BCC Minutes 02/06/1996 R REGULAR HEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1996,
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:06 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris
Bettye J. Matthews
Timothy J. Constantine
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3 & #3A
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Call the county commission meeting of Tuesday,
February 6, 1996, to order.
Mr. Olliff, would you lead us in an invocation and a pledge,
please.
MR. OLLIFF: Heavenly Father, we thank you for this day in
southwest Florida and for the beauty that it brings. Father, we thank
you for this government. We thank you for the opportunity you give us
in America to be able to participate in this process. We pray that
you'd have your hand over this meeting today and that you would bless
all the actions of this commission. Father, we pray these things in
the name of your son. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
(Hr. Dotrill entered the boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, we have a couple of changes to our
agenda this morning.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, good morning. And I apologize for being
stuck downstairs. I think I've been to a thousand county commission
meetings, and I think that's the first that I've ever missed the
opening. I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's been noted, Mr. Dorrill.
MR. DORRILL: Three add-on items. I was curious as to why Mr.
Weigel didn't give the invocation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He wasn't asked.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. Three add-on items this morning, Mr.
Chairman. The first is item 8(A)(2) under public works. In keeping
with your recent directive, this is a routine public works facilities
acceptance for a project known as Kountree Kampinn.
Also on the regular agenda item 8(B)(4) under public works --
first one's under community development. 8(B)(4) is an approval of an
effluent sales agreement with WCI Communities for effluent sales at
Pelican Marsh.
Item ll(A) is under other constitutional officers. It's a request
by the sheriff to use confiscated trust funds to purchase a high-speed
fax machine.
Then I have one item a commissioner has requested to move off of
the consent agenda onto the regular agenda for presentation. Item
16(D)(6) is moving and will become 8(D)(1).
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Who requested that?
MR. DORRILL: The chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's not accurate.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually I -- I had wanted it to be moved,
and I wasn't here. Apparently someone asked -- anyway, I'm requesting
it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: And in that -- in that particular case that will be
under the support services division. That's a recommendation to
terminate certain old and/or consolidate other annual professional
service agreements. And that will be on the regular agenda under item
8(D)(1), and that's all that I have this morning.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Matthews.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one item that I need to
add under the BCC, and that is that when I was talking with the clerk
about stocking our apartment with staple foods, and he says I need to
have the board agree for me to spend $50 to put coffee, sugar, and so
forth in the apartment where I'm going this afternoon.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Your tax dollars at work.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's exactly right, so I'd
like to add that to the agenda under BCC.
MR. DORRILL: That would be 10(D) as in David.
(Commissioner Constantine entered the boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No additions.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just need to register an
abstention on the consent agenda item 16(A)(7 I have a conflict;
that's a client.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, Mr. Chairman, if I may,
I received a phone call regarding the spay-neuter contract, Mr.
Olliff. It was -- I really don't know that there's a lot of things
that we can discuss today. Can we table that for one week to be more
specific in the areas to be addressed and then bring back a
presentation to the board? So that would be my request.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: 16(C) (2).
MR. DORRILL: There's two items.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There seems to be some concerns.
I know we need to get this item wrapped up because it's been lingering
for way too long, but let's see if we can get those concerns outlined
in a presentation in one week. So I would like to ask that we table
that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Continue?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Continue it for one week.
MR. DORRILL: 16(C) (2) and (3).
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine, do you have
any additions or deletions?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment. I'm not
going to remove this item from the consent agenda, but 16(H)(1) is yet
another budget amendment transferring funds from the general fund
reserves, one more general fund reserve item that wasn't budgeted. We
seemed to be hitting that awful heavy the last month or so. I just
kind of wanted to make a mention, note, there.
MR. DORRILL: There are two items on your agenda today,
both from constitutional officers, both asking for funds from the
contingency reserve when other sources might be available. And -- but
-- in keeping with the prior chairman's directive, I'm not going to
remove or question any particular item, but there are two. That's
one, and the other one deals with a program in the courts area.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Excuse me. In keeping with the
prior chairman's what?
MR. DORRILL: There was occasion about two years ago
where I actually continued an item to request additional information,
and I have indicated I'll no longer do that. If a constitutional
officer sends an item and wants it on an agenda for a certain day, I
leave it on for that particular day.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But it wasn't -- it wasn't me.
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. I didn't remember doing
that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was a good idea whosever it
was, huh?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a motion on the agenda?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the agenda and
consent agenda as amended.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
And opposed?
There are none.
Item #4
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 9, 1996; TRI-COUNTY MEETING OF
JANUARY 10, 1996; AND REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 16, 1996 - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion
to approve the regular meeting minutes of January 9, 1996; the
tri-county meeting minutes of January 10, 1996; and the regular
meeting minutes of January 16, 1996.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
accept the minutes. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
And opposed?
There are none.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 11-17, 1996, AS
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED
Proclamations, Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. We have Charlotte
Gore here with us.
Whereas, February 11 through 17th -- come on up. Don't
be shy.
MS. GORE: Closer than this?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ask her for her best attorney
joke.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why don't you turn around so
all of them can get a good look at you.
Whereas, February 11 through 17, 1996, has been
designated Vocational Education Week by the American Vocational
Association; and
Whereas, profound economic and technological changes in
our society are being rapidly reflected in the structure and nature of
work causing a gradual shift in the job market toward more technically
trained employees who are equipped with good reading and math skills;
and
Whereas, many of the fastest growing occupations in
Florida for the year 2005 will be in fields requiring vocational or
occupational training leading to a certificate; and
Whereas, vocational education provides Floridians with a
school-to-work transition and is the backbone of the strong
well-educated work force which fosters productivity in business and
industry and contributes to America's leadership in the international
marketplace; and
Whereas, vocational education offers individuals
lifelong opportunities to learn new skills which provide them with
career choices and personal satisfaction; and
Whereas, the ever increasing cooperative efforts of
vocational educators, business, and industry, stimulate the growth and
vitality of our local economy and that of the entire nation by
preparing workers for the occupations forecast and to experience the
largest, fastest growth in the next decade.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of February 11
through 17, 1996, be designated as Vocational Educational Week in
Collier County.
Done and ordered this 6th day of February, 1996, Board
of County Commissioners, John C. Norris, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve this
proclamation.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a couple of
seconds. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed?
Congratulations.
(Applause)
MS. GORE: Thank you, Commissioners, for your support.
What this proclamation actually says is that last year less than 15
percent of our jobs nationwide required a four-year college or
university degree. So the training required to train our work force
is changing dramatically. We have twenty-four hundred students at
Vo-Tech currently, and we have a very successful business partnership
with the county where we train all of the Collier County Sheriff's
Department as well as the HRS unit of the public health unit. This is
very cost effective. Ninety-seven percent of our graduates remain in
the Collier County area and become taxpayers and contributing members
of our county. So we thank you for your support.
(Applause)
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 4-10, 1996 AS COLLIER
HARVEST WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Collier Harvest Week to be accepted by
Bert Paradice, and it's Bettye Matthews.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Paradice, how are you doing
today?
MR. PARADICE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is a proclamation that we
give each year for Collier Harvest Week, and I'm -- I'm proud to say
that the Ladies' Club of Long Shore Lake is very active with this
group, and I applaud their efforts for the last three years as I read
this proclamation:
Whereas, the Board of Collier County Commissioners
recognizes the goals of Collier Harvest, a chapter of USA Harvest, in
its efforts to feed the hungry through volunteer efforts and in-kind
donations from local markets, restaurants, bakeries, and caterers; and
Whereas, Collier County is fortunate to have numerous
individuals and organizations who give generously of their time and
excess food at no cost to the hungry of Collier County to support
Collier Harvest; and
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners lends support
and encouragement to all Collier County citizens interested in the
community effort to eradicate hunger in Collier County; and
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners recognizes
the positive effects of its citizens' participation in Collier Harvest
and in helping to fight hunger and promoting community support of
Collier Harvest.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, the week of February 4th
through the 10th, 1996, be designated as Collier Harvest Week.
Done and ordered this 6th day of February, 1996, Board
of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, John Norris,
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept this proclamation.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
accept this proclamation. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
And opposed?
There are none.
(Applause)
MR. PARADICE: Good morning. Collier Harvest is part of
USA Harvest. There are 95 chapters across the United States. This
chapter I founded in 1991. We're five years old this May. And we
will have raised one million pounds of food by that time for Collier
County without money. We don't raise money; we raise food and deliver
it to the agencies in Collier County. We have 115 volunteers during
the peak season and about 80 during the summer, and we have a lot of
fun doing it. And I appreciate very much the county commissioners'
recognition of our action. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
(Applause)
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're going to briefly skip our next
presentation. The recipients have not arrived as yet. There are a
few service awards. Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, it's always a pleasure to get
to do the service awards. We have a five-year award today for Mr.
Reginald Boucher -- I hope I'm saying that right -- in OCPH.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Our second award today is for Mr.
Frank Terilla for ten years in wastewater.
(Applause)
Item #5C1
PRESENTATION FROM THE VANDERBILT BEACH PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION TO
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS FOR THEIR EFFORTS TOWARD THE BEACH
RENOURISHHENT PROJECT
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item is a presentation to the
Board of County Commissioners from the beach renourishment project.
MR. KOBZA: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, for the
purposes of the record my name is Kim Patrick Kobza. I'm appearing
before you this morning as president of the Vanderbilt Beach Property
Owners Association. Appearing with me is Mr. Richard Lyden. Mr.
Lyden is our vice president, and he also is incidentally the chairman
of your countywide beach renourishment committee for this year.
The purpose of our presence before you is -- is a simple
one, and that is to offer our faith by resolution of our board to use
the board to Collier County; to your staff, specifically county
manager, Neil Dotrill, in his office; Harry Huber; the city staff; Dr.
Staiger; and Dr. Michael Stephen, who is the consultant for the
Vanderbilt Beach renourishment portion of the project.
This project was very well conceived. It was a vision
for the community. It was properly executed. Everybody throughout
the project -- and I think back to when we started and -- with the
Tourist Development Council and this -- in 1990, '91. Everybody did
what they said they were going to do, and that's very, very
important. The project that you now have up at Vanderbilt Beach is a
real asset to the whole community. It's a beautiful public beach. We
happen to be on the front lines, so to speak, as -- as an association
up there, but it really is a credit to the whole community.
I know that usually you're on the presentation end of
awards. This -- this morning we thought we would turn the tables a
little bit and put you on the receiving end. Mr. Lyden, we -- we
prepared small plaques in recognition for each of the commissioners.
At our dedication, the beach renourishment dedication, we had the
opportunity to take photographs. And please excuse the amateur
photography, if you will. But through the -- through the wonders of
technology we were able to transpose those on plaques, and we have a
specific plaque for each commissioner. So we -- we thank you. Our --
our message is simple, and we really, really appreciate your help.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is that when we almost turned it
(Applause)
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, yeah, we tried to turn it
on. There was a key there. We thought about it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pam Hac'Kie in training up there,
heavy equipment operator.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is very nice, Kim and
David. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. I wonder
what would have happened if you had turned the key on.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You don't want to know, Bettye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Maybe we can let them sit up here and
we go out and speak or something.
Thank you very much, gentlemen; that was very nice of
you to do that.
Item #6C
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR FUNDING THE S.A.V.E. PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY THE
COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS - IN THE AMOUNT OF $45,350
Our other recipient has not yet arrived, so we will go
down to item 6(C), the clerk's item regarding your SAVE program.
MR. BROCK: Commissioners, my name is Dwight Brock. I'm
the clerk of the circuit court here in Collier County. And I am here
before you this morning asking for your assistance in providing the
clerk of the circuit court with start-up costs for a program that I
think will be very beneficial to the citizens here in Collier County.
To give you a little background of what I'm attempting
to do with this process, several years ago, about ten years ago, the
Florida legislature in recognizing a problem in collecting child
support throughout the State of Florida created what is called the
child support depository. It is a program that is set up through the
clerk of the circuit court in which all individuals who pay child
support pay through the clerk of the circuit court so that there is a
mechanism in which it can track whether or not child support is being
paid. Currently -- or last fiscal year there were approximately 8
million dollars that were paid through the child support depository in
my office in Collier County. The problem is not with those that are
paid through the depository. The problem surfaces in those in which
are not paid.
What I am attempting to do with what is called SAVE,
S-A-V-E, support, alimony, and visitation enforcement, is to get into
the process of assisting families in complying with the orders that
the courts have imposed in their divorce decree. The process in which
we are attempting to do that is to try to keep people out of the
courtroom as much as possible. We're of the opinion that by creating
the adversarial relationship of the courtroom in which to resolve
child support issues, visitation issues, or alimony issues, is not
conducive to the good health of our community or to the citizens here
in our area.
There are, in fact, a large volume of child support and
alimony orders which are not being complied with. Here in Collier
County alone on my system in the child support depository today, there
is approximately 39 million dollars that has not been accounted for
through the depository. What we're attempting to do with this program
is to try to collect some of that that should have been paid when it
is not.
I don't want to deceive anyone. There is a program in
place by the state through the Department of Revenue which enforces
predominantly what are called 4-D cases, which are welfare cases. And
they do a pretty good job with the resources that they have available
to them to accomplish enforcement of those. One of the problems with
that particular program is that the individual has to initiate the
process. Because the clerk of the circuit court has the child support
deposit program, we actually know when people pay and when people
don't. The purpose of our program is to monitor that process without
the initiative of the noncustodial parent and take action to try to
nip not paying the child support in the bud, so to speak.
I have hired an individual. His name is Jay Cross. You
have his resume. He is a former minister. More important than that,
he is a mediator. Hopefully we will be able to deal with many of
these cases outside of the courtroom by getting the people -- giving
the people a forum in which to communicate with one another.
There is one aspect of the SAVE program which is unique
only to the SAVE program. There is no other process in the State of
Florida which will allow enforcement of visitation. The visitation
issue as it presently exists today can only be done by private
initiative of the individual. The SAVE program as we have it designed
will, in fact, enforce visitation issues to the same extent that we
will enforce the monetary payment issues of child support and
alimony.
We have encountered in our tenure of trying to deal with
child support that on many occasions the complaint that we hear for
child support not being paid is that, well, the custodial parent will
not give me visitation of the children. Our objective here is to
provide a mechanism to see that that aspect of the order is enforced
as well as the alimony and child support payments and if, in fact,
that is not a true complaint, to take that avenue away so that we
will, in fact, be able to enforce the orders as have been handed down
by the courts.
What I'm asking you here today to do is to fund the start-up
costs. You have received from me, I think, a budget for this
year for the program. The way I have designed the program, it is the
intent of my office that in future years this particular program will
be a user-funded program in its entirety. So this is a onetime cost
that I am asking you to assist me in putting out.
I have worked with the Collier County Bar Association in
formulating the program. I have worked with the judiciary here in
this county in formulating the program. I have worked with Mr. Munz,
who is superintendent of schools here, in formulating the program.
And I think this will be a program that will take Collier County to
another level in child support enforcement and for the care of our
children.
I think all of you who sit up there understand the
impact that broken homes and the inability to provide care for
children has on our system in general, on our society in general.
What we are attempting to do here is to try to improve that process.
The SAVE program, I think, will improve that process tremendously and
give Collier County something that it needs greatly. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two questions. First, Mr. Brock,
I think what you're proposing is a terrific idea, particularly the
fact that it's user-fee funded after the first year. My first
question is in the start-up cost alone, why is it they can't be folded
into the first year of user fees so that they could be -- so you could
basically repay the reserves? Is that a possibility in the first
year?
MR. BROCK: Folded into?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In other words, from -- after the
first year the program will pay for itself according to -- to your
executive summary; is that correct?
MR. BROCK: That is -- that is certainly my intent.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So the start-up cost is
$45,000, I believe.
MR. BROCK: That's correct.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Why is that 45,000 not able to be
repaid through the program also?
MR. BROCK: Well, Commissioner, the clerk of the circuit
court runs on a budget on an annual basis. Any revenue -- any unused
funds that the clerk of the circuit court has on October the 31st by
law has to be rolled back into the general fund of the Board of County
Commissioners. I'm not able to accumulate funds. If I was able to
accumulate funds, you know, I don't think that would be a problem,
especially in light of the fact that for the last two years I've given
the Board of County Commissioners --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Dwight, I understand that.
MR. BROCK: -- over a million dollars.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand that, okay. But
what I am asking, we are talking about -- Commissioner Constantine
raised earlier -- that we are funding a lot of things out of reserves
very early in the fiscal year, and that's a concern for me. So that's
what I'm trying to address is our overall approach on what we're
paying out of reserves, what can be paid back and what can't. If
you're telling me you're going to turn back $45,000 more than you
expected, great, you've answered my question. But I'm just asking why
that initial start-up cost can't be repaid to the reserve also.
MR. BROCK: Based upon the projections in the budget
that we have set out for this year, it is not anticipated that the
program is going to turn back to the Board of County Commissioners
$45,000 this year. And the way that we have set the program up, we
have set it up so that the fees that we charge will be determined by
the costs necessary to run the program in its entirety on a yearly
basis. We have projected the budget for this program for three years
down the road, and the way we have projected the budget for the three
years down the road, we anticipate that we're going to run it break
even. And if it costs us more, we anticipate that it's going to cost
us more at the beginning of the next fiscal year. Obviously we're
going to have to adjust our fee structure to accommodate that. If, in
fact, it is going to cost us less, then we're going to have to adjust
our fee structure to accommodate that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Dorrill, you had
mentioned at the outset today when Commissioner Constantine brought
this overall approach up that there -- you know, are there other
approaches, other funding sources for what Mr. Brock is proposing, or
is reserves really the only appropriate area which the funds can be
acquired?
MR. DORRILL: I think Mr. Brock touched on the first
one, is that he typically will give you back at the end of the year
approximately a million dollars. And anticipating that something near
that is the same for this year, he -- as an alternative he could fund
it out of his existing appropriation. I don't know how he processes
what I would call an internal budget amendment, but he can spend that
money at his discretion. He doesn't have to come back to you for your
approval if he wants to use his internal funds, the excess funds that
he would otherwise turn back. In this case his only other alternative
is to ask you for additional money from the reserves.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- but -- if I may. But if,
in fact, we do what he's asking today and if, in fact, there is
$45,000 left at the end of the year, we're going to get it back. So
we're just making a circle here with this money. We can pretend it's
coming from one place or the other. But the program needs to be
started; there's no question about that. And then if there is money
left in his budget, we will get it back. So this is an endorsement of
the program. And if the -- if the program -- if the program -- if his
office has money left over at the end of the year, we will get it just
like we always do. It seems sort of silly to me for us to do anything
more complicated than what we're being asked to do.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The point I was making is that
Mr. Brock does not anticipate that $45,000 start-up costs being paid
back.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Except for -- no, he does not.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's all I was
establishing.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: We have our own way of
communicating.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do we need a motion to endorse
this project? Is that what we're looking for?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: We need a motion for budget
amendment is what's being requested.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd -- I'd like to make a motion
that we endorse this project by funding it and making the appropriate
budget amendments recognizing that it is a start-up program and that
we're being requested to put $45,000 into an excellent program to get
it started which will self fund itself from that point on.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. Mr.
Dorrill, do we have any public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: You do, and I'm trying to ascertain --
they're both in favor, and I'm trying to ascertain if they still wish
to speak. Miss Van Arsdale is one I know who is in support. Would
you like to waive, or would you like to --
MS. VAN ARSDALE: I'll speak.
MR. DORRILL: She's indicated she will speak. Mr.
Middlebrook was the other one, and he has waived. Ms. Van Arsdale,
you go right ahead.
MS. VAN ARSDALE: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm
Elizabeth Van Arsdale. I'm an attorney with Cummings and Lockwood.
I'm not here representing anybody, but I am here as a spokesperson for
the Women's Political Caucus of Collier County and as a family law
attorney who has been practicing in this town for almost 11 years. I
wanted to make a couple of points which I think Dwight has also made,
which is the importance of his program in terms of it -- this is seed
money that we're asking for, that Dwight's asking for, that is going
to be a self-supporting program ideally. I think if anybody can make
it self-supporting, it's going to be Dwight. I think he's possibly
the most efficient clerk I've ever seen.
This has been a program that's been up and running in
Lee County for many, many years, and it's been very successful in Lee
County. I don't know if you're aware of it, but there's a very
particular connection between child support and visitation. One of
the things that Judge Starnes found up in Lee County was that very
often people weren't paying their child support because they weren't
having contact with their children, and the visitation was not being
enforced. The problem is is that HRS cannot enforce visitation. They
can only enforce child support. So they really can't address part of
the problem of payment of child support, which this program can. And
it's just very important.
And I wanted to tell you a story that Judge Brousseau
has told for many, many years about this connection, which is, he had
a young man that was before him many -- on many, many occasions in
juvenile delinquency court. And he couldn't understand why this kid
was constantly coming in front of him, and eventually he was being
sent away to various correctional facilities. And then one day he had
both parents in front of him on a child support enforcement
proceeding. And it turned out that they had made this deal that dad
wasn't going to see the kid if he didn't have to pay child support.
And Judge Brousseau all of a sudden realized that this was what was
going on with this child. And this is the cost to our community of
not supporting our children financially and of both parents not having
contact with children.
So there are a tremendous amount of direct financial
costs as well as indirect financial costs and indirect intangible
costs to our community of not making sure that -- that our citizenry
pays our child support and takes responsibility for parenting of
children. There's some really obvious costs. When you're not paying
child support, very often the medical insurance lapses and people
can't afford to pay their medical expenses, which we all pick up at
Naples Community Hospital. People can't pay car insurance. You know,
then you have a lot of uninsured motorists driving around. There's a
lot of just direct tangible costs that we can point to.
In addition, for example, we've noticed that sports play
a direct connection in terms of the growth and maturity of our
citizenry. When we don't have child support being paid, kids can't
participate in sports, and they don't grow as leaders, and they don't
grow in success in terms of their work abilities. And those are
direct -- direct correlations that have been studied in the United
States as well as in the State of Florida.
So there's a lot of financial costs to this community
for not enforcing child support. The caucus is obviously in favor of
this, because it supports women and children, and it supports the
family. Again, it supports them financially, and it supports them in
ways that support our community. We need to invest in the human
infrastructure of this community, because this is really -- this is
just like roads and sewer systems, et cetera. We're investing in the
families of our community that really provides the base support for
this community.
Family law attorneys just aren't able to deal with all
of the cases that we see. Fifty percent of the people in the United
States get divorced. Host of those people or a majority of those
people have children. I would say that the divorce rate in this
community is a little bit higher. So everybody in this room very
likely knows somebody that's not receiving child support or is not
receiving their visitation. So this is something that affects
everybody on your block, everybody on my block. And we need to be
able to address it.
The family law attorneys can't address it, because very
often the people don't have enough money to pay us to do it. And we
need to feed our kids, too. All of us do a lot of pro bana work, but
we just cannot meet the need of everybody. We have won many awards in
Collier County for our pro bana service. But, again, there's constant
requests from the pro bana office for more attorneys to service this
need.
So I would definitely encourage you as a matrimonial
attorney and also as a representative of the caucus to fund and
support this program. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: There are no other speakers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Brock, I think we have one more
question.
MR. BROCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Brock, I realize it's all
out of the same taxpayer's pocket, but I'm just curious why you're
coming to general fund reserves as opposed to funding it out of what
will likely be an overage in your fund at the end of the year.
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, Florida law requires me to
appropriate what I anticipate that I'm going to spend, and I'm not
appropriating reserves. I have no reserves in my budget. What I, in
fact, have left over at the end of the year is out of the frugalness
of operation of my office and out of fees that I collect which are
over what are anticipated. I have no reserves in my account -- in my
budget.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: With that we have a motion and a
second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. And opposed?
There being none, that passes unanimously, Mr. Brock.
Thank you very much, a very worthwhile program.
MR. BROCK: Thank you very much, Commissioners.
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 6, 1996, AS ROTARY INTERNATIONAL
GROUP STUDY EXCHANGE DAY - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We will go back now to our
presentation. Our recipients have arrived. Mr. Davis.
MR. DAVIS: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Davis, I have a proclamation --
this is serious now.
MR. DAVIS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. We're not going
to make him come up here and stand around and say -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, we are.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Everyone should see the amount of
lapel pins this man is wearing.
MR. DAVIS: If you could come up with me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A tie but no socks.
MR. DAVIS: They're in the wash.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Good, we're all facing the
camera.
The proclamation reads: Whereas, we welcome the Rotary
Group Study Exchange team from Rotary International District 2120
Italy to Collier County, Florida; and
Whereas, the Rotary Foundation of Rotary International
Group Study Exchange program has sent to us a team of four
professionals who are visiting Collier County to study our
institutions and ways of life; and
Whereas, the team members will also observe the practice
of their own professions and exchange ideas; and
Whereas, the team is able to personally experience
family life-styles as they are hosted by Rotary Clubs of Collier
County and given accommodations in local homes; and
Whereas, the Rotary Foundation is a nonprofit
corporation supported by Rotarians and others worldwide, its objective
is the achievement of world understanding and peace through
international humanitarian and educational programs.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Tuesday, February 6,
1996, be designated as Rotary International Group Study Exchange Team
Day.
Done and ordered this 6th day of February, 1996, by the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida.
And I would like to make a motion that we accept this
proclamation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
And opposed?
The proclamation is accepted.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Davis, did they bring us Ferraris
as gifts?
MR. DAVIS: Next trip, I'm afraid, Commissioner. You
know, the hard time about my socks, I did put a tie on today.
hopefully you'll notice.
On behalf of Rotary International and the Rotary clubs
in District 6960 from Sarasota to Marco Island, I'd like to thank the
Board of County Commissioners for this honor for the program. This is
the fifth year that we've done a proclamation for the various teams
that come through here annually. And it's certainly a high point of
their trip and brings recognition to the program.
We've got a few people here today from county
government. County government has been very supportive of this
program, and I would like to introduce them. Sam Saadeh from the
county manager's office, he was one of our team members to Bombay,
India, two years ago; Stephanie Sanset from our tax collector's
office, who I had the pleasure of accompanying to Bogata, Columbia,
three years ago; and Joe Delate. I don't see Joe. He's probably down
working hard in capital projects, also went to Columbia with us; and
also from our probation department, George Drobinski, who is the team
leader taking our team to Italy in April, quite an honor for George.
And I believe George has a booklet about the program to give to each
of you and also a U.S. Italian flag pin that you can wear today in
recognition of this day.
What I would like to do now is introduce Mr. Emilio
Balta, our rotary friend who is the team leader so that he in turn can
introduce his team to you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. BALTA: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.
I would like to ask quite a lot of questions. Anyway, last night I
was thinking about that, too. Is it possible for me to live in this
country and to apply for authorization; and the second one, I'd like
to adopt somebody. I'd like to adopt the people who is hosting me. I
mean, Mr. Drobinski and his wife, but not as children, as parents. Is
it possible for me? It's really a pleasure.
We said yesterday that we know America through the
movies, but it's necessary firsthand experience to know what America
-- the states really are. So I think at the end of this time it will
be possible for us to explain to our Italian friends what you -- what
is the spirit of this people. Thank you very much for hosting us.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. BALTA: Yes. Now, I'd like to introduce my -- my
friends, the team members. Here, the first one, Carlo Caiati, a
cardiologist from Bari.
(Applause)
MR. BALTA: Guiseppe Augenti, a doctor and a dentist.
(Applause)
MR. BALTA: Gennaro Durante. We had always want in line
and not John Durante, Jimmy Durante. He's a marketing manager,
researcher. And the last, Giancarlo Colelli. He's an expert in
agricultural research.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I notice, Mike, the team has a
tendency to visit during election cycles. I assume they will be
attending some parties this evening?
MR. DAVIS: Yes, they will. George.
MR. DROBINSKI: I just want to say graci per sostenere
questo programma di Rotary.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The tapes are working, George.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Getting ready for your trip,
huh?
MR. DROBINSKI: I don't know what I said, but it sure
sounded pretty.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think I understood the graci
part.
MR. DAVIS: Thank you once again. They're now going to
tour our government complex all day today and see how we do what we
do. It's usually pretty educational for people like George and I,
too. Thank you again.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Davis. We appreciate
you.
Item #7A
DONALD O. HUGHES, PRESIDENT OF CONSUMER CREDIT COUNSELING REGARDING THE
NEW PROCESSING SERVICES, COLLIER COUNTY EXTENSION SERVICE TO THE LOAN
CONSORTIUM OF COLLIER COUNTY - TO BE DISCUSSED FURTHER DURING BUDGET
WORKSHOPS
Okay. We are now down to the public petitions. We have
a couple of public petitions today. First one is Donald 0. Hughes.
Mr. Hughes, while you're coming up, let me explain what the public
petitions are.
We will allow you ten minutes to present your petition.
The board will not take any action on it today. If the board has
consensus that we would like to take action at some point, we will
schedule it at a future meeting. Please proceed.
MR. HUGHES: All right. Chairman Norris, my name is
Donald Hughes. I am the president of Consumer Credit Counseling
Service of Southwest Florida. And basically I'm here today with a lot
of people's regrets that I'm even here talking. But I'm here today to
protest the irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars, taxpayer
facilities, taxpayers' equipment, and taxpayers' manpower for a
service that is already available according to the phone book from 92
different mortgage sources plus CCCS, which is a HUD-approved
counseling agency.
Now, I'm also here today because my concerns and
requests have gone -- have been ignored by the Collier County
management, in my opinion, for the last five months. I'm here today
because I have, in my opinion, been -- and this is very strong
language, but I think I have been lied to. I think I've been lied
about. And I think I've been misled in this particular process of
providing this kind of service to Collier County citizens.
I'm here today because I have been told that I'm not
part of the good old boy network and that you don't have a snowball's
chance in paradise of changing what has been decided. Maybe this
change in the weather might make my snowball not melt quite so
quickly.
What do I really want? Well, I want the facts to be
known and properly evaluated. I want the taxpayers to have faith that
the politicians who represent them will not act irresponsibly no
matter what the political atmosphere happens to be, but they will act
responsibly and in response to taxpayers' concerns.
I also want that never should government management be
able to ignore the legitimate concerns of the responsible taxpayer,
and unfortunately that's why I'm here today. This opportunity is
provided to make sure that does not happen and to make sure that
people who do make decisions are held accountable.
Now, in that regard I was -- in my opinion, last August
I was forced to resign from the productivity committee that represents
and works for this body by law. I felt very sad about that
resignation, but I felt that I had an obligation to the county
management and to this board not to proceed with using my expertise
and my bias towards a particular department, towards a particular
project that was being at that time, I thought, championed by the
agricultural department in their expansion plans. And I thought my
resignation was proper so that I didn't do that. Today I tell you I'm
sorry I resigned. I would like to have been part of the evergoing
process that the productivity committee is pursuing in the areas of
budgeting and human resources because I think, you know, there is a
lot of improvement to be made based on my discoveries through this
process.
A statement that I will read to you says in this regard
-- and we're talking about the proposal of the Collier County
government to perform these services from the Collier County loan
consortium. The proposal suggests allocating a significant portion of
the extension service annual budget to the home buyer's program.
Those are not my words, significant part of the budget. It also goes
on to say -- another issue is will county commissioners support the
allocation of extension service resources in future years as suggested
in the proposal. I -- I just can't believe that you've been committed
or even thought about for not only this year but future years. And
then how can our organization help obtain approval in future years?
So, you know, this body has been -- has been targeted,
and I think it's unfortunate without all the facts being known by you
and by county government. So I ask why does the county -- Collier
County government neglect to adequately respond to my letters of
inquiry regarding their decision to provide services at taxpayer
expense which are available from Consumer Credit Counseling Service,
which is a nonprofit 501C-3 agency, and 65 mortgage companies and 15
other banks which do not belong to the loan consortium.
My comment about this is that the Collier County
taxpayer funded service is, to the best of my knowledge, unprecedented
in the State of Florida. Many other counties have similar programs.
They've provided the service mostly by nonprofit organizations and not
taxpayer dollars. So they have county commissioners, too; and they
have not seen fit to do what this county is going ahead and doing.
I ask how can the Collier County management and
commissioners make such an unprecedented decision about utilization of
taxpayer dollars based upon, in my opinion, a very one-sided staff
director's memorandum to questions I ask that reeks with unrelated
rhetoric, uncomplete information, and misleading statements. I have
provided to you an objective analysis of this report, and to date I
have had no response, and I think I deserve a response.
I further declare that the application processing service as
defined by the loan consortium is not the responsibility of the Collier
County Commissioners or the Collier County government. This is a CRA
responsibility of the banks in Collier County, and I think they're
doing an admirable job of trying to fulfill their responsibilities. I
don't want any misunderstandings in that regard. This service by the
Collier County Extension Service only benefits basically a few -- just
the members of the consortium, and it doesn't have any benefit to the
other 15 banks or the other 65 mortgage companies in this town.
I do not object to the Collier County Extension Service
working in conjunction with CCS to identify Collier County citizens in
need or in want of a home. In fact, my proposal to the consortium
recommended a coalition to develop a permanent home-of-your-own
outreach program. The basic problem is that the Collier County
Extension Service has basically sold a bill of goods to the loan
consortium by promising to do a lot of work for a little bit of
money. The balance of the money is coming from the taxpayers.
I do not blame the loan consortium. Please understand
that for this. If I were they, I would also accept the offer from the
county. However, I do blame the Collier County Extension Service for
making this unprecedented offer, and I blame the Collier County
management for doing it without proper investigation.
So I hereby petition the Collier County Commission to
investigate my allegations that Collier County taxpayer dollars are
foolishly and irresponsibly being expended by the Collier County
Extension Service to do application processing for the loan
consortium.
Now, I have a P. S. that I didn't intend to bring to
this body, but I have to. I have a letter from Mr. Tom Olliff that I
received -- Olliff -- that I received in yesterday's mail. The first
statement that I take opposition to. He says to help these same
persons understand the process necessary for home is a natural
extension of this program, talking about what's been going on before.
This is not a natural extension. It's like saying that going to the
moon is an extension of flying an air balloon. It's just not the same
thing.
Secondly, I think that every financial institution in
this town should be offended by this remark. It says this segment of
the population, referring to low-income people, is not one that is
often courted by most of the standing financial organizations. Folks,
I got to tell you, every financial institution in this town has been
working hard for the past three or four years, including our
organization, to provide first-time home buyer programs. That is an
irresponsible, uneducated remark, which is what I'm trying to get at
in this whole thing.
Then the last thing that -- that I want to point out is
in both cases I have been told; here, basically be a good boy, don't
-- don't provide any waves, and you're going to benefit. You're
going to get customers you didn't have before, and it's going to be at
no cost to you.
Now, those are statements right out of this letter. I'm
sorry to say that I am offended by it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dotrill, I've read Mr.
Olliff's note. But you and I had discussion maybe a couple of months
ago and had raised the concern are we duplicating an effort that's
being done already by public agencies or by private agencies. And at
the time we seemed to be in agreement that perhaps we were. And I
just need a little help either where we've come since then or what's
going on.
MR. DORRILL: I know that in addition to this gentleman
having spoken to me, he's talked to at least two county commissioners
directly that I'm aware of. My immediate observation is that there is
no direct duplication. And I have relied on Mr. Olliff and
representatives of the banking consortium to give that advice to me
because, frankly, I'm not personally aware of a lot of the details of
the nature of service that this gentleman is employed by. So I'm
relying on others to make that recommendation to me. I am told that
Miss Blanton (phonetic) is a charter member and former chairman of the
not-for-profit group that this gentleman is now employed by and that
there may be some difference of opinion with respect to the -- the
application assistance that is afforded to individuals who are seeking
to get financing from a bank. Other than that, I don't have any
pertinent specific knowledge.
I think that we have tried to accommodate this gentleman
through his direct communications with you, with me, with Mr. Olliff,
a letter from Mr. Olliff, opportunities to appear before this board,
the request to ask him in specific terms what his expectations of us
are. Now, he refused to provide that information so that we could
guarantee ourselves that there's no other duplication. I think that
we have certainly been cooperative. If he's offended by our efforts
to establish in writing what the position of Miss Blanton's department
is, I'll apologize for that. There was no personal affront intended.
MR. HUGHES: Mr. Chairman, may I respond?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're not going to get into a debate
here today, Mr. Hughes. Now, remember I told you at first if the
board feels that this issue requires more in depth, we'll put it on a
future meeting, but we're not going to sit here and debate the issue
today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For my vote I'd like to see the
county continue to do what it is that we're doing. I got this from
Mr. Olliff's letter. But we have animal control, and we have the
Humane Society. Public, private work together, not in competition.
This is a good thing that we're both in the same business.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask the board if there's any
desire to have this on a future meeting, or what is the desire of the
board?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: None on mine.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I obviously am concerned anytime
government takes on a role that is provided in the private sector, and
I'm concerned about the competitiveness and the cost effectiveness of
doing that. But the time at which to address that is the annual
budget cycle. I think what Mr. Hughes has brought forward is that
when it comes time to look at this matter through a budget cycle,
which is beginning in the next 60 days actually, there are going to be
a lot of questions about this facet of what is provided through the
extension office and how it can be provided, whether government is
best suited to provide it or private sector is best suited to provide
it or a not-for-profit such as Consumer Credit Counseling. So I think
having discussions right now would be premature. I think they should
be part of the budget process as we look at what functions are
performed and how they're funded.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just playing right off that,
Miss Blanton, as we get into the priority -- the meetings on a
priority-based budget, perhaps you can break this down in a little
more detail for us and what expenditures specifically go toward this
and how this does or doesn't differ from what's being offered in the
private sector, because I think you're right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we can pull private sector in
at a lower dollar, we have a responsibility to do that. And I think
this is one area we'll be looking at in the budget process to see if
that can be done.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've been a little bit quiet in
the process of this. I've been aware of the discussions on this
probably since August, July. I've got a little bit of a difficulty
here since my accounting firm represents CCCH. And while I don't want
to interfere with what's going on here at all, whatever the board
wishes to determine, however, in the course of the six months
intervening, I've tried very much to direct Mr. Hughes towards staff
to -- to resolve whatever differences there are and to not personally
get involved in it. So I will defer to whatever the remaining members
of the board would like to do.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's been a suggestion then that we
-- we take this issue up at the budget hearings that we will be
starting here shortly. Mr. Hughes, I would -- I would encourage you
to attend the budget hearings, and you could help us maybe understand
your concerns a little better at that point.
MR. HUGHES: I would be very happy to, Chairman Norris,
but I would just like to make one statement, that Mr. Dotrill said I
refused to attend board meetings. I'm sorry. I've never been offered
that, and I never refused.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He said you refused to provide
written information.
MR. HUGHES: I've never received anything except a phone
call from him. That's all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Hughes, and we'll see
you at budget cycle.
Item #7B
DAVID MCELRATH OF TREADWELL, STETLER, ERICKSON, CIMINO & MCELRATH
REGARDING THE VETERANS' MEMORIAL AT VETERANS' PARK - STAFF TO PREPARE
AGENDA ITEM FOR FEBRUARY 20, 1996 MEETING
Next public petition is David McElrath of Treadwell,
Stetler, Erickson, Cimino, and McElrath.
MR. McELRATH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm David
HcElrath.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sold.
MR. HcELRATH: And prior to me making any statements,
I'd like to introduce Mr. Stan Saran of Saran Design Group on Marco
Island.
MR. SARAN: Good morning, Chairman Norris. My name is
Stan Saran; that's S-a-r-a-n. I am the owner of Saran Design Group
and the designer of this memorial. I'm very happy to be able to make
this presentation to the board. I would like to hand each of you a
brochure --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Saran, before you -- before you
continue, did you hear our rules for public petitions before when I
announced them?
MR. SARAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ten minutes?
MR. SARAN: Yes. I will be available to explain the
memorial if -- if you're interested in the details. First, I'd like
to introduce a few members of the design group; William Hunter Lewis,
who is our architect and site planner; Suzanne MacDonald, who is our
fund raiser; Ray Truelove, our military memorial advisor; and, of
course, David HcElrath, our legal advisor. And I'll turn it over to
David. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. HcELRATH: Good morning. As Mr. Kobza came before
you earlier, this is an opportunity for us to give something to the
board and not ask anything, specifically not ask any funds from the
board.
Some years ago in North Naples the North Naples Community Park
became Veteran's Park. At that time it, to the best of my
understanding, there was meant to be a memorial to the veterans in
that facility. That, due to budget constraints and private fund
raising, has never come to pass. We are here today to pick up the
ball and ask the commission that if we are able to raise the funds,
that this project be allowed, this donation of the citizens to the
county be allowed, and that this memorial to veterans in the county
park on Immokalee Road be accepted by the county commission.
We've had meetings with the parks and recreations department, Mr.
Olliff, the public services, and we are here today to present our
concept to the commission. This is a good example of something Miss
Hac'Kie just mentioned, the public and private sector working together.
We are not asking the county to endorse it, to solicit funds, to commit
funds, to do anything except accept the gift of the citizens and let us
place it on a site in the county park.
This memorial that Mr. Saran will describe to you will
be funded entirely and solely by privately-raised funds. We are not
asking the county to expend any funds whatsoever. The parks and
recreation department and the staff has had input on this. They are
familiar with the project. We have discussed it at length with them,
been in several meetings, and we are not asking the county to do
anything that was obviously not contemplated.
In this age of the growth and in regionalization, this
creates an opportunity for the county to accept at no charge a
significant and substantial memorial in Veteran's Park. This is not
just for the City of Naples or merely Collier County but, indeed, for
all of southwest Florida. And we envision it as a springboard to
continuing education, something our young people can become familiar
with, can learn about. We anticipate discussing it in the public
schools, discussing it with civic groups, and letting our citizenry
know of the appreciation for veterans in our community. We do not
mean to snub any group. We are not trying to take away anything from
any group.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That -- can I just interrupt you
and ask -- the most confusing thing to me is that I -- I've been
approached by veterans and veterans' groups to ask me to vote against
this and that -- do you have any idea why that is?
MR. HcELRATH: I don't know. I have -- I was not privy
to their discussions. They have not produced any minutes of any
meetings that would -- would raise anything. I saw a letter, I
believe, was sent to Commissioner Norris that concerned funding, and
that -- we are not asking this group to commit citizen tax dollars to
any project.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The people who spoke to me were
not concerned about public funds. They said this is not a good
project. Don't support this. This is not something that you want in
a county park. This is something that the Collier County veterans
oppose.
MR. HcELRATH: If they -- they are certainly free to
voice their opinion. We have a Veterans Park in the county with
absolutely no memorial to the veterans except on the sign to the
park.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's very confusing.
MR. HcELRATH: There is ample space out there. There is
no cost, no obligation. If the funds are not raised, the project does
not continue. Not one shovel of dirt will be turned until the funds
are collected to complete the project.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I do have one question, and I've
received the same letter. But a question that came to my mind is we
already have a veteran's memorial at Cambier Park, but albeit in the
city. It's a veterans memorial on behalf of the veterans in the area,
and I presume that area is Collier County. What do we do if there's a
second memorial on Veterans Day or Memorial Day or what have you?
Which one do we have services at? Do we have them at both? Do we --
MR. McELRATH: Well, that -- to be honest with you, that
is a decision that could be made by the various veterans groups within
the county. That's -- and not only the City of Naples, the county,
southwest Florida.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As far as I'm concerned, put one
on the corner everywhere in the county. I don't care. I mean, you
know, whether we have 20 memorials to veterans or whether we have one,
the purpose is to celebrate the -- the role that the veterans have
played in the formation and the development of this country. So
although there may be some inner conflicts between groups, I don't
pretend to understand why.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if there is a conflict
between whether or not a service is held here or there, the groups
that want it here will do it here, and the groups that want it there,
will do it there. My questions are simply -- as far as I'm concerned,
you want to raise money and build a veterans' memorial. I want to
help you find a place to put it, whether it's you or another group,
and I think we have an opportunity to do that.
My questions are -- are physical in nature. One is, Mr.
Olliff, we need to look at our ability to maintain the landscaping
that is a part of this memorial and what associated costs there is
with that. That's question one. Question two is I notice that we'd
have to move -- move the sand volleyball courts. There's a cost
associated with that. And the third is how does this fit into the
long-range plan for Veteran's Park. Is this taking the place of
something that was planned to go elsewhere? My questions are purely
physical. If we can get those answered, I'm a fairly happy person.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me make this -- before you answer,
Mr. Olliff, let me make this suggestion. This is a public petition,
and we're not, once again, here to debate the issue but just merely to
respond to the request. Personally I -- I have had a couple of
letters and calls in opposition to this veterans' memorial, and it's
really difficult for me to understand why anybody would oppose a
veterans' memorial. I just don't understand that. So what I would
like to do is to go ahead and ask the board if we could put this on a
future agenda, discuss it in detail, answer the questions that have
been raised, and give the -- the opponents to this the opportunity to
come up and voice their opinions of why anyone would oppose a
veterans' memorial. It just doesn't seem right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I'll make a motion we
go ahead and put it on a future agenda. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Any attention, any positive
attention we can bring to veterans and the efforts they've put forth
for us is good, as far as I'm concerned. So I'll go ahead and make a
motion we put that on an agenda. Time frame? Two weeks? Three
weeks?
MR. DORRILL: And your two specific questions of staff
is to determine site planning issues, access, and whatever perpetual
maintenance costs that we might have.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Should this go through the parks
and rec advisory board before it comes to us?
MR. DORRILL: It already has.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. McELRATH: Mr. Commissioner, would you like to have
Mr. Saran at all address the size, the concept, what the -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think what's going to happen is
we're going to vote right now to put this on a future agenda. And we
would appreciate an in-depth presentation at that time. Would that be
acceptable?
MR. McELRATH: Yes, the sooner the better.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does that adequately address your
petition here today then?
MR. McELRATH: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My motion will be for two
weeks. I didn't really clarify that.
MR. DORRILL: Two weeks is fine.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is it possible during the course
of that two weeks that if we have some -- I don't want to say -- I'm
going to say it -- we have some opposition to a veterans' memorial,
but that -- in the course of that two-week period of time we try to
bring whatever opposition is there on board and find out what the
problems are.
MR. OLLIFF: I will. I think we'll take from your
direction that we're supposed to contact the veterans' council here in
Collier County, who I think authored the letter to the chairman, and
-- and invite them at least to come and indicate to you what their
position is on the memorial.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is a U.S. veterans' memorial, isn't
it?
MR. McELRATH: That is correct. That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I didn't want something being
built with the words of Marx spread all over it.
MR. McELRATH: No. It's for U.S. veterans, veterans of
all branches of the service, for all wars and conflicts as well as
service to the country.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So it's -- it's a generic
memorial.
MR. McELRATH: Generic. And it's a public-private, no
charge to the taxpayers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you very much. We have a motion
and a second to bring this back in two weeks.
MR. McELRATH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
And opposed?
We'll see that in two weeks.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, there was a
representative -- we've got as many people registered today on as many
items that I've seen in a long time. I had misplaced a request by Mr.
Tom Falciglia, who is the chairman of the Collier County Banking
Partnership, who had asked just to offer a brief on the item that you
heard just prior to this one. I told him I would hold it and at least
bring that to your attention. This involves the housing loan
application process.
MS. MAC'KIE: Can we just encourage him to come back at
the budget process like we had?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Once again, that was a public petition, and we
don't normally take comment on them.
MR. DORRILL: I understand that. But I did tell him that I would
at least bring that to your attention to see what your discretion was.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We would encourage him as well to participate in
the budget hearings when we discuss this issue in more detail.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Doesn't he represent the banking
consortium?
MR. DORRILL: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So I would think that he would
-- we would welcome the opportunity to speak during the budget
hearings.
MR. DORRILL: Very well.
Item #SA1
RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT FEES WAIVED FOR THE FEBRUARY 10, 1996,
HOVE-ALONG-A-THON TO BE CONDUCTED IN THE VINEYARDS PUD BY THE AMERICAN
CANCER SOCIETY
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you very much. We'll
move along to 8(A)(1).
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Great presentation there, Mr. Arnold.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
approve. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed?
We have none.
That's a right-of-way permit fee waiver.
Item #8A2
SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR KOUNTREE KAMPINN - APPROVED
The next is 8(A)(2), sewer acceptance for Nountree
Kampinn.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
There are none.
Item #8B1
RESOLUTION 96-39/CWS-96-2 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY GIFT, PURCHASE
OR CONDEMNATION CERTAIN NON-EXCLUSIVE PERPETUAL UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR
THE PURPOSE OF RESTORING AND REPLACING WATER WELLS AND RELATED
FACILITIES IN THE GOLDEN GATE WELLFIED - ADOPTED
And 8(B)(1), Hr. Gonzalez, you're going to present that
for us?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, good morning, Commissioners, Adolfo
Gonzalez from your capital projects management department. Staff has
asked me to acquisition by gift, purchase, or condemnation, certain
nonexclusive perpetual utility easements for the Golden Gate well
field project. We currently have 27 well fields. Two of them are
inoperable. We'd like to have all of them operating at any given time
to increase consistency in providing the water source for potable
water for the county.
The two well fields -- one of them the casing is
currently plugged. We cannot -- every attempt we've made so far to
unplug, the jam indication has not worked, so we want to tie back into
the existing pump that's there. And the second location, the casing
failed about two to three years ago, so we plugged it and abandoned
it. We're trying to relocate the new well at the site of the old well
to take advantage of the operating permit we have for that site. And
your staff has looked at the environmental considerations, the cost
variables, the alterative considerations and recommends that you find
the easements described in the resolution are the ones that we should
acquire.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And we're -- that's what we're
being asked here today is to authorize acquiring the easements? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, do we have speakers on
this item?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir. We do on the next one.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
approval. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #882
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENDMENT WITH HUHISTON & MOORE FOR
WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE BIG MARCO AND CAPRI PASS INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN
- APPROVED
There being none, we'll move to 8(B)(2), professional
services agreement.
MR. GONZALEZ: Again, Adolfo Gonzalez with capital
projects department. This staff is -- we're asking you to approve a
contract agreement with Humiston and Moore Engineers related to the
Big Marco Pass and Capri Pass inlet management plan. Humiston and
Moore is finalizing the recommendations for the inlet management plan.
We should finalize that sometime later this year. And as a part of
that study they will be bringing forth to you recommendations for
long-term management and protection of the shoreline.
This particular shoreline that we're dealing with is the
Hideaway Beach section of Marco Island. In the last few years we have
seen erosion at a couple of the points along Hideaway Beach that have
accelerated faster than we anticipated or are trying to address right
now. The item is to build T-groins essentially at the south and north
ends of Hideaway Beach to stop the rate of erosion that's occurring at
that location right now. Mr. Ken Humiston is here today. I'd like
him to give you some background as to the benefits of putting the
T-groins in that location and how they benefit the rest of the beach
and Marco Island.
In addition to that, since we're trying to take
advantage of the next environmental window, which is November 1 to
April 30 of next year, we're asking you to waive some of the
purchasing policies and declare an emergency so that we can issue
Humiston and Moore an amendment to do the permitting that's necessary
and the final design on the T-groins this summer to have it ready in
place by next November. If we were to go through the standard
advertising phase, we may miss that window. The next available window
we're talking about a year and a half away, so we're trying to take
advantage of the time we have on our side right now.
We have taken some interim measures. We're trying to
put some riprap on some of the locations. We're trying to get some
permits from the state to do that work. We placed sand last year at
those locations, and most of that has already eroded away.
Would you like to hear some of the public comment first
before bringing Mr. Humiston to give you an update on -- on the need
for the project, or we're available to answer any questions you may
have.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah, let's -- Mr. Dorrill, do we have
speakers on this item?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, you've got two. Mr. Blanchard.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's hear those speakers before we go
on.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Blanchard. Mr. Somers, you'll follow
Mr. Blanchard.
MR. BLANCHARD: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Frank Blanchard. I'm the chairman of the Marco Island Beach
Renourishment Committee. As Mr. Gonzalez told you, the Hideaway Beach
section of the public beach has eroded at a rather rapid rate. We put
sand temporarily on it last year. It disappeared. We're trying to
find a way of maintaining that beach. And our consultant, Humiston
and Moore, has recommended T-groins. We think that it's prudent of us
to try to step up and get this process moving. We do not know what
specific things the regulatory agencies are going to allow us, but we
need to proceed in the direction which our consultant has recommended
so that we'd like to move.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Blanchard, the beach
renourishment, the Marco Beach Renourishment Committee --
MR. BLANCHARD: Voted on this.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- voted on this?
MR. BLANCHARD: Yes, sir, and the county beach
renourishment committee, also.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So it's been approved by the
two citizens' committees.
MR. BLANCHARD: We've gone through that, yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you very much.
MR. BLANCHARD: This is a step -- a necessary step in
the process. We'd like to move along properly.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Somers.
MR. SOMERS: Just a couple of photos to put up for you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Tricky photos I can see.
MR. SOMERS: My name is David Somers, and I am the
general manager at the Hideaway Beach Club. And I'm here to ask the
commission's approval of this particular request. As you can see from
these two photos, which shows the two areas in question, that they're
going to be hopefully proposing some groins for the erosion to the
public beach that's in that area has occurred over the last few
years. There is a report that's out from Humiston and Moore which is
an interim report to the inlet management study that shows that -- or
that states that in positions M-3 and M-4, which are down at one end
of our beach, that that section has been -- considerable erosion has
already been in there, and it is in need of renourishment at this
point. It also goes into a statement that over the last few years
since the original renourishment in October of 1990, that the erosion
rate in this particular area is between 6 and 7 feet a year, which
would require some type of renourishment sometime in the next five to
seven years from the original renourishment. And we're in that window
right now.
Hideaway Beach has been a participant in the taxing
district that was set up for the original beach renourishment, and
certainly some of this benefit hopefully that we're going to gain from
that is in an area that wasn't originally touched by the original
renourishment. So hopefully you'll consider this. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Somer.
MR. DORRILL: That concludes your registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Questions, Mr. Gonzalez?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment. Obviously
with all the effort to renourish the beach down there, the last thing
we want to do is let it drift away again quickly. And if we have an
ability to correct the erosion on that, then we ought to take
advantage of that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. I'd be happy to make a
motion to approve the agenda for professional services, declare a
valid public emergency, and authorize the chairman to execute the
amendment.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Did you second that?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Question, the funding mechanism
on this, is it tourist -- development tax money?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
approve and declare an emergency. All those in favor, signify by
saying aye.
And opposed?
There being none, we'll move on.
Item #8B4
EFFLUENT AGREEMENT WITH WCI COMHUNITIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR PELICAN
MARSH - APPROVED
We're going to move to 8(B)(4). It should be a quick
item.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
approve 8(B)(4). All those in favor, signify by saying aye. And opposed?
We will take a short break, recess for -- for five
minutes or so, and then we'll come back and have the Naples Park
issue.
(A short break was held.)
Item #883
REVIEW OF CONSULTANTS' REPORT ON NAPLES PARK DRAINAGE PROJECT - STAFF
TO OBTAIN BIDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RECOHMENDATION "E"
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll reconvene
the meeting. We're ready for item 8(B)(3), the Naples Park drainage
issue.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Boldt and Mr. Brundage have a
brief presentation answering some of the questions that we more or
less sent them back with 90 days ago. So hopefully they're going to
hit on the elements that we asked them to look at. At that point I
think we just go right into public comment and move ahead, because I
know we have a lot of public speakers today. So I'll let Mr. Boldt
take that, and I guess we'll ask questions as we go along. Save them
till the end if you can.
MR. BOLDT: Good morning. For the record, John Boldt,
stormwater management director. I'm just going to very briefly
introduce the subject and turn it over to Dan Brundage, who is our
consultant on this. And also Art Ziev, our financial consultant,
sends his regards this morning. He got food poisoning over the
weekend and was not able to make it. He was going to try as late as
last night, but he called this morning and said he couldn't do it.
And I'd like to kind of briefly outline his recommendations also, and
then after Mr. Brundage is through, I'd like to review our
recommendations.
But back last October we had a public hearing on the
tentative assessment roll for this project. And you asked us to go
back and reevaluate the project as far as its design storm, the use of
alternative materials, and the cost allocation methodology could be
adjusted to lower the costs, and also to have a peer review done by
another engineering consultant. That has been done, has been
published in a rather detailed report that was provided to you in a
separate cover.
But that report also included an executive summary which
Mr. Brundage will now cover the main points very briefly as you asked
him to do. So at this point I would like to introduce to you
Dan Brundage with Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage.
MR. BRUNDAGE: Thank you, John. As John mentioned, my
name is Dan Brundage. I'm president of Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage.
I also have with me today Laurie Swanson who's an associate with our
firm. She's a project manager for this project. She'll be assisting
me in trying to answer any questions that you may have.
I'll just briefly try to highlight some of the items
that we looked at in an effort to take a look at possible means of
reducing the cost of the Naples Park drainage project. And I think
this review will be good for members of the audience who have not had
an opportunity to see the report. The first thing we took a look at
was considering using a five-year storm basis as opposed to a ten-year
storm basis for our analysis. So what we did is we took the routings
that we had run before and inputted a five-year -- I'd like to point
out to you basically the only difference between a five- and ten-year
storm is about a half inch per hour rainfall intensity, so there's not
a big variation between the two. And the bottom line is that after
reducing as many pipe sizes as we could, it only resulted in $173,000
savings to the overall project design as opposed to 3.9 million total
project cost. And in order to -- to achieve that level of reduced
pipes also, we had to increase what we would call the hydraulic drain
line or the anticipated water level throughout the design. So we've
even shaved some of the factor of safety in the design in trying to
achieve that savings. So as a result it is our recommendation that --
that we still go with the ten-year design storm and not consider the
five-year design as a means for reducing the costs, because we just
don't believe it's an efficient use of the money that will be required
to build the project.
The next thing we looked at was investigating
alternative materials for the pipe, and basically we looked at two
different things. One was looking at a box culvert as opposed to a
round concrete pipe to see if there would be any cost savings there,
and there were not any resulting cost savings looking at the box
section because, typically speaking, the box is a much heavier type of
a facility and would require larger equipment and more intense labor
to install. So -- and we also verified that with some area
contractors. We had them independently give us some costs of what it
would take to build a box versus a pipe section. And they all came
back with a higher cost for the box.
The next item we looked at was substituting plastic pipe
material in lieu of either aluminum or concrete. And whereas plastic
is much lighter and a cheaper material, the problem with it is as of
today it's only manufactured in pipe with a 48-inch diameter or
smaller. And quite a bit of the pipe size that we require for this
project is larger than 48 inches in diameter. But nonetheless, even
for pipes that have the equivalent diameter, substituting say a
48-inch plastic pipe for a concrete or aluminum pipe, we've been told
by contractors, again, that there would be no savings evident in that,
because the plastic pipe is much less strong structurally speaking
than concrete or aluminum.
And the way you get the strength in the material is to
bed it in a much more careful manner. This would consist of the type
of bedding you use for the foundation of the pipe and the way you
compact around it. And we are being told by the contractors that in
order to achieve the proper strength, there's just a lot amount of
high sophisticated labor involved in installing that pipe. A much
higher degree of quality control is required and, again, that runs the
cost up to a cost that would exceed that for aluminum or -- or
concrete. So, again, we're recommending that we stay with the two
materials that we originally recommended, which is aluminum or the
concrete pipe.
The next item we took a look at was the county
assessment portion. I think, as you'll recall from our original
report, a recommendation there was made for the county participating
at a rate of 10.8 percent, and that was based sort of loosely on some
action the county had taken in the past for other drainage projects.
So we took a little closer look to see if something else made sense as
far as the assessment there goes. And one of the things we centered
on was the fact that with the amount of flooding that's taking place
currently within Naples Park, you can expect a higher maintenance cost
for the roadways because foundation is going to be inundated with
higher levels of groundwater throughout any given year, and this is
going to result in increased maintenance burden on the entire county,
because whether you live in Naples Park or not, you know, the entire
county, I believe, helps participate in the overall maintenance level
of roads.
So we felt like what we should do is take a look at the
amount of roads that are directly affected or will be improved by this
first phase of construction, and that resulted in approximately 8
miles of roadway. Incidentally, lllth Avenue, when it's four-laned,
will achieve its outfall from this project and will benefit directly
from this project being in place. So we took a look at the 8 miles
and assumed a 60-foot width right-of-way on the average for those
roadways and a runoff intensity factor of .7, and that resulted in a
possible recommended increase for the county participation to 16.5
percent of the overall cost versus a 10.8 percent. As we'll see later
on in the tables, I think that was approximately $759,000. So it was
the number that that came out to be.
The next item we were asked to look at was whether or
not it made any sense to look at assessing the project broken down on
the three various drainage basins. I don't have a map with me this
morning that shows it, but as you recall, the design is broken down
into the north Eighth Street basin, the south Eighth Street basin, and
the Vanderbilt Lagoon basin. With the Vanderbilt basin really having
a much lighter or lower level of construction required, basically it's
just going to be pipes and inlet structures and head walls necessary
to improve the flow across Vanderbilt Beach Drive and then into the
finger canals.
Taking a look at the assessments based upon just what
the construction costs for the individual basins -- and just that cost
being assessed to those people or those properties within that basin,
we would anticipate that the south Eighth Street basin with a typical
50-foot lot would result in a $1,432 assessment. The north Eighth
Street basin would result in a $1,483 assessment. Virtually those are
almost identical in size. But then the Vanderbilt Lagoon basin lots
would result in a typical charge of $194. So you can see there's a
fairly big range between the Vanderbilt Lagoon lots and then the lots
that are contained within the other properties.
At this point, though, we would still recommend against
breaking the basins up in assessment on that basis primarily because
some of the first discussions we had with some of the residents in the
area indicated that they didn't want it to be assessed that way. They
felt like breaking it down in that manner would lead to disunity
within their community, and that wouldn't be healthy for the overall
community atmosphere.
But also you need to consider the fact that all
properties within Naples Park will equally benefit from improved
drainage of the area. All of the roads in the area will be -- remain
passable, will remain in service like they should. So the entire
community will benefit from the fact that the roads will be properly
drained.
Also during periods of large flood events, the sewage
collection system out there gets overwhelmed, because a lot of the
manholes and pump stations actually become submerged. So instead of
just, you know, having domestic sewage running through the lines,
we're seeing a lot of stormwater infiltration, and that results in
higher flows, which sometimes it can bubble up into the street causing
a health, safety, and welfare concern. And it also causes quite a bit
of an impact to the pumping system and then the treatment system, too,
when it finally hits the treatment plant.
We also believe that the community at large will benefit
from improved aesthetics since the whole area will be benefitted. And
this will result also in the property values for the entire area being
increased. So -- so based upon those observations, we would recommend
going with an overall project assessment and not breaking it down into
the individual basins.
The next thing we looked at quite heavily was the
Pavilion drainage basin and whether or not there should be some
reassessments analyzed with that regard. And I've got two items of
main importance there to discuss. The first is that we took a look at
the Naples Park -- or excuse me, the -- what we call the Pavilion
drainage basin, and that consists of this pink area here, which is the
Pavilion Club Condominium, and then the blue and the green areas are
the commercial tracts. This would be the Pavilion Shopping Center,
and this is the Pavilion Terraces office center.
And what we were looking at was trying to compare the
amount of impervious surface that is contained within these
sub-basins, if you will, within that particular drainage area. And
our observation tells us that the Pavilion Club Condominium has a much
lower intensity of impervious service, as you would expect, as opposed
to the shopping center and the commercial area. So we took a look at
dividing the assessment for this bulk area here (indicated) into a
sub-basin basis based on impervious surface. And that resulted in the
lowering of the assessment for the condominium project but raising it
slightly for the commercial area.
Now, looking at it just on that basis alone really does
not have an effect on the rest of the project, because this is a -- a
unit drainage basin. They have a consistent water management system.
And it's really the system that is being assessed. It's how we're
dividing up that assessment within the little sub-basins in there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Brundage, could you -- when you
get to a good point, could you turn that around and let the audience
see that as well?
MR. BRUNDAGE: Okay. The areas we're talking about is
the pink area, which is the Pavilion Club Condominiums. Then the dark
blue area would be the Pavilion Shopping Center, and the green area
here is the Pavilion Terraces commercial center, for your
information.
The second thing of interest with regards to the
Pavilion drainage basin was that we did an as-built survey on the weir
structure, and there's some question now about the -- the weir
structure that exists in the field versus what's permitted. The
permit documents that we have show that it was intended that that weir
structure be reduced in size from that which was originally
constructed, I believe, about 1983. As best we -- well, according to
an as-built survey, that modification did not take place. It is the
full-size weir structure that was proposed in the 1983 documents.
Concurrent -- you know, associated with that would be that the area,
the Pavilion Shopping Center and the associated Pavilion condo and
Pavilion Terraces, is discharging a higher rate of flow than what we
had anticipated in our original assessment. If we were to base that
basin on the -- on their actual flow that's occurring through that
structure, it's going to more than double. It's going to be about two
and a half times the assessment that they currently have at this
point. However, you know, that way -- and for the Pavilion Shopping
Center, for instance, that might result in a cost, I believe, of
around $353,000 of assessment as opposed to what they currently which
I believe have with the reassessment is around 139,000, if my memory
serves me correctly. So there's a big difference in numbers there.
They could go in and modify that structure and make it
consistent with what the permit documents show, and we're assuming
that's going to happen. If it doesn't, though, then there's a
mechanism there for increasing the assessment for that particular
drainage basin.
Finally -- or not finally, but next we took a look at
the resultant assessments on that basis, and we generated three tables
in the report. They're titled table five, table six, and table
seven. Table 5 shows the resultant typical 50-foot lot assessment if
the county's share were to be increased to 16.5 percent. And that
results in an assessment of $998 for those lots.
Table 6 -- and John will talk about this a little
further in detail -- it says that the county's share will be increased
to 16.5 percent, but also that the county would back the bond reserve
fund that's required, you know, in order to secure the bonds for this
project. And that would result in a typical lot assessment of $898.
In table 7 -- table 7 shows -- it's really table 5 but
with a new -- or the resultant Pavilion drainage basin assessment if
they elect not to change their weir structure. And that would be
approximately $933 for a typical lot. However, if the county were to
go ahead and do as we did in table 6 and back the bond fund, I think
you'd see probably about another hundred dollar reduction in that
amount, so we would be probably in the neighborhood of $833 or so for
a typical lot there.
Next, we took a look at the wetlands located east of
U.S. Highway 41, and basically we confirmed that as of today, yes,
those wetlands are connected, which was assumed in the original
report. However, we did have communication with the project designer
working for the DOT, and they stated that their design states or
dictates that that wetland will be cut off and that the connection
that currently exists will be removed when the six-laning of U.S. 41
takes place.
We've also had communications with the drainage district
engineer for the Pelican Marsh improvement district, and they indicate
that their system has been designed to -- to handle the flow that
would be generated from that wetland. So according upon, you know,
that correspondence, we would still recommend that the assessments for
the Naples Park area exclude that wetland located to the east of U.S.
Highway 41.
Finally, we gave some consideration to looking at an
ad valorem basis as opposed to a runoff method for generating the
assessments, but that was fairly quickly discarded as ad valorem
really has no basis as far as how much stormwater runoff you generate
from your site. And we don't think that that would hold up under a
contest of any sort. So the ad valorem method is not recommended.
Finally, we -- we did have a peer review conducted by
Johnson Engineering Inc. of Fort Myers, Florida. They took basically
a look at the design, at the construction plans, at the design
methodology, the hydrology that was used to generate the pipe sizes
for the construction plans. And we also asked them to briefly look at
the assessment methodology to see if in their experience they had seen
anything else that would lend itself to this program or whether or not
they would concur with the method that was presented in the report.
And I'll just briefly read the conclusions of the peer
review. The first one is that the design approach and plans provide a
reasonable approach to the project. Number two, the above conclusion
is based upon the assumption that excessive energy losses at junction
boxes, changes in connection structures and major bends are alleviated
by special treatment, especially in main outfalls.
Just briefly there Johnson had a little bit of concern
about what we call minor losses in these inlet structures as the water
flows through it due to the high velocities that we're achieving in
the system. And what the design that will alleviate that is we use
concrete -- just pour some concrete into the structure and channelize
it, form a channel, if you will, within the structure, and that will
take care of that concern.
Number three, the watershed areas and drainage patterns
appear correct.
The fourth observation is the parameters used and design
approach listed below are reasonable; A, ten-year storm event for
design criteria, B, protection at peak storm events such that pool
levels do not rise above the edge of the pavement; and, C, outfall
levels of 2 at Vanderbilt Lagoon and 6 in the north outfall channel.
Five, the assessment approach appears equitable.
Six, the design should not be downgraded, i.e., from a
ten-year to a five-year storm event, because to do so would provide
very little cost savings and result in a significant degradation to
system performance.
And then finally item number 7 is continuing to delay
the project will exacerbate the problems and increase the cost.
Basically that's the -- the findings that we have come
about during the last 90 days of study, and I'd be glad to entertain
any questions that you might have this morning.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got questions, not too --
too many questions, just on these tables 5, 6, and 7. You're using a
finance charge of 15.6 percent. Is that cumulative over the life of
the loan, or is that an annual rate?
MR. BRUNDAGE: Perhaps John can answer that. But
briefly and short, that contains a lot of soft costs, too. I mean,
it's not just --
MR. BOLDT: That includes some finance costs, some
insurance costs. The bond reserve fund is included in that. And it
was our attempt to try to show that as an item related to the total
cost of the project, because some of them are a percentage of. The
bond reserve fund is, for instance, 10 percent of the cost of the
project.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Bond -- bond reserve
fund, can you explain that for edification --
MR. BOLDT: That's where I hoped to have Art Ziev, our
financial consultant, here. But in order to guarantee the payment,
the annual payments to the bondholders, when we sell bonds on a
project of this nature, it's a requirement you post a reserve fund up
front that would have monies available throughout the life of the
assessments to pay the bondholders should there be any delinquency in
the payment by the property owners themselves. Typically speaking, if
you were to go through the whole life of the project -- say you got a
15-year life and everybody paid their assessments for 14 years; the
bond reserve fund would still be available to pay you for the 15th
year. So it would only be a 14-year spread out of 15 year. We've
checked into the payment history of the Naples Park, and it has a very
good history. There's good reason to believe there wouldn't be any
major delinquencies and that the bonds reserve fund would not have to
be used, in which case we're recommending that the county assume at
little or no risk backing up those bonds and which means we don't have
to raise that 10 percent up front, which lowers the total cost of the
project, because you don't have to finance it over the whole period.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. BOLDT: In that case it would go the 15 years
instead of 14, but it would reduce the cost by about a hundred dollars
a year.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean by a hundred dollars
overall?
MR. BOLDT: Excuse me, a hundred dollars overall. It
would lower it to, say, from a thousand seventy-one down to nine
hundred and sixty-four dollars, about a hundred dollars total.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So if the county were to
assume the guarantee for those bonds instead of the bond insurance
fund, we could reduce the average payment for the average lot by a
hundred dollars?
MR. BOLDT: By a hundred dollars for that typical
50-foot lot; that's correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Now, the short-term
financing is 3.4 percent, and that's what we are going to borrow the
money for? That's actual borrowed money costs?
MR. BOLDT: Yes. We're looking to start this work in
the dry season about this time of year next year if all goes well, and
the assessments wouldn't start until the fall of '97. So we'd have to
have a short-term construction loan to pay the contractor up front,
and that's what that cost would be.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. That's all I have. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Anybody else? Why don't we move to
the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just ask one quick
question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You have one more?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick question to clarify
here. I know there's various options here. The options are, in
essence, $900 and up for a residential lot?
MR. BRUNDAGE: Basically.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Based on a construction cost of
3.9 million, 898 is the lowest number in our executive summary, if I'm
not mistaken.
MR. BRUNDAGE: Yeah. If you backed the bond fund, as
John just talked about, it would be $898. And if you don't, but the
county does elect to increase their share to 16.5 percent, that would
be $989. We're recommending table 6, which is the 16.5 percent, and
also the county backing of the bond reserve fund.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess -- and I won't go
into a long explanation and repeat what I said a couple months ago.
My concern is still we're talking about a 4 million dollar plan. And
I had said at the time I don't know if we need the Cadillac. I
realize you're trying to achieve specific goals. But it just seems to
me if we did a basic cleaning and clearing of the ditch system there,
we could run through a whole lot less money and still drain off an
awful lot of water that may not be drained properly right now.
MR. BRUNDAGE: Well, you'll still have basically what
you've got now. In order to improve upon anything -- you know, what
you've got now, it's -- we're going -- that's the level we're at.
That's what this is presenting, just that improvement.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you talk about that some
more, because I think that there are a lot of people in the community
who think because we haven't done some maintenance that appears to be
fundamental, I don't understand why that -- why catching up on that
maintenance doesn't improve our present situation.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'm going to ask Mr.
Brundage, because I've asked this question of Miss Swanson, and we
walked through it. Let me ask it from another perspective. Let's
assume we lined every ditch with concrete. Let's assume we remove all
the culverts. There's no impediment. And it's lined with concrete.
You're not going to get that kind of maintenance. From that
perspective, please tell us what people in Naples Park can expect
during the normal rainfall season.
MR. BRUNDAGE: I think you basically would see the same
level of flooding that we have now, that after the storm event took
place it would perhaps drain off quicker, but we'd still have the high
level of hydraulic drain line. Because the way the new system that
we're proposing works is it takes advantage of gravity from the
elevation 2 and say in Vanderbilt Lagoon to the furthest point away
that we're trying to drain. That's elevation 10 roughly. So we have
10 feet of fall in order to move the water. A pipe being buried in
the ground can take advantage of that gravity. A ditch, however,
cannot take advantage of that gradient unless it is made deeper,
okay. In other words, at the bottom of that ditch would be, say, at
the same elevation as the pipe that we're putting in. And the only
way you can do that with a side slope is to provide a wider
right-of-way, because as it goes deeper it's going to get wider. And
the constraint you have there is you're in an existing developed
community, and you don't want to get into taking a boat.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So in interest -- to follow
up your question then, in a regular rainfall year, 48 inches of rain
in the year, if -- if your scenario was to happen, they would expect
to see flooding.
MR. BRUNDAGE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's the problem I had was,
you know, the idea that I would be up here even talking about a 4
million dollar project and cleaning out the ditches would handle a
normal rainfall year, there's no way.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's not a choice of, I mean,
a Cadillac or a Ford or whatever that discussion is, because the Ford
we don't get anything. We're just spending our money for nothing.
MR. BRUNDAGE: Right. You have a car, but it has no
wheels or transmission.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As hard as it was to come to
that, but everything I've done, that's where we are. And well --
anyway.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess as the public comes
up to speak, I need a little real-life history. I know that this past
year was an aberration. We don't get 90-some-odd inches of rain but
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank God.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- from past years prior to
that in the years we had a normal amount of rain, 40 inches or 50
inches. What's the history there? Did you have flooding? Did you
not have flooding? That helps me an awful lot when you get up. If we
can have projections of what life -- it seems to make a lot of
difference to me.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think these costs we have here
are still engineering projections.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's what this meeting's about. I
was just going to make this comment as we -- as we go to the public
speakers. How many people intend to speak? Raise your hands. Okay.
What we're going to discuss here today or what we are discussing is to
put the project out for a bid. We -- we are not making a decision to
go forward or not go forward today on a final decision. What this
discussion is, in far so we can get an exact cost. Right now we've
been working with numbers that are just estimates, and we don't know
that they are sheer -- that they are for real or not and, therefore,
what we're trying to do today is have it bid, get hard numbers. We'll
look at them again and then make up our minds whether we're going to
go forward or not go forward. So with that in mind, if -- if you are
here to -- to support or propose the project, this may not be the most
appropriate meeting for you to do that. But if you want to discuss
and make your views known on whether we should bid the project and
find an exact cost, that's what we're discussing. So with that, Mr.
Dorrill, if you'll start calling the public speakers.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. I'll call two. If I could have
Mr. Cahill, you'll be first. And then Mr. McGilvra, if you'll be
standing by -- near the podium, please.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: As Mr. Cahill's coming up, we would
ask you to confine your remarks to the bid process.
MR. CAHILL: Yes, thank you. Good morning, Commission.
I've been here before, and I have the same message. I'm Don Cahill.
I'm an architect and a general contractor in this community, and I
have been so since 1974. I'm a resident of Naples Park, and my
business is in Naples Park. And I have seen the history of flooding
throughout those years to various degrees. I have had plenty of water
around. This year, though, I've had water in my garage 12 inches deep
four times. So that is unusual. But I have had trouble getting
around on the streets and so forth.
I think that we have gone this far these nine years.
Mr. Brundage has done a fine job. We certainly ought to go ahead and
get bids on this project and know what our hard costs are. But
whether we as taxpayers and -- and property owners pay $800 or $900 or
a thousand dollars, we live in a community of Collier County that's a
quality place, I feel, and needs to be brought up to par. When --
when Naples Park was developed, it wasn't held to the standards that
we have today and all of the subdivisions. And there's really no
reason why we should not bring it up to par and the people that are --
have the most benefit should pay for this. I'm pleased that perhaps
Collier County will pay one dollar out of six, which is great. Even
more would be nice, but I can understand the problems there. You
can't very well go out through the community and -- and bring up other
subdivisions and make those people pay and -- and to a greater
proportion.
I think that the property lots -- I have seen them
appreciate from three to five thousand to thirty, thirty-five thousand
per lot. And I'm sure that a thousand dollars of cost to improve the
drainage and the aesthetics, which is my business, is well worth it.
And I'm not a realtor, but I wouldn't doubt that the property would
increase in a like amount at least.
And I think I've spoken to everything I can. I know
you're going to probably hear a lot of negative votes. I've lived in
Florida since I was in the third grade, and it's nothing new that
folks that come here that have a certain amount of money, and they
don't want to spend any more. And whether it's, you know, $500 or a
thousand dollars, they're going to be opposed to it. But I think as
elected officials you do have a standard to consider for the county.
Every time a developer comes in here proposing a new
subdivision you make them provide all these amenities. And we really
should go back and take care of the past indiscretions, you might say,
that have happened years and years ago as this project -- this
subdivision goes back, you know, 40 years, I think. And that's all I
have to say today, and thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Cahill.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. HcGilvra, and then, Mr. Newman, if
you'd stand by please, sir.
MR. HcGILVRA: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Doug HcGilvra. I'm the chairman of the stormwater committee for the
property owners of Naples Park. I want to make it very clear I'm not
talking for the property owners of Naples Park right now, because they
didn't have a chance to vote, but I am talking for the stormwater
committee. We're all for going forward and getting bids and get some
hard costs on this thing.
I have a proviso to this, however. On page 17 of the
AB&B study which you all have in front of you, you have quite a
dissertation on the methodology that they came up with and the weir
structure involved in the Pavilion Shopping Center and the reason for
what they figured that the methodology should be changed to. However,
I will read basically from this thing. The as-built weir has a higher
discharge capacity than the permit conditions call for. It is
recommended that the managing owner for Pavilion Shopping Center
drainage basin modify their weir structure consistent with the permit
requirements or that their assessment be increased according to the
existing higher discharge rate. This would result in approximate
increase of 2.6 times the amount of the current assessment for the
Pavilion Club Condominium, Pavilion Shopping Center and outparcels,
and Pavilion Terrace. This change, if made, will reduce the cost to
the average lot owner by a minimum of $60 on the overall thing.
it's, I think, a very important thing to consider in -- as well as
getting the bids.
This must be considered, I believe, more fully than it
has been now. I think that that weir structure was altered to protect
the people that are in that area of the Pavilion Shopping Center and
so forth like that, and I think it's necessary. I think that because
it's necessary, it's not going to be changed, or at least it shouldn't
be changed. They're going to have problems. And they should be
assessed accordingly, as I had spoke, 2.6 times what it is, which
would be a further reduction.
Basically that's our feeling on the thing. I wish you
would go ahead with the bids and get them. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. HcGilvra.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Newman and then Hiss Pistori.
MR. NEWMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. A1 Newman,
resident of Naples Park. I live on the 600 block of 94th Avenue. I
am bothered with no water. I don't have any water in my lots, high
and dry even during the last shower that we had last summer. I'm all
for this project, but not at any cost. This cost has to be brought
down somehow or another. This project must go on, because we have to
improve Naples Park some way or another. When you can't get out from
the 600 block to Route 41 via but one avenue like route -- ninety '-
91st Avenue was the only dry route you could get out during last
summer. Now, that's ridiculous for a community of our size. So I
believe that we should go along, and please leave it out for bids
today, and find out what cost it is. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Newman.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pistori and then Mr. Gotovich.
MS. PISTORI: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Genevieve Pistori. I live in the Park. Now, we have now reached what
we hope is the final stages of the drainage system of Naples Park. In
the past months we have heard many statements for and against. As we
have already known, that there are those who are very seriously in
need to have this system in place as soon as possible. These of us --
those of us with serious flooding problems appeal to you,
Commissioners, and all residents to practice good sense and
consideration towards those affected by home flooding. Sanity must
prevail to function as a good community. The closure of these dirty
ditches and the prevention of the flooding will eliminate the
assumption that Naples Park is not a first-class community capable of
going forward and doing what is needed.
These have been -- there have been unsubstantiated
misinformation circulated in Naples Park, which we hope it can be
corrected by you and the commissioners and the planners of the
drainage system to work and keep the flooding away from our homes. We
all -- I also want to say something to Mr. -- Mr. Constantine. I'm
only here four and a half years. In those four and a half years, 1992
was flooded, 1993 we were flooded, last year was a whopper. So it's
not something that doesn't happen -- it just happens once a year or
once every other year. It happens every year.
Please give it a chance, and send this through to
bidding process so we can know the exact price. Now, it will come
down, and we should go forward with it. We need it desperately.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Hiss Pistori.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Gotovich and then Mr. Whitford. Mr.
Whitford, you'll follow Mr. Gotovich.
MR. GOTOVICH: Good morning. My name is Jon Gotovich.
I live on 105th Avenue North. I'm here to address the cost allocation
table for the Naples Park drainage problem. Host of my neighbors and
myself feel that areas south of 91st Avenue, their assessment is too
low, given its impact on the 91st Avenue canal and south Eighth
Street. Not being an engineer, I applied common sense to figure out
what their impact is.
Drainage problems arise from the amount of hardscape,
roof area, and driveway on a given property. Using an average of
3,000 square feet of hardscape on each Naples Park lot, 325 homes and
driveways would fit into the Pavilion complex alone. My experience in
the 500 block of 105th Avenue, more than half of my water drains to
the back of my property to the FPL easement. Anyone can assume from
that the impact from the Pavilion could equal 650 Naples Park's
homes. If you disregard the five and six hundred blocks of Naples
Park that drain directly into Vanderbilt Lagoon and the northern third
of the seven and eight hundred blocks that drain north, that leaves
1,000 homes, approximately 1,000 homes, affecting the southern Eighth
Street and the 91st Avenue canal.
Using table 5, those 1,000 homes will contribute over a
million dollars, and the Pavilion having an impact of 650 homes at the
Naples Park easement of $650,000 are assessed at 148,000 which seems
very unfair me. The Pavilion site drains south to north completely.
The swale on Vanderbilt Drive does not serve that area at all. That
leaves a small parcel of wetland on the northeast corner of the site
which would be saturated almost immediately from the amount of
hardscape involved.
Meanwhile, at Naples Park you have 9.5 miles of FPL
easement that holds water until it percolates. Last summer we had a
40- to 50-foot wide strip of water 12 to 14 inches deep at the center
of the whole length of my block. Taken collectively that's a lot of
retention area for Naples Park.
If these areas outside of Naples Park insist on using
the low assessment figures of table 5, I propose you revoke the
permits allowing them to drain into Naples Park. I understand the
conditions of those permits are being violated anyways. What I don't
understand is how a commercial venture was permitted to impact a
residential area's system without any improvements to that system.
That has cost the homeowners along 91st Avenue canal erosion of their
property and land values. Let the area south of 91st Avenue install
their own drainage system. That would allow the southern Naples Park
to assess and address its own problems.
Also, I propose the secondary system be implemented
immediately. This would allow all residents of Naples Park to; one,
find out the expense associated with the secondary and, two, find out
the exact impact of the secondary on the primary. While the secondary
is being implemented, the county should rehabilitate the Eighth Street
ditch to function at its optimum and make sure all culverts under the
county streets are sized and working properly. I have never seen
maintenance on the Eighth Street ditch, I presume, due to ongoing
plans to renovate the system.
In speaking of the county's impact, almost 30 miles of
road 16 feet wide is 57 acres of hardscape without any retention at
all. Using the same formula as above, that would equal the impact of
650 homes in Naples Park or an assessment of $1,600,000. I live in
the 500 block of Naples Park on 105th Avenue, which has no impact on
the Eighth Street ditch or the 91st Avenue canal and will not benefit
from any improvements. I would contribute to a solution if that
solution incorporates a fair assessment of those who impact the system
and of those who will gain from it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Whitford, Brace Whitford. Dr. Gore,
if I could have you stand by, you'll follow Mr. Whitford.
MR. WHITFORD: My name is Brace Whitford. I'm a
resident of Naples Park. And the last time we had a meeting here, I
had quite a few conversations with Commissioners Hancock and Mr.
Constantine. And as a result of those conversations I'll say to Mr.
Hancock the county has been out there, and they have been working and
cleaning up, not entirely to what I feel that after 40 years of living
in Florida they answer the questions adequately of what they're
doing. They've dug around those culverts that were plugged up about
18 inches back. But now you've got a culvert that's lower than some
of the ditches, which means they've got to fill up before the ditches
run off.
But this morning I want to take very briefly three
little points. Let's deal with the physical aspects. There's no
guarantee -- I didn't hear any engineering firm say they're going to
guarantee we won't have any flooding if they go ahead with this
culvert or pipe procedure, and I don't think they would give any
guarantee.
The second thing is in this physical area, which they
didn't mention too much, is to get rid of flooding water, the greatest
asset is declivity of land. And it's going to be impossible to
overcome this 30 inches that you've got from approximately from the
south end of Naples Park to the north end. If you go any deeper or
put any fall, then it isn't going to go into the Cocohatchee River
behind the Wal-Hart store where it flows now. If you do put the pipes
in, since you can't change the declivity of the land, that means
you've got to have a bigger pipe. All right, let's assume they go in
with an oval-type pipe, because you've got to go wider, because you
can't go deeper. Now we eliminate the flooding from 91st and 92nd.
What's going to happen to the people down ll0th and lllth? You're
going to have another group of people when that water gathers down
there, because that's not going to be adequately carried off -- you're
going to have another group of people here talking about the flooding
there.
The second point is our financial situation if we go
ahead -- the county commissioners decide to go ahead with this. Why
are we paying 15.60 percent? I see a lot of municipal bonds offered
in places like Denver for roads for 6 and 7 percent. On top of that
you're going to charge the residents 6 percent more for the ones that
pay for it on time? That's 21 percent. Is Collier County getting
into the --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're not paying 15.6 percent
interest, not at all. That number came from the share of the total
finance charges for the entire project. That's not the percentage
that you're paying.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That 15 percent also includes --
MR. WHITFORD: I don't think it's going to work, because
-- as I say, my major point, we don't have the declivity of the
land. The last meeting I spoke to Mr. Constantine. And I spoke to
him on the phone consequently, and he agreed and I agreed with him
that I think the best way to go is to continue to keep cleaning up the
ditches or swales that you have now, improve those because at this
rate -- I got a quote here from Mr. Hancock in the daily news, and it
says here, Mr. Hancock -- Commissioner Hancock said he'll scrap the
plan if the cost to each lot owner is over $800. Right now most of
them are close to a thousand, $997. So my idea now is let's forget
it. If it's another hundred-year rain, nobody in this room or half
our children will be here. So we won't have to worry. Not that I
want to burden our great grandchildren with something, but still in
all it's something to be thinking about.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you running for congress,
sir? Thank you.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This would be a good time to remind
our speakers that we're not talking about the project today about
whether we're going to do the project or not. We're talking about
whether we're going to put it out to bid or not. And exactly for the
reason this gentleman just said, we're trying to get exact costs of
the project. We're not talking today about whether we're going to go
forward or whether we'll not go forward. And we would ask you, once
again, to please confine your remarks to the subject of the bid.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Eck, Joe Eck, will follow Dr. Gore.
MR. GORE: For the record my name is Jim Gore. I'm an
aquatic ecologist and hydrologist. I work for The Conservancy. We're
not certainly opposed to putting this out to bid, and we're not
opposed to any -- to implementing any kind of stormwater management in
Naples Park. However, we are concerned about the quality of the water
that's going to be running off of that park and into Vanderbilt Lagoon
and into the Cocohatchee.
And since we seem to be talking about trading a Cadillac
for a Lincoln Continental, we might also suggest that in the bid
process we also consider alternatives which can control water quality
at the same time as we control that flood water. That is to
implementing -- say increasing the capacity of existing canals,
riprapping them, and also considering some of the things that Fran
Stallings and I talked with Commissioner Matthews about a few months
ago, investigating the possibility of creating some wetlands on some
-- there are a very few vacant properties there, but a few of them.
Those created wetlands will ameliorate some of that flow, increase
capacity of the flood control system, and also allow some natural
cleansing of that water. The reason we're concerned is because it's
really attached to a couple of different systems which are going to be
of concern to all of Collier County in the coming years. One is
Vanderbilt Lagoon which will receive a great amount of that drainage.
Right now that's an isolated blind-end canal system, and the water
quality there is fair at best and poor during the summers. As a
matter of fact, during the summers -- most summer months water quality
in Vanderbilt Lagoon exceeds class-2 standards, very low dissolved
oxygen that comes from nutrient floating which already goes into that
system. And that dissolved oxygen is causing a lot of loss of aquatic
life in the canal system. That's going to create a problem further on
down the line, because at least if the mangrove task force that
Commissioner Hancock has put together goes forward with their plans,
ultimately there's a long-term plan of reestablishing a north-south
connection between Vanderbilt Lagoon and Clam Bay. That means then
that we're going to perhaps increase water quality problems going into
that whole system.
The other problem is that the state's environmental
regulatory commission has declared the Wiggins Pass-Cocohatchee River
system as an outstanding Florida water, which in one way or another
attempts to control water quality in that system. Part of the Naples
Park drainage is going into the Cocohatchee, which flows down directly
into the outstanding Florida water area, and that could be in the
future a liability to the county if water quality declines and is
found to be as a result of poor water quality coming from the Naples
Park drainage area and going into the Cocohatchee.
The only thing we're suggesting then is that you
consider examining alternative processes which will not only control
surface water manage -- the surface water, the flood waters, but also
helps to enhance the water quality going into the receiving areas of
Vanderbilt Lagoon and the Cocohatchee. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Eck and then, Miss Hortensen, you'll
follow Mr. Eck.
MR. ECK: Good morning, Commissioners. I get nervous
talking to people.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's okay, just take your time.
MR. ECK: I get excited, and my voice kind of crackles.
Commissioner Norris, I'd like to correct you on one thing. In October
that meeting was supposed to be called back for this here was to see
whether or not we were going to go ahead with these bids and whatever,
and Mr. Hancock made the statement there that if it was not brought
down to half of what we was talking about, he would actually pull it
out.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Nonetheless, today's subject is to put
it out to bid.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And when you're done, I'll
correct the statement with the minutes from that meeting, but go
ahead.
MR. ECK: Okay. But I thought that's what everybody was
coming here for today. And now we're on another agenda where we're
going for bids for this thing now.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's what it has been.
MR. ECK: Well, then we're here under false pretenses to
begin with, because the public was supposed to come back to say, yes,
we are, or, no, we're not going to go ahead with it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's not today, sir.
MR. ECK: Well, I'm not going to argue the point over
it. The thing of it is 20 years I've been in the Park, until they
start building around there -- and don't get me wrong. There's been a
lot of building in the north end of town, because I even helped build
some of it.
Now, we didn't have flooding problems down there until
Beachwalk went in, the Pavilion went in, the Ritz-Carlton went in
where we blocked off drainage there so it would not get into the
Ritz-Carlton area. I was on the project when they done that.
Now, the thing I'm after, I don't care about the water
coming down through there. Number one, you got the ditches. You've
got 91st lagoon is what I call it. You got all of our main streets
there which will not drain anyway. You have no maintenance going out
there. The thing you need to do is open the ditch up, make -- block
off these other subdivisions there and portions that came in there and
drain the end of the lagoon at 91st and 92nd ditch. Then we wouldn't
have the problem we got. I say, no, I don't even want it. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Long, you'll follow Miss Mortensen,
Lauren Long.
MS. MORTENSEN: Good morning. My name is Flo
Mortensen. I'm a homeowner and a resident in Naples Park for almost
20 years. I know and you know that the drainage system in the Park
needs to be fixed. It needed to be fixed ten years ago. And heavy
rainfalls in 1992 and again in '95 have played havoc to the prop -- to
some properties in the Park, and these damages cannot be continued to
be ignored. Unfortunately recent letters to the editor -- editorial
comments, comments and handouts disseminate a potpourri of
misinformation and confusing figures. These uninformed dissenters and
commentors are lacking in integrity and appear to be picking figures
out of a hat to arouse property owners. I'm going to beg you today,
therefore, to put this project out to bid and not put it on the back
burner.
I have a lot of other comments here which I will
withhold because of the -- what you -- what you said you wanted was
just the putting out to bid. The only thing I -- I'm concerned with
this is that there seems to be a moratorium on -- on repairs and
cleanup caused -- caused by the 1995 exceptional flooding. And as Mr.
Boldt mentioned before, this project is probably going to be delayed
another year. I wish that something could be done about repairing
some of the damage in the meantime, because we could easily have more
rain that will make it only worse. It just seems to me that something
should be done.
I would also tell you that I have been confident that
this board of commissioners will not walk away from the drainage
problems in Naples Park. I hope I'm right. Start the bidding process
A-S-A-P.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Long and then Miss Lopez.
MR. LONG: I've been here since 1962, and I live on the
700 block of 105th Avenue. And my house doesn't flood, but I'm for
putting it out to bid for I don't think it will do anything but get
higher if you don't do it now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Miss Lopez and then Miss Mathis.
MS. LOPEZ: County Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen,
my name is Elia Lopez. I live in Naples Park. I'm going just to
mention to you all the advantage that we're going to have if the major
drainage ditches in Park are piped. Mosquito will be eradicated.
Aesthetics will improve considerable in the Park. Flooding around
Eighth Street will be eliminated and conditions established to
eliminate flooding in the rest of the Park. For the people in
Vanderbilt, pollution to the Vanderbilt Lagoon, chemical and organic,
will be eliminated, chemical because there will be no reason to spray
to kill the vegetation, organic because the erosion will be reduced to
zero. I assume that the county will save over $50,000 per year
because of this.
Erosion affecting our 200 homes will be eliminated.
Possibility of somewhat dry during the winter stage will be
eliminated. And finally it can be estimated that the property value
will increase between 10 or 20 percent.
All of these can be obtained if decide where we are
living for more or less the 700 to be paid in seven years will be
approved, and we start -- I wish we start with the bidding. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Miss Mathis, then Ms. -- Ms. Sourbeer,
you're following Miss Mathis. Good morning.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm Betty Mathis. I'm a
resident of Naples Park and a member of PONP. We submitted over 1,100
signatures on October 24th from people who did not want this project.
Today we bring 81 more. This gives us over twelve hundred signatures
from people who do not want it. These people are at work. They are
ill. They cannot be here today.
I would like to say that the best reason in the world
not to put this project to bids is in the report prepared by Johnson
and Johnson. On October 24th it was discussed; go to bid or pay
thousands of dollars for a report. You paid $17,000 for a report.
Let's see. Item A on page 1, going from the ten-year protection to
the five-year protection would only save $173,000, therefore, it's not
warranted. Item C on page 2, they have already reviewed this with
contractors, and they tell you that an alternate pipe method will not
significantly reduce the project -- the cost of the project,
therefore, there is no cost savings.
On the information our group distributed, it was a table
prepared by stormwater management. The difference in the $100 figures
is the bond reserve fund. We distributed what we considered to be the
most accurate of the tables we had. That would be table 5. We feel
like table 6 is misleading. It is misleading because it pulls out
$457,000. This is wonderful if you back the reserve bond fund, but if
it has been explained correctly to me by Mr. Boldt, it's only reserve
fund. It pays no bonds. In the end any shortfall, anyone who
defaults, they will have to come back and lien our property a second
time to make up the shortfall. If I have understood my conversation
with Mr. Boldt correctly, then this is not a true savings. It's a
mere play with figures. Ten percent of bad debts is a standard
accounting figure and should not be dismissed from the overall
project.
We do ask that Collier County make our Eighth Street
look better. Of the people who signed our petition, most of them
didn't even know that only one-half of Eighth Street would be
covered. Host of them don't know it today. What makes Eighth Street
look dead and ugly? It's Collier County's own policy of spraying
defoliant. If the ditch were graded -- and it certainly wouldn't even
all have to be graded, but specifically at 93rd Avenue -- it would
greatly alleviate the flooding for a very small amount.
As I understand it, the most of this money is being
spent on the 91st, 92nd Avenue ditches. While I have sympathy for --
that may be wrong. This is what I had been told, okay. While I have
sympathy for those landowners, water can't even drain out of the south
basin into that ditch because 93rd sits higher. It sits there until
it percolates. If this ditch has been destroyed, that is between
Collier County, the developers who committed it, and the landowners
who are being affected. This is how this argument started. This is
how their group started. And then it was decided to include all of
Naples Park. So here we are, not very happy, but here we are.
Another reason that this should not even be considered
going to bid is the water quality. As I understand it, there is a
chance that that south flow will be opened as it should be. This
should alleviate water problems in Naples Park possibly. It will
definitely help the water quality of the lagoon and Clam Bay -- Clam
Pass.
If this project goes in now, the next thing we pay for
is water monitoring. I asked if there was grant money available, but
to someone in the county I have been told to their knowledge there was
no money available. Yet someone, and I'm afraid it would be Naples
Park, would end up paying this monitoring.
Secondly, if there is monitoring, and as Dr. Gore
predicts, we are harming the water quality, there would be the cost of
filtering. We have a utility tax. In some parts of the country the
utility tax on water flow is higher than people's water bill.
I have lived in Naples Park since 1990, and I have only
seen it flood twice. Is that my five minutes? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's your five minutes.
MS. HATHIS: That's my five minutes. So I will only say
in normal conditions I have not seen flooding. In this year, which
was abnormal, and the four-day 25-inch rain, when other people were
driven from their homes and other areas, then, yes, we saw flooding.
And I do hope you give Dr. Gore's plan a hearing. He
has a plan that includes a storage lake and a park. The aesthetics of
Naples Park would be much more increased by this plan than by simply
improving the backyards of the few.
MR. DORRILL: Hiss Sourbeer, and then following her, I
believe, is Mr. Kays, Robert Kays, if you would, please, stand by.
MS. SOURBEER: Good morning, Commissioners. This isn't
the first time I've been down here on this issue. I'm sure you all
know me by now. If nothing else, you know the name. I am concerned
about the situation when I hear these people back here snickering and
laughing about when a gentleman says he doesn't consider Naples Park
as being a flooded area. And I have to agree with him, and I've
agreed with him for eight or nine years. It is not really considered
-- we do have some standing water. Most of it's behind the homes.
But your county people have permitted this to happen by letting people
-- the contractors build on a 50-foot lot a house that takes up 90
percent of the land. Where do you think that water's going to go?
The other problem is you've come around -- the county
has come around and trying to do a makeshift improvement, so they dig
a little deeper with a ditch, and you've created all throughout the
Park low -- what would you call them -- low spots for this water to
run to. This storm that we just had through this past summer -- when
you say 14 inches of rain at one time, there were a lot of areas in
Collier County that were worse off than we were. By the next morning
most of that water had dissipated. Pardon me.
I really think you need to put this thing out to bid to
find out what we're really talking about in cost. But what I want to
know is how much is it going to cost you to get somebody to tell you?
I mean, we're spending money and money and money, and we haven't come
up with a damned thing yet. And this is nine years later. So every
time you go to another process, put it out to bid and do this and
that, we're talking -- we're spending money after money after money.
And, like you say, there's a lot of people here who without a doubt
cannot really afford a thousand-dollar assessment that they pay over
15 years with a high rate of interest and so forth and so on.
I will have to say I'm like you, I'm quoted. You'd say
you'd reduce this by 50 percent, because I was at that meeting, and
that's what everybody understood you to say. I don't think you can do
it, and I figured how many times you're going to have to eat those
words.
I don't know why this county hasn't been more involved
with a stormwater utility tax, because this is not something that's
only happening in Naples Park. This is all over the county. Lake --
what is that right across from us?
VOICE FROM AUDIENCE: Pelican Marsh?
MS. SOURBEER: No, not Pelican Marsh, but where we can't
get through the community there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pine Ridge.
MS. SOURBEER: Pine Ridge. They have septic tanks.
They were in worse shape than we were this past summer. So don't tell
me we're having flooding in Naples Park. I don't think anybody
collected insurance for flooding. There's a couple of homes, I
think. But I figure if you want to talk about flooding, you go up to
that Bonita area where they had to evacuate those people for as much
as two months. That's flooding. We had some standing water, and it
dissipated quickly.
I hope we can make some resolutions today as far as
going out to bid if it isn't going to cost us another bundle. But I
think we ought to have the privilege of knowing how much it's really
going to cost before you do this job. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dotrill, how much --
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much does it generally
cost us to put something out to bid like this?
MR. DORRILL: I'll -- I'll say several hundred dollars,
maybe a thousand dollars. That would include the ad that would run in
the newspaper plus whatever number of bid specs. But we receive
deposits on those. It's just the county's actual cost to put out to
bid is just absolutely nominal.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: All the specs to write the bid
is already done?
MR. DORRILL: It's already done and included. I mean,
the prospective bidders would obtain those at their own cost as a
function of their putting in a bid.
Mr. Kays, Robert Kays? (No response).
Ms. Bowein.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While she's coming up, I just
want to be sure everybody understood the answer to that question. The
decision we're making today is whether or not to spend less than a
thousand dollars to find out how much this would cost.
VOICE FROM AUDIENCE: And what you spent to date now to
go on this --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, sir.
MS. MAC'KIE: Just make sure we understand what the
question is today.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Bowein, good morning.
MS. BOWEIN: Good morning. I'm Lee Bowein, and I have
just questions. I hope I can go ahead with this. It will be very
brief. I'll be as brief as possible. My reason for being here is to
clear up questions.
The county ordinance used authority to the Collier
County commissioners to form a taxing district if the tax is for the
health, welfare, and safety of the taxed. It seems to be an
established fact that this drainage project does not cover or drain
the streets and avenues in Naples Park per se, only the perimeter
ditches. Then how could this ordinance cover us on the streets and
avenues? Since these ditches are all on Collier County-owned
property, this ordinance would permit taxing of them only. Since this
project will drain the Pavilion and the Beachwalk surplus water into
these ditches on Collier County-owned property, shouldn't the taxing
district cover them also and the 5 million dollars be prorated to them
and to the county only? How can this sludge water from the Pavilion,
the Beachwalk, and the perimeter -- and the ditches be piped into
Vanderbilt Lagoon to further pollute this water?
We know from history that the power to tax is the power
to destroy. Much of the tax code today is simply a form of legalized
corruption. If we, the people, are unwilling to question authority,
then we are just putty in the hands of the power. Those are my
questions. I just would like answers. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Lee, I have a question. Excuse
me, Lee. How many properties do you own in Naples Park?
MS. BOWEIN: One, two, three, four, five, six, seven.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Seven properties. All investment
properties?
MS. BOWEIN: Well, most of them, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's all I have. Thank
you.
MS. BOWEIN: Does that --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That answers my question.
MS. BOWEIN: Does that affect it? Doesn't answer mine,
but it answers yours. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Amen or Armen.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How many are left, Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: There's four. Four.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Four more?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Richardson, you'll -- you'll follow
Hiss Armen.
MS. AMEN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Ann
Amen. I live on 92nd Avenue right on the ditch. This is going to be
a short speech. I just urge the commissioners to support the drainage
project. We need it, and it's long been overdue, and let's go for
bids. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Richardson and then Mr. Gibson.
MR. RICHARDSON: Well, the good news is you're getting
close to the end, not necessarily to the speakers, but of this
process. Decision making is right around the corner, and I -- if
there's one thing let's resolve that we can be in agreement on, let's
try to get this issue behind us. It's been divisive and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All those in favor of that --
MR. RICHARDSON: Now, the staff has done their job.
John Boldt certainly be commended. Engineering has done their job.
And I think the county commission has certainly gone the extra mile in
public meetings, information, and making this forum available to us.
Well, where are we? The need is -- is quite evident.
Even the greatest naysayers, some of which might even be on the board,
will still acknowledge that there's some need to improve the drainage
in Naples Park. If we go by the engineering judgment, the ten-year
improvement is certainly something we should be working toward. The
question really is cost. Who's going to pay for them? One thing I'm
sure of and I know you're sure of, the costs will never be less than
they are right at this moment. And an hour later they're going to be
more than they are right now, so let's find out what those costs are
and get on with it.
I'll make it very clear. I am in favor of this
project. I'm willing to pay for my share of the costs. I have two
lots. So let's not throw this project away on the name of any
political expediency, which is going to be tempting. You know what
the right thing to do is, so I say, please, just do it.
Now, the no's that you see on many people's shirt fronts
and blouses, you can turn no around and get another word, and that
word is on. And what that reminds me is that if you look at the word
as on and you go by what they want you to do, which is to stop this
project, then you will be condemning us to living on with the problems
that we have had, and they'll be with us. This is our last and best
chance to get it done, so please do it. Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Gibson and then, Mr. Sodergren, you'll
follow Mr. Gibson. Go ahead.
MR. GIBSON: I don't have a nice, neat prepared speech,
but I've been listening to what goes on here. And if we don't know
the cost, what were we paying the engineering firm to determine? As
far as the advantages of open ditch to pipe, has anybody ever brought
up the costs of the increased maintenance that it will cost for closed
pipe? It's much more expensive to clean debris and dirt out of that.
That hasn't been brought down.
The cost assessment, somebody else has already pointed
out that we are not assessing this according to who's contributing to
the runoff, and you can't expect the Pavilion plaza to change
something they haven't changed in 13 years even though they were
ordered. So you're pretty much going to expect them to leave it as
is. If they haven't done it and they've been in violation for 13
years of their original specifications, they aren't going to change.
As they -- everybody says, no, it's not 15 percent, but
on the sheet that's in front of me it says 15 percent that pay for
interest, which is a little bit high. And if the people pay up front,
why not. Now, this is not a big thing. Nobody has really brought out
over 15 years it's going to cost $30 a year on their taxes, which is
not a big deal. It's not the cost. But I don't think you've
engineered it. I don't think you even know what you're looking at yet
to let it out for bids. If you don't have specs, don't let it out to
bid.
Your engineering company has already said that the only
place they got their figures was talking to subcontractors as to what
they would do it for. They didn't have specifications of what they
wanted done. They just asked the subcontractors what could be done.
I listened to them. I've been involved in this long enough.
Now, I'm a new resident, but I am not somebody that came
down here to -- I live and work in Naples. I'm talking about two lots
that we pay taxes on. Neither one is rental, okay. And I'm here
taking time off from work, which is costing me salary, to come in here
and talk. And I really don't like to have somebody -- well, he's left
now -- say that these new residents don't have the same rights. We
pay the same taxes. We're going to contribute the same thing over the
next 30 years or whatever towards paying.
Another thing that was brought out, that the problems of
the drainage have been contributed to by lack of enforcement of
original specifications by the county, poor planning in the first
place by the county whereas allowing the project to be built where the
drainage is not adequate and by related projects surrounding the
county and talking about properties that are east of 41 that are
contributing to the drainage, talking about blocking off natural
drainage that went down when the Vanderbilt hotel or whatever was down
there. And if this is the way the county has planned it and caused
the problem in the first place, the county should pay a bigger portion
of the impact. It should not be let out to bid as is.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Sodergren is your final registered
speaker.
MR. SODERGREN: Yes, Jack Sodergren. I live over on
ll0th Avenue, not for a real long time, but I'm a resident of Naples
Park now and just have some comments of what I see as a problem in
Naples Park. There's two. I guess the flooding and drainage problem
I don't see, because I'm maybe not here in the middle of the
summertime. But I do see the stagnant water sitting in ditches, which
is ugly, and I think it's probably the -- a big factor. And I'm
wondering whether there couldn't be a phase of the program that would
deal with that, say, a small pipe that would drain this water or the
elevation change so that water does not stand in it. And my
particular property on ll0th, I do have a swale in front, and it has
grass in it, and it doesn't seem to be objectionable. Some people
have covered those over. I understand it's not allowed anymore, but
it's not objectionable to me particularly. If it had stagnant water
sitting in it, it would be so I don't know if this has been addressed
that, one, how could you drain this and not have it there, because
that is what probably is 90 percent of the eyesore in Naples Park is
seeing that. In fact, I would guess that the -- probably the ditches
are deeper than the water table level at the bay. That's why the
water's there, because it isn't going to flow out.
And I drove around and measured approximately how much
pipe or culvert would be included here, and basically we're talking
about two -- under two and a half miles, maybe two point four miles.
See, when you divide it up with the approximate cost of four and a
half million or so, you're approaching one and three-quarter to two
million dollars per mile for putting in a culvert sounds like an awful
lot of money, not having the engineering background, but an awful
lot. And we're not talking about anything down my street, and as
other speakers has mentioned, this doesn't even cover all of Eighth --
Eighth Street.
So I think the price is much too high. In fact, we're
talking somewhere about a thousand dollars per property for this
improvement, and I guess quite a few years back, maybe 20 years back,
sewers were put in at which -- now, that did address and help
everybody and did mean something for every property owner. I
understand there's about thirty-four hundred lots in -- in the Park.
And the price for sewers back then was under a thousand dollars. And
even if you adjust for inflation, which I figure would be about $4,000
today, you're affecting thirty-four hundred lots. And this is about
110 lots that are basically affected or somewhere in that neighborhood
along the 91st, 92nd Avenues and along Eighth Street. Those people
are going to have a big improvement in their environment, a big
improvement in their property values.
And I would like to see it done to the extent that it
doesn't cost me too much. I mean, I -- if anything, if there was an
allocation of cost, I would say it would be an allocation of cost
based on how much does the property improve with having this
improvement in place. You know, if somebody gets 90 percent of the
profit increase, and everybody pays the same costs, then it's just a
matter of trying to spread the cost around a larger tax base. And, of
course, we'd like to have all of Collier County pay for this, and then
we would have a very minimal amount; right?
You know, if I -- if I have to have something done right
in front of my property like a ditch dug out or something else that
has to be done, I would like somebody else to pay for it, but it's
basically affecting me. And this is basically affecting the people on
91st, 92nd, and Eighth Avenue -- or Eighth Street, rather. So I think
that the proportion is out of proportion for what I would get over on
ll0th Avenue, even though I understand all of Naples Park would be
better if this was.
But I think it could be made much nicer with just the
drainage, and it could be made -- you know, I would think that in the
case of floods, you could have the -- swales would be made maybe
better under the roads where they carry it and carry it on out to the
bay or lagoon.
I have noticed in -- I have some relatives down in
Houston, and they had property. And they had no problem with flooding
until big shopping centers went in, until you start asphalting the
county over, and then all the water runs off. It doesn't perc into
the ground anymore. And I think a lot of this is caused by -- a lot
of the construction has been allowed without adequate drainage for the
-- for the amount of problem that they're causing.
And, well, like my property. I'm going -- I have a
double lot, so I'm going to get twice whatever. The house is
crosswise on the lot. It isn't a spec lot, so I can't develop on it.
But I'm probably using one-third of the -- okay, I'll stop --
one-third of the land that anybody else would. But I'm going to get
larger cost, and I -- I'm basically perc'ing off more water. Thank
you, ladies and gentlemen.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. Do we have a motion?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question for Mr. Boldt,
if you don't mind, before you make a motion. Mr. Boldt, in October I
asked how far along you were coming with the DEP in getting that
half-moon shaped --
MR. BOLDT: That infiltrator?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
MR. BOLDT: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Where are we on that?
MR. BOLDT: We're still in the process. We hope to have
the demonstration project in April.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: In April?
MR. BOLDT: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay, fine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Boldt, the sixteen and a
half percent from the county comes from the 320 fund, 325. Is that
where we'll -- where will that come from?
MR. BOLDT: That would be our proposal. About $400,000
of that has already been put up through this point in time. We're
talking about some additional monies, and we proposed to put it in the
budget for next year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And for the benefit of the
public, fund 325 is -- MR. BOLDT: It's our water management capital
improvement project fund.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Funded by?
MR. BOLDT: Ad valorem taxes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before we -- we get to the point
of identifying funds, I think that's probably premature since we don't
know if the cost of the project is acceptable. And I think there is
some room for discussion on that matter as you pointed out,
Commissioner Constantine. So what I would like to do is staff made
several recommendations, but I think we need to simplify it to one
base recommendation, and that is I'll make a motion that we proceed by
going out to bid in line with recommendation E in the staff report on
page 2 leaving the balance of staff recommendations to be decided upon
after bids are received.
So we're not making the funding decisions today. We're
not making the methodology decision today. What we're saying is in
line with recommendation E; let's go out to bid, get the cost. If the
costs are close to balipark, then we have something to talk about. If
they're not, then we're done. But that would be my motion today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I was going to say I'd
like to second that motion. Could we include in that motion a
recommendation to the Pavilion people that they make the correction
before we hear this back again?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had -- I had two notes, and I
thought it was more staff direction --
(Applause)
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and one of them was that.
They are under a South Florida Water Management permit, Mr. Boldt?
MR. BOLDT: Yes. We need to research that permit and
its modifications to make sure we know exactly what it's doing.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a better idea. Let's tell
South Florida to research it and save you some time. MR. BOLDT: Okay.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It's their permit. They should
be able to make sure -- to ensure that folks comply with it, not us.
We don't want to do their work for them. But Pavilion Club, Pavilion
Shopping Center needs to be notified that their assessment will be two
and a half times if their permit does not comply. So correspondence
to them, and we can work on that. We need to make sure either they
are built to permit or they're assessed at the higher rate, one of the
two.
MR. BOLDT: We'll deeply investigate that, yes.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I can certainly agree to that.
I mean, they've been out of -- of -- of code with their water permit
now for nine, ten years or more. I'd like to see the -- the
correction made, or when we get this back, I will also support two and
a half times.
MR. BOLDT: Very good.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a couple of thoughts.
Obviously we certainly need to do something with the drainage in
Naples Park. I'm a little bit disturbed, and I understand some of the
reasoning why, but I'm a little disturbed that we haven't -- still
haven't done any of the basic maintenance in what is now the dry
season. I know there are some very specific areas where we could do a
little bit of clearing. A number of people mentioned today that we
still haven't done anything. And I think there are big items there
that we can get done before it starts raining again in May.
Regardless of what we do here, we probably ought to move forward with
that.
I'm -- I have a concern; The minimum cost here, $900,
and actually when you spread that out -- I presume most people aren't
going to write a check for $900. And you spread that out over the
years, it's actually almost sixteen hundred dollars at the lowest
level and up. So I do have a concern over the affordability of that.
But for a thousand bucks or less, if we can find out if the numbers
are exact, I don't have any objection to putting it out for bid.
I -- I will preface it by saying if it comes back at the
3.9 million and we end up at sixteen hundred dollars a household, I am
going to have a problem with that current but I have no objection to
offering --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You won't be alone.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to seeing the bid. And if
they come in lower, well, God bless them.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed?
There are none. That project will go out to bid.
(Applause)
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, could I ask John
Boldt one final question?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Boldt.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Boldt, did I hear correctly
that we're going to be getting a drainage update on your activities in
the last three or four months in the next week or so? MR. BOLDT: I'm not sure, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I thought I heard something in
the last few days that you were going to be giving us an update on --
of your work around the county with regard to drainage in the last
couple months.
MR. BOLDT: Particularly the Lely basin we proposed to
come back. I can address the other also. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, sir. Are you talking to
us? Are you talking to us? Are you talking to us, sir? If you are,
you're out of order.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going
to ask if your item is done and you're talking, please step out in the
hallway. We are still in session.
Item #8C1
EMERGENCY DECLARED; COUNTY MATCHING GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$40,000 TO COMPLETE ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTURAL AND CONSTRUCTION
DOCUMENTS FOR RESTORATION OF THE EVERGLADES CITY MUSEUM - APPROVED; AND
CHALHERS YEILDING, ARCHITECT, RETAINED BY THE COUNTY AS THE
PRESERVATION CONSULTANT AND ARCHITECT FOR THE PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT
TO EXCEED $60,000
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's see if we can go ahead and get
finished. Our next item, 8(C)(1).
MR. JAMRO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Ron Jamro,
your museum director.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Jamro, is this just to reaffirm
what we directed you to do before?
MR. JAMRO: In a sense it is.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, but at the budget hearings
we said we would put the 40,000 back in if they got the grant. They
got the grant. It's time to put the $40,000 back.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I make a motion --
MR. JAMRO: The only addition to that is we would ask
the board to consider naming Chalmers Yielding as the architect that
consulted the project. He has demonstrated his talents to us many
times and is very competent.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does that violate the bid policy?
MR. JAMRO: We are -- I think Steve Camell is available
to help us with that. It's what Steve calls an asset emergency.
MR. CARNELL: For the record, Steve Camell, purchasing
director. The motion -- the staff recommendation before you is to
waive the consultant's competitive negotiation act and to declare a
valid public emergency, and the rationale very simply is the concerns
of the group down at Everglades. That's through the current status of
structure, the safety of the structure in its current condition, the
concern being that if we delay the process another few months in
procurement that it could affect further the improvements that have to
be made down there. And there may not be sufficient grant funds to
cover additional improvements.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And another few months' delay
will take us into another rainy season and storm season, so we need to
get the project underway. I'd like to make a motion that we approve
the recommendation of staff.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want to be Jimney
Cricket today, but I just want to point out -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A conscience?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that where it says these
funds are not specifically budgeted and that they'll come out of
general fund reserves, and we just keep piddling away and piddling
away. And I know we had a conversation last summer on this item and
said -- we did not say we will absolutely do this. We said, gosh, if
we get it, then we'll visit it again. But I'm just -- I'm worried,
and this project's fine. I don't have any objection to it, but I'm
worried when we had 40,000 earlier today and 40,000 now, and we just
keep knocking off. And we're only three months, four months into the
year, and we've already spent, I think, about half of our reserves out
of general fund. One of those was a big chunk with the sheriff's
department.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, it was.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At some point between now and
September I hope we slow down that pace.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think we'll probably have to
slow it down, because we're going to run out of reserves if we keep
going, but anyway.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #SD1
RECOMMENDATION TO TERMINATE AND CONSOLIDATE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENTS - APPROVED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM #6 (MCGEE &
ASSOCIATES). STAFF TO PREPARE NEW CONTRACT FOR MCGEE & ASSOCIATES
There being none, we'll move on to the next item. Item
16(D)(6) has been moved up to 8(D)(1).
MR. CARNELL: Again, for the record, Steve Camell,
purchasing director.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I asked to have this moved
off the consent agenda, because there appears to be a great deal of
confusion about what exactly is the nature of our contract with Mr.
McGee. And -- and so I hope that we can just resolve that. I
understand that the -- the MSTUs for which he has been working are
thrilled with his work and that we're close to terminating his
contract, and that didn't look to me like a consent agenda item so --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is solely on number 6 on
that, Mr. McGee's contract? Is that the one you're raising? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. Number 6.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You said McGee's, and the only
one mentioning him is number 6 on the staff report.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Please proceed, Mr. Camell.
MR. CARNELL: Yes. Just to fill you in with regard to
the contract for median beautification, this was a contract that was
procured through a formal request for public process initiated in late
1993. The contract was awarded at the very beginning of 1995, January
3rd to be specific. The agreement, the RFP document that went out
soliciting the proposals and then the agreement that followed, neither
defined what the term length of period of the contract is nor whether
there would be options to renew the agreement. Now, in reviewing this
matter -- it first came to my attention and my office's attention in
November -- there was -- our review initially in tandem with the
public works administrator and the transportation department and the
county attorney's office, we had initial concerns that because the
contract was deficient on its face because it was signed without
having provisions -- those provisions that I referenced -- that the
contract was not renewable and might need to be terminated
immediately.
Now, in terms of doing our internal review, we did some
more research. We looked at the agenda items associated with the
approval of the contract by the board and also subsequent agenda
items, one in which we asked for an increase in the fees that Mr.
McGee has been paid because of additional services that he provided.
And in reviewing that we did find some references to the intent in the
executive summary for the contract to be annual, and there was also a
discussion about it being renewed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually it's May 3, '94 -- we've
gotten copies of this -- the staff recommendation was -- was that
contracts incorporate provisions for annual renewals, and that was
moved and passed.
MR. CARNELL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I don't understand why there's
a question about whether or not there's an annual renewal.
MR. CARNELL: Well, there isn't. There isn't. The
staff -- the latest staff -- I'm trying to give you a chronology here,
because I think that's important. And you need to talk about where
your staff is now, not where your staff was two months ago on this
issue. In terms of what happened -- Commissioner Hac'Kie, you're
correct in pointing out that there was a direction to add renewal
language to the agreement. The agreement wasn't even signed at that
point, and yet that failed to happen. And when the contract was
approved in January of 1995, it still did not have a renewal clause in
it. Now, that is what precipitated that initial line of thought I
just referred to. Now, as we move through the progression here, in
discussing this item with the transportation department --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just ask a question.
We assembled the contract, I assume? MR. CARNELL: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if that was not in the
contract --
MR. CARNELL: That was a staff error.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that was our error?
MR. CARNELL: Yeah. Okay. Now, when we got to the
point in terms -- in terms of our internal review now, I'm talking now
late 1995. And there's a number of reasons why that error occurred,
and I won't go into all that. But, in any event, we get to late
1995. We have an anticipation now of this contract being renewed in
January of 1996. And the staff reviewed what Commissioner Hac'Kie
referred to and also to other actions that were presented to the board
and reached the determination that it clearly was the intent for there
to be renewal provisions in here in the agreement.
Now, in -- in the interim there had been conversations
with Mr. McGee and the transportation staff in terms of trying to
establish the terms and the fee schedule for the renewal contract
effective in January '96. And in December of '95 I had contact with
Mr. McGee in a face-to-face meeting and a follow-up correspondence to
that meeting in which I explained to him that we were attempting to
remedy the contract, to amend it, to put a term in and provisions for
renewal. Now, Mr. McGee at the time expressed to me his understanding
that this contract was intended to be a perpetual contract. That's my
word, perpetual, meaning that it would be an annual contract, and it
would be subject to renewal every year for as long as the county --
ultimately the Board of County Commissioners was satisfied and
inclined to do so.
Our purchasing policy does not function in quite that
open-ended a way. Our purchasing policy says that the renewal of
contracts for a term contract, that we are permitted to renew
contracts for up to two years. Now, I say two years; I'm talking
about the language that was prevailing at the time that this whole
contract was processed and awarded. And that -- so, in other words,
we enter an initial contract year, and then we follow it with two
one-year renewal periods. That is different than what Mr. McGee
understood. He and I --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: From what we voted on on May 3,
1994, we voted annual renewals, and if the policy doesn't match, then
the policy has to change. But we can't -- I mean, you can't suggest
that the board's intent wasn't clear. It's clear.
MR. CARNELL: Oh, I respectfully beg to differ. It does
not specify the number of renewals. It does not say that it will go
on indefinitely, and there's no -- there's no request of this board to
take exception to the purchasing policy.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would assume that if
something isn't specific in the executive summary, then we would
reference back to existing board policy. And you're saying existing
board policy is a three-year maximum right now?
MR. CARNELL: Two years at the time of the action, yes,
two one-year renewals, correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you a question
here before you go on. Nowhere in here do I see any comment from the
advisory groups on these. Both of these are from special taxing
units; is that correct?
MR. CARNELL: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Both of those units have --
both Marco and Golden Gate have bodies that decide what's going to
happen out there, make recommendations to us, but have some level of
authority on -- I know on Golden Gate Parkway they decide what
happened and to what extent it happened. And I assume it's the same
on Marco. I see absolutely nothing in here as to their comments on
where we are with this, their comments on renewal. I mean, this is
their baby, and it disturbs me when -- I appreciate you trying to do
your job as staff, but at the same time when we have members of the
public who volunteer their time on specific issues, in this case the
median beautification, and after speaking to some of the people who
serve on both of those boards, I know they have put some time and
effort in on this issue. And yet there is nothing in writing that
references either one of them even remotely. You haven't made any
verbal reference to them. And I'm wondering where -- where do they
come into your considerations on this? I -- I hope -- and,
Mr. Dotrill, please take note, but I hope that when we hear staff
recommendations, that a part of that deliberation is the volunteers
who are dealing with this specific issue in depth. And this report
and your verbal report would indicate that's not the case.
MR. DORRILL: Excuse me.
MR. CARNELL: That is the case.
MR. DORRILL: Excuse me. I don't know if that's really
the intent. The intent behind this was to direct the purchasing
department to go in and look at from a housecleaning perspective
annual contracts or former contracts of record that needed to be
cleaned up. And this one is unique from all the other ones that are
-- that are mentioned. I don't think anyone either in the purchasing
department and I can assure you in the public works division is
questioning the quality of the work from Mr. McGee's firm. To the
contrary I think the immediate support staff, Mr. Prince, in
particular, have glowing things to say about the quality of the work
associated with this.
The -- the intent behind this was a housekeeping
measure. And if the board is desirous of giving specific direction on
Mr. McGee's contract or to go back and amend the policy, we're more
than happy to do that. Otherwise we're trying to get rid of a bunch
of old contracts --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to me that both of
those boards recommended renewal for Mr. McGee on median
beautification. I understand if there's a question at the end of a
third year or whether this goes on forever, that's fine. But to me
there's a difference between clarifying that question and terminating
the contract. And neither one of those boards have recommended
terminating the contract, but I haven't heard any of that from you
all.
MR. CONRECODE: And I think I can clean all of that up
real quickly. I have personally corresponded with, met with, the
chairman of four advisory committees; Immokalee, Marco, Lely, and
Golden Gate. And we've addressed this issue. The issue wasn't their
unanimous support. They're behind it. They love McGee. And McGee's
done a wonderful job over these last number of years, and it's not
just the term of this contract. He's refused to sign two exten --
basically give us an opportunity to renew his contract for two years.
We've been pleading with him to do that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But weren't you going to change
other terms of his contract, not just -- it's more to it than just --
MR. CONRECODE: We were going to add the renewal -- the
option to renew, which is -- and I will take full responsibility.
Staff screwed up. We left that language out. It was in the intent of
the board motion on May of 1994. I'll accept responsibility for that.
We're trying to remedy that now. Our correspondence with Mr. McGee
has been offering that. I've given those advisory committees my
assurance that I'll put a mem -- a licensed landscaped architect from
my staff on their districts until we fix this problem if Mr. McGee
refuses to renew his contracts.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if Mr. McGee steps to the
microphone and is willing to renew the contract under the general
provisions that you've had up until this point, but accepting what is
general board policy that we usually do that in three-year increments
to get to renewals, then we're in agreement. Now, I don't know if
you're willing to do that, but I just want to make sure I'm
understanding what you're saying.
MR. CONRECODE: That's correct.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The only provision to his
contract that you want to change is just to add the purchasing
policy?
MR. CONRECODE: I'm not aware of any others.
MR. CARNELL: Well, Mr. McGee questioned the wording of
the amendment. He had a concern about the -- in the Marco Island
amendment it stated that the contract would be renewed by the
purchasing director, and he objected to that in his letter of December
27th. Again, that's board policy, that the purchasing director can
amend -- can do the administrative work at renewal. And, frankly, if
that's -- if that's the sticking point with Mr. McGee, direct us to
word it that the board will renew it. Fine with us.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I interject something here?
We've got a proposal that affects other contracts, and we're hung up
on Mr. McGee's contract. Why can't we remove his contract
specifically from this executive summary, work out the differences,
and bring it back at a later date? Having said that, I make a motion
that we approve the item excepting item number 6.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me a second. Excuse me a
second. Commissioner Constantine asked Mr. McGee if he would step
forward and say whether he's going to -- to accept the contract or
not. Let's do it right now.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If he says yeah, then we --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: There seems to be more than one
issue here.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If there is, then we can except
it and do the rest.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We're ready to go. Mr. McGee,
the question is, are you prepared to sign the contract as described by
Mr. Camell.
MR. MCGEE: I'd just like to have a clarification on
what exactly that he's -- he's describing to do because the question
that I had and the reason that -- and what we in our correspondence,
which you have in your package was, is that we thought it was in -- we
were willing to sign the agreement, and we thought it was more
favorable that if we were given the current county policy which we
understood to be a one-year contract with three one-year renewals.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two years.
MR. MCGEE: That's the current one I understand today is
your current policy is one-year contract with three one-year
renewals. And you're going back to the beginning when we first
originally signed the contract and you're --
MR. CARNELL: I'm going back to the window of time that
was specified when the contract was solicited, awarded, signed, and
implemented. And the rationale there between two renewals versus
three is simply that we have a situation where we -- we need to, in my
mind, apply the provision that was in place at the time. There is a
-- this was a highly competitive contract. There were five other
venders that submitted. Mr. McGee was not even number one on the
staff selection committee, which the board was not informed of at the
time of selection. And Mr. McGee -- by the way, I echo Mr.
Conrecode's comments. I have nothing -- Mr. McGee does great work.
If he wasn't, we'd be giving you a totally different presentation
right now.
But the issue is that we've got other people out there
in the community watching, landscape architecture firms, and we feel
like the two-year provision is appropriate. If someone were to
challenge application of the current policy to an old contract,
potentially there's some legal murkiness there.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The two-year provision was in
effect January 5 of last year?
MR. CARNELL: 1995, yes.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, which -- which
provision is appropriate since we're retroactively correcting an error
that, you know -- which provision applies? That's a legal -- seems to
me, legal issue.
MR. WEIGEL: I tend to avoid murkiness where possible.
I would suggest that the policy at the time of implementation was the
intent of the board although not expressed in the agreement.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And which was that? That the two
MR. WEIGEL: That was the one-year with two one-year
renewals.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to echo Mr. McGee's
words. If he agrees to that, great. If not, let's take him out of
this and move on. Because we're sitting here negotiating Mr. McGee's
contract, and I don't think this is the appropriate forum to do that.
So I'm going to echo Commissioner Matthews' motion and that if
Mr. McGee is going to agree with the two-year extension, same terms,
great. If not, we're moving from here, direct staff to negotiate it
and move with the other five.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is it yes or no?
MR. MCGEE: It would be yes, but I just want to make it
clear that the reason that I've come forward and this issue came about
was because basically we -- we -- we look at the MSTU boards as our
client. And what it was is they voted, each board. Four of them have
voted to renew the contract as is with no changes and to continue on.
And what was happening is that information was not coming back no
matter how hard we tried. It wasn't that we didn't want to not sign
it; it was the fact that these boards had voted that they didn't want
to change it. And so it wasn't up to -- we didn't feel that it was up
to us as one party to the contract to -- to override that, and that's
where the issue comes in as to why we weren't --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Maybe I can explain that for you then,
Mr. McGee. Those boards are merely advisory in nature, although in
practice they pretty much run things. But when it comes to county
policy and purchasing procedures, then it's all up to the board of
commissioners. And the current policy is as has been described, the
one-year contract with two additional one-year renewals. I think the
boards very well may not have been aware of that when they voted to
not make any changes in the contract. That's certainly possible.
But the important point here is that the board of
commissioners is charged with adhering to county policy. And if
that's acceptable to you, then we'll go forward from here.
MR. MCGEE: That's most acceptable. That's all we
asked, that it come before you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So your answer is yes?
MR. MCGEE: Yes.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I amend my motion then to
include item 6, McGee.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll strike item 6 and
direct staff to renew.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then her motion stays the same.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You don't want to terminate --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. Let's let the motion maker
state her motion and see where that is.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I make a motion that we accept
the recommendation of staff excluding item number 6.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second -- or you already seconded
it.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Doesn't matter.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Now, Mr. Camell, does that give you
the freedom to --
MR. CARNELL: If I can just reiterate, that we would
pursue renewal of Mr. HcGee's -- amendment of Mr. HcGee's contract and
authorize the staff to prepare that document allowing for two one-year
renewals subsequent to the initial contract period.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Should I incorporate that in the
motion?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Then we have a motion and a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye. And opposed?
Being none, we have moved past that item finally.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was a tough one.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That was a tough one.
Item #BE1
MICHAEL A. MICNEES AS ASSISTANT COUNTY MANAGER - APPROVED
Next item is county manager's item BE-1.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You discuss it enough, you get
it turned around backwards.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. The county manager's ordinance
requires me to undertake the selection and nomination process, and I'm
pleased to be able to nominate Mr. HcNees to that, a ten-year employee
who far exceeds the qualifications for the job. And I will tell you
that I think it is a good testimony to the Board of County
Commissioners that you finally have the overall quality of staff where
these decisions are getting increasingly difficult. But it was nice
to have four very well-qualified candidates from which to choose, all
of whom either have or are entitled to additional responsibility as
your employees, but Mr. HcNees is on top in this case.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if Mr. HcNees
forgot this was on today's agenda or what, but this past Sunday he
scored about 60 points against me and my team at the YHCA and kicked
our behind all over the court. But that notwithstanding, I think he's
a great choice.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's another forum.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we
approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As someone who played on Mike
McNees's team, I will gladly support the nomination.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There are none.
Item #9A
LELY BAREFOOT BEACH GUARDHOUSE CONSIDERATION/DIRECTIONS - STAFF TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH SKETCH A & CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION
Item 9(A), Lely Barefoot Beach guardhouse considerations
and direction.
MR. WEIGEL: Good morning -- good afternoon. This --
this item is on here for various reasons. Obviously we need to
provide opportunity for speakers and board discussion. I will note
that at the outset that there are actually a couple issues not to be
confused with each other, although they're -- they're very related.
The first and major issue is the placement for many years of a
guardhouse or gatehouse -- actually more technically called a
guardhouse -- within the Lely Beach Boulevard right-of-way concerning
public access for the public at large and county rights that have come
to the county, both by contract with Lely Development Corporation and
by contract and agreement with the State of Florida.
The State of Florida has some other additional rights of
access for the public to recreational property which the county has
come in partnership with the state several years ago over this very
same 60-foot wide easement which has been developed into a
approximately 20-foot-wide road.
That element needs to be separated, to some extent, from
the access -- vehicular, pedestrian, and otherwise -- from the beach
park facilities that exist at the end of the road. And with that, I'm
available for question. Our staff, Mr. Bryant, is here for any
response or question. I believe we have several speakers that are
here to talk about it, and we look forward to responding any way we
Can.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I got a memo at the end of
the day yesterday from Commissioner Hancock, and I presume you'll want
to present those to us.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not really.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nevertheless.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know in November we had a
general agreement. Mr. Hazard was here on behalf of the Lely
homeowners, and we had some people here from CABB and Little Hickory
Shores and all of the different parties that had been involved. And
we had a general agreement, and no one was ecstatic with that
agreement, but everybody could live with that agreement. And the
quote we used at the time was, great, all we need to do is dot the I's
and cross the T's, and we'll come back.
This is -- I've been on the board three and a half
years, and this is about the seven hundredth time I've heard this
item. And, frankly, what's come back -- what appears to have come
back -- and I want to hear from Commissioner Hancock. What appears to
have come back is yet another change from what everyone had agreed to
in November. And so unless I'm mistaken, and I may be, and I'll offer
that opportunity -- but unless I'm mistaken, at this point let's just
go forward. We've negotiated back and forth and back and forth and
back and forth on this particular go around for at least a year and a
half. And let's just go to court and let the court sift it out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, three of you want to court
so I guess what I have to say doesn't mean anything.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I was going to say if
you have something that's not a major change from what we're doing, I
want to hear from you but --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Believe me. I understand your
frustration. I've only been on the board, what, 16 months, and this
is the last time we're going to hear this. I think we're going to --
we're going to adopt a moratorium on this item. And we are -- we are
to that point.
And the whole reason I -- I put this together is that
you're right. At the Golden Gate Community Center at a workshop we
said, "Let's go ahead with this." Okay. I met with the Lely
Development Corporation, and they seemed willing to, you know, help
finance the removal of the guardhouse and the placement of it, and
things looked like they were going in a positive direction. And the
only hiccup to occur to use Commissioner Mac'Kie's famous --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, God.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Was by putting it on the
right-hand side, it's a functional problem. Now, we can tease about,
well, don't they have passenger side windows, and that all makes for
good sound, but the truth is if you look down at Lely Barefoot Beach
Park, the county erected a collection -- a little gatehouse for
collection of parking fees on the right-hand side of the road. We had
to end up moving it to the center of the road, because our guards were
in fear of their lives at times. Park rangers were down there, and
sometimes the cars wouldn't stop where they were supposed to stop.
And so we ended moving it to the middle down there, because it
wouldn't function on the right-hand side. So it's obvious that, you
know, if the only solution is to put it on the right, and there's no
-- nothing else to discuss, then you're right. Let's go ahead and
let it be settled in court because that's really not a solution. It's
not a functional solution.
So all I've done is put together the only other options
that are available. And if they're not logical, they don't make
sense, and no one wants to pursue them, then the will of the board
will go ahead. And those two options are to create the two inbound
lanes, one for park goers, one for residents and guests, where gates
are open or up at all times during all park hours. And the difference
is whether the guardhouse is on the right, whether it's in between the
two inbound lanes, or whether it's in the median.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the reason you say that
having it on the right is not an option is safety. But I heard you
say that -- safety but is that -- have you officially been advised? I
wish Mr. Hazard were here or whomever is representing them. Have you
been advised we won't accept that, because the last time they were
here they said okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, they meant Mr. Hazard.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, he's their lawyer.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In fairness, Mr. Hazard also
-- I can't remember if it was a meeting out here or in my office, but
Mr. Hazard told me he had polled his board of directors, and they were
willing to accept that as well. Perhaps that changed -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What happened?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I think he was speaking
for the board.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I got a few phone calls saying
where else have you ever seen this done, and my answer was no where,
there's a good reason for it. So, you know, like I said, this is --
this is it. Either, you know -- if you guys think that -- that, you
know, putting it on the right-hand side is the only available option,
then make a motion to go to code enforcement.
I think options B or C are reasonable. We can limit the
size of the gatehouse facility. We can include the land management
agreement with this and puts it in local enforcement ability. And if
the gates are down locally, we have some ability to do something about
that instead of crying to the state. I think there are some positives
to be gleaned out of this, and I felt I had a least a duty to bring
those up. And if they're not attractive enough for this board to
pursue, then so be it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, there's two issues. One of them
just passing off our responsibility as the Board of County
Commissioners to the courts is maybe not the appropriate thing to do.
It's our responsibility to try and resolve this first. If we can't do
that --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I suggest we've tried.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We've tried. We've tried, and I'm not
clear why this sketch B is not what we ended up with after our last
workshop. I don't know why that's not what we talked about in the
first place.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because -- because that's not
even legal. The PUD -- I mean, it would require an amendment to put
it anywhere other than in tract A. I hate -- I hate the level of the
depth of knowledge I have on this project, but --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that's the basis for the
argument, and that's why we're here. Tract A in the original -- there
was no tract R in the original PUD. There was just tract A. So we're
now dealing with terms that were not in the original PUD, and rather
than sit here for six hours and debate those terms, if we can't agree,
you know, that the original tract A included what is now called this
little part of tract R, then you're right, okay. I personally when I
look at the original PUD, there's no tract R that extended all the way
to the eastern boundary line. There was no tract R. So, you know,
that's the only reason. And there's an agreement that says over and
on to tract R that was arrived at later.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think you're -- I think that
you're not right about the extent to which tract A -- I don't think --
I mean, I saw -- anyway, I saw one that said tract A does end.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The answer appears to be she
does not agree.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do not agree. And I need to go
ahead and just put it out on the table that if, in fact -- I am
willing to settle with sketch A. I'm not willing to do anything other
than that. And I move that -- I'm uncomfortable with this because of
Mr. Hazard not being here. The last statement we have on the record
from Mr. Hazard is that he will agree with -- that his client agrees
with what's shown in sketch A. And so I continue that -- to accept
his position in that meeting and am not willing to go any farther.
So if you're confident, Commissioner Hancock, that they
have rejected A, and it's uncomfortable to me that they're not here to
tell us they reject A.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, I'm not pretending to
speak for the entire association -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but I will say this. They
don't need our help to do A. They don't need anything from us to do
in tract A.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, and that's what they ought
to do is what they're allowed to do.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, it depends on who you talk
to and whose documents you produce. But just -- the point is we're
going to end up in court because of a 12-foot piece of pavement.
Because instead of the guardhouse being on the right-hand side or
making it on the right-hand side instead of being in between two
inbound lanes with one dedicated lane to park goers, we're going to be
in court.
I wanted to present the other options. If you guys
don't want it, great. I'm done talking about it.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one question. Even in
sketch A, this 12-foot rectangle, what does that become?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's existing. That's a
median.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. That's what my question
was.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I'm sorry. And I didn't
spend a lot of time -- but that's an existing median that's in the
road. It's actually a little wider than 12 feet right now.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. I just wasn't sure what
that was. And the other smaller oval is also a divider.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. That would be put in to
separate the two lanes, because if you just have them blending
together, you --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: All right. Okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I move that we reject
anything other than sketch A, which is what they're allowed to do, and
move forward with code enforcement if that offer is rejected by the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And court?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And court if that's where we have
to go. But if we go to code enforcement -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- they take to us court. But
that we go forward with code enforcement action and that our -- our
position doesn't change from that. We aren't discussing anything
more. This is the end of the discussion. We can either go with
sketch A, or we can proceed with code enforcement.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will likely second that,
but I will that hold off pending public comment. MR. DORRILL: Ready? There are a dozen.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We've got -- we've got a number
of public speakers. I think you've seen what the motion and the
second is to do. And I feel sure we have a third vote to do that. If
you would like to pass on your comments, that would be fine.
MR. KELLER: Is tract A part of Lely's property?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're out of order, Mr. Keller.
Please sit down. You need to be recognized before you -- before you
jump up and start talking.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pires. Following him, if I could have
Mr. Newman stand by, please, sir.
MR. PIRES: If I could have just a moment. Briefly, my
name is Tony Pires representing Emily Haggio. I've heard the motion,
and I believe there's a second for a motion that's before this
commission.
I think first and foremost -- and you all recall; I
won't reiterate -- all of the discussion held on November 7, 1995. I
believe the four-point resolution that was brought forward by
Commissioners Constantine and Hancock that was endorsed by the board
at that time and was applauded at that time, was first and foremost
the guardhouse in its current form must go. I think that's per the
verbatim minutes. Secondly, equally marked unencumbered access to the
park by vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle access. Clearly and
definitely marked approach entrance that creates a visual invitation
to the public that the public land is available that they can use it
unimpeded. And then discussion about an information center for
contractors or guests. And at nighttime after the park was closed,
the gates would be closed.
This board is in the position where it's now going to
exercise control. Control is defined or can be defined in two ways.
Control is exercise restraint or direction over, to dominate or
command. In the past there has been restraint upon the part of, I
think, the county as far as its exercising control over this
facility.
I think the county is now in a position where it can and
by this motion will exercise the control that it should over access to
public facilities. But first and foremost code enforcement action
should ensue to remove the guardhouse from its current position to
have unimpeded free public access by all means down to the public
facilities. Thank you very kindly.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Pires, is it your clients'
contention that B or C impedes access with gates open?
MR. PIRES: I believe it does. I think --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And is that your legal opinion,
that it exceeds access?
MR. PIRES: I've had a brief opportunity to review that,
but from the standpoint --COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I apologize for the brief
opportunity. I had this schedule for -- that was my fault.
MR. PIRES: That the -- that the direction that I
understand -- or the discussion by the board at the November 7th
meeting was it was to be open and inviting to the public, and this B
and C I don't think achieve that. Furthermore, the PUD does talk
about -- and once again I think in your memo you address how the
county attorney may address it.
When it talks about -- it doesn't address tract R, but
it does address Lely Beach Boulevard. It specifically says in the PUD
that as to Lely Beach Boulevard, portions of the security gatehouse
facility may extend into and over the Lely Beach Boulevard
right-of-way. By virtue of a current survey that was done by code
enforcement -- and I have copies for the board -- that gatehouse
currently does encroach four and a half feet. There's an overhang
that goes into Lely Beach Boulevard. And possibly what else you end
up with may be an arm on the right-hand side. But I don't believe the
PUD by virtue of that language that talks about portions of the
security gatehouse facility may extend into and over Lely Beach
Boulevard right-of-way. And that's a separate freestanding facility
such as indicated in B or C.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But if it were connected, it
would probably qualify?
MR. PIRES: I don't believe -- I don't think that was
the intent. Once again, Mr. Weigel as your counselor, may have a
different opinion. But also there's a state issue that's involved.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. PIRES: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. McGilvra and then Mr. Keller.
MR. McGILVRA: Good morning once again, Commissioners.
I'm the past president of the property owners of Naples Park and live
in Naples Park, and I'm going to read into the record -- I've been
asked to read into the record a letter to the Board of County
Commissioners from our new president, Vera Fitzgerald. I will do so
now. 1 February 1966 (sic) to the Board of County Commissioners
regarding the gatehouse at Lely Barefoot Beach.
Dear Commissioners, at the Thursday January 25th meeting
of the property owners of Naples Park, the members voted unanimously
against the gatehouse at Lely Barefoot Beach to remain in its present
location or anywhere on the right-of-way to the public beach. The
member authorized me, their current president, to speak on their
behalf. I was -- it was illegally constructed. Ask yourselves how
long it would take you to order the removal of an illegally
constructed gatehouse in Naples Park, in Pine Ridge, in Bonita
Shores. The fines would start immediately. Well, the gatehouse
fiasco has been going on for years, and we've become very angry over
the county's stalling tactics.
This gatehouse must be removed immediately. It is not
true to say that Emily Haggio is the sole voice against this gatehouse
as has been suggested by at least one commissioner? On several
occasions she has been authorized to speak on behalf of the property
owners of Naples Park in addition to almost every homeowners
association in North Naples. When Emily Maggio says she has been
authorized to speak on behalf of these homeowners associations, she
most certainly has. She has the full support of these organizations
and their members.
It is a disgrace the state had to step in over this
legal structure. Commissioners who have been dragging their feet on
this issue should be thoroughly ashamed. Using a so-called factor --
the so-called security factor of this community is ridiculous.
Besides Port Royal, almost all of the single-family
homes and many of those in Pelican Bay are wide open to the public
with no gates whatsoever. In these communities there is no widespread
slaughter of the residents by mad murderers, nor is there any
widespread looting and burglaring. That is another stalling tactic.
The issue is very clear. The structure is illegal.
Take it down. Yours truly, Vera M. Fitzgerald, president of property
owners of Naples Park.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: She is a colorful spokeswoman,
isn't she.
MR. McGILVRA: Yes.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Keller and then Rev. Dawson.
MR. KELLER: I'm George Keller, concerned citizen. I've
been fooling around with this thing for about, I think, 15 years, and
basically speaking the gatehouse -- if the gatehouse is on public
right-of-way --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not. This is something --
Mr. Weigel, maybe you can help me because, this is a great
misinformation -- this is a public road. It's a private road with a
public access easement; is that correct?
MR. KELLER: That's --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: George, hang on. George, hang
on. Let me get an answer.
MR. KELLER: All right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, am I correct?
Because that's -- when I look at it, it's a private road with a public
accesses easement.
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The maintenance of that
road is borne solely by the residents of Lely Barefoot Beach? MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's different than a public
road, George.
MR. KELLER: Very well. Just let's put it this way.
The people in -- the people in Collier County deserve the right to
access that beach anytime they want except for the rules and
regulations of the park department which say after dark it's closed.
So consequently I don't think any people in Collier County should have
to go and ask permission for anybody to go in there.
I will remind you -- I will remind you, when this
gatehouse was first put up that Henry Maxim was chairman of the North
Naples Fire District, and he tried to get in there, and he was
stopped. And he had to prove he was chairman of the fire district,
and he had his -- he actually told a lie and said he was going to make
an inspection, because he wanted to prove the fact that the public was
not permitted to go in there originally. Now, they have made some
concessions since then, but if the person that doesn't really know
that they've got a right to go in there sees a gate -- and person --
preferably there's no signs anyplace before or after, as I understand
it, saying that you are now approaching a public park that you have
access to. Now, that should be done too. We should definitely have
signs telling people they're entitled to go into that park anytime
during daytime hours.
And the gate -- the gate to go into that park, there
should be a separate gate for the residents and a separate gate for
the park. And if it's a separate gate for the residents, it should be
marked residents -- residents must check in. And the park, it should
say free access during daylight hours, pure and simple. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We all agree with you, Mr. Keller.
It's all right there. (indicated).
MR. KELLER: But if necessary let's go to the court and
find out what the legal part of that is.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Dawson, and then I have
Nancy Barster.
MR. DAWSON: Good afternoon. I'm Don Dawson. I live on
46th Ninth Street, Bonita Shores. I have been coming here for several
years about this situation. I like what Tim said at a couple of
meetings that we've had, and he referred to the trip that he had in
Maine when he went to the beach and all of the parking places were
taken, and so he had to leave. And I like that. That's a good old
American way.
The gatehouse shouldn't have been put there in the
beginning. It shouldn't be there, because there is a public access.
And you should not obstruct any public access or easement in any
shape, form, or matter. The original PUD, if it called for a
gatehouse, I don't care where it was, it was done in error. I think
that when there's a public easement, you have to honor that. And you
have to protect that law because, you see, if you don't, you're going
to set a precedent today, and there's going to be other communities
come up in Collier County that are going to want a gate -- gatehouse,
gated communities. I cannot see why this has gone on this long.
To give you a little iljustration, let's say that you
were to go through a traffic light this afternoon, and you broke the
law, and a policeman arrested you. And so now you go to the judge,
and you try to make a deal. Well, you're not doing what is right.
You're not obeying the law, and you probably would get arrested for
trying to bribe the judge.
And I think this is the same situation here. That
guardhouse is not suppose to be there. They are in violation of that
code. You have no -- the only decision that you can make is take it
down, and then if you want to negotiate something after that, then do
it.
But right now you have to take that gate down. You
can't leave that there. I don't see how you can do that in good
conscience. Tim left. I wish he was here to hear what I have just
said. But it's very important that you obey the law and have the code
enforcement obey the law. Now, if it goes to court, then let the
courts do it. But your position should be take that gatehouse down.
Protect our rights. I have a right to go there.
They didn't want to deal when we wanted to have a
community beach between Bonita Springs, Lee County, and Collier
County. There was a reverter clause that if there was another
entrance put into that, that there's a certain amount of property on
the north end that would revert back to Lely, and they -- and you
wouldn't be able to get into that park entrance. They didn't want to
deal then. That was the most sensible thing, to have a joint beach
between Collier County and Lee County there, but they didn't do that.
They weren't the big brother. They said no. So they stopped that.
They wasted thousands of dollars of Lee County and Collier County
time.
And I'm asking you today do what the code enforcement
says. Take that gatehouse down, and don't let them put it up again.
Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Miss Barster -- and we should at least
acknowledge assistant attorney general for the State of Florida, and
we welcome you to Collier County today.
MS. BARSTER: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Sauerbeer, you'll be next. Go right
ahead.
MS. BARSTER: Good afternoon. For the record my name is
Nancy Barster. I'm an assistant attorney general with the office of
Attorney General Bob Butterworth. I'm here today on his behalf as
well as representing the board of trustees of the internal improvement
trust fund for the State of Florida.
As you're aware, the attorney general and the board of
trustees has intervened in the legal action that was filed by Lely
Barefoot Beach property owner's association against the county. The
state's interest in the lawsuit is to maintain and preserve
unrestricted public access to the park, to the preserve permanently.
And that is why we're here. That is our only interest.
What the term unrestricted public access means and how
we are to achieve it are issues that the state necessarily must be a
part in considering. We cannot comment today on any of the proposals
that have been discussed, because we have not seen any of them. We
have not been included. And one thing that I would ask of you today
is that in future discussions please give us notice, please include us
so that we are considered a part of it. We don't want to belabor the
issue any longer.
We appreciate all the time and attention that the county
has paid to this issue, and we understand how long it's gone on. We
don't want it to take any longer than necessary. And we would, again,
appreciate just being in the notice and included in the informal
process that you go through in reviewing anything. We stand ready to
do that. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Miss Sauerbeer and then Mr. Rosenberger.
MS. SAUERBEER: Here I am again. I was going to bring
my lunch, and I forgot. Barefoot Beach is about really the only state
open beach on the north end of Collier County that people can get to.
And, of course, it's also the end of the county that's got the most
growth.
It is difficult to get into Barefoot Beach through that
guardhouse, and, of course, I think they have a point when they said,
well, they thought they bought privately-gated community, so forth and
so on. And all the wear and tear we're putting on their roads that
they're maintaining. But I'm sure you have seen the paper, that's
what's on Barefoot Beach. Soon it will be impossible to go Barefoot
to go -- they should say go to Barefoot, but this is what's been built
on Barefoot Beach since this thing has started.
Now, how about all these contractors, builders, service
people, garbage collectors that have to access that? How do they get
through there?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They drive. They pull up, they
get a little sticker saying they're in construction, and they drive
through.
MS. SAUERBEER: I can't imagine with that much growth
that they can -- that you people on the commission there can approve
that they have a gatehouse there. They ought to be able to drive
straight through.
There's hardly any beaches left easy access, and this
would be a perfect spot. Get that guardhouse out of there like you
said you'd do or get the code enforcement to enforce that $250 a day
fine until they do. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Rosenberger, and then Ms. Haggio.
MR. ROSENBERGER: I'm Dick Rosenberger. I'm president
of Barefoot Beach II, which are the condominiums -- which are the
condominiums towards the -- closest to the preserve. And there's a
total of 348 units there, so we are the ones that get -- are affected
by most of the traffic involved.
First of all, I've seen the original PUD, and there is a
tract R on there. I don't know where this confusion arises, but --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Probably in my head.
MR. ROSENBERGER: -- neither here nor there. Every PUD
since then has had the amendments, has had this provision in, an extra
travel lane shall be constructed by the developer at the entry gate
permitting security checks without blocking traffic flow. And there's
another provision in the PUD that said that an extra lane of travel
shall be constructed for the flow of the public.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nobody is questioning the lane of
travel.
MR. ROSENBERGER: As an owner we have -- there have been
-- the PUD for the villas was put in -- approved by the county
commission 9-12-88. At -- I just happen to have a copy of this here.
I know the question came up. The villas is the area before tract A
between there and Bonita Beach Road, and here's new guardhouse under
construction right in the middle of the road, right where it is now.
The permit admittedly is -- is -- has a flaw on it. And
Mr. Bryant said that he doesn't like anything murky. I think some of
this is murky as far as the county is concerned, or it may be murky as
part -- on the part of Lely. But the murkiness is on both sides. The
county has approved PUD after PUD after PUD with that gatehouse there.
And now all of a sudden you want to take it down.
Now, here's the -- this is the application for building
permit. It says Lely Beach -- Barefoot Beach as per plan. I went
down and got a copy of the permit application. I says, where is the
plan? Well, conveniently it's gone. Now, the PUD would say --
identify where the permit -- where the gatehouse should be. I don't
know if it's -- if it's back by the sales office or if it's in its
present location. But it says -- continues description 70 foot south
of Bonita Beach Road. Obviously that's way off. That's way off
either location. But the as-per plan would identify where it is.
And the county, like I say, has -- who knows why it's
gone. Maybe the code enforcement didn't want it there. I don't
know. But it says 70 foot south of Bonita Beach Road on the
centerline of Lely Beach Boulevard. That is clear. The permit is for
the centerline of Lely Beach Boulevard. The permit also is for a
guardhouse 100 foot square. It identifies the exact structure. It
identifies the centerline of Lely Beach Boulevard. It just doesn't
identify how far up or back it goes.
Now, as a resident there we've come to rely on the
county for this gatehouse. It's been sitting there since 1988. When
we bought there we saw it. There's new developments came in. We've
got 348 people come in. And all of a sudden decide to jump on the
residents and fine us $250 a day or something, and we didn't have
anything to do with it. We relied on the county --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I beg to differ there,
because if you recall the public hearing we had at least maybe two
years ago when Dick Timbers was representing your homeowners group and
jumping around with a pointer in his hand and saying, "I know we're
breaking the law, and darn it, we're going to keep on doing it when
both the gates were down."
It also says in there that gates will remain up. There
are a number of points above and beyond the paper you're holding, and
that may or may not, you know, be one of them. But there are a number
of points. And so to suggest that the homeowners have just innocently
sat by and all of a sudden the big, bad mean county has come and said
we're going to tear down the gatehouse isn't exactly an accurate
portrayal.
MR. ROSENBERGER: I don't believe -- they have never had
both gates down at that time, and I don't care what Dick Timber said.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Rosenberger, let's not argue those
issues that -- we already have a motion on the floor to take it to
code enforcement and thereby to court. That's the issue today.
MR. ROSENBERGER: What I'm saying is there is a 10-by-10
gatehouse which describes the present one. The permit says it's on
the centerline of the road, which is -- describes the present one.
And the 70-foot back, for some reason or other, is way off. It
neither describes where it s now or back where you're suggesting it
should be.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, we heard you. Your time has
expired, too. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hagglo, and then Mr. Vega.
MS. HAGGIO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Emily Haggio, and I live in Little Hickory Shores, and I'm here today
representing the Bonita Shores and Little Hickory Shores Improvement
Association, Incorporated and myself as well. And if I could just
digress for a minute and really quick address what Mr. Rosenberger
said. If he will look more closely -- and I'll lend him my glasses if
he needs them. Look at that permit application. It says that that
guardhouse is an addition to the gatehouse facility by survey provided
to the county. By their own surveyor that building is 220 feet south
-- or north of the gatehouse. And on the permit application it says
they don't have to put sanitary facilities in that little guardhouse,
because they are available within 200 feet away.
The permit -- there is -- there is much representation
-- misrepresentation on that permit. It can't possibly be valid.
Our position -- and I'm speaking now for the homeowners. Our position
as the letter I have handed you states, is that the only equitable
solution to this matter is complete compliance with the terms of the
existing legal documents. It is the only solution that neither takes
away any existing rights nor grants any additional rights to either
party. The only issues this board needs to concern itself with are
has the public met its legal obligations and is the public in return
receiving its full benefit.
Other red herring issues, who owns the road, is it a
private road, I don't care if the queen of England owns it, the only
salient point is do we have a legal easement. Were the residents
misled, et cetera, et cetera, are red herring issues, and they have
been allowed to come into play.
Is moving forward with code enforcement the right thing
to do? Let's set aside for the minute the fact that you buy a piece
of property subject to all the deed restrictions and easements of
record. And let's forget the fact, set it aside, code compliance has
already determined there are violations. You decide.
The day after the park owned the gates remained closed
and the private security guards stopped every car and charged a dollar
fee to those that were going to the park. This was done without
authorization from the county. In fact, the county didn't even know
about it until someone called to complain. Thereafter reports of
confrontations began to surface. The park supervisor -- the
supervisors of park rangers wrote that memo. It speaks for itself,
particularly the paragraph at the bottom where she says we are
continually faced with these situations. That memo was written just
six months after the park opened.
This situation continued over the ensuing months and
years, and virtually nothing was done to correct it. During this
period the developer and the homeowners group brought petition about
once a year -- just like hay fever it kept coming back -- to the
county that all had the same theme or slight variation thereof. You
hire a ranger, two of them, put one up here, one down there. They
talk to each other. When the parking lot is full, nobody goes in, and
by the way, we'll pay his salary, but he'll work for you. As my
granddaughter would say, yeah right.
The latest petition was heard on October 4, 1994, during
which the president of the homeowner association in responding to a
question from Commissioner Constantine as to why the terms of the
management plan regarding the opening of the gates wasn't being
adhered to said, "That's your plan, it's not our plan, and we choose
to ignore it." That's the past.
Now, let's look at the future. What do they have in
store? They've provided it for us. This is the settlement agreement
that they proposed. It was authored by their attorney. I went
through paragraph by paragraph, and what you have in your hand are all
of the rights that would accrue to them if we agree to that
settlement. If the homeowners association is successful in getting
what they are seeking in that settlement, even if they only get one or
two off the list, they will in effect be rewriting the 1978 easement
agreement, rewriting the 1988 easement agreement, amending their PUD
documents, rewriting the lease between the county and the state and
the management plan as well. They will do it in a manner that allows
them to keep all of the benefits they have received, rid themselves of
their legal obligations to the public, and in some cases pass those
obligations right back to the public, and, oh, yes, it will put them
in control of the park.
We ask respectfully that you move forward with
compliance immediately. They should be given the minimum amount of
time to comply. Don't ask the homeowners, the developer, or their
lawyers how much time they need, who's to pay for it. They're to pay
for it. You set the time.
The time allowed should be set by the board or by your
ordinances. It should be made clear there will be no extensions,
absolutely none for any reason. Compliance, we ask respectfully that
you do this, not in a hateful or vengeful mode. We ask you to do this
in the cause of justice bearing in mind that their noncompliance has
been a willful act and also bearing in mind that the public has been
denied its legal rights and has suffered this injustice ever since the
park opened five and a half years. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Vega.
(A short break was held.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene now. We've got our
paper changed, a new recorder, court reporter, and we're all set to
go, Mr. Vega.
MR. VEGA: My name's George Vega. I'm here on behalf of
Lely Development Corporation. Because you proceed in litigation is --
whatever you'd like to do is fine, but that doesn't necessarily mean
that any negotiations have stopped or may stop. And we will be glad,
although we're not specifically involved, to cooperate with any of the
-- the parties, the county, or the property owners' association in
any way.
I do want to point out maybe an item that may have been
overlooked. I don't know. But when the property was purchased back
in June of '87, at that point there was a -- part of the agreement
says if the parking lot becomes full at any time, access to the
property will temporarily be closed at the intersection of Bonita
Beach Road and the entrance to Barefoot Beach at that subdivision
until time of the parking spaces become available. At the request of
the park superintendent or representative or its assignees, you'll
have full right to stop property until the parking is open.
Now, whatever it is that you'd like us to do, we will be
glad to cooperate or assist the property owners' association. These
agreements, by the way, continue, and there's a section in the
agreement that says that these agreements continue to the present
time. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Vega.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Ward.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, how many more
speakers do we have?
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Straton who follows Ms. Ward will be
your final registered speaker. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. WARD: Honorable commissioners, for the record, I'm
Harjorie Ward representing CABB and many of the concerned beach
goers.
We've been involved in this subject before any of you
were on the board, in fact, before the first house was ever built in
the subdivision. Our interests were to obtain as much beach frontage
as possible, to make it accessible to the public and yes, to donate
our efforts to retaining its pristine condition as much as possible.
To set the record straight, our concerns are to obtain
and retain permanently unencumbered access to these lands which is
just what you've been talking about, in other words, what the legal
documents that were adopted by the state of Florida and Collier County
who leases the state property. The public has never asked for more
than its rights but knows it's entitled to be protected in the
enforcement of their rights.
There exists a 60-foot easement held by the state of
Florida, Collier County, and the public over the road known as Lely
Boulevard which was in existence be homes -- before homes were ever
erected on that location, the location of which was moved at the
request of Lely Development. This easement provides for unrestricted
access by any and all beach goers during the time that the preserve is
open, 8 a.m. to sunset.
Despite denials of those wishing to maintain the private
property inside the existing guard house as private and in their
control, it has been verified by the state attorney general's office
on down to the Board of County Commissioners, the Collier attorneys,
the development compliance that the current guard house was never
legally permitted where it stands and should have been removed years
ago.
Continually the public has been asked to compromise, but
we have nothing left to compromise with. Certain residents within the
development and their allies have blatantly refused to comply with the
ELMAC agreements, and it's already been stated by a couple of previous
people.
Meanwhile, this has dragged on at the expense of the
state and the county being defied, something that other citizens
cannot do. It's not the obligation of the state or the county and it
certainly is not of the general public to solve the problems that the
home -- homeowners and Lely Development Company have over who owns
what property and where.
The subject is that the guard house and the gates must
be removed at once where they exist. And if there's any movement of
them, it's the problem of those wanting to reinstall them to do it
legally whether it be on tract A or Disney World. But under no
circumstances should it be relocated now or in the future on any
portion of the 60-foot easement. Please let's just end this at once
with compliance of the legal documents that everyone agrees are just
that, the legal documents.
On behalf of the long-suffering public, one of whom just
said to me on January 29 -- and I quote -- I didn't know there was a
beach for the public inside that gate; I thought it was private,
unquote, thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Miss Straton.
MS. STRATON: In the interest of counting votes and
brevity, I'm here representing the board of directors of the Second
District Association which consists of 18 member associations in the
north end of the county. And we would heartily support the motion as
it currently exists to move forward with code enforcement at this
time. Thank you.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: With that in mind, Mr.
Chairman, I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's no question in my mind --
and I also am going to take less than two minutes. There's no
question in my mind that some things have been done in the past that
were wrong, that shouldn't have been done, whether it be the locating
of the guard house, whether it be Mr. Timbers' last stand, you know.
You know, you can -- you can point to a myriad of things that if we
could go back and do them differently, I think a lot of people would.
But we're here where we are today. I'm not going to
quote Mr. Cuyler on that. We're here where we are today. And my
interest is simply -- it's so funny. I listen to people talk about
serving the public interest and the public, and -- and I am trying to
achieve two things. I'm trying to make sure the public has that
unencumbered access while the folks at Lely have what their
development documents allow them to have and nothing more. And there
may be a disagreement as to that interpretation, and -- and I'm
disagreeing with an attorney, so I take some pride in that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Give you credit for that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I do want -- the one thing I
want to point out is everyone here talks about championing the public
good, the public. Ladies and gentlemen, here is the public for the
last 12 months that went through Lely Barefoot. Out of all of these
people -- there are five to seven per page -- there are two negative
comments, two. And that's under current conditions, not under what's
proposed.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who maintained that log?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: County staff. They interview
people as they come in the park. Two out of several hundreds.
So I have to question which public are we serving. The
people who use this park complimented to a greater degree than anyone
makes a detracting statement.
So to improve over the current situation means to me to
eliminate those two comments, and it can be done. But, you know,
that's -- that's my last pitch for it.
And I just want to re -- reemphasize that the folks who
live in Lely Barefoot Beach are not the villains here. There are 700
people there that are going to be subjected to something that they
didn't create. And I've tried to find a way to accomplish everyone's
goal and keep those people from being subjected to that. I'm probably
going to fail today, but I tried just the same.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm going to reluctantly support the
motion, and I say reluctantly because it -- it appears that this is
the only way we're going to get the issue settled. The -- I thought
in our last workshop that we had come up with a reasonable plan that
would satisfy everybody. This -- this proposal sketch B here that we
-- we have today, I'm going to predict that that's what we finally
end up with after we go to court. That's my prediction today. So you
mark it down and see how it works out.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Jean Dixon.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But -- but it's reasonable. There's
un -- unencumbered access in that proposal. There's a gate that can
be used after hours, after park hours, so everybody could be satisfied
with that one. I think that's probably what the Court's going to
decide to do.
But I'll call the question now. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
And opposed?
Four to one on that one.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Boy, who would have called that?
Item #9B
DISCUSSION/FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND DIRECTION REGARDING COLLIER
COUNTY PARTICIPATION WITH LEE COUNTY AND THE FLORIDA GULF COAST
UNIVERSITY PROJECT - PARTICIPATION AND $500,000 COMMITMENT CONTINGENT
UPON DEVELOPING 4-LANING FROM CORKSCREW ROAD NORTH
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Treeline Drive.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I had asked for this to be
continued and -- and brought back up today, and I'll tell you what I
have been doing in the meantime was trying to do some research. And
I'm pleased to report the results of the research.
We made a commitment to Lee County to fund the 500 -- to
fund $500,000 of a $3,000,000 shortfall on the 4 laning of Treeline
Drive. And some nasty questions got raised after that, some
implications or -- or questions about whether or not some particular
developers were benefiting, whether or not there was something shady
going on.
And it has -- I'm pleased to report after having done
research -- our staff has researched it. They've worked with the Lee
County staff. Local representatives from EDC, the chamber, just about
everybody I can think of who's interested in the university and the
community has done some rather extensive research and determined that
all of those scary possibilities have not proven to be true. Is -- is
there a -- a private benefit when a road is widened? The answer is
yes. Every time we improve a roadway in Collier County, whoever --
whoever owns the property adjacent to it is benefitted to the extent
they want to do commercial development.
But is there a particular property or a particular
development? There was some talk about a mall and the possibility for
-- that if the county didn't -- if we didn't do this $500,000 a mall
was going to have to do it, a mall developer. And it turns out that
that's not true, that all of the appropriate contributions by all of
the appropriate property owners are being made at the appropriate
normal levels. There's nothing secret happening that anybody who's
done a great deal of -- of research has been able to identify. So I'm
comfortable that all of those predictions that there was something --
something untoward going on have proven to be untrue.
Having made a commitment to our sister county to -- a
$500,000 contribution toward this road shortfall, I -- I would like to
endorse that position, to apologize for the delay, tell them that next
time we'll do our homework better so that we don't have to -- have to
have these questions after the fact.
It's unfortunate that we didn't do the homework ahead of
time. But the good news is having done it now, there's not anything
untoward. There's nothing that anybody can discover that's unusual in
this circumstance.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We should stand by the commitment
that we made to Lee County, and I'm going to move that we do so.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I sit here today, and I know you
mentioned there were a lot of things brought up about development and
so forth and so on. I sit here today with the same reservation I -- I
felt through the weekend that followed our decision. And that
reservation is that Collier County is not an unlimited pool of
resources for the university or for Lee County or for anything for
that matter.
And before we go allocating those resources to a
specific project, I need to weigh the options. I need to weigh the
value of each option and determine what is the best expense.
By the manner in which this has been brought about, that
opportunity has not occurred. We have been presented one option. We
have been presented one way to help, period. And I believe in
partnering with the university. My comments have always been in that
regard. I believe in coming up with -- with -- with ways to do that
that are mutually beneficial to everyone.
But I just feel that this is in essence kind of a
decision in a vacuum. It's one idea, one item. It's not the
university in totality, university and its impact to Collier County
and how we can best serve the citizens of this county by participating
in the university.
And for that reason until I can -- can have the
opportunity to look at this as a total approach -- I mean, I know what
the paper says. It's the Dean Sanders version of funding. Do both,
you know. Five hundred thousand here, a million dollars there. It's
the Dean Sanders commercial. Both. What the heck? It's only the
taxpayers' checkbook. What do we care?
I can't take that position, you know. I can take a
position of funding what I think is reasonable, prudent. But I need
to know what the options are. And at this point I just don't know the
options.
And, Commissioner Constantine, that is by no means a
comment directed at you. You brought forward something for
discussion, and I admire you for doing it. You've taken some hits for
it actually. But I just can't support the -- the -- the funding for
those reasons.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've had three -- three
months or so since we first brought this forward to look at other
things. And I'm sure as the university develops there will be any
number of options that appear. But factually nothing has changed
since this first came about.
There was -- as Commissioner Mac'Kie said, there were
some questions that came out. We've answered those, and I think from
a factual standpoint we are back where we were the first day we
discussed it. There is not a factual change.
Where my greatest comfort comes from is kind of two
specific things; and that is, with the university, there are state
responsibilities with a four-year state of Florida university. The
state has particular responsibilities, and that is to build the
buildings, to fill it with teachers, to fill it with lab equipment,
what have you, and to -- to fund all of those things.
Local government where that university is built has the
responsibility to put infrastructure so you can drive and get there,
so you have water and sewer on arrival, and so on.
And I -- I think it's important that we keep those
responsibilities distinctive. And -- and our neighbors in Lee have
put a huge amount of money toward that local responsibility. But just
because it is eight minutes north of the county line, I don't think we
can absolve ourselves of some of that same local responsibility for
infrastructure or for other.
The sole method of access to the university will be via
Treeline. And I just -- Commissioner Hac'Kie has some information
here I think she handed out to each of you -- she handed to me -- that
says it's anticipated initially anyway that 27 percent of the students
at the university will be from Collier County. Obviously 27 percent
of the students will all be driving on Treeline to get to that
university. The immediate benefit is there.
Secondarily, there's -- I don't know if everyone has
seen that map. There is a -- there is a map that has come out more
recently that shows clearly our long term -- I think it's actually a
12-year plan but with Treeline, with some of the options. There's one
we all have. There's another that's very good. And I -- and I think
as we look at Treeline -- and you -- you have to stop and think where
a lot of the growth in the county is going, where the number of people
we're going to have is. And as you look -- thank you. That's -- I
don't know if you all have seen that very, very good map. And I don't
-- I hadn't seen it up till today.
Anyone who lives east of 1-75, this is going to be their
most direct access to the university and actually to the airport as
well. As the new terminal goes in if -- without Treeline, you're
going to do a big button hook to get to the airport.
And so I think it -- as we look at 10 years out and 15
years out, we're going to have a roadway that for 150,000 people or
more in the eastern half of the county is going to be their direct
link to that university and to the airport.
So I think everybody benefits not only today. But if --
if we have a little vision and look long term, there is a very, very
clear benefit. With that in mind I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, tell you what. Hiss Hac'Kie has
submitted the issue here but under pretenses that are just not
correct. We were given the -- the different figures for the -- the
different commitments from all of the -- the people that may be
involved at some point in time with Treeline Drive funding. But the
problem is that there have been no development orders issued and none
of this is set in concrete. These are all just proposals at this --
this point in time.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually I got that same memo and
was very concerned with that. And as I did further research
yesterday, what I have are -- you're right. There aren't development
orders with the local government. But there are written agreements
with the Board of Regents of the state of Florida -- and I have
copies -- requiring both Alico and the T and T -- I never can say it
-- Timberland and Tibberon. So they have both in writing had their
commitment made to the Board of Regents to do this. So the final
development orders for the local government haven't been done, but
their requirements are, in fact, legally -- they're legally bound to
make their contributions.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Even so, we still have to go to
what is it we're trying to accomplish here. This was presented as a
way to partner with the university, or alternately it's been proposed
as to -- to participate in a regional issue with our sister county,
Lee County.
Well, you know, there's still some problems there.
First of all, the university doesn't benefit by our contribution at
all. There won't be one more book, one more chair, one more square
foot of building. There will be nothing for the university in this.
There will be nothing at all.
The -- the road itself is being bid all the way to
Corkscrew. So whether or not we participate is not going to have
much, if any, impact on whether the road's going to be built or not.
It is going to be built all the way to Corkscrew as a two-lane or a
four-lane road. So there's really no benefit to the road itself
except that it would be $500,000 that -- that Lee County wouldn't have
to put in.
Collier County students, therefore, since the road is
going to be built to -- to Corkscrew anyway are essentially
unaffected. They'll have their route to go to the -- to the
university either way. Doesn't make any difference. The -- the road
is programmed to handle all traffic as a two lane for many years to
come. It -- it's not programmed to connect with any road in Collier
County for 15 years at this point.
If it were to -- if the proposal were to connect today,
for Collier County to extend 951 and Lee County to extend Treeline and
connect them together, that's a regional issue. There's no question
about it. What we're talking about here is one short little road
segment, four-mile road segment, contained totally within Lee County.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hay I --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Now -- I got more.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Lee County, of course, is the
beneficiary here. And -- and once again, this has been proposed as a
regional participation with our sister county. You know, we've --
we've seen a lot of proposals to join with Lee County on a regional
basis on a -- on a number of different projects.
But what I want to know is when does regional
cooperation mean that Collier County starts getting some money instead
of paying it out all the time? I mean, that's a legitimate question.
And -- and, Hiss Hac'Kie, the newspaper reported that
the mall developer does need a four lane to proceed. So the net
effect of our $500,000 ensuring that the 4-lane road is built means
that our $500,000 goes in the pocket of the developer. I don't care
how you look at it.
And by the way, that went to the hearing officer last
month. As of today conveniently, the hearing officer has not issued a
ruling. So we don't know that this is going to be a -- a concrete
part of the pro -- the development order to go build that mall.
There's just too many things wrong with this. It's --
you know, the basic question is is it appropriate for us to tax our
Collier County citizens and then give the money to another county to
build a road? I mean, that's the first question that has to be
answered. And that's just -- the answer to that is obviously no.
But fortunately after all this, there are alternatives.
If we want to be a partner with the university, there are a number of
things that we can do. We can -- the Bluebill property has been
proposed as -- as perhaps a site for the university. The Collier
Kelly -- Collier County scholarship fund was proposed by Dr.
HcTarnigan as a good alternative. Capital funding is one that I
proposed. We might want to build an addition to a building up there.
And also Rookery Bay lab which you probably have all received a letter
by now from Rookery Bay that endorses that idea would be another one
where Collier County could participate.
But if we're going to participate with the university,
let's participate with the university. If we're going to participate
with Lee County on a regional basis, let's get a regional project.
And that's all I have to say about it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I just -- one last point? A
memo -- it's January -- January 22 from George Archibald to -- to Neil
Dotrill -- does a cost benefit analysis. And it -- I'm sorry, a usage
benefit analysis using the same formula as Bonita Beach Road. Mr. --
Mr. Archibald's conclusion is that the benefit to Collier County based
on the -- the length and width and a whole lot of other, you know,
traffic data is that there's an $800,000 value to Collier County using
the same analysis as the Bonita Beach Road methodology.
So I -- I just wanted to put that on the record, too,
that there is, in fact, from our own staff an $800,000 identified
commonality. And we are gonna instead contribute $500,000 so --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I just want to respond
to a couple things you said, and I realize I'm not going to convince
you but clarification for the public's purposes. I -- I think some of
the suggestions you had there for other alternatives are fine. But I
think it blurs the line between what is the state responsibility and
what are local responsibilities when you're getting a university off
the ground. When you talk about buildings and those type things,
that's not the responsibility of local governments when a new
university is being created.
As far as benefit to the university, what is the benefit
of the university? I think having the roadway in there, it's
projected both by the university itself and by Lee County
transportation officials that within five to eight years they're gonna
require the four lanes anyway.
So as far as cost effectiveness, does it make any sense
to reapply and have another set of permits five years from now? Or
does it make any sense to tear up the road five years from now and put
in two more lanes? And, you know, we're not going to convince, but
there's more than -- than what you're laying on the table there to
deal with that. There are clear benefits to the university and
particularly to the Collier students who are going to that
university.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one -- one comment, Hr.
Chairman, if you don't mind. I -- I've heard excellent suggestions
today of ways that we could participate in -- in the bitthing, so to
speak, of -- of this college. And I -- I would just like to hope this
board does not stop at a single project. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Both.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, and over time this school
is going to be growing and expanding, I would presume, over the next
20, 25 years or more. And I -- I truly believe that there will be
ample opportunities for Collier County to help in whatever is going
on, be it mini sites off site of the -- the -- the university proper
or, you know, what have you. I don't look at this as the only and
final thing that -- that we can do.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we have speakers on this, Mr.
Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's go to the speakers.
MR. DORRILL: Hiss Sourbeer. And, Hiss Fort, you'll --
you'll follow Hiss Sourbeer, but if I can have you stand by, please.
MS. SOURBEER: Good afternoon. Regarding this $500,000
that we were talking about contribution to the university, my
recommendation would be to go to the scholarships. We need money for
roads. We need money for drainage. We need money for everything
right here in Collier County. And I think your constituents and your
people here in -- taxpayers in Collier County would be a lot happier
to hear you say we're gonna provide scholarships for Collier County
resident students.
I think when you're talking 25 -- 27 percent of the
students in that university will come from Collier County, I worked 25
years with the state of Florida in education. And I had learned a
long way back that numbers are whatever you want to make them.
Twenty-five percent of what number you're talking about that might
attend that school? So I don't think we're going to have any traffic
jam or any clogged highways from students going from Collier County up
to that new university.
Where we would really have benefitted would have been if
we could have had that university right here in Collier. Since we
don't, we can probably go to helping them out with scholarships that
would benefit our own students. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Hiss Fort and then Hiss Straton.
MS. FORT: My name is Jean Fort, and I'm a resident of
East Naples. I am opposed to giving $500,000 of taxpayers' money to
Lee County for a road to the new university. As I understand taxes,
they are to provide for the things in our county we cannot do for
ourselves: Roads, sewer, water, et cetera. They are not meant to be
spent on special interest programs. There are endless needs and many
worthy programs, but they should not qualify for our tax dollars.
I've heard the pitch for our young people. They are my
concern also. But I don't want to see them starting out under a huge
tax burden. If we don't get control of spending in our county, state,
and federal government, there will be little for these college
graduates to look forward to.
What I have read and heard from you county commissioners
reminds me of a young child given a dollar that is burning a hole in
his pocket to spend. It doesn't really matter on what, just spend.
Please remember these taxes are real burdens to many in our county.
Thank you very much.
MR. DORRILL: Hiss Straton and then Hiss Daughter.
MS. SLAUGHTER: Slaughter.
MR. DORRILL: Slaughter, excuse me.
MS. STRATON: My name is Chris Straton, and I'm
representing the board of directors of the Second District
Association. I'd like to put my remarks specifically towards the
proposal that Commissioner Hancock has suggested with respect to
Bluebill Avenue property.
We have gone on record with the commissioner that we are
against the sale of the Bluebill property without adequate public
discussion. We're concerned that this is the only property the county
owns that's near a beach. And as we know from FOCUS and other things,
beach access is a growing problem and so that we would like to make
sure that the discussion of the uses of Bluebill Avenue bear in mind
the use of the residents of Collier County before we consider giving
it to a university to be used. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Clarification, Hiss Straton. I
was not talking about the entire 23 parcels, and I've been talking
with Mr. Kobza about reconfiguring the road to allow for beach parking
to the north. What we're talking about is about 8 of the 23 parcels
and doing a master plan of that area, so it's not give it to the
university and walk away saying what a good person -- what a good
person I am. It's a very small amount, controlled amount involved in
an overall master plan so --
MS. STRATON: Okay. Well, unfortunately --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wanted to clarify.
MS. STRATON: -- that hadn't been communicated with the
-- the officers of the Second District Association, so we were
unaware of that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just had to ask.
MR. DORRILL: Hiss Slaughter and then Mr. Passidomo.
MS. SLAUGHTER: I'm Irma Slaughter, and I live in East
Naples. I'm also a member of TAG, but I'm not speaking for TAG
today.
I'm sure you all are aware that there is a growing point
of view in this country that there is too much government and too many
taxes. Even those who don't believe it are saying that the era of big
government is over. Some of us have believed this all our lives, that
this was the wrong way to go.
But when you're talking about giving money to another
county to be used in that other county by the taxpayers in this
county, it sounds to me illegal. If it isn't illegal, it's certainly
unethical. We are contributing to this uni -- university. We pay
federal taxes. We pay state taxes. We pay local taxes. And some of
that money is going to the university. So to suggest we have to
somehow get in there and do more for the university, we are doing a
great deal.
When it comes to scholarships, I went to two awards
nights last year. Do you know that at least a million dollars in
scholarships was given to Barton Collier and over half a million to
Immokalee students? And do you know what? They were all given by
individuals, by organizations, by schools, by groups. You probably
belong to some of those groups that have scholarship funds.
We're -- and all, every penny, was given voluntarily.
That's the secret, not tax dollars; volunteers, people who are
willing. And the people of Collier County have been very generous to
all charities and to everything. And we all support our schools, and
we all support the idea of going to college but not to the taxpayers.
Let's appeal to the people to contribute where they want
their money to go and suggest that the money that they save by not
paying quite so high taxes, that they use it to take care of their own
families. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Passidomo and then Ms. Haggio.
MR. PASSIDOHO: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of
the Board of County Commissioners. My name is John Passidomo. My
resident address is 2200 South Winds Drive in the city of Naples.
I served as chairman of the Economic Development Council
of Collier County, as vice president of community affairs for the
Naples Area Chamber of Commerce. I'm authorized to speak on behalf of
each organization and the Chamber EDC Coalition for Government and
Community Affairs. Forty thousand people are employed by our two
thousand member firms. We have chosen to raise our families here. We
care deeply about our community.
The chamber EDC coalition has examined your
transportation director's report to your county manager. We have also
asked our transportation committee to conduct its own independent
investigation. And, Mr. Chairman, with your -- your permission, we
respectfully request that that report be submitted into the record.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. PASSIDOHO: Thank you. We respectfully submit that
the issue before you today is a very narrow one. Has a compelling
case been made to repudiate a commitment given to our regional
partners in Lee County and Florida Gulf Coast University? We think
the clear answer to that question is no. We, therefore, urge you to
stand firm behind your commitment.
We nonetheless believe this narrow issue gives rise to a
very special opportunity to take a preemptive position and develop an
investment policy for Collier County to define the nature and extent
of the benefits the Board of County Commissioners wants to ensure
Collier County taxpayers, residents, students, and others will enjoy
from Florida Gulf Coast University and the resources Collier County is
prepared to allocate to those investments.
We urge you to form a blue ribbon commission to advise
you and to make recommendations as to how Collier County will seize
the extraordinary emerging opportunities which Florida Gulf Coast
University holds for Collier County. We are prepared to work with you
in this community initiative so that we can initiate rather than
simply react to these opportunities as they present themselves from
time to time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Passidomo, you mentioned that
Collier County would be making an investment and somehow controlling
some facet of the university at some point in time? Can you be
specific on that?
MR. PASSIDOHO: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that there
is an opportunity to develop an investment policy now so that simply
-- so that rather than simply reacting to proposals as they are made
on an ad hoc basis in the future, an investment policy can be
developed. And the nature and extent to the benefits that you want to
derive to your constituents can be defined, and you can allocate the
kind of resources that the -- Collier County's prepared to devote to
reaching those goals.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So -- but you're -- you're --
you're -- you're saying that if we invest in the university that we're
going to have some measure of control -- am I following you right? --
at --
MR. PASSIDOHO: I think --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- some point in time.
MR. PASSIDOHO: I think the -- any kind of investment
naturally assumes that Collier County will derive a benefit. There's
no question about that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And now my question is
specifically, what is that benefit? How do we gain control of -- I --
it was my understanding that the Board of Regents controls what the
university does, not Lee County, not Collier County. Am I incorrect
on that?
MR. PASSIDOHO: Mr. Chairman, we think the issue in
front of you today is, as I indicated, nattower. We think that issue
is simply does Collier County repudiate a commitment made to its
regional partners. We think prospectively the issue is one of do we
take an initiative, do we develop an investment policy for our
community so that we derive the most meaningful benefits from Florida
Gulf University --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So you're --
MR. PASSIDOHO: -- or do we not.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- not going to answer my question I
can see, so thank you very much, Mr. Passidomo. MR. PASSIDOHO: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to just follow up on
that while -- while our coming -- Ms. Maggio is coming forward is
that it's a -- a --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Too late. She's here.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry. You won't mind waiting
just a minute, will you?
MS. MAGGIO: No.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That -- that the idea of a
committee of the private sector reviewing these concepts or coming up
with a proposal in a -- in a forward thinking kind of way instead of
our reacting I think would have prevented the confusion that
surrounded this decision. So it's something I'd like to see us
pursue.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm not -- I'm not aware of any
confusion on this issue myself. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go ahead, Miss Maggie.
MS. MAGGIO: Sorry. For the record, my name's Emily
Maggie, and I still live in Little Hickory Shores I think.
I haven't done a lot of research on this item, and I
really wasn't quite sure I was going to say anything about it today.
And at the risk that maybe I'll get shot in the back by somebody,
personally, Collier County has to benefit from this university. Mr.
Derrill himself said, hey, everybody wants to live in Collier, not in
Lee because we have it so much better. I think a lot of those people
are going to live here, et cetera. That's just a personal opinion of
mine. I think it's -- it's going to benefit us.
I was -- just wanted to address, too, as Chris did, I --
I don't want to let loose of that Bluebill Avenue property. And if
you would, please, I would like to see your plan. I didn't know there
Was one '-
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There isn't.
MS. MAGGIO: -- or -- or whatever.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I need to clarify. The idea was
to float the idea --
MS. MAGGIO: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- as an option to stimulate some
discussion on --
MS. MAGGIO: I un --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it, not as a final plan.
MS. MAGGIO: Okay. I understand because to me I -- I've
spoken to this commission -- and Mr. Dotrill will attest to that --
many times on keeping that property. It's so close to the beach,
people can walk there. And when we're talking about letting people
park at the school and tram them over, it doesn't make sense to let
loose of -- of it. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Maggio.
Anyone else?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We --
MR. DORRILL: I -- I had to apologize to a Lee County
commissioner who was offended by my remark that this is a better,
cheaper place to live.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry. Facts are facts.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did he ask that as he was packing
his U-Haul heading south?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This has been difficult because
there are a tremendous number of people I respect that I differ with
on this. And it's been tough because those people have been calling
me. And -- and -- and while I feel like I can state reasons why I
think we need to be a little more broad in our approach, it's
difficult to buck the kind of people such as Mr. Passidomo, Mr.
Fridkin that I've -- you know, that I've had the opportunity to
discuss this with.
But it keeps coming down to me to a two-lane or
four-lane roadway and where Collier benefits and why we should
participate in that roadway. This really isn't so much about the
university at this point as it is about Lee County and Treeline
Drive. And, you know, a single, 2-lane road from Corkscrew --
Corkscrew to the university can accommodate approximately 10,000 cars
a day. If it's just a 2-lane road, limited access, it's about 10,000
cars a day.
If the reason to support this idea is to ferry our
residents to the university which is -- is a great part of what I'm
hearing, then the enrollment of the university would have to exceed
30,000 students before our input on that roadway created a need for
anything other than a 2-lane road. It took the University of South
Florida over 30 years to exceed 30,000 enrollment.
So when we hear that this road will exceed capacity in
five to eight years, we know it's not Collier residents that are
creating that -- that -- that level. We know what our other -- we
know it to be other things.
And the two things I have found is, one, the airport.
And let's remember that the airport is a revenue generator for Lee
County. Now, we use it. We have a lot of people that come through
there, but it's a revenue generator for Lee. We don't see revenues
from that. And the second thing is development along the corridor.
The impact fees and taxes will be paid to Lee County.
So the five- to eight-year window that this two-lane
road comes deficient is not because of the university. It's not
because the enrollment of the university causes that to happen. It's
because of its location, the fact that it accesses the airport. And
the future development that will occur along that corridor is the
predominant cause of the deficiency. If it were the students of
Collier County, now we're talking direct link.
I just don't see enough hard compelling reasons to
support $500,000 when it's not the generator, you know, that what's
driving the deficiency in that roadway is not the students of the
university. It no longer's about the university, and that's my
biggest concern.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Call the question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
MR. DORRILL: Just one -- one comment in terms of what I
think we -- we need to do with your policy decision is we will need to
develop an interlocal agreement in conjunction with our budget
process. My preferred source of funding is fund 313 or fund 301. And
I'm -- I'm not quite there yet. We will need to find the 500,000.
The only other suggestion that I will make to you today
-- and if you don't wish this to be true, if you tell me today, then
-- then I won't -- in the event that the full funding for the four
laning does not develop either through final development orders for
the mall or the commercial DRI or the Board of Regents, my suggestion
to you is that you use your half a million dollars and condition it on
improving or developing four lanes from Corkscrew north.
And my rationale for that is people from Collier County
are going to get off at the first available exit to go to the
university. They're not going to go another eight miles up to Alico
and then back down Treeline to get to the university. And so I think
in the event that the full funding is not available, I would suggest
to you that you -- you put your money where it would directly benefit
Collier residents.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's also important to
point --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's -- that's a good point.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- out that the original
commitment was up to 500,000 compliments of Commissioner Hancock
putting that in but that the Board of Regents may cover more than
what's anticipated for their part of the freight. And if they do, we
don't need to be giving --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I still have a feeling our bill's
going to read 500,000.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have that same feeling.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Would someone --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I also --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- make a motion to follow Mr.
Dorrill's suggestion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll -- I'll move that Mr.
Dorrill's comments be put in the form of a motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's Corkscrew north.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, Corkscrew north to the --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Four laning.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- university.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The four laning of --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Four laning.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- of Corkscrew north.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Could I have a comment, please?
When -- when Mr. St. Cerny was here -- excuse me, Commissioner St.
Cerny was here, there was also a suggestion that we could fund this
over a couple-of-year period. And certainly there's no reason as far
as I know to tap our reserves '95, '96. I'm -- I'm looking at this
being in the '96, '97, '97, '98 budget process.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let -- let me clarify that --
that my motion was just to reinstate the position that we took when --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The commitment.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- Commissioner St. Cerny was
here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Legally ratify.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ratify if that's a better word.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Why don't we call the question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was a motion on the
clarification; right?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I understand. But I -- I don't think
we should spend the money on the road no matter what. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't either.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So that's why I voted against it.
Item #10A
DISCUSSION REGARDING REJOINING MEMBERSHIP TO NACO (NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF COUNTIES) - CONSENSUS NOT TO REJOIN NACO
Okay. 10(A), membership to NACO. Commissioner, who's
gonna try to --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, could I interrupt
before we go much further? Mr. HcNees is here, and I think that this
board might want to congratulate him on his appointment.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, the requirement to
be in top-level management at the county is you be at least six-four.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He's close.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that you buy lunch for the
commissioners on your first full week. MR. HCNEES: No problem.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: On the NACO discussion I have no
interest. It doesn't really serve this -- this board directly. We
don't have an effect on national policy, and I -- I don't think we
have the efforts or time to spend to try to massage that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. We made a conscious
decision to take ourselves out of that because we weren't deriving a
benefit. Mr. Dotrill just walked out the door, but I remember him
suggesting that to us as part of the budgeting process our first --
there he is -- our first --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What's the impetus for this then?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And how did this -- Mr. Dorrill,
how did this get in before you go? If you think NACO's a bad idea,
why is it here?
MR. DORRILL: We received a direct solicitation through
Chairman Matthews' office at the time to invite us to rejoin, and they
had offered us some discounts in order to do that. Historically this
has been in the board's budget, and that's why I had Mr. Saadeh poll
the board via the memorandum because otherwise it's not budgeted this
year. And we were trying to get a sense of what the board wanted to
do.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And was that poll less than
unanimous in not joining?
MR. DORRILL: Two of you responded.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, okay. No, I -- I -- I think
it's sufficient to give staff direction that we will not join NACO.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Consensus?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Consensus.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 96-40 APPOINTING C. H. ANDREWS & J. D. ALLEN, JR. TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That's fine then. 10(B).
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, there's two
members, two appointments. One of them is -- we have to waive the no
term two -- nothing beyond two term rule but considering there were
only two applicants --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And who the applicant was, frankly.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And that's Charlie. I
know we've been very steady in not waiving that unless there were no
other applicants, but there are only the number we need here.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Charlie --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve
Mr. Andrews and Mr. Allen.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll -- I'll second, but I bet
Charlie probably stole the other applications, didn't you, Charlie?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
And opposed?
None.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 96-41 APPOINTING MARC GERTNER TO THE PRIVATIZATION PLUS TASK
FORCE - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to appoint the one member,
Mr. Marc Gertner, to the privatization task force.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
None.
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 96-42 AUTHORIZING $50 EXPENDITURE TO STOCK THE TALLAHASSEE
APARTMENT WITH FOOD STAPLES - ADOPTED
The apartment expenses?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve $50 expenditure
for food stuffs and minimum food items for the apartment.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does that include foaming beverages?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, no foaming beverages
included.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, what we're talk -- coffee,
sugar --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Staples only.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- that kind of stuff.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do we need a resolution reserved
for that, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, that would be best for the clerk.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Would you reserve one for it?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, I think the clerk is noting to
reserve a resolution.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And with that, my plane leaves
at 2:30 to go spend this $50.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: See you later.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: See you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have a nice time. Say hi to Butt
for us.
Item #11A
USE OF CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS TO PURCHASE SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT BY THE
COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Storrar, you are up. We're at the
sheriff's proposal here.
MR. STORRAR: My name is Tom Storrar representing the
sheriff's office. And we're before you today asking for $35,000 out
of the confiscated trust fund, the 602 fund I believe it is, to
purchase a faxing network that would allow us more rapid dissemination
of what we feel is urgent information from a crime prevention,
neighborhood watch, emergency management perspective.
Basically the monies are in the fund. We're asking more
or less for a budget amendment to move some of those monies around.
And the fiscal impact is outlined. I'll certainly answer any
questions that you have.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is this the type of equipment that
they used in Las Vegas to catch the Cracker Barrel people? MR. STORRAR: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's what I thought.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
MR. STORRAR: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks for sticking with us
all day, Tom.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Did you -- you voted.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I said yes. As long as I'm in
the room, I have to vote; right?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, that's right. Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm getting ready to go.
PUBLIC COMMENT - VICTOR VALDES RE SHERIFF DISCRIMINATION
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. We're on to public
hearings, 12(C)(1).
MR. MCNEES: Mr. Chairman, you do have one person
registered under public comment.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, I'm sorry. For sure. Bring -- go
right ahead. Mr. Valdes, I assume.
MR. MCNEES: Yes, sir.
MR. VALDES: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, thank you for
the opportunity to address the board. For the record, my name is
Victor Valdes. I want to support my -- my political sketch or my
community sketch --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Make sure you show that to the
camera so his attorney can see that. MR. VALDES: Here?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Mr.
Valdes.
MR. VALDES: Well, for the past four years and a half, I
had the notion Sheriff Hunter supremacist policy and his continuous
violation of civil rights and especial against minority. Now we have
a bloody incident where a black American man was shot several time for
two white deputy with no apparent reason.
One more time I remember the board that according to
Florida statute, you are those that you see for the good use of the
money allocated to the sheriff's office, and I remember that you --
that this morning is use now for the Sheriff Hunter to harass people
that may complain for his policy and the most recent bloody incident
in Golden Gate. We need to stop the bloody hand of Mr. Hunter. Thank
you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay, Mr. Valdes.
Item #12C1
BUDGEMENT AMENDMENT RESOLUTION 95-10 APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL
YEAR 1994-95 ADOPTED BUDGET - ADOPTED
And now we'll go to the public hearings.
Item 12(C)(1), a resolution approving amendments to the
fiscal year adopted budget.
(Commissioner Matthews exited the proceedings.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. McNees, do we have public speakers
on this item?
MR. MCNEES: You have one.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We do have one.
MR. MCNEES: No, not on the budget amendment.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Not on the budget amendment. Okay.
Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
And opposed?
And that passes three to nothing.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great job, Mr. Smykowski.
Item #12C2
RESOLUTION 96-43 SUPPORTING THE CREATION OF THE FIDDLER'S CREEK
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 190 FLORIDA STATUTES
- ADOPTED
CHAIRM_~N NORRIS: And 12(C)(2) is an optional public
hearing for establishment of a community development district. Is Mr.
van Assenderp -- is he ready to make his little presentation?
As I understand it, this is optional for the county
commission. If you're dealing with over 1,000 acres, the county
commission does not make the decision but merely comments?
MR. V~N ASSENDERP: That's right, Mr. Chairman. And to
save time since we've talked with all of you -- my name is Ken van
Assenderp, v-a-n A-s-s-e-n-d-e-r-p. Some people emphasize the a-s-s
part.
In the interest of time since we worked with all of you
and showed you everything and your staff and your assistant county
attorney, we would only -- the answer to your question is in the
affirmative, Mr. Chairman, and we have nothing to present. We are
happy to respond to questions.
But we have agreed to point out that the acreage may be
reduced as we have explained to all of you. The owner of the golf
course property who's represented by the attorney here, Dabble
Orshefsky, has worked with us and your staff. And we will probably
file an amended petition that will go before the hearing officer
certainly before it goes to the Governor and cabinet.
There are 2 other parcels totaling approximately 56
acres that may be added back in. We're still negotiating with those
persons. All the impacts of these changes will be fully disclosed on
the record. I'll be working in stipulation with Mr. Conrecode and Mr.
Pettit regardless of the immediate decision here today.
CHAIRM_~N NORRIS: Will those changes bring it below
1,0007
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: No -- no, Your Honor -- Your Honor.
You are Your Honor. It will still be -- we got it down close, but it
will still be 1,000 or more acres. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: It will be approximately 1,300
acres, Your Honor.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a speaker on this one
then?
MR. MCNEES: Your only registered speaker is Ms.
Orshefsky.
MS. ORSHEFSKY: I'll waive.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: She's waiving. I'll close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess the correct motion is
actually not to oppose?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Conrecode.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll go ahead and make a
motion we oppose.
MR. CONRECODE: Before you make a motion, for the
record, Tom Conrecode, public works administrator. We've reached a
memorandum of agreement between the land holding company and the
county related to the water and sewer issues. It has not been
executed but recommend that we have it executed prior to the final
adoption of it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do actually oppose these
each time. Mr. van Assenderp and I have this discussion every time,
but my -- there are a couple of concerns, most of which he has
alleviated. But the one specific one that I think is just bad
government and bad for the community is there is a requirement to have
a ballot for incorporation on these at a certain point, and it's not a
very high point. You get 2,500 people I think it is or a certain
amount of time go by.
And my concern is that it's not generated by the people
that live there. It's not generated by anyone. It's generated by
this document.
And we run the risk 10 years from now or 15 years from
now as CDDs proliferate of having several little towns or little
cities here in -- in southwest Florida. And -- and I think every time
I hear someone say we don't want to be like another Miami or another
Fort Lauderdale, it's not only size and density. But one of the bad
things over there and one of the things that -- problems with
government over there is you have between Miami and Fort Lauderdale 18
little governments on the way up. And it's very difficult to work
with that many groups.
So I'm concerned as CDDs proliferate that we're gonna
have 6 or 7 or 8 or 10 little cities here 15 years from now. And I
don't think that's in the best interest of Collier County. That's the
only reason I'm going to vote against the CDD.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that a one-time vote? It has
to happen once and then it doesn't -- that's it?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It has to happen once,
correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the -- and the vote is just
on whether or not to vote to incorporate. If -- if the vote were
affirmative, the --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Then it would have to go through
the state legislature and deal -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The whole process. And it's a
good little motivator for county government to do a really good job.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean like I did with Lely
Barefoot?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's a -- there's a motion on the
floor. If there's no second, that will -- that will die for lack of
second. Is there a substitute motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Surprise, surprise.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion not to oppose the CDD.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
And opposed?
There we go.
MR. VAN ASSENDERP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm opposed to not being
opposed.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. McNees, anything further today?
MR. MCNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Not at all. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Couple items. First one,
fluff item today, Ronald Reagan's 85th birthday. Second item --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Happy birthday.
Item #14A
BALLOT PROCEDURE - DISCUSSED
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To you. I mentioned maybe a
couple of months ago -- and I don't know that we've done anything. I
need to work with Mr. McNees or Mr. Dorrill on this. But every now
and again we have someone come to the board with a suggestion for
something they would like to have on the ballot. And we don't have
any policy or procedure for how we say yes or no. And so
theoretically if you have the right five people come and say we want
to have something on the ballot, then it gets on. And the next week
five other people come and we say no.
And I think it's important that we have some policy or
procedure. And I just wanted to let you know I'll be working with the
manager in bringing a framework of something to the board maybe in 30
days or so. Then we can do whatever we want with it. But at least
that will give us a jumping-off point to have something by which to do
that.
Item #14B
SNACK BAR VENDORS - DISCUSSED
Second item -- and, Mr. McNees, you may not know but if
you get me an answer -- we had a discussion last year on seeking
vendors to help out in our snack bar downstairs. We wanted to assure
that the gentleman that's in there was not displaced as part of that,
but then we never heard anything back. I know McDonald's Corp. in
particular had expressed some interest, and we still have the same
little snack bar.
HR. HCNEES: I can tell you that HcDonald's backed out
based on their preliminary study of the volume and that sort of
thing. And they're not interested as a franchisee. I don't believe
there's been any other -- any work beyond that. I can find out.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think our initial
discussions had been to explore -- kind of do an RFP or do something
and maybe get a little more alternative food down there for our
employees. So I don't know if we're still pursuing that, but it'd be
nice if we did or at the very least get a report back.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Maybe the Ritz would cater.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just a question. Did I
understand that there was a consensus on this blue ribbon committee
for university investment opportunities? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Not me.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Discussion for another day.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm mad and pouting.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He's mad and pouting. Okay. Let
the record reflect his bottom lip.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have nothing further. So, Hiss
Filson, can we --
MS. FILSON: We are adjourned.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Matthews,
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the consent
agenda be approved and/or adopted with the exception of Item #16A7
which was a 4/0 vote due to Commissioner Mac'Kie abstaining: *****
Item #16A1
FY94/95 YEAR END REPORT ON THE CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC FACILITY ADEQUACY
PROGRAM OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 96-34 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "HEERS SUBDIVISION"
See Pages
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 96-35 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "WOODSTONE"
See Pages
Item #16A4
FINAL PLAT OF "WATERWAYS OF NAPLES, UNIT ONE" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
See Pages
Item #16A5
REPLACE MAINTENANCE SECURITY FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN "KETCH CAY
AT WINDSTAR UNIT TWO" - WITH STIPULATIONS AND ACCEPTANCE OF CASH BOND
Item #16A6
ACCEPT WATER FACILITIES FOR PIPER'S GROVE, PHASE 2-C - WITH
STIPULATIONS
Item #16A7
RECORD FINAL PLAT OF "CROWN POINTE SHORES"
See Pages
Item #16A8
ASSIGNMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH "LEXINGTON AT LONE OAK, UNIT TWO"
See Pages
Item #16A9
RECORD FINAL PLAT OF "PLAT OF TRACT 'B-i"' -
Item #16A10
FINAL PLAT OF "FIDDLER'S CREEK PHASE 1A" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION
See Pages
Item #16B1
PURCHASE TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLLERS FROM TRANSPORTATION CONTROL SYSTEMS
IN THE APPROXIMATE A_MOUNT OF $30,000.00
Item #1682
EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS
LYING WITHIN PARCELS 5155, 516, 517, 815 A&B, 816 AND 116 FOR
RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD FOUR-LANING IMPROVEMENTS - WITH STIPULATIONS
See Pages
Item #1683
CHANGE ORDER NO. 6 TO THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WITH LAW ENVIRONMENTAL,
INC., FOR ENGINEERING/ENVIRONMENTAL WORK IN WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
NO. 6 (LELY AND LELY MANOR BASINS) AND NEW 10% CHANGE ORDER
See Pages
Item #1684
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION CASE NUMBER
95-5071-CA-01-TB (PARCEL NOS. 114 AND 714) FOR VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD
FOUR-LANING IMPROVEMENTS
Item #1685
TRANSFER $200 FROM THE NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
EXPANSION PROJECT TO THE GAC LAND TRUST FUND FOR A UTILITY EASEMENT
Item #1686
BID IRREGULARITY WAIVED AND BID #95-2465 AWARDED TO SALTSMAN
CONSTRUCTION, INC. TO CONSTRUCT A SURGE RELIEF VALVE AND RUPTURE DISC
INSTALLATION AT THE NORTH REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT IN THE A_MENDED
A_MOUNT OF $87,810.00
Item #1687
WORK ORDER WHBP-FT96-4 TO WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC. FOR THE
DESIGN OF A BRIDGE OVER GOLDEN GATE CANAL IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
DESIGN OF LIVINGSTON ROAD, IN THE A_MOUNT OF $86,330.00 - SUBJECT TO
REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
See Pages
Item #1688
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. 95-2427, WIGGINS PASS MAINTENANCE
DREDGING, IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,991.60 AND SIGNATORY AUTHORITY DELEGATED
TO THE OCPH DIRECTOR
See Pages
Item #1689
CURRENT AND PRIOR YEAR CDD APPLICATION FEE REVENUE TO FUND COHMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT APPLICATION PROCESSING COSTS
Item #16B10
CORRECT THE AWARD OF BID #95-2421 FOR ON-CALL ELECTRICAL REPAIRS
Item #16Bll - Deleted
Item #16B12 - Deleted
Item #16B13 - Deleted
Item #16B14
TRANSFER FUNDS FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT (TSD) COMPUTER
HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE IN FURTHERANCE OF BOARD'S PRIOR ACTION DIRECTING
IMPLEMENTATION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT (IT) OFFICE
AUTOMATION PLAN
Item #16B15 - Deleted
Item #16B16
CARLTON LAKES UTILITIES FACILITIES REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT - WITH
STIPULATION
See Pages
Item #16C1
CONTRACT FOR FY 1996 LIBRARY OPERATING GRANT (STATE AID) ADMINISTERED
BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE, STATE LIBRARY OF FLORIDA
See Pages
Item #16C2 - Continued to February 13, 1996
Item #16C3 - Continued to February 13, 1996
Item #16D1
RESOLUTION 96-36 ADDING ONE UNIT TO THE 1994 COLLIER COUNTY SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION CORRESPONDING TO THIS
RESOLUTION
See Pages
Item #16D2
RESOLUTION 96-37 RE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
See Pages
Item #16D3
SATISFACTION OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR CHESLEY H. AND HELENA J. CREWS
See Pages
Item #16D4
SATISFACTION OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND
PAYMENT OF SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
See Pages
Item #16D5
SUFFICIENCY OF BONDS OF COUNTY OFFICERS
Item #16D6 - Moved to Item #SD1
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENT 96-219
Item #16E2
AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND GULF SHORE
ASSOCIATES, FOR THE PELICAN BAY SERVICE DIVISION'S CONTINUED
UTILIZATION OF OFFICE SPACE IN THE SUNTRUST BUILDING IN PELICAN BAY,
NAPLES, FLORIDA
See Pages
Item #16E3
CONTRACT WITH MARCO ISLAND CHAMBER OF COHMERCE FOR CATEGORY B, TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT REVENUE
See Pages
Item #16E4
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO AMEND CABLE ORDINANCE NO. 94-12 TO PROVIDE FOR
GREATER COMPETITION AMONG CABLE OPERATORS
Item #16F1
RESOLUTION 96-38 RE-APPOINTING THOMAS W. OLLIFF TO A 4 YEAR TERM ON THE
DISTRICT 8 NOMINEE QUALIFICATIONS REVIEW COHMITTEE FOR THE HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICE BOARD
See Pages
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1993 REAL PROPERTY TAX ROLL
NO. DATE
235 1/19/96
1994 REAL PROPERTY TAX ROLL
189 11/20/95
191 11/20/95
193 1/19/96
1995 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
1995-50 12/29/95
1995 REAL PROPERTY TAX ROLL
84 11/13/95
105 - 106 11/15/95
124 - 125 11/20/95
144 12/13/95
148 - 149 12/20 - 12/27/95
153 - 155 1/3/96
159 1/5/96
162 1/9/96
171 - 176 1/18 - 1/19/96
Item #1662
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
See Pages
Item #1663
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #16H1
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING $23,650 FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVES TO THE
STATE ATTORNEY OFFICE FOR DATA PROCESSING SERVICES
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 2:10 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Barbara A. Donovan and Shelly Semmler