGE KANELOPOULOS
See Pages
Item #16A2
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR RESOLUTION 94-504 ASSESSING A LIEN FOR A
PUBLIC NUISANCE ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 29, BLOCK 122, UNIT 4,
GOLDEN GATE - OWNER: VASANT KHACHANE
See Pages
Item #16A3
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR RESOLUTION 94-537 ASSESSING A LIEN FOR A
PUBLIC NUISANCE ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 21, BLOCK 280 OF MARCO
BEACH UNIT EIGHT - OWNER: PAL BORGERSEN JR.
See Pages
Item #16A4
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR RESOLUTION 94-180 ASSESSING A LIEN FOR A
PUBLIC NUISANCE ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 6, BLOCK "G", HALDEHAN
RIVER SUBDIVISION - OWNER: CAROL A. PINKALLA
Item #16A5
See Pages
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR RESOLUTION 94-179 ASSESSING A LIEN FOR A
PUBLIC NUISANCE ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 7, BLOCK "G", HALDEHAN
RIVER SUBDIVISION - OWNER: CAROL A. PINKALL
Item #16A6
See Pages
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR RESOLUTION 94-618 ASSESSING A LIEN FOR A
PUBLIC NUISANCE ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 24, BLOCK 239 OF MARCO
BEACH UNIT SIX - OWNER: EDWARD D. FALLIN JR.
Item #16A7
See Pages
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR RESOLUTION 94-330 ASSESSING A LIEN FOR A
PUBLIC NUISANCE ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 43, SECTION 13,
TOWNSHIP 52 RANGE 29 COPELAND - OWNER: CAROL A. WHITE
Item #16A8
See Pages
CASH BOND AS SECURITY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59-524 (HOD.)
HUNTINGTON, LOCATED IN SEC. 31, T485, R26E
Item #16A9 - This item has been deleted
Item #16A10
THE FINAL PLAT OF "WILDCAT COVE" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT
Item #16All
See Pages
RESOLUTION 95-671 - RE: FINAL PLAT OF STONEBRIDGE UNIT THREE -
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND
See Pages
Item #16B1
FUNDING FOR THE IHMOKALEE JAIL CENTER SEWER PROJECT
Item #1682
WORK ORDER SC-5 WITH SURETY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR THE VETERANS
COHMUNITY PARK COVERED MULTI-USE FACILITY
See Pages
Item #1683
BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD AMOUNTS FROM FY 1995 FOR
FUND 301 CAPITAL PROJECTS
Item #1684
AGREEMENT TO REIMBURSE THE PROPERTY APPRAISER AND TAX COLLECTOR FOR
SERVICES RENDERED FOR THE ROYAL COVE SEWER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
See Pages
Item #1685
PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND WARRANTY DEED FROM JOHN T. NOVAK AND RUTH C.
NOVAK FOR LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 27
EAST, FOR ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
See Pages
Item #1686
AN EMERGENCY PURCHASE FROM PAT'S PUMP AND BLOWEER, INC. OF A NEW
AQUATECH B-10 JET VAC, TRUCK MOUNTED MOBIL CATCH BASIN AND SEWER
CLEANER VEHICLE FOR CLEANING OF STORM SEWERS, CATCH BASINS AND CROSS
DRAINS ON THE COUNTY ROAD SYSTEM
Item #1687 - This item continued to 12/19/95
Item #1688
AWARD BID #95-2443 FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES CONTRACTING SERVICES TO
CABANA CONSTRUCTION AS PRIMARY VENDOR AND D.N. HIGGINS, INC. AS
SECONDARY
Item #1689
SEWER CAPITAL FUNDING TO ACQUIRE PARCEL 1 OF BATHEY PROPERTY AS PART OF
THE HUBSCHHAN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Item #16El
APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16G1
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN CERTIFICATE FOR CORRECTION TO THE TAX
ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1991 REAL PROPERTY
NO.
285-286
209-210
230-231
186
189
78
80
83
103-104
107-114
118
Item #1662
1992 REAL PROPERTY
1993 REAL PROPERTY
1994 REAL PROPERTY
1995 REAL PROPERTY
DATE
11/16/95-11/20/95
11/16/95-11/20/95
11/16/95-11/20/95
11/16/95
11/20/95
11/9/95
11/9/95
11/13/95
11/15/95
11/15/95-11/17/95
11/20/95
1995 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
30-32 11/15/95
SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
See Pages
Item #1663
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:02 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: Barbara A. Donovan