BCC Minutes 12/19/1995 RREGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 19, 1995,
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have
been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met
on this date at 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the
Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
ALSO PRESENT:
present:
CHAIRPERSON:
VICE CHAIRMAN:
Bettye J. Hatthews
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3 & #3A
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me call to order the Board of County
Commission meeting for December the 19, 1995. Mr. Dotrill, would you
lead us in an invocation and pledge.
MR. DORRILL: Father, as we near the week before Christmas and the
holidays that mean so much to all of us, we lift up our brotheren of
the Jewish faith this morning as they begin this week their celebration
of Hanukkah. Likewise, we recognize Christmas for what it means to
Christians around the world and the joy that this holiday season is
intended to bring.
Father, as we near the end of 1995 and what has been an
excellent year for Collier County, this our last meeting of the year,
we give thanks for the blessings that you have bestowed on this
commission and its people. We give thanks for the very hard and very
dedicated work of our staff, both managerial, professional, and
support staff throughout the 1,000 people that work very hard for the
citizens of Collier County each day.
Father, with some sense of sadness, we remember our
friend and -- and colleague, Jack O'Brien, and his family in Jack's
passing last week and his efforts to bring the news to residents of
Marco Island for many, many years. We are saddened by that, and it's
our prayer that he is a believer and he is home with you this morning.
Father, we ask, as always, that you bless this meeting
this morning, the business decisions that will be made in this time
together. We pray these things in your Son's holy name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, it looks like we
have a relatively short change list.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. I -- I believe so. And on
behalf of your staff, we wish you a Merry Christmas -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Could we have some
quiet? We're trying to make -- make agenda changes.
MR. DORRILL: I have just a couple of changes this
morning. I have two add-on items. The first is item 8(B)(4) under
public works. There is a supplemental executive summary that was
distributed this morning which is to approve certain stipulations for
the purchase of mitigation land being acquired by landowners for the
North Naples Roadway HSTU, otherwise known as the Livingston Road
Extension project. That will be 8(B)(4) on the regular agenda.
Also on the regular agenda will be add-on item 8(E)(2)
which is a resolution 95-655 consenting to certain control and
assignment of the cable television franchise currently held by
Cablevision Management Corporation doing business as Cablevision
Industries and their associated transfer to Time Warner, Incorporated,
and there's a resolution pertaining to that.
I have one agenda note this morning. There is a request
that items 9(A)(1) and (2) as they pertain to refunding of certain
general obligation bonds pertaining to the community park project be
heard as close to 11 a.m. This morning in order to accommodate the
plane arrival of your financial advisor.
Also for purposes of the record and the recording
secretary this morning, I need to amend but not move item 16(B)(10)
and (11) as they pertain to supplemental agreements for work that is
on the consent agenda. We want to amend the staff recommendation to
also include the specific provision that the chairman be authorized to
execute those change orders.
Also with respect to the record this morning, we
previously have had an item scheduled on several occasions concerning
the public petition by WCI Communities pertaining to a request for
ballfield lighting at Veterans Park. That was originally continued
until today by prior board action. We had not heard from them.
we're considering that item withdrawn and will be rescheduled or
repetitioned at their discretion. And with that, I'm done. Those are
all the changes that I have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Norris, do you have any further changes?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No changes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Point of clarification. Mr.
Dotrill, in our agenda somewhere is an approval -- I don't know if
it's the regular consent agenda. I haven't been able to identify it
-- regarding Vanderbilt Beach Road. Is that a consent agenda item,
Mr. Conrecode?
And I -- I may be able to avoid pulling that off the
consent agenda. Is -- Is that for water management improvements to
Vanderbilt Beach Road or just physical construction beyond Hammock
Oak?
MR. CONRECODE: This is for the services during
construction of Wilson, Miller to provide services for the
construction between U.S. 41, the intersection associated with that,
all the way to County Road 31, Airport Road.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So it does not go on the
west side of 417
MR. CONRECODE: Well, it does, only to --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Only to --
MR. CONRECODE: -- the intersection improvements.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie, any-- any
further changes?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have two items from the
consent agenda, 16(B)(13), professional services agreement with
Metcalf and Ebby for the -- Eddy for the eight-million-gallon-a-day
expansion project, and 16(1 (2).
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 16(1) --
HR. DORRILL: 16(B)(13 will become 8(B)(5), and
16(I) (2) will become 9(A)(3
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's the Waste Management
operations.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have no -- no further changes.
Is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, motion to
approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. Any further
discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Item #4A
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 1995 REGULAR MEETING AND NOVEMBER 20, 1995
TRI-COUNTY MEETING APPROVED; MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21, 1995 REGULAR
MEETING CONTINUTED TO JANUARY 2, 1996
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, on the
approval of the minutes, I'm going to ask that we approve the 14th and
the 20th, but on the 21st I've found a couple of errors, and I don't
have them here in front of me. So I'll ask that we continue approval
of those for one week.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion to approve the
minutes of November 14 and 20 but to continue the minutes of the 21st
for one week.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: For two weeks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Actually --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Actually, two weeks.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Until the next regularly
scheduled meeting. Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Under this -- Under this
provision for minutes, I'd like to make a comment for the record. In
regard to the December 12, '95, meeting, this last week's meeting, I
would like the record to reflect the board to -- to accept that the
record reflect for agenda item 8(B)(6) that the legal description
included lots seven through 12, block A on the plat of Lexington at
Lone Oak. This was a regular agenda item subject to a legal
description being provided, and I'd like the record today to recognize
it as being placed on the record today to reflect back to the minutes
of December 12, '95. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Weigel. We have a
motion and a second. Will the -- I don't -- Until we get to the 12th,
I don't think we need to do any -- anything.
We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes for
the 14th and the 20th and continue the minutes for the 21st for a
two-week period. Any further discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item # 5A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE "75TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE AMERICAN WONLA/~'S
RIGHT TO VOTE" - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is proclamations
and service awards. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm especially thrilled to be
able to read this morning a proclamation for celebrating the 75th
Anniversary of the Women's Right to Vote since my grandmother would
not have been able to vote for me, much less sit in this position. So
we have some ladies here and gentlemen who I'd like to ask to come
forward to receive this proclamation.
This presentation is in honor of Marjory Stoneman
Douglas Day, and Vicki Vaughn is here and -- to accept in honor of
Miss Marjory Stoneman Douglas. In place of Mary Ellen Hawkins, we
have Louise Hasse who's here to accept on her behalf; David Carpenter
on behalf of Mary Morgan, our supervisor of elections. We're pleased
to have Gina Hahn, the republican state committeewoman; Louise Hasse
and Marion Mercer representing the republican party of Collier County;
Marge Farley, president of the Women's Republican Club of Naples
Federated; Chuck Mohlke of the Democratic Club of Collier County -- I
haven't seen him in the room -- and Charles Dauray who's president of
the Collier County Historical Society. And I'd like to ask all of you
to come here and stand in front of the board while I read this
proclamation, please.
The 19th amendment to the United States Constitution
which was ratified on August 26, 1920, reads as follows. The right of
citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged
by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Congress
shall have power by appropriate legislation to enforce the provisions
of this article.
Whereas, the 19th amendment to the United States
Constitution was the culmination of the work of many women over a span
of more than 100 years; and
Whereas, their success was due to the integrated work of
these many women; and
Whereas, the County of Collier recognizes the sacrifice
made throughout the many years of struggles by women such as Alice
Paul, Cartie Chapman Catt, Susan B. Anthony, and others; and
Whereas, the County of Collier and their elected
officials join the several organizations within the county who have
celebrated the passage of the 19th amendment which gave the women of
America the right to vote; and
Whereas, on August 26, 1920, the Secretary of State of
the United States of America signed the aforementioned 19th amendment;
and
Whereas, the year of 1995 represents the 75th
anniversary of this notable equality.
Now, therefore, on this last regular meeting day of
1995, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,
recognizes 1995 as the 75th anniversary year of women attaining the
right to vote.
Done and ordered this 19th day of December 1995. Board
of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida. Bettye J. Matthews,
Chairman.
I'd like to move we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
accept the proclamation. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Miss Vaughn, I believe, is going
to have some remarks.
MS. VAUGHN: Thank you, Commissioner Mac'Kie. I'd like
to -- to extend special thanks to Marjory Stoneman Douglas who was one
of the original suffrages in the State of Florida. And she's -- She's
now 105 years old, and she would like to say from her home in Coconut
Grove -- even though she was not able to be with us today, she was
very touched that Collier County has chosen to recognize this as one
of her lifetime achievements. And the State of Florida has recently
purchased her home, and it is her intention to display this
proclamation in -- in her home. So as -- as a token of our
appreciation, I'd like to present Miss Matthews this bouquet of yellow
roses as a symbol of the yellow roses worn by the suffrages for --
especially for the passage in 1920 of the amendment. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: All right, Marge. What are you
going to give us?
MS. FARLEY: I was just thinking I -- I didn't bring
anything with me. I knew you were going to get flowers so what else
is there? But I wish you all, first of all, a very Merry Christmas,
Happy Holidays. I just want to say. We are very grateful, the
Women's Republican Club of Naples for -- for this honor and we really
consider it an honor. Back in April -- I just want to tell you really
quickly. Back in April we were sitting at a board meeting, and I
said, I don't think anybody in this county or anywhere is doing
anything about women's suffrage, and it's going to be their 75th
anniversary, and we really should be doing something. So we decided
we would give a program, and there was a little skit written, and we
had Cartie Chapman Catt and we -- Catt, and we had Susan B. Anthony
all dressed up in -- in old gear from years and years ago, and we had
a wonder full program.
I brought a few posters here. During your break,
perhaps you'd like to come up and take a look at some of the items. I
learned so much about women and about their struggle, and I also
learned that women were so very, very active. Alice Paul was put in
jail and force-fed because there was such a movement against it.
Susan B. Anthony -- They called the 19th amendment the Anthony
amendment because she was so very, very active within. And I also
learned that when these women started 75 years ago, almost 100 years
ago, that those women died, and other women took up the cause so that
-- those who began couldn't quite finish. I'm sure somewhere up
there, they're real happy about this. And so we decided that we would
give this program. And I appreciate and commend Commissioner Matthews
and the rest of you for honoring us this morning for this. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Our pleasure.
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Next item on the agenda are service awards. Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have just one service
award this morning, someone who has been with us for ten years. I --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And very noticeable.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have only been here three
years and for -- every day for three years someone has greeted me with
a smile every single day when I come in, and I assume for the other
seven years she has been with the county, she has done the same for
everyone else who enters the building. Judy Jaeger, thank you very,
very much, and congratulations on ten years with the county.
MR. DORRILL: I -- I might add that we've -- through our
relationship with United Telephone, have had any number of
opportunities to go to one of these silly digitized punch one if you
want to do this, punch two if you want to do that. I think that is --
is exceedingly awkward public service, and at least when you still
call Collier County there is a main switchboard and someone who has
far more knowledge than does anyone else in the entire organization
about who can do what, and she's just amazing and still brings a human
touch to what we do every day, and we love her, and we hope she'll be
here another ten years at least.
UNKNOWN VOICE: Here! Here!
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Dorrill.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I might also point out Mr.
Dorrill's tie today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, yeah. Yes.
MR. DORRILL: It's kind of Christmasy.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Very Christmasy.
Item #7A
LYNN KENNEY RE WAIVER OF FEE FOR ACCESS RESTRICTION - APPLICANT TO FILE
REZONE, ITEM TO BE BROUGHT BACK RE ACCESS RESTRICTION
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda, we move to public
petitions. Ms. Lynn Kenney regarding a waiver of fee for access
restriction.
These aren't going to do right here. Can we move these
down further?
MR. DORRILL: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Kenney.
MS. KENNEY: I'm just here to ask for a waiver of an
access fee on a commercial piece of property on Marco Island. Back in
1991 we received a compatibility exception from the Growth Planning
Commission. We at that time had paid for the fee in the beginning
which was $2,100. We are asking for an access restriction removal,
and they have no fee. They want to charge us with $2,100 again which
I don't think is very fair. We had incurred attorney costs of close to
$10,000 to go through this process -- excuse me -- back then. And I
have talked with Dave Weeks at the Planning Commission. I have also
met with Ray Bellows, and I have spoken to Ed Kant with the
transportation department. We have gone through this process and --
what we've gone through before, and I have reason to believe that they
would not -- I mean, they would be -- They would -- They wouldn't have
any objections to waiving the fee, but it's up to the Board of
Commissioners so --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, generally we don't waive
fees. Mr. Dotrill, would this be the -- true with this? And that we
would actually pay those fees ourselves from -- from the general
funds. My question is, you've already paid it once. MS. KENNEY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And you're being assessed it a
second time?
MS. KENNEY: Yes. Well, it's not -- The -- The $2,100
is for a change in zoning -- zoning. We are not asking for that. I'm
just asking for a re-examination of an access restriction that was
placed by the -- the growth planning department.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Arnold, can you explain what
this issue is all about? I -- It's very unclear what we're trying to
accomplish here.
MR. ARNOLD: I'll certainly try to clarify that. For the
record, Wayne Arnold of your planning services department. The
situation arises as her property was rezoned during the zoning
re-evaluation process, and it wasn't physically rezoned, but it was
conditioned with stipulations. The request here is to remove an access
stipulation from that ordinance. And to do that, our -- County
attorney would concur, I believe, that that requires another public
hearing fezone request which -- The fee has been reduced from $2,100,
I might add, to $1,800, if that's some consolation. But -- But,
again, the process to go back and amend one of the stipulations of
that ordinance would be to go back through the rezoning process.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: During the ZRO where the property
was not necessarily down-zoned but restrictions were placed on the
property, was the property owner present at those hearings and
agreeing to the restrictions placed on the property, or was it done by
this Board of County Commissioners without the property owner present?
MS. KENNEY: The property was rezoned from commercial
C-4 to residential, and we had to -- The property was sold in 1988 on
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Okay. That -- That's
going back just a little further than '-
MS. KENNEY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- we need to. I -- I appreciate
-- This re -- So we're talking -- We are talking about a down-zoning
from commercial to residential?
MR. ARNOLD: That property was never rezoned, no. There
was a determination at the time. The original staff proposal would
have taken the property from C-4 to residential zoning district. It
was not, in fact, rezoned, but it was only stipulated that access
could not be onto Collier Boulevard.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it still remains commercial
zoning?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- And -- I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I guess my question was, when
that stipulation for access restriction was made, was an agent or the
property owner -- an agent of the property owner or the property owner
present at those hearings, or was it just done as a matter for the
ZRO?
COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: If they received legal notice no
matter what -- be careful with that.
MR. ARNOLD: There was never an appeal filed to the
proceedings which I donwt recall whether or not a representative was
present at that rezoning --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I just want to make sure the
notice included the access stipulation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In other words, if -- What I'm
getting at is if you as a property owner were duly noticed that the
county was going to take action on your property in a certain manner
and you chose not to be present to argue that point, for us then to
waive a fee which impl -- which actually then we have to pay out of
the general fund is not appropriate. So what I'm asking is, on the
noticing of this -- this action, was this stipulation noticed
specifically so the property owner was well aware of what action the
board would be taking?
MR. WEEKS: I'm David Weeks of your planning services
department. The property owner was notified through their registered
agent of the approval of their application. That did include two
stipulations, and then subsequently they were notified of the public
hearings to actually go through the so-called fezone process to impose
those two conditions. I don't recall the owner or agent being present
at the hearings. If they were, they did not speak.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me see if I can maybe help us
along here. Do you intend to bring this back to the Board of
Commissioners for approval for your access agreement?
MS. KENNEY: I have been led to believe that the -- the
transportation department and the planning department would work with
me on this. We did have representation at the time. We did file a
compatibility survey. We had -- It was done by an attorney on Marco
Island.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Excuse me. Excuse me. I
-- I need an answer to a specific question. Will this have to come
back before the board if this stipulation is to be removed? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, it would.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Wouldn't it be more
appropriate to discuss the fee at that time since it's coming back
anyway?
MR. ARNOLD: I think the question here is the -- the
application fee is $1,800 plus $25 per acre for the applicant to file
that petition to come back before you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Couldn't the staff propose the
amendment without -- without a fee? I mean, you can propose to amend
an ordinance anytime you want to, and then there's not a fee due.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I would be careful with
that for the simple reason that if due notice was given, stipulations
were stated, and the property owner did not argue -- that -- that
whole ZRO process is quite open. I'm -- I'm very aware of that
process. And if at that time the restrictions that were placed on the
property were not to your liking, that would have been a very
appropriate time to say so.
MS. KENNEY: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. KENNEY: There was extenuating circumstances at the
time. The point is, this fee has been charged for a rezoning. We're
not asking for a rezoning. We're asking for a re-examination of the
restriction.
MS. STUDENT: If I might, Marjorie Student, assistant
county attorney. Historically in this county, for the eight years
that I've been here, whenever there's been a straight fezone that way,
in order to remove a stipulation, much like a PUD, it has to come
through a fezone process to have a stipulation either be removed or
amended or even added, and that's been history of the county ever
since I've been here and further back.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It seems to me what I'm hearing,
whether -- whether, Miss Kenney, you want to have a fezone petition or
not to remove the stipulation, that's exactly what you have to go
through, and there is a fee for that.
MS. KENNEY: Well, I -- I wasn't under that impression.
I was under the impression that it was -- there would -- you know, the
fee was to fezone the property, to change the zoning on it, not for an
examination of the -- excuse me -- of the access.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In essence, if we remove that
stipulation, it will, in fact, be a rezoning because the zoning on the
property right now as it sits on the books has a little number by the
-- by the zoning designation, and that number references the
stipulations that were assigned during the zoning re-evaluation
ordinance. So what we have to do is we have to go in and, in essence,
change the physical zoning of the property if we were to remove that
stipulation. So it -- it follows the exact same course as a fezone
because we have to meet legal requirements of changing the zoning on
the books which is the same labor, the same time, and so forth.
What may give you some level of security before entering
that process, knowing that there's a fee associated with it, is to sit
down and work with our planning staff and our transportation staff to
get a preliminary determination on whether what you're requesting is
feasible and doable. They're not going to be able to give you a final
determination. That comes from the board. But they may be able to
give you the idea of whether you're on stable ground with the request
or whether it's iffy, and that way you're not going to expend the
money not really knowing what -- what potential outcome is there.
So unfortunately I don't -- I personally don't see a way
for us to waive the fee, but I think by working closely with our staff
before submitting your application, you can be assured that if you do
have to pay a fee, you have a greater degree of -- of -- or greater
ability to succeed in -- in getting what you're looking for. And if
they tell you at some point in that process we're not going to
recommend approval, you may want to rethink whether you submit the
application.
MS. KENNEY: Okay.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That -- That would be my
recommendation.
MS. KENNEY: Okay. Fine. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we all concur in that
direction? That sounds --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- reasonable to me.
Item #SA1
RESOLUTION 95-701 RE EXTENDING THE TERMS OF OFFICE OF THE CITIZENS
ADVISORY COHMITTEE TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COHMISSION FOR
PREPARATION OF THE SEVEN YEAR EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT - ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Hiss Kenney.
As we move to the county manager's report on our agenda,
item 8(A)(1) is a resolution extending the terms of office of the
Citizen Advisory Committee to the Collier County Planning Commission.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, it looks like
they're just asking us for the time to complete the job we've asked
them to do.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- That's what it looks like to
me; is that correct?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to approve
the item.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's correct, Mr. Litsinger?
MR. LITSINGER: That's correct, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve item 8(A), extending the terms of office. All those in favor,
please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes four to zero, Commissioner Hac'Kie being
absent.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks, Stan.
Item #SB1
AMENDHENT NO. 4 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEHENT FOR ENGINEERING
SERVICES RELATED TO IMPROVEMENTS AT THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is
8(B)(1) to approve amendment number four to professional services
agreement for engineering services. Mr. Gonzalez.
MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Adolfo
Gonzalez with the Office of Capital Projects Management. This item is
related to the final design of improvements at the South County
Regional Wastewater Treatment facility. In accordance with your
previous direction, we have separated the categories of design into
three categories. One is the -- to address the citizens' concerns
that you had directed staff to take care of some time back. The next
series is regulatory concerns that we need to take care of at that
plant. And the third series are operational concerns, that we'd like
to take advantage of doing those types of improvements now for
efficiencies.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Did you -- Did you say that this
is just an extension of what we had previously directed you to do?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir, as far as the citizens' concern
category. The other two, the regulatory and operational, staff feels
that now is the appropriate time to do those improvements along with
the other construction activities.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the recommendation of staff on item 8(B)(1). Any further
discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez.
Item #882
PURCHASE OF AN OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTIONS FOR
INVENTORY STORAGE AND CONTROL, PUMP/EQUIPMENT REPAIR SHOP AND READY
ROOM/OFFICE AREA - APPROVED
Next item is 8(B)(2), authorization to purchase an
office/warehouse building for wastewater collections for inventory
storage. Mr. Clemons.
MR. CLEHONS: Good morning, Commissioners. Tim Clemons,
for the record. Item 8(B)(2) is back before you this morning. If
you'll recall, on September the 12, I had come to the board and asked
for permission to move ahead with this item, and the board gave us the
approval to proceed with independent appraisals on a building we had
located up on Shirley Street in the north industrial park.
Staff had initially thought to enter into a long-term
lease this year with the idea of purchasing over the next year or two,
but as we began to look at buildings with leases, it became obvious
that it would be difficult due to some of the physical constraints
that our equipment require. And -- And then we came across this
building, and the price on it appeared to be very good, and we had
come to you to pursue perhaps purchasing it. As part of this year's
budget, the board had approved $100,000 to begin the long-term lease
of a warehouse, and we would propose to take that money and apply it
towards a purchase.
The building later found it meets the needs for the
wastewater collections group. As I said, it's up on Shirley Street in
the north industrial park. The owner of the building was asking
510,000 for the property and the building. The county's real property
department conducted their own appraisal based on the sales of the
property between unrelated parties and bargaining transactions and ask
-- and found the asking price to be very reasonable. In addition, an
independent appraisal was performed by Coastal Appraisal Services.
Again, this found the asking price to be very reasonable. Staff has
since negotiated a sales price with the owner of $495,000.
The purchase of a building at this time would provide us
the adequate work area and working conditions for the wastewater
collections and would finally allow for a work area for the more than
1,000 pumps and related equipment that they work on. It would also
provide a much needed space for storing their equipment and their
system repair and inventory parts.
At this point staff is requesting that the board approve
the purchase of the office and warehouse based on the appraisals,
authorize staff to proceed with the preparation of the associated
documents and necessary budget amendments and to authorize the
chairman to execute a purchase agreement for the subject property at
the price and for the terms and conditions specified in the executive
summary.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? Commissioners
Hancock, then Constantine, then Norris.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The original long-term lease
agreement you're looking at so -- in a nutshell, if we were going to
do a five-year long-term lease, we would expend similar monies -- MR. CLEHONS: Similar --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that we would to buy the
property?
MR. CLEMONS: Similar or more. Similar or more --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or more?
MR. CLEHONS: -- based on what we saw out there, yes,
sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. My second question is, the
-- by reducing the north collection rehab project to make funds
available for the purchase -- MR. CLEHONS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- what exactly does that do to
the rehab project? Does it stave it off? Does -- I mean, what impact
does that have?
MR. CLEHONS: It slows it down a little bit this year.
What happened was we had budgeted specifically for this building, I
think three years ago. We took the money that had been budgeted and
approved, and it was diverted into rehab-type accounts. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. CLEHONS: What we're asking to do is to, in essence,
reverse that at this point and move the money back over to buy the
building. It will slow down our rehabilitation work this year only,
and we will continue on, but it will allow us to finally get into a
facility where they can start doing a lot of their own rehab work on
the pumps and equipment that we currently contract out.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll yield to the gentleman
from district one.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're watching too much C-Span.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The gentleman from district one
thanks the gentleman from district three for the -- for the time and
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
the year.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
Clemons --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
My. This is the last meeting of
-- and would like to ask Mr.
Ho, ho.
We've discussed this on many
occasions, and my only question is, locationally do you feel that this
is going to be an effective, efficient place to be, considering all
the different areas that it's going to serve.
MR. CLEHONS: We had looked at trying to find a place
that's centrally located within our district as we could, considering
that we go from Bonita Springs to Marco. We had looked primarily at
the two industrial parks, the one just up on Airport Road and the one
on Shirley Street. Either one of them we felt was fairly central for
our work crews. So we believe this will be a good site. It's
compatible with the other uses around it. We've looked at the site
for working history. We think we can easily accommodate ourselves
there for 20 years or so. So I do believe it will be good, yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Is there further discussion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Clemons, how many square
feet? It's 10,0007 Is that right?
MR. CLEHONS: The overall building, Commissioner, is
10,000 square feet. The way it's laid out today, approximately 4,000
is office, and -- and the remaining 6,000 is -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Work bays.
MR. CLEHONS: -- like a four-bay work area the way it's
laid out today.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have one question before I call
the -- before I call the question. Is there any additional renovation
work going to be required that is not already in your budget?
MR. CLEHONS: No, ma'am. Not at this time. We're going
to move some things that we already have, some old trailers up there
and -- and work them in, but other than that, we don't think we've got
to do a whole lot of work.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine. Thank you. Any other
questions?
We have a motion to approve the item. All those in
favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero. Thank you.
MR. CLEHONS: Thank you very much, and the men will
thank you.
Item #883
RECIPROCAL FEE WAIVER AGREEHENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTHENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) - APPROVED SUBJECT TO FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL
BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is item
8(B)(3), a recommendation to approve a reciprocal fee waiver
agreement. Mr. Archibald.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Good morning, Board Members. Agenda item
8(B)(3) is a waiver agreement with the Florida Department of
Transportation involving access permit fees. As most everyone is
aware, all state agencies have fee schedules for permitting
activities. The good news is, in the case of Florida Department of
Transportation, they have a provision in the administrative code that
allows waiver of fees to governmental entities.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Archibald, you're asking us
to save money?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
MR. ARCHIBALD: I need to add one comment. That comment
is, the attorney's office is reviewing the agreement. There are some
provisions that we need to address, and they need the latitude in your
approval to make some minor changes to the agreement.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll modify my motion to include
directing the county attorney's office to make the necessary changes
indicated by Mr. Archibald.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll withdraw my second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You withdraw your second?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll -- I'll second the
motion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I thank my colleague from
district three.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Shwooo! We have a motion and a
second to approve the item with the stipulation that Mr. Weigel make
the appropriate changes Mr. Archibald has outlined for us. Any
further discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero. Thank you.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, George.
Item #8B4
PROPERTY OWNER STIPULATIONS FOR THE PURCHASE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MITIGATION LAND FOR THE NORTH NAPLES ROADWAY MSTU (LIVINGSTON ROAD)
PROJECT - DENIED, STAFF DIRECTED TO WORK WITH THE LANDOWNER GROUP TO
SEE IF THEY WISH TO PAY ADDITIONAL EXPENSE
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda has been
-- is a mitigation agreement, item 8(B)(4). Mr. Gonzalez.
MR. GONZALEZ: Adolfo Gonzalez with your Office of
Capital Projects Management. This item relates to the Livingston Road
MSTU project. The last time you gave us direction was the end of
November to essentially amend the option agreement to extend the
closing date. Since then, the seller's agent has requested
essentially a daily surcharge between the time of December 10, which
was when that option agreement expired, and when we actually close,
the first or second week in January. He wants us to pay for the time
value of money for that extension of time. In addition to that, he'd
also -- the seller's agent would like the county to pay the pro-rated
real estate taxes from December 10 to the closing date which amounts
to -- those two items, somewhere around $5,000.
As you -- I don't know if you're aware. We now have
both of the major environmental permits for the project, both the
water management district permit and the Corps of Engineers permit.
Everything -- All the I's have been dotted, and all the T's have been
crossed. Unfortunately this is an additional stipulation the seller
now has.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where is that buyers group who
was going to bridge the gap for us? They -- Where are they on this
$5,0007
MR. GONZALEZ: We have had some preliminary discussions
with them. We're trying to get them to possibly help us pay for this
additional cost, maybe 50/50 or some amount. They have not agreed to
any amount yet on that. They have agreed to pay for the difference
between the -- the 84,000 previously.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. Did they know that this
item was going to be discussed at the county commission today? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wonder if -- oh -- because I'm
surprised that they aren't here if -- so we can --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we can ask them to share in
the cost.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ask them to share in the cost.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Gee. Why wouldn't they show up?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I -- I'd like to know if
they were asked to show up and just said, no, thanks, we're not
showing up.
MR. GONZALEZ: No. They were not asked to show up, but
we have had some initial discussion with them on -- along those lines,
and they're as surprised and we are that the seller wanted this
additional payment.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not going to support the
-- the recommendation. The current owner of the property appears to
be trying to milk us for whatever they can get. We had agreed to a
particular price, and if it took an extra 28 days to get -- to close
that -- This property, other than for environmental mitigation, is
essentially worthless. So I'm not going to support giving them an
extra penny, let alone 161 bucks per acre per day or whatever this
thing is. So I'm going to vote against it. If they want to sell the
property, we've agreed to a price.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What was the reason for the
additional delay that we've got here?
MR. GONZALEZ: We -- We didn't want to close on the
property until we had both environmental permits. The second -- The
Corps permit came in --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Was that a condition of the sales
contract?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. Yes. So that we would have locked
the board into --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, then I agree with -- I agree
with Commissioner Constantine.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, do we have an
enforceable contract with the seller if we can't -- I mean, if -- if
we don't, you know, pay this ransom, can we still force them to close?
MR. WEIGEL: I'll gently deflect the question to Heidi
Ashton. Thank you.
MS. ASHTON: Good morning. For the record, Heidi
Ashton, assistant county attorney. The contract which we had expired
as of December 10, 1995. So we've asked the seller to enter into an
extension, and those are the terms under which they'll enter into an
extension with us.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So to keep them from running out
and selling this property to the people standing in line that want to
buy it, they want $5,000. You know, I -- I -- Maybe this will -- will
be back on January 2 for more discussion, but I'm just not comfortable
-- I know when you're looking at $600,000, 5,000 doesn't seem like
much but --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we continue it until
January 2 and ask staff to go back and speak with the property owner.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Why don't we just deny it.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why don't we tell them no.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why don't we just deny it,
and if the property owner wants to bring it back January 2, then --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Without -- Without really
having some very frank discussions with the coalition of people that
are -- are interested --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't want to kill it. That's
all.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in this, I'm not going to make
any commitment to --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't want to kill it. I'd
rather continue it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to fund it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion that we
deny staff recommendation but that we'll be happy to purchase the
property under our original agreement. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Gonzalez, did you need to get
something --
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. Would you rather have the
recommendation amended subject to either a 50 percent contribution
from the landowners group if staff can -- can secure that or -- or --
or direct staff to try to get the landowners group to --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. Repeating what I said
before, I don't want to give the landowner group one extra penny. I
think this is swamp land, and it's essentially worthless except for
this purpose. And so if -- if they can sell it somewhere else, then
God bless them, and we can find other property out there, but I
suspect we'll come together between now and January.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But our permit -- I mean, I -- I
agree with that, but our permit is specifically conditioned on this
piece of property. So let's be realistic about there's plenty of
swamp land. We'll have to stop and start over in our permitting
process.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They are, and I'm sure the
landowner took that into consideration when they tried to hold us over
a barrel for an extra few thousand dollars.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I just want to clarify
something. Commissioner Constantine said we don't want to give the
landowner group another penny. There -- There are two groups.
There's the landowner, and then there's this coalition of -- of
landowners that, you know, have agreed to --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Initiated it, yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- pay for a portion. So there
are two groups. Let's not confuse those two.
I would like -- If Commissioner Constantine would, just
to include in the motion, if -- if our staff wants to ask the -- the
coalition of landowners if they want to pay this 5,000, that's great.
It's up to them, but this board will not pay the money.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend the motion to
reflect that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the second accept?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The second -- The second amends.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
deny the item which is 8(B)(4), the mitigation -- the extension of the
mitigation agreement; however, direct our staff to work with the
landowner group and the property owner to see if the landowner group
wants to pay it or the property owner no longer requires it. Any
further discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask a point of information?
With this denial, do we not have an extension, or are we just
sending the extension back without those stipulations? I want a
clarification.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My recommendation would be that
in the negotiating process, they have offered us, yes, we'll extend if
you pay. And we respond, we would like the extension, but we're not
willing to pay, and then we wait for a response from them.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. That -- That's -- That's
my intent. Is that --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was the intent of the
motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
motion.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
for my sake. Thank you.
That was the intent of the
Okay. I just wanted to clarify
Item #8B5
AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH METCALF &
EDDY FOR THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLAN 8-HGD EXPANSION
PROJECT - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It was the intent because the
further direction is for staff to work with both the landowner group
and the property owner. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez.
Next item on the agenda is 8(B)(5). This was formerly
on the consent agenda.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It was 16(B) 13), hopefully
an easy question. Part four of this executive summary says, as part
of the original provisional agreement, one of the stipulations limited
the noise emanating from plant operations to less than 55 decibels.
The water department recently initiated noise readings, and it was
determined that the north side of the plant generates noise readings
in excess of the allowable 55 decibels. The water department
requested H and E to conduct a noise study and recommend remedial
action to bring the plant within allowable noise limits. Item will
add 15,000.
Who's at -- Do we know who's at fault? Who is
responsible initially for keeping it within limits and/or is -- was
this an ongoing problem that just -- We sent them out to -- to find
out if such a problem existed or -- or were they responsible for
making this not happen and now it's happening? My point is, who's
responsible here? Because I don't want to pay $15,000 if someone else
caused the problem.
MR. GONZALEZ: My understanding is that when the water
plant was given the provisional use, the provisional use said that we
could not have noise levels in excess of 55 decibels in the perimeter
of the plant. So before we started the current construction
activities, we did seek some noise readings, and those were in certain
areas above the 55 decibels due to operational problems at the plant
or operational activities that cause high noise levels.
In addition to that, during construction, there have
been some increased noise levels, but it's based on a different set of
criteria, the noise ordinance. So it's an operational problem this --
that this one is trying --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My question is, is that as a
result of that construction that has happened since then, or did this
problem exist prior to that?
MR. GONZALEZ: Prior to the construction as far as the
operational concern.
MR. CONRECODE: If I could add --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Conrecode.
MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Tom Conrecode. The --
The noise that we're getting at the north end of the plant we think is
-- is an operational concern that should have been addressed by the
engineers who did the original design. We have that on the list of
items we're going back to them with error-and-omission claims on.
We're going to meet with them and the attorneys in January.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we are pursuing that?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I'll move the item.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
For those of us who sat on the Value Adjustment Board, we -- we
remember a Mr. Bender coming in and talking to us about this.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I missed that meeting.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, you were not on the Value
Adjustment Board this year.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This does not totally address his
concerns; is that correct, Mr. Gonzalez?
MR. GONZALEZ: That's correct. Since then, there are
some noise issues attendant to the construction that's going on right
now, and the contractor is helping us trying to come up with a plan to
reduce it gradually.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. And we -- but we are
continuing to work on -- on the concerns of Mr. Bender dealing with
internal noise from the facility itself and the air conditioners and
so forth?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. Thank you. We have
a motion and a second to approve the item. All those in favor, please
say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez.
Item #SD1
STATUS REPORT RE PROGRAM INITIATIVES OUTLINED BY THE HUMAN RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 - PRESENTED
Next item on the agenda is 8(D)(1) from support
services, a status report on initiatives outlined by the human
resources department. Ms. Edwards.
MS. EDWARDS: Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good morning.
MS. EDWARDS: Happy Holidays. For the record, my name
is Jennifer Edwards. I'm the acting human resources director. When
the county manager selected me to serve as the acting human resources
director, he directed me to change the department. He emphasized that
we needed to improve our credibility and that I needed to make
positive changes to improve our processes as well as to improve the
confidence level in the department of human resources. To this end,
we began to make changes by first making staff changes. Of the
current seven and a half positions at HR, six and a half of those have
been on board since June. Our staff has developed a motto which is
presented in the -- on the wall as soon as you walk into our office,
and that motto is a new beginning in service. This is only
appropriate with a new staff of human resources professionals. It
also conveys the department's movement to providing the level of
service that our customers want and deserve.
I will now briefly describe some of the innovations and
initiatives that have begun the changing role in human resources. The
first --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you looking for questions?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You just look so happy. I
don't know.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you looking -- Are you
looking for questions? I mean, you look like --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: She is so excited.
MS. EDWARDS: You all seem so -- so -- a little amused.
I was just wondering what that might be.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We were just wondering--
MS. EDWARDS: I am. I'm very pleased to be here and to
share these.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We were just wondering who
the half employee that has been with you since June was.
MS. EDWARDS: That's our recap coordinator who works
half time with us and half time in court.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He's really a whole body
though.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're kind of silly, Jennifer,
today. It's the last meeting. We're slaphappy.
MS. EDWARDS: I'll begin talking about our initiatives
by talking about what we call the generalist concept, and this was
implemented this past August. Our staff includes two senior human
resource analysts. Each analyst is assigned to a specific division
and is responsible for providing support and direction in all areas of
human resources management. Employees call on the same person in the
department for assistance regardless of the type of service that's
required. This eliminates the need to redirect customers from
specialist to specialist.
Another significant initiative is a human resources
information system. We will be re-engineering current manual and
quasi-electronic systems. With the assistance of the information
technology department, obtaining and analyzing information regarding
integrated technology is already under way. We expect to begin
implementation of this system this summer, and Iwll be back to talk to
you in just a few months about funding that project.
Another initiative has begun between -- between our
staff and other -- what we call high users of our department. What we
do there is we address problems by meeting with the departments and
saying what can we do to help you do your job better relative to human
resource needs. They explain to us what they feel might be the
problem areas, the things that are taking more time for us to respond
to, and we immediately have resolved those things, and wewre moving on
from department to department.
As a result of these meetings, we implemented what we
call a pilot project with the assistance of the library department.
The library has voiced some concerns relating to the amount of time it
takes to fill their vacant positions. After several discussions and
some planning, it was agreed that a library staff member would
function as a human resource representative within the library
department. This project involves decentralizing some of the human
resource recruitment selection and appointment activities to the user
department. We anticipate this effort will be expanded through other
departments throughout the county in the months to come.
Iwm also very happy to announce the addition of the
quality improvement coordinator to our department. In the past this
position has been organized within the office of budget and
management. What we have done is transferred that position to human
resources. She not only will be doing her Q-plus work, but she also
will be working diligently on developing staff development plans. And
a part of that supervise -- Part of that training that shews
developing is supervisory training, and one new concept that wewre
adopting is what we call performance advisory service or PAS. PAS is
a task force set up to train supervisors in performance case
management. Advisors teach supervisors how to analyze employee work
performance and conduct problems and how to develop a plan for
improvement and how to monitor the performance to ensure turnaround
and will be beginning this training in January.
Another significant initiative is empowerment. This is a
concept that we want to introduce countywide. It is -- It will be
called the empowered manager program, and it will help supervisors
develop a sense of making the workplace their own business. With the
assistance and support of the county manager and the division
administrators, empowerment will allow employees the latitude of
providing input and having full responsibility for a project or work
product. It will provide an environment that allows decisions to be
made by those people who are closest to the situation. It provides
people with the authority to make decisions without requiring them to
seek approval at a higher level, and it includes accountability for
those who are making the decisions.
Another initiative is what we call our employee --
employment updates. We will be distributing these updates to our user
departments when our processes are changed, improved, and streamlined.
This will provide a clear communication link between the departments
and human resources.
The first of these updates was distributed at the
beginning of December. In order to expedite the forwarding of
applications and resumes to departments, for a trial period beginning
January 1, the hiring authority within each department will be allowed
to screen applications for minimum qualifications. Currently our
human resources staff transmits only those applications meeting the
minimum requirements.
Another exciting project that I know some of you are
very interested in is the day care center concept, and we have been
working with the county manager's office as well as the EAC committee
in determining the needs for a day care center. To date with 50
percent of the county employees surveyed through the touch screen
survey that has been ongoing for the last few months, approximately 34
percent or 66 respondents expressed an interest in an on-campus day
care center. More information will be obtained in January which we
will use that information then and come back and talk to you to
determine how we want to go forward.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Jennifer, can I interrupt you?
That touch screen, did that also get any indication from employees on
K through three school as well?
MS. EDWARDS: I can't answer that, but I'll get that
question answered and get back to you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We -- We did have a proposal from
the school board a couple of years ago about a day care center with K
through three and possible expansion even beyond that.
MS. EDWARDS: I'll determine the specific criteria that
was asked -- the question that was asked in the survey and -- and get
that back to you today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Potential graduates of Government
Complex University.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't have to put in any
infrastructure.
MS. EDWARDS: Another goal is to evaluate a redesign of
our current performance evaluation program. The productivity -- or
your citizens productivity committee is also looking into this, and we
will be working with them and listening to their suggestions and
recommendations and what we may do to make our performance evaluation
system a better system.
Another initiative, upgrading and expanding our jobs
hotline is a project that is long overdue. The goal is to provide a
menu selection of vacant positions rather than the caller being
required to listen to a 15- to 20-minute recording of all jobs that
are available in the county. And the fact that we're using just a
little answering machine that clicks on and off all day too to provide
this service, we're looking to computerize this. Additionally, our
vision is to connect with a system that will allow the user to
electronically apply for county positions from remote locations.
Staff is working with information technology to access the Freenet to
accomplish this goal as well as to post our vacant positions on
Freenet.
As you can probably tell, most of these initiatives are
changes within an existing department, a newly organized department,
and we can implement these with our current staff and with the funds
that are available; however, some of the projects are a little
broader, and those are the ones that I will be bringing back to you
individually, specifically the HRIS concept to talk to you about
funding.
One final comment I'd like to make is -- as I said at
the beginning, Neil had asked us to -- to improve the confidence
that's in our department. To this end, we utilized the touch screen
survey, and it was determined that the employee confidence in the
human resources department -- and that means people feeling free to go
to human resources -- has incremented -- incrementally improved in
these degrees over the last few months. (indicating)
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's wonderful.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wonderful.
MS. EDWARDS: Do you have any questions? Comments?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The only comment that I have is
that I'm -- I'm pleased with what I see in the initiatives and efforts
going into instituting a program to truly help Collier County
Government become a really modernly run business that's going to look
to the future and constantly adapt itself to whatever the needs are.
MS. EDWARDS: In pulling together and doing our
research, we have learned that the role of human resources throughout
the country has definitely changed; that rather than being paper
shufflers, that we're -- we need to perform the role of a coach and an
advisor rather more than anything else. Thank you for your support.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. Are there
further questions?
Thank you.
Item #BE1
MARCO ISLAND SPORT FESTIVAL WITH CATEGORY C, SPECIAL EVENTS, TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT REVENUES IN THE AMOUNT OF $154,000 - APPROVED
Next item on the agenda is 8(E)(1). This is to fund the
Marco Island Sports Festival with category C special events tourist
development money. Miss Gardino.
MS. GANSEL: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is one that we can
pleasantly report that the TDC approved.
MS. GANSEL: Exactly. It makes my job easier, I must
admit. Jean Gansel from the budget office. At the November 27 TDC
meeting, the counsel reviewed an application from the Marco Island
Sports Festival for category C funding in the amount of $154,000.
Commissioner Matthews reported, I'm pleased to say, that it was an
affirmative vote of seven to two of the TDC members to fund this
event.
One of the concerns that was expressed at the meeting
was the budget presentation. There -- There was a little bit of
confusion with in-kind revenues. The Marco Island Sports Festival has
resubmitted a budget that is no different from the one that was seen
or evaluated by the TDC but clarifies the in-kind revenue.
Essentially if I can just summarize quickly, they had the in-kind
revenue but didn't have in-kind expenditures. So it looked as if they
were showing a profit of about 165,000 which did make some people
uncomfortable. They had assured us at that meeting, though, if they
do make a profit, they will return that to the -- to the fund.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I believe the 165,000 did
not include the refunding of the 154, and they're well aware that --
that they will be refunding it if they earn that much money.
MS. GANSEL: They would love to make that much money, I
would think.
The funding will be for advertising and promotion for a
two-day amateur athletic event that will be held in June. As part of
the staff recommendation, we're also asking that the board approve the
standard contract for category C special events subject to the review
of risk management and the county attorney's office and that the
chairman be authorized to execute that contract. Since there is a
couple meetings -- a couple weeks, they have some expenditures that
they would like to take care of and -- and need the contract before
they can proceed with that. So if the board approves the funding, we
would like that also.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Did I -- I believe I read that
there will be local charities that will be beneficiaries of this
event, the American Heart Association and the YMCA or --
MS. GANSEL: I would like the applicant to respond to
that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: American Cancer Society.
MS. GANSEL: That would be okay. I did not see that in
your budget, and this is possibly something in connection with this
event and --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'll -- I'll get an answer
on that.
MS. GANSEL: Okay.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The other thing I just wanted to
say is that when we were changing the way category C funds could be
used, I was actually hoping we'd see more sporting-type events because
you get -- If you have a half marathon, you get runners in from all
over the state, and most of them stay overnight, and this is exactly
the type of expansion of category C I was looking for, and I think
they've done a good job of putting it together, but I'll -- I'll hold
off until we get their question.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They stay over two nights, don't
they? One night they rest up and the next night to recover?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before they run home. But-- And
I'm also -- I'm also excited because I might actually participate in
this.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just my compliments. The --
If a few weeks ago when we were talking about category C, I mentioned
in leadership, Florida -- one of the things they talked about was
sporting events, not necessarily of the traditional, basketball,
football, baseball nature, and -- and this is exactly the type thing
they're talking about. It does, indeed, draw people in. I'll make a
motion we approve the item.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do want to --
MR. DORRILL: We have one speaker in the event that you
have questions.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I do want to get a
question on the -- I read the beneficiaries of the American Cancer
Society, Marco Island YHCA, and possibly two others or -- or
something. So if I could just get a clarification on how those
charities may benefit from the event.
MR. COLEMAN: Commissioner Matthews and Commissioners,
my name is Mike Coleman. I'm the co-chairman of the Marco Island
Sports Festival. We've identified two major sponsors for this event,
and it is the American Cancer Society as well as the Marco Island YHCA
and believe those are certainly worthy organizations as well as
organizations that -- as we advertise and try to promote this event
throughout the state, there are a number of YHCAs throughout the
state, et cetera, et cetera, and we are delighted that those two
agencies have agreed to come on board.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And make sure I get an
application if you would.
MR. COLEMAN: And -- And we look forward to your
participation.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris, did you have
questions?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just a comment. I think this is a
great event. I think it's -- it's coming at the right time of the
year for category C. I think it's going to attract a very large
number of participants, and my only concern is really not for our
area. I think it's great for our area. But it's probably going to
put the Summer Olympics in Atlanta out of business.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's true. That's true. I know
I won't be going now.
Neil, Commissioner Constantine suggested that the three
of us get a fourth for our relay team for swimming.
MR. DORRILL: For swimming?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've got a dentist that does that
real well. We have a motion and a second to approve the item. Any
further discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
MR. COLEMAN: Thanks very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Miss Gansel, and thank
you, Mr. Coleman.
Item #8E2
RESOLUTION 95-702 AMENDING RESOLUTION 95-655 CONSENTING TO THE TRANSFER
OF CONTROL OF THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE HELD BY FLORIDA
CABLEVISION HANAGHENT CORP. D/B/A CABLEVISION INDUSTRIES TO TIME
WARNER, INC. - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is item 8(E)(2), which is a
resolution, 95-655, consenting to a transfer of control. Miss Gansel.
MS. GANSEL: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Miss Gansel, before you begin -- Is there
a Mr. Or Ms. Berman in the audience?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We had -- I'm sorry. We had
speakers on that.
MR. DORRILL: Not -- Not on this item. I just -- I'm
trying to determine what item this gentleman would like to speak on.
Go ahead.
MS. GANSEL: Commission, this is amending resolution
95-655. If you remember, approximately a month ago I was before you
to approve a resolution transferring the cable franchise from CVI to
Time Warner. At that point we had not completed an audit. There were
some franchise fees that were due to the county. We put in that
resolution a deadline of December 20 to resolve or to come to a
negotiated settlement. We are very close, but we have not concluded
our negotiations, and we would request that the board amend that
resolution to give both parties a little more time and put in a date
of December 29 so that the resolution is not null and void.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So moved.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I have a question on that.
You're asking for a December 29 date, yet our next meeting isn't until
January the 2. Suppose you need a further extension and we won't be
meeting? What happens?
MS. GANSEL: Commissioners, I -- I -- I must admit this
-- as of yesterday, we were still talking, and I was hoping I
wouldn't have to come before you. And I -- I somewhat arbitrarily put
in the 29. I felt that if staff could not conclude our negotiations,
that we would probably need to come forward to you for more direction
on how you would like to proceed. I'm very confident, though, that we
will resolve that.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The 29 -- The 29 is the last
business day before we next meet.
MS. GANSEL: If you would like to extend that --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I --
MS. GANSEL: -- longer just to assure that there is an
opportunity, that certainly is -- is no problem.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to ask the motionmaker
to consider extending the date to January the 3 which is the day after
our next regular meeting.
MS. GANSEL: That would be fine.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And if -- if they need a further
extension, the current contract will not have expired or the current
resolution.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I'll amend.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second amends.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
-- to amend resolution 95-655 to extend the date to January 3, 1996.
MR. DORRILL: And we do have a speaker.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We do have speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins.
MR. PERKINS: Merry Christmas, Commissioners. On this
CVI, the last time it came up, there was a statement that the transfer
to Time Warner involved 30 percent of the county as far as the -- and
a $1-per-month increase in their fee. Is that still in the contracts?
MS. GANSEL: That is not in the resolution. That was
something that was being proposed by the Federal Communication
Committee as part of the social contract. Staff at that point was
recommending to the -- to the Board of County Commissioners that we --
that Collier County not be included in that social contract, but we do
not have -- That really is between the Federal Communication
Commission and Time Warner. It was just that we were looking for
direction as a recommendation to the FCC that we not be included in
the social contract, but that is not a part of the resolution that
we're proposing today nor was it in the one that was proposed at the
November 21 meeting.
MR. PERKINS: Well, the point that I'm making is you're
establishing or could establish a rate increase for Time Warner, and
that effects a third of the county which turns into megabucks. And as
the county grows, it's going to get worse and worse and worse. So you
have to take it into consideration.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We -- We did not agree to enter
into that, and I believe their franchise is up for renewal -- is it
'97 or '98?
MS. GANSEL: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And I -- I would think at least
from this five-member board, that if that dollar increase is included
in their next franchise application, I don't know what -- We'll think
about that.
MR. PERKINS: The one other thing I want to address is
the programming. At the present time, the programming is provided by
Colony -- or Continental, I believe it is now. UNKNOWN VOICE: Yeah. Continental.
MR. PERKINS: -- Provided the free service to the
schools which was educational programs, and that was never addressed
whether or not they would maintain that standard of service.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Doesn't -- Miss Gansel, doesn't
the application say the -- the service will not be reduced but may be
expanded?
MS. GANSEL: Yeah. The application that we had from
Time Warner requesting the transfer does indicate they will maintain
the service, that they will not reduce any of the services. There was
nothing specific about increasing them, but that's something we can
always request from them, but there will not be any reduction in
services as they are now provided.
MR. PERKINS: This was a free provision by CVI to the
schools where -- Are they going to maintain that?
MS. GANSEL: The application indicates they will
maintain the service level in all of the provisions of that the same
as they are now.
MR. PERKINS: As far as dollars go?
MS. GANSEL: Yes.
MR. PERKINS: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Dotrill, are there other speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. We have a motion and
a second to approve the extension of this resolution to January 3,
1996. Any further discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
MS. GANSEL: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Item #9A3
AMENDMENT TO LANDFILL OPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. OF FLORIDA, RE CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION
DEBRIS PROCESSING - APPROVED
Let's see if we can get one more quick one in. Next item
is 9(A)(1). Hr. Weigel, would it be appropriate to hear A(1) and A(2)
at the same time?
MR. WEIGEL: It would be. Those are scheduled for 11
o'clock this morning. The bond counsel aren't here yet. I'll
certainly notify you as soon as they grace our presence here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the
agenda will be 9(A)(3). This was an item moved from the consent
agenda. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just had a quick question
for staff. When we entered into our initial agreement with Waste
Management, there was some question with Linda Harszalkowski and her
company and one other company which I can't remember the name of. I'm
wondering, does -- does this impact those two small contracts; and, if
SOr how?
MR. RUSSELL: Our agreement with Waste Management
ensures that --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Your name?
MR. RUSSELL: For the record, David Russell with the
solid waste department -- that the Marszalkowski operation will be
able to take their daily cover material to Waste Management through
fiscal year '96. So this in no way impacts that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the amendment to the landfill operation agreement. Any
further discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 95-703 RE J. A. NUNNER, C. B. BARKSDALE, B. NELSON, C. DANE,
J. A. RAUTIO AND D. J. LONG APPOINTED TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is 10(A), an appointment of
members to the development services advisory committee. Miss Filson.
MS. FILSON: Sue Filson from the board's office. This
item is to appoint six members to four-year terms on the development
services advisory committee. I've listed the applicants and placed
asterisks next to the appointments that are recommended by the
development services. Two of them are for re-appointment, and four
are for new appointments. Clifford--
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner --
MS. FILSON: You want me to --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Go ahead.
MS. FILSON: Clifford Barksdale is recommended for
re-appointment as the land developer. Kris Dane is recommended for
re-appointment representing structural engineer. Francis Dayton,
Brian Nelson, Kenneth LaBreche, and Christine Ramsey are recommended
for new appointments.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I see we're
-- we have six appointments to make. I'd like to make a
recommendation on one, and I guess each one of us can -- can do
whatever. But I'd like to recommend Jeffrey Nunnet.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In place of -- or do we just want
to --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would just --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- pick six?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- assume we'll pick the six.
I don't know if we need to follow the recommendations or not.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to recommend Cliff
Barksdale.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm really not familiar with a lot
of these people. I'll take the -- the recommendation from the
advisory committee and pick one, Brian Nelson.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise, I've had no
correspondence or communication on these. Based on the makeup of the
committee, we don't have anyone in structural, so I'll -- I'll pick
Kris Dane.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's structural. I have a
professional engineer. We have a landscape architect.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, is the landscape
architect going off? Yes, Joe McNeil is going off, and I think he's
the only landscape architect on there, isn't he? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Brian Nelson.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Brian Nelson was just picked.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, Nelson is? Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The names I'm familiar with have
already been appointed, so I will pick also. J.A. Rautio.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make one other
suggestion. Someone I know I think will do a pretty good job is Dino
Longo.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And we need one more. No, that
is six.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That is six.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That is six. We have a motion to
appoint the following six members to the development services advisory
committee. Clifford Barksdale, Dino Longo, Kris Dane, Joyceanne
Rautio, Jeffrey Nunnet, and Brian Nelson.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you need a motion for that
officially? I guess we all made our recommendations. I'll move that
list of six.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
appoint those six members to the development services advisory
committee. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
MS. FILSON: Can I ask one question of David Weigel who
is on the phone?
MR. WEIGEL: That's okay.
MS. FILSON: Are -- Are these categories -- Excuse me.
Are the categories listed in the ordinance mandatory for the new board
or merely --
MR. WEIGEL: My recollection is it's -- it's
recommendatory, not mandatory.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise, we have a lot of
contractors on that -- on that committee, and that was a concern of
mine, but so be it.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 95-704 DESIGNATING THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES PARK AS THE MAX
A. HASSE, JR. COHMUNITY PARK - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is a
resolution to officially designate a name for the Golden Gate Estates
park. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We had the groundbreaking on
the Golden Gate Estates community park about a week ago and
Commissioner --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You want a Constantine Park,
don't you?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock and
Commissioner Matthews were present, and I had a suggestion that day
which we've put in the resolution form and brought to the board today.
And I -- I was joking with some friends last time. I said, for the
Baseball Hall of Fame, you need to be retired for five years from
active play to be eligible. For the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, you
have to have had your first recording released 25 years ago in order
to be eligible. And -- And in Hax's case, he's put in somewhere
between 50 and 60 years of service on park and rec. So I guess at
this point he's more than eligible --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But he's not retired yet.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's right. Never retired.
We've put a resolution together, and I will read through it quickly
to officially designate -- to name Golden Gate Estates park as the Max
A. Hasse, Junior, Community Park. And, Max, as we read this, why don't
you come on up and -- I -- I'm sure people are relatively familiar
with you anyway but never one to shy away.
Whereas, Max A. Hasse, Junior, has dedicated a lifetime
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. He's also wearing a
yellow rose.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, that's right. He's got
the --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I like that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- suffrage rose on.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Louise has pinned him
carefully this morning.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You dress him so well, Louise.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Whereas, Max A. Hasse,
Junior, has dedicated a lifetime to public service; and
Whereas, Max A. Hasse, Junior, was active in New Jersey
recreational activities, most notably Hax's Gym Weightlifting Program;
and
Whereas, upon moving to Collier County, Hasse serves
both in a voluntary and paid appointed position on the City of Naples
parks and recreation; and
Whereas, while serving as county commissioner from 1984
through 1992, Mr. Hasse consistently made parks and recreation a high
priority; and
Whereas, since retiring from the county commission, Max
A. Hasse, Junior, has served the community of Golden Gate and Collier
County through his position on the Collier County parks and recreation
advisory board.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the community park
currently under development in Golden Gate Estates located at Golden
Gate Boulevard, Naples, Florida, is hereby designated to be named the
Max A. Hasse, Junior, Community Park. And this resolution is for
adoption today.
I'd -- I'd like to say, not only has Max done a pile of
things for our community as outlined there, but he's been a pretty
good friend for eight or nine years too and -- and -- So there's a
little personal touch here as well. But I'd like to make a motion we
approve the resolution and go ahead and name the park the Max A.
Hasse, Junior, Community Park.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Is there further discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Why don't we take a ten-minute break --
MR. HASSE: Wait a minute.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: While Max is speaking, we'll take
a ten-minute break.
MR. HASSE: No, I'm not going to take --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: My apologies.
MR. HASSE: -- a couple of days.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: My apologies, Max.
MR. HASSE: I always give women preference to talk
first. But in any case, I appreciate this more than anybody will ever
know. I did serve on the parks and recreation in the City of Naples
and Collier County and New Jersey for so many years that that just
seems like a natural thing that I took over when I came to Naples, and
I have enjoyed it, but more important, I've enjoyed working with the
people in Collier County. And where they have supported the county
parks and recreation so completely and thoroughly, I'm very
appreciative of that, and may I continue to do it again. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Now, why don't we
take a ten-minute break, and we'll come back and continue the agenda.
The cupcakes are in the back.
(A short break was held.)
Item #9A1
RESOLUTION 95-705 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING
$5,250,000.00 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT GENERAL
OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1996 TO REFUND THE OUTSTANDING
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATION MUNICIAPAL SERVICE
TAXING UNIT GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1986; PROVIDING
FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE HOLDERS OF SUCH BONDS; PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT OF
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST OF SUCH BONDS FROM AN AD VALOREM TAX LEVIED
WITHOUT LIMIT ON ALL TAXABLE PROEPRTY WITHIN THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC
PARK AND RECREATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT; MAKING CERTAIN OTHER
COVENANTS AND AGREEMENT - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the Board of County
Commission meeting for December 19. I'm told that bond counsel and
financial advisors for item 9(A)(1) and (2) are present. Why don't we
move forward with that one. Mr. McNees.
MR. MCNEES: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mike McNees
from the county manager's office. I would like to introduce Art Ziev,
the county's financial advisor, who is going to tell you what the
status is of this refunding we've previously discussed. Mr. Giblin is
here to talk about the bond documents and other items. So, Art, go
ahead.
MR. ZIEV: Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners. For
the record, my name is Arthur Ziev, Raymond James and Associates, your
financial advisor. I'd like to begin this morning by congratulating
you and staff on the high rating that you received on your general
obligation. Moody's has rated your bonds double A which -- which you
would be -- four other -- Only four other counties in the state that
have the same rating, and no one has a higher rating. And Standard
and Poors has rated you a double A minus which is in their highest
category. They have a few counties that are double A, but there is
absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. Being -- Having a double A minus
puts you in an elite crowd of only six counties in the state. So
congratulations to you and your staff. It was quite obvious to them
about the financial strength of the county and the base -- economic
base of the county.
I mentioned that for another reason, because we feel
that we'll have a positive effect on this refinancing and give you the
opportunity. We believe these bonds will now be sold without
insurance. And the result is, is that you will get the same rates as
if they were triple A insured. A little known secret is triple A
insured bonds don't trade like uninsured triple A bonds. They trade
more like double A bonds. So what will happen is you will be able to
save the 12, $15,000 on bond insurance and get the same rating, and
that $12,000 savings means just direct savings to you and to the
residents of the county.
Let me give you an update on -- on this refunding. This
is a refinancing of the series 1986 park and recreation municipal
service taxing unit bonds, and the refunding has been proposed for two
reasons. The first is debt service savings. We've come to you before
where the savings were hovering around the 7 percent range. The other
reason for doing this refunding is to put in place a better match
between the debt service payment dates and the receipt of your
property tax revenues. Currently you have a debt service payment on
November 1, and you're making those payments with monies that you will
receive during the subsequent November through January. In order to
make this payment, there's actually been an internal borrowing, in
effect, being done. What we're proposing to do with this refinancing
is to change the date so you will no longer have to do that internal
borrowing. So those are the -- the two reasons.
I'd like to give you an update on the market. As you
may be aware, yesterday was not a pretty day in neither the stock
market or the bond market. And, as a result of that, the transaction,
quite frankly, if it went into the market, would not hit the 7 percent
target. It would probably be -- and that -- The 7 percent target is
net present value savings of 335,000. You'd probably based on a deal
that priced yesterday, be in the neighborhood of 300,000 which six --
which is six and a quarter percent.
You read the same news reports that I do, and one of the
reasons why interest rates went up is people were expecting the
federal reserve to cut short-term rates today, and Secretary Greenspan
is saying, well, gee, I'm not going to cut the rates until congress
and the president show us they can balance the budget. So it's sort
of like who's going to move first here.
So I think the sense in the market might be that when
the federal reserve does get around to cutting the rates, that
interest rates will trend back down, but we don't know if and when
that will happen.
In light of that, I'd like to suggest for your
consideration, and if it might be appropriate, to perhaps once again
look at that savings, that target rate. In light of -- we don't know
where the market's going to be. As I pointed out before, every week
that we wait, it lowers the savings -- the -- the savings. Every
week, assuming interest rates stay the same, costs you $2,000.
Now, staff and bond counsel have been right on target.
We set our schedule after we got the go ahead from you. We are right
on that schedule. The notice of sale will be published on Wednesday.
The preliminary official statement will be mailed. We're set up to
take bids on January 9, you know, right on target, but we don't know
exactly where the market will be, and we don't know what will happen
during that -- We have a 24-hour period which we can cancel the bids,
you know, say we don't want to take the bids. We want to wait. But
we don't know what will happen during that 24-hour period as evidenced
of what happened just the other day.
So in light of that sort of uncertainty, the fact that
in the industry 5 percent savings is a good refunding target and in
light of the fact that one of the other objectives is to match that
debt service payment date with your tax receipts, you may want to
consider making a slight modification in the resolution which would
enable the county administrator to go ahead and approve the savings if
they are somewhat below 7 percent at some level. But with that, I'll
turn it back to Mr. McNees.
MR. MCNEES: Yes. Your staff would recommend that given
what Art has explained, sort of the dual nature or the reason for this
refunding and the fact that 7 percent we may not exactly hit, but
there are still significant savings to be recognized. And -- and with
prior issues in the past, we have operated with a 5 percent target.
We were hoping a little higher this time. We would ask that the
documents be amended and Mr. Giblin is going to speak to the exact
wording to change that target somewhat and that you delegate the
authority to Mr. Dotrill to make the ultimate decision on the day that
we have to decide based on the estimated savings on that day. We
would probably recommend that -- that either you set a dollar target,
perhaps $250,000 for savings, or a percentage target. Art tells me
that 250,000 is around five and a quarter percent. If you want to set
that somewhat higher, you could, and -- and we alter that target
somewhat.
Before I turn the floor to Mr. Giblin, I'd like to
recognize a couple of folks because this bond rating we think is a
real plumb for Collier County, something we're real proud of, and I'd
like to thank Mr. Mitchell and his staff. They did an awful lot of
work in getting the numbers to the -- to the rating agencies and --
and their presentation was quite impressive, and -- and you --
As you're probably aware, Mr. Ziev came to us -- I won't
say by default but by accident somewhat when Mr. Samet left the firm.
You know, Mr. Samet had been our advisor for a number of years. And,
in fact, we had stayed with him when he changed firms. So we had been
quite pleased with his work. And Art doesn't know it, but he's sort
of been on double secret probation here while we -- while we watched
his work, and I have to report that we're extremely pleased with his
efforts. He was instrumental in the presentation and getting
information to the rating agencies, and we're quite pleased to have
him working for us now, and I'd like to thank him publicly for his
efforts with the rating.
MR. ZIEV: Thank you.
MR. MCNEES: With that, I think Mr. Giblin would like to
talk about the documents that are before you today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, you had a
question before we --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Real quickly.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- get into this?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Ziev, you said at 7 percent
which was the target. What would be the savings? 324?
MR. ZIEV: 335,000.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: 335,000. Okay. All right. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Giblin.
MR. GIBLIN: For the record, Tom Giblin with Nabors,
Giblin, and Nickerson. We handed out two resolutions, the former of
which should be in your agenda packages. The first resolution with
the staple in it is the bond resolution. This authorizes the issuance
of the general obligation refunding bond. It's an amount not to
exceed $5,250,000. This contains the terms of the bond, the security
provisions that the bond holders would be looking for.
The second resolution is our delegation resolution.
This is what was referred to by Arthur and Mike, and this delegates to
the county administrator -- and in his absence, the county attorney --
the ability to award the bonds on the date that the bids are taken to
the low bidder. On page -- pages three and four, we contain -- it
contains the parameters under which the county administrator can award
the bond issue. For example, it indicates that the bonds must go to
the low bidder. It also indicates that the bonds cannot mature later
than July 1 of 2003.
The third provision which is paragraph C on page four
indicates that the present value debt service savings must be at least
7 percent, and this was what was referred to earlier. You can change
that, if you so desire, to a lower percentage, or you can change that
to a set dollar amount of savings that youwre looking for. And what I
would suggest -- that if you do want to change that, that we simply
indicate for the record that what change will be, and then I will make
the appropriate change for the minutes.
It contains a number of other provision which are
technical and -- and complied with Florida Statutes in terms -- in
terms of refunding general obligation bonds.
Wewve also attached to that resolution, the delegation
resolution, the form of the preliminary official statement which is
your bond prospectus under which you provide various information to
your bond holders.
It also has the form of the notice of sale that will be
floated out to the various underwriters who may want to bid on this
bond transaction and various other documents relating to the refunding
itself.
If you decide to go forward with this transaction, you
would first adopt the bond resolution, and then you would adopt the
delegation resolution which delegates the award of the bonds to Mr.
Dotrill. You would also make whatever changes you want relating to
the debt service savings. If we go forward with this, you adopt the
resolutions.
We will come back to you one more time. After the bonds
are awarded, we will come back and ask for a ratification resolution
which would ratify the action that Mr. Dotrill would take and would
indicate that all the parameters laid out in this resolution have been
met. At that point in time, we would lay out for you the actual terms
of the sale, what happened, who bid on your bonds and who did not bid
on your bonds, who was interested in working with Collier County and
who was not. And I think thatws very informative in terms of letting
you know which underwriters have the most interest in working with
Collier County.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Are there questions for
Mr. Giblin?
Donwt seem to be any. Thank you, Mr. Giblin.
Commissioner Hancock, you had another question for Mr.
Ziev?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For Mr. Ziev. What would the net
amount be at a 6 percent target?
MR. ZIEV: 6 percent is 287,000. And 300,000 is six and
a quarter, just for the record.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions of staff or
our financial advisors?
Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- Iid just want to have
discussion, and I know to my right sits someone whols more
knowledgeable on the subject probably than the balance of the board.
But my overall feeling -- and if this is incorrect, someone let me
know -- this Christmas season is not performing as expected, and the
marketls been reacting to that in the last few weeks. I probably
donlt -- My gut feeling is that welre not going to see a jump -- a
great reduction in interest rates in the coming six weeks, maybe eight
weeks, maybe beyond that. So you start looking at $2,000 a week, and
that starts adding up to about $16,000 after eight weeks. It would
seem reasonable to me to set a target of -- and my first blush is
around 6 percent, just for the simple fact that I don't think the
market is going to come back in three or four weeks with a reduction
in interest rate, but that -- that's my -- my preliminary layman
feeling. I guess I'm just looking for some feedback on whether that
-- that would -- you know, would wash or is reasonable.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think really at this point we
ought to rely on the advice of the people who are going take this to
market and to try to ascertain what a reasonable latitude here would
be.
Mr. Ziev, tell me again, what -- what is the date you
expect to put these bonds out.
MR. ZIEV: We have set up the notice of sale for January
9 which is the day that we would take bids. But what we have done is
we have built into that a flexibility. We have -- The county has the
option upon 24 hours' notice to postpone the sale and then set that
date with 24 hours' notice. So what we will be doing on January 7, or
whatever, is looking to see where the market is, do we think that, you
know, we can hit, you know, a good number at that point in time. If
we say no, then over our electronic system, we will tell folks bids
are on hold.
So we have set it up for what we think is the earliest
date that it will be feasible. We don't think it will be feasible to
price it the first week in January, and so basically have said, okay,
we're ready to go in the beginning of January, and then we'll watch
it, keeping in mind where we think the market is going, the $2,000 a
week cost of waiting, and things like that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: When -- When is the next
opportunity for the fed to adjust interest rates?
MR. ZIEV: Well, actually, they now have changed where
they actually -- They're giving Greenspan the authority, and he can do
it on a non-meeting date. I mean, they could come out of that meeting
today and tell him -- you know, if they reach accord, you know --
Actually, he doesn't even need their approval to authorize a change in
rates. So it could come at any point in time.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If this board would -- would be
inclined to -- to give the county manager some latitude on interest
rate, where would you suggest that we pick it at this time?
MR. ZIEV: Well, on the one hand, the -- the market '-
I'd like to think the market is not going to deteriorate much more and
that you'll be at 6 percent. And I guess -- But in the back of my
mind is if we get to January 9 and -- and every sign shows that things
are only going to get worse but you can get, you know, 250,000 on --
from that respect, I'm saying my thought would be go ahead and do the
deal because, as I explained before, you're like chasing your own tail
here. And so I -- I appreciate you saying you might like us to give
our thoughts on it. If January 9 the savings is -- is, you know,
260,000 and we think it's only going to get worse, we would recommend
you go into the market. If it's -- If the budget still has -- they've
still not reached an accord and we think the market's going to be
better, then we'll just postpone and wait.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. HcNees, does 250,000 saving on
this size bond issue meet our county criteria that we've normally
used?
MR. HCNEES: Historically we've asked for a 5 percent
savings. So, yes, that would be in excess of the 5 percent.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Explain to me again -- Early
in your comments you suggested -- I think yesterday you -- you had a
dry run on this at six and a quarter, and that was 300,000 or --
MR. ZIEV: Yeah. The savings were -- were $300,000
based on the deal that we priced yesterday. So at that point I'd like
to think the market's really not going to get too much worse. Maybe
we'll be -- There's an item called the -- the -- the January effect.
Historically the last three years interest rates have been lower in
the beginning of January than they have been in late December. If
that holds true, we're going to be in great shape, and we're going to
see savings in excess of six and a quarter percent. But as I pointed
out, I don't -- I would not really want to see you in a position where
the market is starting to go away and you've locked yourself out.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But this spat between congress
and the president could go on, and the January effect just not happen.
MR. ZIEV: That's -- That is a possibility.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's irresponsibility on the
part of the president.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we have a motion then.
Second. No.
You know, what we're going to have to do is we're going
to have to, in essence, pick a percentage. Whether it be a dollar
amount or whether it's a percentage, it really is -- is immaterial. I
was just -- I did some quick math, and if we set 5 percent, that would
-- that $2,000 a week would buy us 40 weeks to see if the market gets
better than that. And at 40 or 42 weeks, that incentive is gone and
so forth. So I'm not sure if 5 percent is -- is -- is -- is
beneficial. I'd like to see it upwards of 5 percent personally. I
think that gives us enough time that we can still realize some savings
and -- you know, I'm just floating this but I -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My gut feeling is -- is something
a little higher than 5 percent.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If 7 percent would give us
$335,000 at today's pricing or thereabouts, if we were to look for a
$300,000 savings at six and a quarter, that's $35,000 or 17 weeks
approximately. That's -- That's a lot of leeway.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there anything that
prohibits us from executing this now and take the $300,000 savings and
say, by golly, we think that's wonderful?
MR. ZIEV: We -- Doing a competitive sale, we have to
have at least ten days' notice. The only way to -- you know, to lock
in those rates, if you just all of a sudden said you want to change it
to a negotiated issue and tell me to go out and find an underwriter
today and tell him this is what you've got to do it at, but I don't
know -- You know, if you want to do that, we'll get on the phone but
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Plus there might be a January
effect. We don't know, you know. It's a roll of the dice.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's my point. We don't
know.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's a roll of the dice. It
really is. Are there further questions? Discussion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's fine.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'd like to make a motion -- We --
We need two separate motions here, don't we, Mr. Weigel?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I'll make a motion on the
first item that -- that we adopt the attached resolution authorizing
the issuance of not exceeding five and a quarter million dollars
principal amount of Collier County public park and recreation
municipal service taxing unit general obligation refunding bonds
series 1986.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could you repeat the motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will second that. Is the
second motion the one which we need to set a target? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'll second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
adopt the resolution authorizing the issuance of the prior-described
bond issue. Any further discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Next motion.
Item #9A2
RESOLUTION 95-706 SUPPLEMENTING A RESOLUTION ENTITLED: "A RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING $5250,000.00 AGGREGATE
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATION
MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS,
SERIES 1996; AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF SUCH BONDS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC BID;
DELEGATING CERTAIN AUTHORITY TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY FOR THE AWARD OF SAID BONDS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC BID AND THE
APPROVAL OF THE TERMS AND DETAILS OF SAID BONDS - ADOPTED WITH AT LEAST
6e NET VALUE SAVINGS
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we adopt
the second resolution supplementing the resolution that we just
authorized, previously authorized, additionally authorizing the sale
of the bonds pursuant to public bid and delegating the authority to
the county administrator and/or the county attorney for the award of
said bonds with the limitation that we get at least 6 percent net
present value savings.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that would be two
eighty-seven; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh. That's what I had.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that was the number.
Okay. Any further discussion?
We have a motion and a second. All those in favor,
please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
MR. MCNEES: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. McNees.
MR. DORRILL: We will be having a recognition of your
increased and improved bond rating, and we think that's quite an
accomplishment. We intend to do that in January when we get some
confirmation of that. But to -- to move into one of the top four or
five counties in the state in terms of their recognized bond security
and overall financial condition is -- is an achievement for which you
as a board should be very proud.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As Lyle Sumac said, celebrate
your victories.
MR. DORRILL: That's a big one.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's a victory.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Jim Mitchell was downright giddy
last week. So thanks, Jim. Good work on that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He looks -- He looks pleased, and
he should be.
Next item on the agenda is item ll(A). This is --
Item #11A
RESOLUTION 95-707 AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS IN THOSE PRECINCTS
RECOHMENDED BY THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS - ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hotion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve to adopt the resolution amending the legal descriptions of
precincts as stated in the agenda. Any further discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
We're at the public comment section of our agenda. Mr.
Dorrill --
PUBLIC COHMENT - NICKY BURHHAN RE PROBLEMS WITH DEPARTHENTS UNDER THE
COHMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION AND REQUESTING AN INDIAN AFFAIRS
COHMISSION BE ESTABLISHED - COUNTY ATTORNEY TO INVESTIGATE BACKGROUND
AND LAWS AND RETURN WITH FINDINGS ON JANUARY 2, 1996
HR. DORRILL: For which we have three today. The first
would be Mr. Nicky Betman. Mr. Betman, if you would please, sir.
Following him, Mr. Perkins, if you'll stand by.
MR. BERHAN: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Nicky Betman, and I'm here to represent voters of the State of Florida
and of Collier County. My understanding, there has been gross
negligence in some of the departments. I wish to bring this to your
attention. I'm referring to the building department, code
enforcement, zoning. I have contacted Ramiro Hanalich in reference to
this. We're dealing with Florida Statute 285.16, public law 83-280.
Now, these laws were passed by congress and given to the states. They
involve around -- the civil and criminal laws of the State of Florida
shall be enforced on all Indian reservations. Now, my attention was
brought to this that the tribe was building chickee huts without
permits. Not only were they building them without permits, but the
people that were building them weren't properly licensed. My attention
was focused on the bingo hall out in Immokalee. There's a disaster
ready to happen. They don't carry liability insurance. That building
was built without permits. You don't know whether it would stand
under fire. There's all types of problems.
I'm asking for a motion for this county to establish the
Collier County commission on Indiana affairs. And in this commission,
I'm asking for you to appoint Attorney Hanalich to it. I'm asking for
you to appoint a representative from the Seminole tribe or anybody
from the Seminole tribe that would be willing to come here on this
commission, one of the board members, and myself. I have expertise in
Indian law, and I want to share this with the county. I think it's
very important. So if somebody goes out there and slips on ice or
water and gets seriously hurt, that the tribe doesn't hide behind
their sovereign immunity which was waived in their corporate charter
in 1956 when they filed it under the Indian Reorganization Act 1935,
section 16.
I'd like for this -- Attorney Hanalich, since he's
reviewed the statutes, to report to you on what he has found out in
reference to this. Can I call Attorney Hanalich to the podium?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Generally our public comment,
sir, is limited to five minutes. MR. BERHAN: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We don't make any decisions
during the course of public comment, but we may give direction to our
staff to bring the issue back on a regular agenda. MR. BERHAN: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So what you're -- He's --
MR. BERHAN: I'm asking for a committee to be formed to
review these laws and what action the county will take against people
that break them, such as contractors that go out there and build that
aren't licensed and things of that nature, violations of the codes and
of Florida Statutes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Weigel, he's -- this
gentleman, Mr. Betman, has made some -- what seem to be rather serious
allegations regarding our building department, code enforcement, and
zoning regulations. I don't know how the rest of this board feels,
but we've got a public allegation at this point. I think we -- we
almost have to get some report as to whether this is true or not.
MR. WEIGEL: Fine. Yes. Mr. Betman had been in contact
with our office, had spoken with -- with as Assistant County Attorney
Manalich as a representative of our office. And if the board so
directs, we'll be happy to work with the -- the proper county
departments to investigate a little bit of the -- of the background
concerning the construction of any particular structure.
His additional request appears to be an examination of
the laws. Our office, apart from Mr. Berman's request, has some
knowledge and has examined the Indian laws, both in the past and even
-- even currently but apart from Mr. Betman, and we would be happy to
meet with him a little bit further as far as that goes but ultimately
report back to the board as far as any laws, federal or -- federal,
state, or -- or local and how they apply to the Board of County
Commissioners, its operations and reviews.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I think there's a more
simple question on the front end, and that is that our ability -- this
board's ability is to enforce local ordinance and local law, and
whether we have the ability to enforce those on a reservation is -- is
a preliminary question. And if -- if the answer is, no, we do not,
then the rest is moot. To create a commission on Indiana affairs that
is, in effect, powerless would be a waste of everyone's time.
MR. BERMAN: I think your counsel can verify that --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me.
MR. BERMAN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The first question that needs to
be answered is, does the county have the ability to enforce local
ordinances on reservation lands. And I think if we -- if we can't get
past that, if the answer there is no, then the rest becomes a moot
point. And so rather than getting into a review of federal and state
laws and how they apply to reservation lands, that's not our -- our
charge. Our charge is -- is on the local level, in my opinion. We're
not here to enforce state or federal laws.
MR. WEIGEL: No, that's true. The -- The preemption
that may exist is based upon federal law and state law in respect to
local governments. The permutations of the question are construction
activities on reservation lands, construction activities by Indians
off reservation lands, the transfer of lands that are privately
purchased by Indian owners to reservations or Indian associations. So
those are some little twists that come from a straight question of
local ordinance application to Indian reservation lands which
incidentally is -- is rather limited at best.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I would just rather send
you down a very specific initial path than taking the broad brush
approach at looking at everything that has been proposed here by Mr.
Betman because if the answer to the first question is we do not have
the ability, at least lets us know where we stand. So if we're giving
direction to -- to research the allegations made, I think we need to
determine whether or not we have the ability to enforce what Mr.
Betman has -- has indicated first of all. So if there's any direction
from the board, I -- at all, I -- I would prefer to take that tack.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm confused. Are you -- Are you
saying that -- that code enforcement -- that Collier County staff is
not enforcing ordinances on reservation land or that they are
attempting to and should stop?
MR. BERNEAN: No. That they have the right to enforce
it, and they are not doing it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. So -- So I agree with
that as the initial question is -- if we could get advice from our
county attorney --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- about what our authority is.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Exactly. And I -- I think that's
what I was asking. There's an allegation that's been made, and I'm
not sure what weight it has without Mr. Weigel doing some work on it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If the answer is yes, then we can
evaluate it, is there a problem that needs to be addressed, and that's
the second part of your -- your request so --
MR. BERNEAN: It's a very short four-sentence statute
that gives --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand, sir, but --
MR. BERMAN: -- jurisdiction --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
Mr. Berman.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
today.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
I understand.
We're not going to solve it today,
We're not going to solve it
So let's -- let's give our --
Let's give our attorney direction -- MR. BERNEAN: How -- How long does it -- How long does it
take to answer the question?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's longer than we're going to do
today, Mr. Betman.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, how -- how much
time do you need to bring this back to us? Two weeks? Three weeks?
MR. WEIGEL: I think we can bring this back at the next
meeting that the board has.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: At the 2nd?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: January 2, 1996 --
MR. BERNEAN: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- we'll be discussing it again.
MR. BERMAN: Okay. Thank you for your time.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Betman, just a point of -- point of
information on your second point. My understanding is that you're not
a resident nor a registered voter of this county. In fact, you're a
resident of Lee County and that --
MR. BERMAN: That's correct.
MR. DORRILL: -- that you may also have either a claim
or civil action as a result of work that you allegedly have done for
the Indian tribe at the gaming palace or other activity that's of a
private or business nature; is that correct? MR. BERMAN: That's true.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. I'm just -- I think for purposes of
full disclosure --
MR. BERMAN: I -- I think for --
MR. DORRILL: -- I would appreciate -- Excuse me. I
didn't -- I didn't interrupt you -- MR. BERMAN: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: -- when you were talking. For purposes of
full disclosure, I would appreciate it if you would have at least made
the board aware of that because, otherwise, sir, we're not in the
business of pursuing civil-related matters, and if you would have at
least disclosed that, it would have gone a long way, I think, in terms
of the board's deliberations. You're entitled to an answer to your
question. I'm just sorry you didn't pursue it in the manner -- manner
that I suggested.
MR. BERNEAN: I think that the counsel should be aware of
that when people fall down and get hurt and try to sue the tribe, that
there's -- there's repercussions. We have visitors that come down
from up North. I hate to see --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Betman --
MR. BERNEAN: Yes, ma'am?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- if -- if I can interrupt you,
we've already asked --
MR. BERNEAN: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- our attorney to -- to --
MR. BERNEAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- research it and bring it back
on the 2nd. And with that in mind, I -- I think further discussion at
this point is really not merited.
MR. BERNEAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
PUBLIC COMMENT - AL PERKINS REPRESENTING BELLE MEADE GROUPS AND GIL
ERHLICHMAN REQUESTING MONITORS AND TV CAMERAS AND VIDEOS IN THE
BOARDROOM IN ORDER TO GET INFORMATION OUT TO THE TAXPAYERS AND ALSO IN
ORDER FOR THE AUDIENCE TO SEE PRESENTATIONS - DISCUSSED, COUNTY MANAGER
DIRECTED TO LOOK INTO THE MATTER
MR. DORRILL: Our next speaker will be Mr. Perkins. And
then following Mr. Perkins, Mr. Erlichman will be your final public
comment.
MR. PERKINS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
second, Merry Christmas, and I want to --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Merry Christmas.
MR. PERKINS: To start, I'm going to be an instigator
right up front. My name is A1 Perkins. I represent Belle Heade
Groups, citizens for constitutional property rights, Collier County
chapter. I'm not a paid lobbyist even though congress and the
president most likely are going to take and make the lobby bill today.
I get no compensation whatsoever, no perks, no transportation, no
vacation, no retirement, nothing. I speak on behalf of these people
because a lot of them work. Both woman and man work to support their
family. They can't be here. They've asked me to do this.
Along with that, I was -- a little something you might
be interested in knowing. This morning I had the privilege when I
came in this door here, I saw a turkey on the front of Neil Dorrill's
tie. Anyhow, what I want to speak about -- touche.
What I want to speak about is the reinstatement of your
efforts to put monitors, TV monitors, put a TV camera in this meeting
room here with the ability to take a VCR tape or tapes for playback
for not only the people at home but the people here in the room so
there's information. Just like this morning, we had a display of
efficiency from -- from human resources that the audience nor the
people at home were privileged to see but the commission was. This
information needs to be put out to all of the people to Collier
County.
At the present time, we have Internet, we have Windows,
we've got Freenet, we've got all the information, and we can be a
leader in this because I understand that most of the things are right
in place, and we've got a beautiful new room that is built to take
care of this problem. Now, you have an opportunity to not only
promote your political ambitions as far as your -- Right. Go ahead.
Shake your head -- or whatever because the people at home don't know
who you are, a lot of them, and that's ridiculous.
One of the reasons why I want to take and instigate this
and have you people instigate this, because on several occasions I've
been called a liar in this room by part of the people from South
Florida Water Management. Now, I have the tapes, and I have the
witnesses that if I had the opportunity to play it for you and the
people at home would put-- shed a lot of light on just what the South
Florida Water Management is doing to you and to the people of this
county.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Perkins --
MR. PERKINS: Yes?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- I -- I've before requested a
tape of commission meetings, and you can -- you can purchase those
tapes through the clerk's office. Is this something --
MR. PERKINS: No. No. No. No. No. You're missing
the point. I have taken the tapes with my witnesses or witnesses on
scene, but you have not been privileged to them because I have no way
to play them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh.
MR. PERKINS: Okay?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, some people roll TVs in
here.
MR. PERKINS: Yeah, but let me -- let me --
MR. DORRILL: He's -- He's asking for the opportunity
also to be able to broadcast that over local public access television.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see.
MR. PERKINS: Now, I watch channel 54 which takes and is
promoted by the Collier County Commission on the -- the -- the sewage
treatment plants at both ends of the county and the whole county
complex out here which is doing a very good job, a very good job,
enlightening the people what their -- where their tax money is going,
but the job is incomplete.
Now, just to give you an example, we could have a tape
from the landfill explaining to where all this money is going to go
because at the present time you're looking like you're going to spend
$800,000 on a survey on the landfill to locate a new site. The people
don't know what you're looking at. The bottom line is information,
need to get the information out because with the information you're
going to have input from the taxpayers of this county, and to that is
why I speak.
One other thing -- and I'm going to bring it up because
it's out. At meetings of your subcommittees for bridges and roads and
at the subcommittee for land use, with witnesses I've run in there
with a video recorder, and I was rudely discouraged in taping the
meeting. Now, needless to say, I don't back up too far. Under the
Sunshine Law, it is public knowledge and a public building with public
people. I've made this part of the record, and I've went on record
stating this. At one meeting they even turned my unit off which I
didn't appreciate.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: "They" is who? Who is"they"?
MR. PERKINS: The people who were sitting in the land
use committee when I was out of the room. I have no way of knowing
which one did it, except that when I left because somebody called me
out of the room -- so I didn't disrupt the meeting -- they wanted to
say something. When I came back in, my unit was shut down. So
obviously there's either something to hide --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You answered my question. Thanks.
MR. PERKINS: The only thing is, I'm trying to get
information out to all the people of this county, and that's the
bottom line. Thank you. Have yourself a nice holiday.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Perkins. Thank
you, Mr. Perkins.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Erlichman.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Merry Christmas.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Happy Holidays, et cetera. My name is
Gil Erlichman from East Naples, and I'm speaking for myself. I
wholeheartedly support A1 Perkins and his previous presentation, and I
think it's -- it goes along with the public -- public's right to know.
And the more information we can get out to the public that are at home
watching their TV, watching the particular station that is putting out
the commission meetings, I think it's -- it's a wonderful idea. And
the idea that people can see what -- what the commission --
commissioners are seeing on these various presentations is excellent
because sitting back there in the audience, we cannot see what is
being presented, and also the idea that people will become more
familiar with their commissioners. As Mr. Perkins says, a lot of
people out there don't know who Matthews, Hancock, Constantine -- they
don't know who they are, who -- who you people are.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's not necessarily a bad
thing sometimes.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Well, if you want to be -- if you want
to be incognito, that's okay. But I think that the more information
that you can give the public -- For instance, even a split screen idea
where the -- you see the commissioner, where you see the speaker, and
you see the audience, et cetera, would be an excellent idea. Thank
you very much. Happy Holidays.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Erlichman.
Commissioner Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment on the topic
that Mr. Perkins and Mr. Erlichman brought up. That is, I think maybe
it will be a good idea to pursue looking at something that will allow
the public to see -- like a poster board that's put up by Jennifer
today or any of those. However, last year, if you'll recall, the
system that was suggested was $275,000, and I used to refer to it as
the Michael Jackson laser light show. It seems to me perhaps we can
get for a couple of thousand bucks a camera unit of some sort that can
show the audience what it is we put up on display without spending
$275,000.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I will make the point that if
you're going to have more than one camera, you are -- and anticipating
using it all day long, you are going to have to have a director.
Somebody's got to switch back and forth -- Somebody's got to sit there
and switch back and forth from one to the other.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I bet if we ask Jerry really nice
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I was just going to say
that -- that even though we -- there was some discussion about trying
to take pieces of that $275,000 package during the budget discussion
and utilize them, and we didn't get anywhere with that. But I think
in this next budget discussion, if we incrementally make small
improvements along the way, it's not as big a hit, and it is
necessary. And I would like to suggest something as simple as our
names right in front of us. I know that when -- when this board room
was built, that there was some deal about they shouldn't be there, and
I don't know what the history was, but I thought it was kind of
unusual that there's -- there -- you know, there's not even our name
there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I think -- I think the
idea when Mr. Dotrill was first planning to make these changes was
that he was going to have a code encryption on the screen that as the
camera moved from commissioner to commissioner, our name would come up
on the screen; and, therefore, the individual name plaques
disappeared.
Are -- Are we not moving toward the televising of -- of
board activities through channel 54 instead of through Continental
Cable in the future?
MR. DORRILL: Not -- Not at the immediate point in time.
Those are going to certainly be the subject of discussions when we
go to renegotiate a franchise agreement. Frankly, one of our desires
is that not many people know about nor -- unless they're channel
surfing late at night, they're not apt or prone to watch channel 54,
and it would be our desire to try and incorporate that into part of
channel ten which is the channel designated for locally generated
programming. And if the board would like to look at the original
list, we had itemized a list of various equipment from a character
generator to an articulating camera so that one individual who's here
could watch or -- or manage any or all of that. I'd be happy to bring
the list back and let you review it or scrutinize it an item at a
time.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, again, I -- I want to
caution us, though, as to priority items. I mean, individually this
sounds wonderful, but next year and -- Mr. Dotrill, you've cautioned
us to this practically weekly since the new fiscal year. Next year we
are going to have a heck of a time trying to keep that ad valorem
millage rate down. And we keep having little piddling $50,000 items
here, $80,000 items there, and pretty soon we've spent a million
dollars that we didn't budget and won't have next year. And so rather
than keep having these small items that aren't budgeted come forward,
let's look at this as part of next year's budget and put it in a
priority, and we may find that parts of that are a high priority
because it helps the public understand. Other parts may not be a
priority at all, and we can -- as Commissioner Hancock said, phase
that in another time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I -- I think -- I think
what -- what we could -- what we could also do with the concept of
this is -- Mr. Dotrill obviously has spent -- spent some time
investigating the best way to put this program into place, and -- and
perhaps he has some ideas of which part of it has to be done prior to
another part of it, and he can develop some sort of phasing of it to
be done over two, three years.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are we going to lunch?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're going to go to lunch.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. Let's just keep going.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You want to keep going? Anyway,
with that, Mr. Dotrill, you can -- you can take these ideas, I
presume, and develop them for the budget time.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All I'm interested in is some
name tags maybe so people know who we are and a TV screen down there
so if somebody has a VCR, they can put the TV in -- they can put it in
the TV, and Jerry can focus the camera on the TV, for heaven's sake.
It's not complicated. That's enough. UNKNOWN VOICE: H-i-c-k-e-y --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't care if it's Hickey
Mouse. It's -- I don't mind spending tax money on that. Where is
TAG? Where are you guys?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Moving right along, I think
we can get through this in less than an hour.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think -- I think --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's skip lunch.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's 11:30.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You know how grumpy we get.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's 11:30. I believe there's an
effort to move through lunch. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's try to do that.
Item #12C1
CREATE THE COLLIER COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREA LAW ENFORCEHENT HUNICIPAL
SERVICE TAXING UNIT AND THE COUNTY WIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT MUNICIPAL
SERVICE TAXING DISTRICT - NOT APPROVED, STAFF DIRECTED TO CONTINUE TO
BREAK OUT SHERIFF'S BUDGET ON THE TAX BILL
Next item on the agenda is item 12(C)(1), an ordinance
creating the Collier County unincorporated area law enforcement
municipal service taxing unit. Is this or is it not dead?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
statement?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
waters.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
Let me make a statement.
Would this be a clarifying
No. This is going to muddy the
Oh, good.
Oh, okay.
Everyone is aware that -- that I
made a simple proposal to -- to come up with some way of separating
the sheriff's budget, the ad valorem section of it anyway, from the
general county government budget where it's contained on the tax bill,
and the reason was very simply to give the citizens a better
understanding of how their tax dollars are spent. From there, it's
gotten quite complicated.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Welcome to government.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So as far as I'm concerned, the --
the idea of continuing to explore the municipal service taxing unit is
not a good idea because it -- for one thing, it had some unintended
effects on the municipalities in the county and -- unforeseen and
unintended, and we certainly wouldn't want to interfere with them.
So the sheriff, on the other hand, has come up with a
simple interim suggestion, and that is to enclose a flyer in the tax
bills next year which will generally accomplish the purpose. And as a
parallel suggestion, the tax collector has -- has made the point that
perhaps the Florida Department of Revenue will let him just simply
list the sheriff's budget separately on the tax bill. And either one
or both of those proposals, I think, is exactly what I'm trying to
accomplish, and that is to just better inform the public of where
their tax dollars goes. But -- But, once again, this is -- this was
my proposal. And, as I said in one meeting that we had before, that
I'm going to be in the strange position of opposing my own proposal
here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If the sheriff can include a
flyer and we don't agree with it, can we include a flyer?
One thing I liked about, in essence, taking the pie and
splitting it out, this much goes here and this much goes there, was
that the sum was still the same. I'm a little concerned with it just
being -- not being on the tax bill but just being a flyer included
that some of the revenue sharing, credit may be taken or credit may be
given by one entity, and the other may argue whether or not that's
valid. So there's -- You know, that's the only concern I have with
the additional flyer, is that there's a discrepancy what -- what we as
a board feel is a true ad valorem assessment to reach that budget as
opposed to what the sheriff puts out. If that happens, there's no
reconciliation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Mr. Dotrill, I would assume
that our budget department would make this flyer up and that,
therefore, we would get to see it before it goes out.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the only way in which I
think it can be consistent with -- with our -- our millage rate. So
if that's the case, great. But what I just heard on interviews was
the sheriff would produce it, and I felt without some level of review
to make sure it's consistent with our -- our tax bill, that -- that,
you know, could get us into trouble.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dotrill, you and I have
had a conversation. You've just handed out a sheet with some
highlights on it. So I assume you'll explain what one other
possibility is.
MR. DORRILL: This is the second one that Commissioner
Norris alluded to. In preliminary discussions with the Department of
Revenue, it appears that they would be agreeable to us proposing a
split of taxes that are currently shown. The county's portions of the
bill are the two that are shown in green for operating, and I should
say also the very -- the last one because we do have a portion of
voter approved debt, but on operating funds, you are the two green
lines.
Conversely, the school board are the two yellow lines,
and there's a similar mechanism available through the statute that
allows school boards to show what the state required are pooled share
of their millages versus what they choose to levy at a local level in
support of the local school board. And we're pursuing to see whether
or not we would be able to do and also participate with both property
appraiser and the tax collector to split what is otherwise shown as
the county line for ad valorem taxes. And as -- as part of that, that
would not require separate MSTUs nor the approval of either one of the
cities. Dr. Woodruff has sent me some correspondence. You were copied
by that. They want to continue to monitor the dual taxation aspects
of that, but we'll develop that over the course of the next several
months prior to your budget deliberations.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I like that idea.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like the idea too. I think --
I -- I also after some conversations about concern by the residents of
the city -- and, Commissioner Norris, I understand this is not
anything that you intended to start -- is that there have been some
discussions about eliminating the -- the -- the unincorporated versus
the incorporated area funds, and I'm confident that this board's not
proposing that, and I want for us to make that as clear as we can,
that that's not something we're asking our staff to look into, that
we're just asking for the information as its -- under its current
status to be reported more simply.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We are not, to my knowledge,
asking our staff to explore that at this particular time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to me the
explanation or the idea Mr. Dotrill just explained achieves exactly
what Commissioner Norris originally intended, and that is, split it
out on the tax bill, but it doesn't have any of the consequences of
the MSTU. So I'm not sure what needs to be done to make that option
happen, but to me, that one is the most appealing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion that we
pursue that --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- if Commissioner Norris is
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is a public hearing.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll withdraw that motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Dotrill, do we
have speakers?
MR. DORRILL: We do, I believe only as they pertain to
the previous MSTU, and my understanding is -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Could we have speakers on both
items (1) and (2) at the same time?
MR. DORRILL: Okay. Mr. Keller. And then, Dr. Biles,
you'll follow Mr. Keller.
MR. KELLER: George Keller, concerned citizen. I also
represent the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. Thank you for
getting this thing in some -- somewhat order. It's too bad that it
went out -- out so far and I think that -- Basically speaking, I -- I
wouldn't think -- advise you to go and let the sheriff put a separate
budget in because he's going to use it as an advertisement for showing
how efficient his department is, and maybe that will reflect that your
department -- that your county isn't run as efficiently.
I -- I think that if the state permits you to do what
Mr. Dotrill suggests, just separating the two figures on the tax
return, that would be sufficient, and let's make this -- Let's go and
bury this whole thing, period. It's just gone out of hand, and it's
-- it's -- we're -- we're actually getting nothing done as far as
good government. So I would suggest that you follow the -- the -- the
finance department's suggestion that it's possible to put them on
separate lines, and let it go at that. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Dr. Biles.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Dr. Biles.
MR. DORRILL: And then Mr. Sommer.
MS. BILES: Thank you. Fay Biles, president of Marco
Island Taxpayers Association. I too am very pleased that it's taken
the turn the way it has. I'm amazed. Our -- Our telephone has rung
off the hook by people calling in and asking what does "HSTU" stand
for. I'm amazed. What's the difference between an HSTV -- What's the
difference between an HSTD. People are quite ignorant of what really
it stands for. I would like to see that TRIM -- that notice coming
out break down all the taxes so that people can understand exactly
what they are. I have people -- After they come out, the phone again
rings off the hook. What's an independent district. What's a
voted-on tax. They don't know. They don't even know how to take the
millage times the value according to each one of those breakouts. And
so I'm saying I just think we need an education to the taxpayers of
this county as to what is even listed on the tax bill. And, of
course, doing the sheriff's budget separately I think is a great idea.
I'd like to see all of them come out like that. Maybe we should
have a whole book, Mr. Dotrill, to come out and explain what each one
is all about. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That would make our postage
expensive.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Filson, will we continue
routing all of our phone calls to Miss Biles? MS. BILES: Please, no.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Who is the last speaker?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Sommers.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Sommers.
MR. SOHMER: Good morning. My name is Bob Sommer, and
I'm with the Taxpayers Action Group. I too am just delighted that
this HSTU is not gaining ground and you might possibly rescind any
idea of having it. I would also like to add that we would appreciate
it very much if you would keep all HSTUs to an absolute minimum.
We're constantly looking at ways in which certain governmental groups
are -- are funding. We get very exercised with the school board with
their certificates of participation because that ends up getting money
without any -- any voting on the part of the citizens of Collier
County or the school district. HSTUs are a mystery to most people,
and, as Dr. Biles just said, they're very ignorant about funding
mechanisms, and so if you could keep HSTUs to an absolute minimum, we
would deeply appreciate it. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It sounds like that's what we're
going to do in this case. If there's no further speakers, I'll close
the public hearing. Is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, can we take these two
items at once?
MR. WEIGEL: You'll need to -- There -- There are a
couple of ways to -- to tackle this. You've actually just had your
public hearing and closed the public hearing on both 12(C)(1) and
12(C)(2). Any motion to do anything affirmatively would require
separate motions; however, there's no requirement you take any action
at all.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We would just leave it --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we take action to split
out the line item on the tax bill but not to create an HSTU, we can do
both at once?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you can do that. In essence, so the
hearing on both of these advertised ordinances you are not taking any
action on at all.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We could have done them both.
I'll make a motion that -- that we do not create any new municipal
service taxing units and that we direct staff to continue to strive to
break out the sheriff's budget separately on the tax bill as
described.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second
that we not adopt any ordinances creating municipal service taxing
units for the sheriff's budget and that we direct staff to continue
the investigation of splitting out the bill. Mr. Norris, is that it?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: To go forward with the action.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To go forward with that.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Not to investigate it, but to go
forward with it if possible.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To make it happen.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: To make it happen.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To make it happen. Any further
discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #12C3
ORDINANCE 95-78 AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 90-3-, AS AMENDED,
WITH THE INTENT TO PLACE THE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ON THE NON-AD VALOREM SECTION OF THE TAX BILL
COMHENCING IN NOVEMBER 1996 - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is 12(C)(3). It's a
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to amend Ordinance
90-30. Mr. Yonkosky.
MR. YONKOSKY: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is John Yonkosky from the Department of Revenue. The
next two items, 12(C)(3) and 12(C)(4), both deal with putting the
solid waste mandatory special assessments on the tax bill for next
year, and so you may want to consider -- subject to Mr. Weigel's
blessing, considering them both together.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Yonkosky, this is more or
less a follow-through of a previous bid award that we have done. For
my sake, are there elements that you need to get on the record; and if
so, we could probably streamline this, for my part anyway.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, let me first expand -- The
issue that -- The item that we're hearing is to include the discussion
on 12(C)(3) and 12(C)(4), and we will entertain public speakers on
both items at the same time.
MR. YONKOSKY: Okay. On the first item, 12(C)(3) is a
modification of the ordinance to allow the bill -- or the special
assessment to go on the tax bill in the non-ad valorem section, and
there are certain items that I do need to get on the record that
identifies what the changes are going to be, and I'll be very brief on
them.
In the past, there has not been a legal description of
the two districts. There is included in this ordinance a legal
description of the two districts. We are changing the definition of
the fund where the monies are kept from a trust fund to a revenue
fund. And then the very last thing that we need to talk about is the
changes of service year from a calendar year to a fiscal year, and
that's an important part of it. And then clarification of the
hardship policy that the board talked about when Mrs. Fortu was here a
few weeks back. That clarification is in there.
There are in the ordinance two places where we need to
-- to read a change into the record, and the first one deals with the
title, that it was providing for a change in the service year dates.
And on the legal description on line 21 on page eight of the
ordinance, it reads, thence, west along the south line. It should
read, thence, east along the south line. And that's all that's really
necessary for the record.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are there public speakers?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a second. Mr. Dotrill, are
there speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, motion to
approve -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Item 12(C)(3)?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Item 12(C)(3), the
amendment to Ordinance 90-30.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
amending Collier County Ordinance 90-30.
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Second.
Second.
Second.
We have a motion and a second --
Fourth.
-- to approve item 12(C)(3)
Further discussion?
Item #12C4
RESOLUTION 95-708 RE THE INTENT TO USE THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTING
NON-AD VALOREH ASSESSMENTS FOR THE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LEVIED AGAINST CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY PURSUANT TO
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE, AS A_MENDED - ADOPTED
Is there another motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, was that --
closing the public hearing was on both items? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve
item 12(C)(4), and that's the resolution dealing with the amendment we
just made.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the resolution dealing with the amendment of Ordinance 90-30.
Any further discussion?
All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #12C5
RESOLUTION 95-709/CWS-95-13 RE INTENT TO USE THE UNIFORM METHOD OF
COLLECTING NON-AD VALOREH ASSESSMENTS FOR SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
WITHIN THE ROYAL COVE SEWER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is 12(C)(5), an adoption of a
resolution setting forth an intent dealing with Royal Cove sewer
special assessment district. Mr. Clemons.
MR. CLEHONS: Good morning again, Commissioners. Tim
Clemons, for the record.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Clemons, is this
formalizing the action you outlined for us a couple of weeks ago and
we agreed?
MR. CLEHONS: What it's doing, Commissioners, it's--
it's actually setting forth how the -- the special assessments will be
collected. And very briefly I do need to point out that the
advertisement for this particular item included all of Royal Cove
because we had done it in advance as we had to. That has since
changed, and the record should reflect that this is only for Royal
Cove, unit two.
On November 28 the board in their regular meeting
created the Royal Cove sewer special assessment district for the 26
properties in unit two. On December the 5, the Board of County
Commissioners approved an agreement allowing for the merging with the
ad valorem tax roll for enforcement of collection of a non-ad valorem
assessment by utilizing the tax notice.
All the state statutory requirements have been met for
this, publishing requirements and so forth. This is simply to set up
how we will collect the special assessments after the project is over.
The resolution before you today is to do that by collecting them
using the uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem assessments for
the sanitary sewer improvements.
Mr. Yonkosky also is here, though, to speak to you
quickly on an alternative method of collection that he tells me is
available through the Department of Revenue and could result in a
savings overall for this project. I'll let John share that with you,
and then you can make your decision.
MR. YONKOSKY: Good morning again, Commissioners. I -- I
believe you've all been handed a handout, and I'll go over that very
briefly. There's 26 assessments. Twenty-four of them have the
$7,716.59, and two of them have the eleven thousand five seventy-four.
That's based on the facts that have been presented so far and the
contingency and one year's financing cost that's built into it. So in
order keep this comparison on track, I've made the assumption that
everything would go through. There would not be any change in the
dollar values that you've been presented and the caps that you've been
presented so far.
The next item is impact fees, and just so the board is
aware of the components of the impact fee and that you -- currently
for these 26 people who will have to attach to the system will have to
pay an impact fee, they'll have the option of paying that up front or
financing it under the board's ordinance at 8 percent for seven years
which is $23.50 a month.
And then, thirdly, we put in the maximum sewer charge.
It's based on 10,000 gallons of water that is going to convert
possibly to sewage. The average utilization of two people in the
county is closer to six, so it would be somewhat less than that, 6,000
gallons a month.
And then for comparison sakes, we showed you the cost
associated with a ten-year payment stream, a 15-year payment stream,
and a 20-year payment stream. And the very first section deals with
putting it on the utility bill. You currently put the impact fee and
the interest, if they finance it, on the utility bill. With the
changes in the software, we'll be able to put quite a few items on the
utility bill so we can bill the customer for their special assessment
on a monthly basis and will give you some facts associated with that
as we go through.
The -- The first line is the actual assessment divided
by the number of months. That does not include interest, does not
include financing which is the sixty-four thirty-one for ten years on
a monthly basis, forty-two eighty-seven for 15 years on a monthly
basis, and thirty-two fifteen for 20 years on a monthly basis.
The line below that shows what the payments would be on
a 5 percent compounded interest, so it's compounded monthly, what it
would be for the same time period. And then in order to compare this
to putting it on the tax bill, we multiplied that by 12, and that's
where the nine eighty-two and the seven thirty-two come from. On the
tax bill, as you all know, when you put assessment on the tax bill, it
uses simple interest on an annual basis. But what that does, using
the statutory process for -- calling for special assessment, you don't
have equal payments. You start off with a payment stream that's very
high. And if you'll go to the back page and look to the -- to the
right, we have included in here examples of what their payments would
be for just principal and interest using the statutory process, and so
the first year the payment would be $1,118. That's for principal and
interest. And it goes down. It gets smaller over time. And if you
look down at the bottom, you'll see that principal and interest over a
ten-year period, they will pay $9,452.69. However, there's some other
costs that you need to be aware of. And so if we flip back to the
front page, you can see -- What we did was show what the first assess
-- year assessment would be, what 5 percent on the unpaid balance --
and that's converting the interest stream to simple interest on an
annual basis, and the subtotal is the one one one eight ninety-one.
However, in order to put it on the tax bill, you have to gross it up
to take care of the 4 percent discount. The district or whoever loans
the money has to make the assumption that you have to be paid back at
least your opportunity cost, and in order to do that, you've got to
gross up the amount assuming that people will take advantage of that 4
percent discount and pay it up front, but it says 7 percent. The 4
percent is for the discount. There's a statutory payment that the tax
collector takes, and there's a cost of administration which would
include the other -- the property appraiser's charge which makes that
total first-year payment $1,203. Over a ten-year period, the actual
payments using that 7 percent grossing factor would become $10,164.
Compare that to a compounded interest rate where you provide that it
goes on the water bill on a monthly basis is $9,822. They're in -- An
individual could save $342 over a period of -- a ten-year period. The
people that have the $11,574 process, you just multiply this by a 1.5
factor, and it applies to them too.
What -- Putting it on the utility bill will smooth out
the payment stream for these people and not allow them to be hit with
a very large amount on their tax bill at the -- once a year they can
actually make payments on it, and we have the enforcement capability
of being able to turn off the water.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We -- We still have the lien
rights, though, that would go with the tax bill?
MR. YONKOSKY: I think with the tax bill, what they --
they sell a tax certificate. So you would -- you would not have -- if
a tax certificate is sold, you would not have a problem. You have a
statutory lien right if someone does not pay their utility bill. You
shut off their water, and you still have a lien, and that's -- that's
a land lien so --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that right?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'd like to address that a little bit
when Mr. Yonkosky and you all are ready. Okay. Obviously there's a
certain attractiveness to this alternate method that Mr. Yonkosky is
bringing before you today. I think at the forefront, though, it
behooves the board to consider, and the recommendation from a legal
standpoint would be to adopt the resolution that's in the packet and
been advertised for today which, therefore, assures the ability to use
the uniform method using the tax bill vehicle for next year.
The county attorney office would like to get back to the
board in regard to some of the nuances, both legal and administrative,
concerning using the utility bill as a vehicle for billing. A couple
things come to mind that -- that we're going to be researching, and
that is, a utility bill currently is a service-type bill. The
description we're hearing today is to load that up with a capital
improvements-type payment on a service bill, and we need to look into
this ourselves.
Additionally, we just in the previous agenda item moved
solid waste bills from a -- from a county billing onto the tax bill
because there are certain benefits there. And although this is many
fold smaller number of people that are to be billed, we're actually --
would be opting to take them from the tax bill process and the
advantages it has for other advantages that may appear to be there;
however, the questions of enforcement are -- I think are very valid.
We -- Other than cutting off a water bill, which again may have a
legal ramification because we have capital improvements built into
this monthly billing process, we also have the situation of
enforcement. It leaves really no alternative but to sue on
foreclosure of the lien; whereas, with the tax bill process, you get
into the tax certificate, tax redemption, and the county has an
assurance of payment. If -- If water is turned off on a property
which is no longer occupied, that bill may continue not to be paid
which leaves the county the only alternative but to foreclose on the
value of the property which may or may not -- the county may or may
not have a first priority of its lien because the property may already
be liened to the hilt to begin with.
So there are several policies as well as legal items
that I think that we want to look at, report back to you, but in the
same vein, that the board should afford itself the opportunity to
approve the resolution today which doesn't lock you into the method
but provides that you can use the tax bill method last year -- next
year.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Dorrill, how do we get
something on our agenda that -- that hasn't been reviewed by the
county attorney's office? Because this seems to me to be an idea
that's worthy of review but only after we can also get legal advice.
I wish that we would not have to have this conversation twice, and
that when we have these kinds of items, that they would go -- that we
wouldn't get them until our county attorney's had an opportunity to
give us advice.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are time factors here.
MR. CLEMONS: There -- There are time factors. If we
don't move ahead with this today, at least the adoption, we miss the
window of even putting it on next year's tax bill.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The point being, though, that we
want to leave that window open, so we should be adopting this
procedure today, and then Mr. Yonkosky should bring his proposal
forward after it's been reviewed by the county attorney's office would
be my suggestion in the future.
MR. CLEMONS: Well -- and they have been discussing it.
I think Mr. Yonkosky today simply wanted the board to be aware that
there was an alternative method out there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I -- I think that's
important. I mean, we're going to -- We do have a choice. We're going
to move ahead today on the -- on -- on -- and I'm -- I'm assuming, but
based on the staff decision, we're going to move ahead today anyway.
The benefits of Mr. Yonkosky's proposal, I think, is if the board
didn't want to go down that path and tell the county attorney don't
worry about it. That -- I don't think that's the case either. So
rather than have the discussion on Mr. Yonkosky's, we've been
presented it. I think I would like to direct the county attorney to
-- to look at that because I'd like to find a way to put this on a
monthly billing cycle instead of on an annual tax bill.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If it doesn't compromise our lien
position.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I'm not sure I like the
foreclosure option either if it's not paid as opposed to the -- to the
tax certificate.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But let's see if there's public
speakers. Mr. Dotrill.
MR. DORRILL: There are none.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There are none. I'll close the
public hearing. Further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to move that we adopt
the resolution to set forth the intent of the uniform method of
collecting non-ad valorem assessments for Royal Cove sewer special
assessment district.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
adopt the resolution setting forth the intent of the uniform method to
collect a non-ad valorem assessment. Is there further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And as a part of that motion, I
stated previously that we -- we direct the county attorney to look at
the opportunity and ramifications of a monthly billing cycle through
the utility billing system.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the second accept the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- alteration?
If there's no further discussion, I'll call the
question. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
There being no opposition, motion passes five to zero.
MR. CLEMONS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Clemons.
Item #12C6
ORDINANCE 95-79 AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 91-24 BY EXTENDING
THE MORATORIUM PROHIBITING THE INSTALLATION OF OF DRAINAGE CULVERTS
INCLUDING PIPES OR OTHER APPURTENANCES WITHIN THE SWALES IN THE PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE AREA GENERALLY KNOWN AS NAPLES PARK UNTIL
DECEMBER 31, 1996
Next item on the agenda is item 12(C)(6), a
recommendation to extend the moratorium prohibiting installation of
drain -- of drainage culverts. Mr. Dotrill, are there public speakers
on this?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This has been a fairly steady
item now for the last three years.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is an annual item.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's an annual item. There's no
speakers. Is there anything you need to put on the record?
MR. BOLDT: (Shook head.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve for the last
annual time.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve item 12(C)(6). Any further discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Hopefully that's the last time.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, it will be.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that a promise? Be careful
about that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't make promises. I make
predictions.
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 95-710 RE PETITION V-95-22, DUDLEY GOODLETTE, ESQ.,
REPRESENTING GUS G. SCACQUA REQESTING A 25 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED 25 FEET FRONT YARD TO -0- FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3078
TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Predictions we can take.
Next item on the agenda is under the Board of Zoning
Appeals, item 13(A)(1), petition V-95-22. Hr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Members of the commission, I need to advise
you that -- While this item here is -- is -- is scheduled, I need to
advise you that another item, item 13(A)(2), which is also on your
agenda and is a companion item --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It is a companion item?
MR. NINO: -- to this item --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. NINO: -- was not properly set for public hearing
for today's meeting even though it's on your agenda, and that will
have to be continued to another meeting date --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So --
MR. NINO: -- which is scheduled for your second meeting
in January.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: (A) --
HR. NINO: So we're only dealing with (A) -- (A)(1).
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 13(A)(2) has to be continued --
MR. NINO: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- to January 27
MR. NINO: No. The 9th.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry?
MR. NINO: The 9th.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The 9th.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Even if they're companions? Why
-- Why --
MR. NINO: Well, they're not companions. They stand
alone. They do two -- They do two different things. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. When we get to 13(A)(2),
we'll take a motion to continue that item. Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Petition V -- Ron Nino, your planning
services department. Petition V-95-22 is a request to vary the
setback requirement on the property fronting on North Tamiami Trail
from 25 feet to zero feet. I think for you to appreciate how this
setback will be accomplished, you need to review or look at the
exhibits that Mr. Mulhere will distribute to you. I think it's
important to appreciate the fact that while normally when one gets a
setback relief, they usually end up getting larger usable space for a
-- their -- for their -- whatever that activity happens to be.
However, when you peruse the plan, you'll note that the enclosure that
is proposed on part of the setback variance if granted and the -- and
-- and the other part is really an amenity package. It's -- It
doesn't really allow the store to be enlarged, but it provides --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It makes it prettier.
MR. NINO: It makes it prettier. Thank you very much.
And I'm sure that's what Mr. Goodlette will -- will emphasize.
The Planning Commission when they heard this petition on
November the 16 by a vote of seven to one recommended that you grant
the variance. I believe Mr. Goodlette has a presentation to make.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Nino, what was the reasoning
for the one dissenting vote?
MR. NINO: I apologize, but I was not the planner of
record. I'm subbing for Chahram. I don't know what that reason was.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Mulhere, do you know?
MR. HULHERE: My recollection was that -- that the
commissioner just felt as though there was not a hardship warranted
and, therefore, was voting in the negative.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Couldn't see a land-related
hardship on it?
MR. HULHERE: (Nodded head.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Goodlette, I hope you can
show us one.
MR. GOODLETTE: Actually, MAdam Chairman, if I may,
Dudley Goodlette with the firm of Cummings and Lockwood representing
Mr. Scacqua who is the applicant here. I think that to answer the
question that you just -- that you just asked, I think one of the
other reasons that one of the members of the commission voted against
this was because of the objection from the neighbor regarding the
sign. And we have -- we have resolved the difference with the
neighbor regarding their objection, and -- and I believe the manager
will tell you that there's no -- that -- that at least they're not
here to speak against this this morning and that we have resolved that
in an amicable way with the neighbor to the -- to the east, if you
will, who -- who was concerned that what we were proposing to do would
somehow obscure the view of their sign from U.S. 41, and we've, I
think, resolved their -- their -- their differences.
Further than -- Other than that, Madam Chairman, the
reason why I -- I asked Mr. Mulhere to hand out to you what he has
just distributed is because I'm in hopes of setting time to answer any
questions you may have this morning. Truly I think a picture is worth
a thousand words in this regard, and -- and I won't belabor that
point. Mr. Pel and Mr. Dehearst with PelConcepts who are the project
designers and architects are -- are available to answer any specific
questions that you may have regarding this application or petition.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have questions for the
petitioner or additional questions for staff? Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Obviously, Mr. Goodlette, a
concern would be that this action may then promote others to come
forward and -- and request zero setbacks along U.S. 41. You have a
unique situation. I would assume the building to the north has been
extended well beyond what your buildable property line is. Are you
aware if that condition exists of any substance along U.S. 41 outside
of -- I know in the city it does quite a bit. But outside of the city
in the northern part of U.S. 41, is this kind of a -- I can see --
MR. GOODLETTE: Yes, to the south.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: To the south?
MR. GOODLETTE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can see maybe not a true
hardship, but the fact that your building is set back more than the
one that is actually attached to yours almost -- I mean, there's no
real footage in between. There's an inconsistency there.
MR. GOODLETTE: And that's what we're trying to do, to
bring the front of our building out consistent with our neighbor --
the neighboring building to the north. And, as you can tell, it's not
to increase the space as Mr. Nino pointed out, but merely -- and,
frankly, entirely -- for aesthetic purposes. As a matter of fact -- I
don't normally like to hold up pictures of the newspaper to you, but
if you happened to see the real estate section in yesterday's
newspaper of what's happening on Fifth Avenue, that's a very similar
concept here.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would you also have a pole sign
in addition to the two signs on the building?
MR. GOODLETTE: That's the issue with the neighbor, and
if we're entitled to signage, then the neighbor will be -- will be
using at least two-thirds of that sign that currently exists on that
site, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Here's my concern. If we are
going to allow you to bring that building front -- I know you're not
expanding the square footage -- out, I would like to see an
elimination of the pole sign for the simple reason that your sign is
right there on the street. I mean, you -- you put signage on the
building itself, and it puts it right on the street. Right next to
you if Margaux's and whatever else is in there -- they don't have a
pole sign either. So I think the concession there is if you're going
to come out, I'd like to see no pole sign on the property.
MR. GOODLETTE: We have no problem with that. It's --
It's -- The neighbor to the south has that sign. If you see on -- on
the second page, there's a sign. That's actually on the neighbor's
property.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. GOODLETTE: Okay? And so that's a separate issue,
but we -- we will certainly agree with the stipulation that there be
no pole sign on our property other than what's -- what's shown on the
building as Agostino's.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. I just -- A separate pole
sign, I -- I definitely would -- would not want to see it if this
moves ahead.
MR. GOODLETTE: We'd have no objection to that, Madam
Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions for the
petitioner?
MR. NINO: If I might, Madam Chairman, add that some
consideration has been given to the issue of allowing zero setbacks on
41 North as part -- part of the evaluation appraisal report. That
issue is being considered, and there's some suggestion that we need
that variance to return to a more neo-traditional theme of Main
Street, Main Street U.S.A., where it was very common for buildings to
be contiguous to the street line. That is actively being considered.
I -- I can't guarantee you that it's going to become a reality in
subsequent code, but there's a lot of thought being given to that and
-- and the advantage that that brings to our urban design goals by
our planning division.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Are there speakers,
Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing.
Is there further discussion, questions, or a motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, based on the --
the physical orientation of the building immediately to the south, I'm
going to move approval of petition V-95-22. I think it just simply is
going to be a physical improvement to the area. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve petition V-95-22. Any further discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #13A2
PETITION V-95-27, J. DUDLEY GOODLETTE, ESQ., REPRESENTING GUS. C.
SCACQUA, REQUESTING A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FEET SIDE
YARD TO -0- FEET FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3078 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH -
TO BE ADVERTISED FOR JANUARY 9, 1996
Next item on the agenda is 13(A)(2).
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, this is really on
the south side of the building and --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We need a motion to continue.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What was wrong with the
advertising here?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to continue.
MR. HULHERE: It -- It was not properly advertised for
this meeting.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to continue.
MR. HULHERE: We received a message from the clerk's
office yesterday that --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
MR. HULHERE: -- the advertising did not --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My apologies. I missed that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a
second to continue this item until January 9, 1996. All those in
favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #13A3
PETITION V-95-25, DARRELL MARCH ON BEHALF OF GEORFFREY AND SUE HUGUELY
REQUESTING AN AFTER-THE-FACT 2.13 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED SIDE
SETBACK OF 7.5 FEET TO 5.37 FEET FOR PROEPRTY LOCATED 1471 FIRWOOD
COURT, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOT 50, BLOCK 24, MARCO BEACH, UNIT 1 -
ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is 13(A)(3), petition V-95-25.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hulhere, this was
permitted and CO'd in 1987 by the county. It wasn't until the
petitioner surveyed it themselves for purpose of sale that the error
was discovered this year?
MR. HULHERE: That's correct. It's just slightly over.
As you -- you may or may not know, we -- we do have administrative
approval up to two feet. This is 2.13 feet; and, therefore, it had to
go through the process.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: God bless them.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: God bless them.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you suggesting to saw it off?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely not.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there speakers, Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There are no speakers. Mr.
Hulhere, do you need to get anything else on the record?
MR. HULHERE: No. Staff recommendation's for approval
as well as the Planning Commission.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
approve petition V-95-25.
Close the public hearing.
Move approval.
Motion to approve.
Second.
Second.
We have a motion and a second to
Any further discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Mulhere. That
concludes our agenda for the day. We're -- We are at county
commission communications. Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I have been given
a memorandum here this morning from Dr. McTarnaghan. I think -- It's
to Dudley Goodlette. I think Dudley wants to read it into the record.
Do you want to read it into the record or discuss it,
Dudley, or what do you want to do?
MR. GOODLETTE: Again, Madam Chairman, Dudley Goodlette.
And I -- I guess I would be here on be -- as -- as a member of the
Foundation Board of Florida Gulf Coast University. That's the context
in which this memorandum was provided to me by Dr. McTarnaghan this
morning discussing the options that might be available to this board
in conjunction with the discussions that you have had relating to
Treeline Drive and/or other means of making these contributions. I've
merely -- I think this is on your agenda for the 9th of January and
would be happy to discuss it at that time. I just wanted to make -- I
made Commissioner Norris aware of my receipt of this memorandum from
Dr. McTarnaghan today and will make -- I wanted to make copies
available to each of you so that we will have a couple of weeks to
have dialogue regarding this important issue between now and -- and
the time that you are called upon to take any action.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So each of us will see a copy
of that?
MR. GOODLETTE: I -- I have them here and will
distribute them, yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
all -- all --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
Hanukkah to everyone.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Thank you. That's fine. Is that
That's all.
-- Commissioner Norris?
Merry Christmas and Happy
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
Nothing, thank you.
Commissioner Constantine.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Merry Christmas to all and to
all a good night.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It looks like night out there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. It is getting dark.
Well, this is the concluding meeting of the year, and at
our next meeting we'll be choosing a new chairman, and I would like to
thank this board for the last 50 weeks of chairing this board. We've
had some contentious moments. We've had some good moments and some
funny moments. So I just want to thank you, and hopefully we can
continue to work as a unit well into the future.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: By saying, choosing a new chair,
is that implied that you will not be suggesting a second run at this?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, are -- do you have
anything for communications?
Item #15A
LEO OCHS APPOINTED AS UNITED WAY REPRESENTATIVE - DISCUSSED
MR. DORRILL: One very good quick note. We've been in
discussions with the United Way of Collier County. They have long
sought your employees' participation in the United Way. One of the
conditions for that would be for them to offer a seat on the board of
directors to one of your employees, and I'm pleased to announce
they've made a decision to do that, and they have asked specifically
if Leo Ochs could represent your employees as a condition for which we
would then participate, but we wanted to be able to distinguish and
determine the assignment of funds locally, and so they have named last
week that one of your employees will have a seat on the -- the board.
Mr. Ochs will be the first one, and I'm pleased to report that to you,
and that's all I have.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just curious. That's -- That's
wonderful, but it's a condition of what we have to have?
MR. DORRILL: Of our participation. We have never
participated in the United Way. They came and extended an invitation
to us. They had some preliminary discussions with the employee
advisory council. One of the things that was important to the
employee advisory council was that a member of the Collier County
family sit on their board of directors and that we actively
participate in the -- in the assignment of funds locally.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In order to help raise the money,
we want to help allocate the money.
MR. DORRILL: Absolutely, given the strength and numbers
that we have, and they have met that condition, and -- and we're
moving forth with that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I like that. Mr. Weigel.
Item #15B
CABLE TELEVISION ORDINANCE - DISCUSSED
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Thank you. A few brief items. I'd
like to take the first opportunity to introduce to the board and the
public new Assistant County Attorney Shirley Jean McHeffrin who has
just started with the office of county attorney following Mr. Cuyler's
departure.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Welcome.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Welcome.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Welcome.
MS. MCHEFFRIN: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: And, secondly, last week I mentioned to you
I'd be getting back to you with a report on the Colony Cablevision
judgment that had issued from the court, federal court, dated December
4. And upon a significant legal review, discussion with staff, Mr.
Dotrill and his staff, there is a -- technically a 30-day period upon
which the county could initiate procedures for appeal. Upon a review
of the -- of the Court's opinion -- and, in essence, what it said was
that the Board of County Commissioners had not followed the specific
requirements of its ordinance concerning cable application and
approval of such applications. It would appear to be that the
recommendation from our office -- In fact, it is the recommendation
that an appeal would not be advisable. We looked to the likelihood of
success on appeal. We looked to the resources that would be required
to go forward with the appeal. We looked to what success would mean if
-- if -- if an appeal were to -- to be successful. We looked at the
potential for future expenditures, even in damages beyond what the
county potentially has right now in regard to fees and costs, and
would advise the board not to go forward. At the same time, would
suggest to the board that this may be a judicial opportunity
indicating to the county to potentially direct staff and the attorney
office to review again the cable ordinance in this dynamic field to
provide some of the leeway that this board may wish to have concerning
applicants and the requirements for review of applications. That's
pretty much my report in that regard.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question about that.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Since we're not appealing -- and
I think that -- that -- I certainly, from what I looked at, think
that's the right choice for us to make. What physically happens to --
I asked this question last week. Who goes around and unplugs the
cable boxes on Marco Island? What has to happen so we comply with
this Court order?
MR. WEIGEL: That's a very good question. Right now
while we're in this potential appeal period, a status quo essentially
exists, et cetera, as a defendant in this suit; and, therefore, a
party upon which a ruling directly affects, he -- that entity has the
opportunity to appeal itself from the ruling of the -- of the federal
court. If he goes forward with the appeal, there's a potential that
there could be a suspension or delay of the application of this
initial court judgment. That will depend upon Mr. Gastin and -- and
that particular defendant.
If, however, that co-defendant does not appeal, after
the passage of sufficient time -- that is, 30 days and beyond -- based
on this Court's ruling, the franchise that -- that it has does not
exist, is a nullity; and, therefore, it would be operating extra
franchise ultra vires any approval from the county, and the county
would need to look at its own regulatory requirements as franchise
regulator and provider. The county not only grants franchises, but in
the franchise relationship that exists, there are protections that do
exist from the governmental regulatory standpoint for non-franchised
operations.
So within a period of time subsequent to early January
would be the time when -- if Mr. Gastin's operations are continuing,
the county would need to review in a timely fashion any regulatory
function that it may need to apply at that time. Yet there may be
nothing to do based upon the facts that exist at that time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
Item #15C
NUISANCE ABATEMENT ORDINANCE - DISCUSSED
MR. WEIGEL: The next item, the nuisance abatement
ordinance is drafted. It's being tendered today to the sheriff's
office for their review. The sheriff's requests have been that it
come back as a regularly scheduled agenda item subsequent to
advertisement, and that's why it wasn't presented as an emergency item
today.
We're quite pleased with the draft that our office has
done. Copies will be provided the board. They're going to be -- will
be advertised for a regular public hearing. I will have copies
available for interested public even before we get into the
advertisement operation.
As a -- As a preliminary word, it does provide for our
Code Enforcement Board to be -- to be -- have and become a nuisance
abatement division so that at specified hearing dates, the Code
Enforcement Board would act as a nuisance abatement hearing board, and
those would not be mixed into the agendas that it has for regular code
enforcement purposes. But we look forward to the comments of the
board, public, sheriff's department and will get into the -- into the
advertising process very soon.
Item #15D
SUNSHINE LAW MEMORANDUM - DISCUSSED
The last thing -- and Mr. Perkins, if he's watching --
we're about to put out a memorandum on Sunshine Law. It's something
that we attempt to do periodically. It's sort of like everything you
wanted to know, might have asked. It's time to ask again. And that
will be provided to the board. It's going to be provided to all of
the liaisons, to all of the advisory committees that exist, and we
will have copies in our office for some of the interested public.
That's my comment, and thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Weigel.
Commissioner Hancock, you had an additional comment?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Quickly, I don't want to steal
the thunder but -- of parks and rec, but I wanted to commend Mr.
Dotrill and our parks and recreation department. I heard last week
that we did, in fact, receive -- that we received an $800,000 grant
for Lake Avalon. So I wanted the rest of the board to be aware of
that, and I think it's -- I think it's terrific, and I want to commend
our staff for the hard work in acquiring that money. MR. DORRILL: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that that grant we were
talking about for the purchase of the land?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, no. This is -- This is for
construct --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For Florida communities or
something?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. This is for actually
construction of the facilities in the park. So where we have budgeted
500,000, there now is a pool of 1.3 million with the assistance of
this grant to really -- really do a class project.
MR. DORRILL: And you'll -- you'll recall we had to
dispatch some people on short notice, send them to Fort Myers for a
preproposal conference, and they really did a good job of responding
to that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Great. Fine. If there's no
further comment, Miss Filson, are we finished? MS. FILSON: Yes, we are.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Merry Christmas.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See you next year.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're adjourned.
***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner
Norris and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF LONGSHORE LAKE PHASE 582 - WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
See Pages
Item #16A2
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF CASA DEL VIDA - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
See Pages
Item #16A3
WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR CASA DEL VIDA
OR Book Pages
Item #16A4
WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR LONGSHORE LAKES, PHASE 5B-2
OR Book Pages
Item #16A5
WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR QUAIL WALK, PHASE THREE
OR Book Pages
Item #16A6
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF QUAIL WALK PHASE THREE - WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
See Pages
Item #16A7
RESOLUTION 95-696 FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 50726-028, OWNER OF
RECORD - EVELYN G. LEWIS TRUST
See Pages
Item #16A8
RESOLUTION 95-697 AUTHORIZING RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF HELROSE
GARDENS
See Pages
Item #16A9
RESOLUTION 95-698 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF BRIARWOOD UNIT TWO
See Pages
Item #16A10
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF QUEENS PARK AT LAGO VERDE, PHASE SEVEN -
WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND LETTER OF CREDIT
See Pages
Item #16All
WATER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR ST. MATTHEWS HOUSE
OR Book Pages
Item #16A12
WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR QUEENS PARK, PHASE 7
OR Book Pages
Item #16A13
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF SAFE HARBOR - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND LETTER OF CREDIT
See Pages
Item #16A14
RESOLUTION 95-699 AUTHORIZING THE SUBORDINATION OF LIEN FOR IMPACT FEES
FOR TURTLE CREEK APARTMENTS, A 268 UNIT AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING
PROJECT
See Pages
Item #16B1
UTILIZE REMAINING WESTLAKE BEAUTIFICATION HSTU FUNDS FOR ROADWAY SWALE
IMPROVEMENTS AND RESCIND ORDINANCE WHICH CREATED THE HSTU
Item #1682
TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF BLUEBILL AVENUE FROM VANDERBILT DRIVE TO GULFSHORE
DRIVE ON JANUARY 20, 1996, FROM 10:00 A.H. UNTIL 430 P.M. TO
ACCOHMODATE THE CUB SCOUTS PACK 168 "CUBMOBILE DERBY" EVENT
Item #1683
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO COVER UNANTICIPATED HAULING COSTS
Item #1684 - This item has been deleted
Item #1685
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL NO. 112 REGARDING THE SANTA
BARBARA/GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY INTERSECTION PROJECT
Item #1686
CARRY FORWARD BUDGET AMENDMENT RELATED TO THE RAW WATER BOOSTER PUMPING
STATION UPGRADES PROJECT
Item #1687 - This item continued to 1/2/96
Item #1688
AWARD BID #95-2447 TO THE J. C. DRAINFIELD FOR EMERGENCY AND SCHEDULED
SEWAGE HAULING SERVICES
Item #1689
CHANGE ORDER #5 FOR VARIOUS NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS AT THE NORTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
See Pages
Item #16B10
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC., FOR UTILITY
DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE VANDERBILT DRIVE FOUR LANING IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDER
See Pages
Item #16Bll
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH WILSON, MILLER, BARTON AND PEEK, INC. FOR
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES AND AUTHORIZE
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDER
See Pages
Item #16B12
BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD AMOUNTS FROM FY 1995 FOR
PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS IN FUNDS 306, 361, 363, 364, 365, 366,
367 AND 368
Item #16B13 - Moved to Item #885
Item #16B14
CHAIRMAN AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE LITTER CONTROL AND PREVENTION GRANT
AGREEMENT AND SIGN THE AGREEMENT WITH KEEP COLLIER BEAUTIFUL
See Pages
Item #16B15
WORK ORDER #ABB-FT96-1 FOR ROYAL COVE ASSESSMENT PROJECT
Item #16C1
CONTRACT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND DR. HARTA U. COBURN, M.D., FLORIDA
DISTRICT 20 MEDICAL EXAMINER FOR COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOING BUSINESS
AS DISTRICT 20 MEDICAL EXAMINER
See Pages
Item #16C2
CONTINUATION GRANT FOR OLDER AMERICANS' ACT FOR 1996, AWARD THE RELATED
HOMEMAKERS BID, EXECUTE CONTRACTS WITH ACCU-CARE AND MORNING STAR
NURSING SERVICES, AND AUTHORIZE THE USE OF MONIES FROM THE SOCIAL
SERVICES FOR ITERIH FUNDING SHOULD FEDERAL BUDGETS FOR THIS PROGRAM NOT
BE RESOLVED BY JANUARY 1, 1996
See Pages
Item #16C3
LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN IHMOKALEE DAY CARE CENTER, INC. AND COLLIER
COUNTY FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY IN IHMOKALEE
See Pages
Item #16C4
AGREEMENT TO SUBLEASE BETWEEN IHMOKALEE DAY CARE CENTER, INC. AND
T.E.C.H. OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF COUNTY-OWNED
PROPERTY IN IHMOKALEE
See Pages
Item #16D1
CONTRACT WITH ENERGY SAVERS INC. TO ENGINEER AND REPLACE THE CHEMICAL
TREATMENT SYSTEMS NOW BEING UTILIZED IN THREE (3) TOWERS AND CHILLERS
LOCATED AT BUILDING "K", COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
See Pages
Item #16D2
TERMINATE CONTRACT #94-2228 (MASTER LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT)
Item #16D3
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO WORK ORDER SC-7 (CONTRACT #95-2334), DEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE RENOVATIONS, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING
See Pages
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY
APPRAISER'S OFFICE
Item #1662
No.
139-141
No.
37-41
43-45
1995
REAL PROPERTY
Dated
12/5/95-12/6/95
1995
TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
Dated
12/28/95
12/28/95-12/6/95
HISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #1611
RESOLUTION 95-700/CWS 95-12 SPLITTING THE SPECIAL ASSESSHENTS FOR LOTS
18, 19 AND 20, WILLOUGHBY PLACE SUBDIVISION THAT ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE
WILLOUGHBY ACRES WATER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AND THE WILLOUGHBY ACRES
SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
See Pages
Item #1612 - Moved to Item #9A3
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 12:22 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Christine E. Whitfield, RPR