BCC Minutes 05/21/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF HAY 21, 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 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F"
of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRPERSON: John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Bettye J. Matthews
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, as soon as Charlie finishes here,
could you lead us in an invocation and pledge to the flag?
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we gives thanks and great
honor to you this morning for your wonder and your power and your
grace. We give thanks as always for the people of Collier County and
the many aspects of this community that they represent. Father,
it's
our special prayer this morning that you would bless this county
commission as it makes important business decisions that effect
Collier County and its people and that their vote, action, and
direction today would be a reflection of your will for this community.
Finally, we give thanks for our hard working support and dedicated
employees and the many citizens who come and chose to participate in
government. We ask that you bless us all. We pray these things in
your son's holy name. Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I see we have a couple of changes to
the agenda.
MR. DORRILL: Yes sir, very few. Good morning. I have
one add-on item at the request of the clerk's office, and it will be
ll(B) under other constitutional officers. It is an update to the
board regarding the second opinion concerning the arbitrage
calculations, ll(B).
I have two agenda notes this morning. It is requested
that item 10(E) under the Board of County Commissioners pertaining to
the interview and selection of members to the Collier County Utility
Regulation Authority be heard as close to 11 a.m. as possible.
And I have a another note that Item 9(B) under the
County Attorney's Report has a title change. David, I don't have that
title change unless you do.
MR. WEIGEL: I don't have the title change with me.
There's a slight title change, just for the record, to reflect that
the agreement has a slightly different name than the title that's in
there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On the 11 a.m. item, I assume
that it's 11 a.m. or at the end of the agenda, whichever comes first.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No sooner than.
MR. DORRILL: That's all that I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Weigel, anything?
MR. WEIGEL: One note, that is agenda item 16(E)(2),
which is he dissolution of task force. We would ask that the
resolution number be reserved for that item and prepare the
appropriate resolution.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews, any changes?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, I have two. There are two
items on the consent agenda dealing with the artificial reef. I'd
like to move those to the regular agenda. Items 16(B)(5) and (6).
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 16 which?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: 16(A) (5) and (6).
HR. DORRILL: And they will become 16(A)(2) and (3).
I believe Hs. Hatthews said items 16(A)(5) and (6) should become items
8(A) (2) and (3).
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock, anything else?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Under BCC communications I
have something about our budget workshops but nothing else.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Then we need a motion.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, motion to
approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
There are none.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING HAY 26, 1996 AS SWAMP BUGGY HERITAGE DAY -
ADOPTED
We have no minutes to approve today, so we'll go
straight to proclamations.
Is Gene Vicaro here today? Gene, you are here. Will
you come up and face the camera here. We have a little proclamation
for you today.
MR. VICARO: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Good morning. Turn the other way.
Turn the other cheek there.
Whereas, the world-famous swamp buggy races originated
in Collier County in 1949 and has continued to be one of Collier
County and America's truly unique motor sports; and
Whereas, as Collier County continues to grow, the swamp
buggy races contributes annually to the community's economic impact;
and
Whereas, the swamp buggy facings popularity and public
awareness is further expanded by the support of the millions of fans
worldwide who view this phenomenon on national television; and
Whereas, the heritage, culture, and legacy perpetuated
by this colorful tradition had contributed greatly to the character of
the community we call Collier County; and
Whereas, we continue to recognize and honor those
individuals whose contributions were critical to the popularity and
evolution of this tradition.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the 26th of HAy, 1996
be designated as Swamp Buggy Heritage Day.
Done and ordered this 21st day of HAy, 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: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
acceptance. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed?
There are none. Gene, congratulations.
(Applause)
Service awards, Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I have two service awards
today. The first -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. We skipped one item. I'm
sorry.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, you know me, just do as I'm
told.
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF HAY 19 - 25, 1966, AS NATIONAL
PUBLIC WORKS WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, you're a good trooper. We did
skip an item. Commissioner Constantine, I believe, has a
proclamation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have National Public Works
Week, and it reads to be accepted by Tom Conrecode. However, I
suspect Tom has a few friends with him today. It reads as follows:
"Whereas, public works services provided in our
community are an integral part of our citizen's everyday lives; and
Whereas, support of an understanding and informed
citizenry is vital to the efficient operation of public works systems
and programs such as water, storm water, waste water, streets, and
highways, public buildings, parks, beach renourishment, and solid
waste collection; and
Whereas, the health, safety, and comfort of this
community greatly depends upon these facilities and services; and
Whereas, the quality and effectiveness of these
facilities as well as their planning, design, and construction is
vitally dependent upon the efforts and skills of public works
officials; and
Whereas, the efficiency of the qualified and dedicated
personnel who staff the Collier County public works division is
materially influenced by the people's attitude and understanding of
the importance of the work they perform; and
Whereas, it is fitting that we call upon all citizens
and civic associations to acquaint themselves with the issues involved
in providing our public works and to recognize the contributions which
publics works officials make everyday to our health, safety, and
comfort and quality of life.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of HAy 19
through 25, 1996, be designated as National Public Works Week. I'm
having a heck of time saying that.
Done and ordered this 21st day of HAy 1996, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, John C. Norris,
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Congratulations, Mr. Conrecode.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we going to meet the
coffee-drinking alligator in the back?
MR. CONRECODE: Thank you very much, Commissioners.
For the record I'm Tom Conrecode, public works
administrator, and we hope that you'll celebrate with us. This week
is being set aside to really recognize the men and women of public
works who make public works work.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You think what you had to say was
hard.
MR. CONRECODE: With that in mind, I'd like to introduce
some of the men and women who are proud of what they do and the
service they provide to the community, and they'd like to make a
little presentation to you, because you, too, are public works
officials, and we would like to recognize you for that effort. In
doing that I'm going to introduce a number of members of staff of the
public works division, and they have some things to present to you.
First of all, Steve Nagy and Randy McDonald from the waste water
department. Following them, Curtis Cottight and Paul Faragher from
storm water; Mary Havner and Batty Erickson from the water department;
Russ Hueller and Virginia from transportation; Dick Trophe
(phonetic), John Conti and Linda Graves (phonetic) from capital
projects; and Blaine Upton from Solid Waste Department; and finally
the man with the funny suit in the back, Carl Shay, also known as
Freddy, from the water department. Thank you very much,
Commissioners.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: As I was saying, Commissioner Hancock
has the service awards. Thank you, gentlemen and ladies, for showing
up today. We appreciate it and we appreciate all your good work.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Even though it's a little rainy,
for those people that are here, there is a nice display of some of the
public works equipment downstairs on this side of the building. So
take your umbrella and take a look at some of the equipment and see
how these men and ladies do their jobs. Thank you.
Service awards, assuming there are no further
interruptions. I have two this morning. First is ten years for in
road and bridge, Antonio T. Damasco. Antonio.
(Applause).
Congratulations.
And the second award today also for ten years from solid
waste is David Russell. David.
(Applause).
Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's it?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The others were unable to be here
today.
Item #SA1
PROPOSED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO
COORDINATE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OF PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL AND
NON-EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES - STAFF DIRECTED TO WORK WITH THE SCHOOL
BOARD TO RESOLVE CERTAIN ITEMS AND BRING BACK ON A REGULAR AGENDA
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh. The next item is 8(A)(1), an
interlocal agreement with Collier County School Board.
MR. CAUTERO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. For the record, Vince Cautero, community development
and environmental services administrator. Several months ago the
community development and environmental services staff, specifically
the planning services department and myself were approach by
representatives of the school board. We were approached by the school
board members to work with them on a proposed interlocal agreement for
the site development planning in review for public education and
noneducational facilities. What I'd like to do is briefly go over the
major tenets of this agreement and some of the issues that the staff
has raised in our discussions with the school board staff and then
open it up for questions, and perhaps some speakers may also provide
input.
Earlier today a sheet of paper was given to Ms. Filson
to distribute to you which outlines the staff's concerns on major
areas, and that's the sheet I'll be working off of in addition to the
agreement you were provided with last Friday. The reason that there
is no executive summary, Commission, is due to the fact that we have
been working with the school board almost every other day on this
issue, and the school board heard the agreement last Thursday evening,
and what we wanted to do was bring it to you today and discuss it.
The school board discussed the agreement last Thursday
night in their regular session and agreed in concept with the
agreement but instructed their staff to continue to work with ours.
So there is no formally signed agreement by the school board, rather
it is something that the school board has presented to you for
consideration and the staffs are continuing to work on it. Let me
also say at the outset that I will be making some references to
Chapter 235 of the Florida Statutes which deals with coordination of
planning efforts of the local government body by school boards and
statements and interpretations that I make in accordance with that
chapter, specifically Chapter 235.193 are all my interpretations from
a planning and development standpoint, and legal interpretations would
be referred to Mr. Weigel. But I will be making some assessments of
235 only from a planning standpoint.
Chapter 235.193, subsection 7, provides the grounding
for the agreement. It allows school boards the ability to work on
interlocal agreements with local governing bodies to determine the
site planning and development process. That is the main reason why
the school board has approached us to work on such an agreement.
If you turn to the sheet they gave you on the issues for
discussion, Iwd like to go over them one at a time, and Iwll be as
brief as possible so we can turn it over to you for questions. It is
staffws intent that after the board listens to this presentation and
hears some public comment, if it is forthcoming, that you wish to
provide direction to staff on some of the issues so we can gauge your
feelings on these issues.
The first issue deals with the distinction between
educational and noneducational facilities. This is found in paragraph
1 of the agreement. The reason I believe this is important is because
it sets the tone for how we will review projects and what type of
review will be conducted for projects. Item (1)(A) in the agreement
talks about ancillary plants. This is considered a
noneducational-type facility. Items B, C, and D are considered
educational facilities. Theywre defined as educational plants,
educational facilities, and auxiliary facilities. Again, this is
important because the statute refers to educational facilities being
consistent with what the government comp. plan for land development
regulations. It is more or less silent in that particular section on
noneducational facilities. Our intent is to join the two and come up
with some type of agreement that this school board finds valuable in
reviewing those projects.
The second item deals with land use and zoning
categories for permitted uses of this. Itws specifically found in
Paragraph 3 and 9 of the proposed agreement. Paragraph 3 states that
the county and school board would find all facilities educational as
well as noneducational, and specific types of definitions are
mentioned in this paragraph consistent in all land use categories of
the comprehensive plan as well as zoning districts of the Collier
County Land Development Code.
Our comprehensive plan currently states that all schools
are permitted in all land uses in the comprehensive plan, however, it
only listed as permitted uses in certain zoning districts. In certain
districts they are currently listed as conditional uses which of
course would require public hearing by the body prior to the approval
of the facility. The school board has proposed to conduct a public
hearing rather than this body conducting a public hearing prior to the
approval of such a facility. The main concern that your staff has in
this regard is that the public hearing would be conducted similar to a
public hearing you would conduct, and findings of fact would be made
prior to the approval or disapproval of such a facility and also that
impacts are mitigated prior to the construction of that facility, and
I'll get into that in a few minutes. But I want the board to be fully
aware of the fact that from a planning standpoint the Land Development
Code states that these types of uses, educational, as well as
noneducational, are listed as conditional uses in certain zoning
districts, but the proposal you have before you, that's been
forthcoming from the school board, is their intent for them to conduct
the public hearing. Now unless Mr. Weigel instructs you differently,
that would be permissible because, again, Subsection 7 of this part of
the statute would allow you to enter into an agreement to do that if
you should choose.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Vince, what's an example of
the zoning districts which would require conditional use?
MR. CAUTERO: I believe -- here's a good one. The
residential single-family district 1 through 6 state that schools are
conditional uses in accordance with the zoning code. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. CAUTERO: Item number 3 on the list that I prepared
for you correlates to subpara -- or paragraph 5, which deals with the
public hearing, and those are the provisions that we have brought
forward to the school board in our negotiations with them and they
have brought back. Basically, our concern there is if you should
choose this course of action and the school board is prepared to
entertain that, that a public hearing would be conducted similar to a
public hearing the county would conduct and that the advertising
requirements would be similar. I don't believe that there would be
any difficulty on the school board's part in terms of advertising
those hearings.
Item No. 4 I have listed as grandfather provision and
that is at the end of Paragraph 5 under subsection B. The wording in
this paragraph that has been forthcoming to you is different from what
I believe the consensus of the school board was. I specifically
remember at least one member of the school board discussing it at the
meeting last week, and that deals with the waiver of this requirement
of the public hearing for land that is under contract with the school
board that would be purchased or leased within a 45-day period after
the agreement is signed or becomes effective.
The wording is in there currently in Paragraph 5 states
that the county "may" waive that requirement. There was some interest
on the school board's part. I believe it was the consensus -- I may
stand to be corrected on that -- but the wording would be changed to
"shall," and that's something that may come up in the discussions,
but the staffs had agreed to negotiate language out that said "may."
Item No. 5 is perhaps the most important item or most
significant in this agreement. And That deals with impact mitigation
and is covered in four paragraphs 6, 8, 10, and 11. And we have
broken it down into three parts. Let me state that Chapter 235 states
that educational facilities must be consistent with your local
government comprehensive plan as well as implementing the land
development regulations to the extent that they are not specifically
covered under the state zoning code. We have worked with the school
board staff, and we've had some very productive discussions with them
as late as yesterday in looking at the documents that the school board
must adhere to prior to the placement of a facility, and their code is
very expansive. It is similar in nature to our own development code.
It contains site development criteria as well as building code
criteria. And I met yesterday with Mr. Cuyler and Mr. Davis, the
staff architect for the school board, who was kind enough to provide
us with the document, and what we did was read the pertinent parts of
the document in regard to impact mitigation or site development in
these standards. And we have listed some items for your review where
we believe that more discussion is warranted and that we should
discuss further the potential for mitigation for impacts.
We have constantly discussed the difference, if there is
one, between off-site and on-site impacts and believe that we're very
close in our understanding of what the school board has to comply with
in accordance with their codes. I believe the school board is acutely
aware of what we would require in our development code, the mitigation
of impacts. What I listed here are the three items of examples that
we would be looking at that we believe need more discussion, and they
include site landscaping, parking, and in general site development
standards with particular emphasis on screening and buffering and
setback requirements, again, an example of the type of things we were
looking at.
Our goal is not to be duplicative; it is to look at what
the school board has to comply with under state law when the Land
Development Code states and try to merge the two, if you will. We're
confident that we can continue those discussions in a positive fashion
and then make a recommendation to you when the agreement is finalized.
Item No. 6 deals with permit fees; that's covered in
Paragraph 7. The agreement contemplates that the school board would
not pay any permanent fees, and there is some language in there that
also states that there has been some reciprocal agreements in the
past. The school board recognizes that, and they will continue that
in the future. The staff's concern there was to defray some of the
costs and continue to talk to the school board members about that. My
major belief there is that we're talking about development review fees
that were paid by a portion of the taxpayers of Collier County. Not
the entire tax base, because you're dealing with all the users of the
system. We're not talking about ad valorem taxes; we're talking about
development user fees. In my opinion, I don't believe it was
appropriate for the user of that system to pick up the entire cost or
to absorb the cost but, again, that is more of a policy decision that
you would make.
And finally the last portion isn't necessarily what I
call a hard-core planning item. It's the last item left of the
agreement, Paragraph 13. The school board is interested in an
agreement with the length of ten years. This may be a legal issue
that Mr. Weigel would discuss, but our recommendation was for a
shorter period of time, however, again, that is a policy decision.
In short, Commissioners, the crux of the agreement as
we see it from a planning development standpoint is the impact
mitigation and how we review these projects, what procedure the school
board should go through that you would agree on with the school board,
and how we review those projects. We have had very positive
discussions. I'd like to reiterate that again with Mr. Cuyler of the
school board staff as late as yesterday afternoon and continuing to do
that and the document that I gave you this morning is a result of our
most recent conversation. The school board -- and, again, I stand to
be corrected if I am not stating this accurately -- the school board
last Thursday night agreed in concept to the agreement that's before
you today, and they instructed their staff to continue to work with us
on that, and we are endeavoring to do that, and we will continue to do
that. Our intent today is to provide you with the information and
gauge your feelings on it and provide direction to us on some of these
issues so that we may continue with these discussions.
I'll stop there and turn it over to you, Mr. Norris.
Perhaps there are some questions and perhaps speakers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Anything, Mr. Constantine?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm glad the school board is
working with us on this. We had some recent problems, I know, and
this should squared away some of those. I do have questions. The
wording, for example, in Item 6, seems just a little loose, a little
vague. As early in the design phase as deemed feasible by the school
board. It seems like perhaps we can tighten that up a little bit so
we have some reasonable expectation of when we know -- when in the
process the board is going to look at this. If we go down to the 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 6th line talking about the county development services
director or his designees, the opportunity to advise, and if we're
talking about off-site impacts in particular, I think we need to have
more than that. The schools obviously are a necessary thing
throughout the county, but they do have impacts on neighborhoods, on
transportation, on any number of things, and I don't want it to just
be "shall advise". I think it needs to be permitted like other things
that should be cut and dry things that need be followed, and if the
county finds that a site development plan isn't in compliance, I don't
want to simply advise them and hope they follow that. I want to have
a little more solid follow-through than that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I agree that if we are going to have
an agreement the premise would be that we're going to have some
measure of control. If it's just to advise, I don't think we even
need an agreement, so I think that's a good point.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we go down two more lines
in that same paragraph and it says, "all reasonable off-site
improvements." I suspect at some point there might be a disagreement
between the two parties as to what reasonable was.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: By respective attorneys perhaps?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, and I don't like
leaving that vague term there. We need to clean that up. I don't
really -- I need you to explain to me again You talked about under No.
7 your feelings as far as permit fees. I just wanted to be clear on
what you said. I wasn't sure I understood.
MR. CAUTERO: I understand that there are agreements
from time to time or projects, for example, where there may be, shall
I say courtesy, offered between the two governmental bodies. However,
I would recommend to you that the school board needs to help defray
the cost of development review. My rationale is that these types of
reviews that we would conduct are normally funded by development
review fees, the users of the system that support the operation, and I
just don't feel the question is appropriate to the users of that
system to absorb the cost that the school board would bring upon them,
because it's something -- the county function and the educational
system. It's really a philosophical issue on my part.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think both points there may be
in order. I will tell you the school board has a interfacility
agreement with us and from time to time they may waive fees for
gymnasiums or ball fields and the like, and they are trying to get
some credit for that. By the same token Mr. Cautero wants to get some
credit. I consider that to be an internal matter. We can process a
budget amendment in recognition of fees or costs for janitors or staff
at school facilities that from time to time are absorbed by them. We
can process budget agreements with recognition of land development
review fees, so there's no quid pro quo there, but that's the only
point. On the prior point there that you had about what do we do in
the event of a dispute, I had that discussion with the superintendent,
and I think it's safe to say he'd like to pursue some administrative
remedy that he and I if there's disagreement at the staff level
between the facilities department and schools and our development
services, that he and I would attempt to mediate any dispute for site
claiming issues that pertain to new school or sport facilities. And
that's at least the agreement that I have with the superintendent.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other question I have is
when we get into the land use categories question. How many
conditional use hearings does the school board currently hear a year?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Zero.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My concern is there are a
number of issues that go over and above just school related. When we
get into impacts and conditional use and this board hears those every
other week, and not as far as who should have the authority. I'm just
thinking as far as the legal staff and their familiarity with these
five people and their familiarity with those things and that whole
process. It may make more sense if there's going to be a conditional
use process -- I'm open to the argument whether all zoning categories
should be open or not, but if there are certain areas we're going to
have conditional use hearings, it seems like it makes more sense to
the taxpayer and everyone to have that in one body and have an
existing thing rather than reinvent that and have new expenses
associated with that. It just that -- seems like common-sense to me.
We do that every two weeks anyway and already have that process down
pat.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A couple of points. I'm going to
disagree with Commissioner Constantine's last statement on the basis
that we have constitutional officers that we have always said it's not
our job to reach inside their budget and shift from A to B and B to A.
We have a certain level of approval that we stay within, and it's
their job to respond to the voters, to their constituents, to the
taxpayers on how to go about their job. I think in many cases the
school board is much the same way. The last thing I want to do is
become an oversight board for the school board. I don't want to be
the safety net, if you will, and someone on the school board can say,
well, the board approved it. You know, the commissioners approved it
so, you know, go talk to them.
There's been, in the past, a very clear separation and
even -- there have been some areas such as land purchases that have
not had clear public hearing process or from this area such as
conditional use area. It may not be a conditional use hearing they're
having, but the fact that a hearing is held, that a public forum is
held, and that it's held in front of the board that makes the ultimate
siting decision on schools I think is appropriate versus this board
hearing it and beginning to cloud who makes what decisions regarding
siting of schools and so forth.
We have some recent experiences that I think are driving
a lot of the questions on this, such as the Crescent Lake Estates
problem. I looked through, and if we had required the county
buffering at Crescent Lakes, they wouldn't have been happy. The
county-required buffer for that section wouldn't even have come close
to what has finally been agreed upon by the school board. And I want
to be careful is not to use a five-pound sledge hammer to kill a gnat
here by creating more process that puts us into what has typically
been the school board's historical, you know, area.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. I just want to make
sure it is not simply -- there are not simply school issues being
dealt with here. And the school board's purview -- I'm open to the
argument, but the school board's purview is traditionally educating
youngsters, not how it impacts transportation or how it impacts
single-family residential neighborhoods or those type things. My
thought was just the familiarity here.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. And that's why I think
we need to draw the line. When we're talking about transportation
impacts, it should be the county's transportation department that
provides that review. When we're talking about off-sight impacts to
neighborhoods, the county should have some input in that review. And
some of these things on our sheets are good points. But I did want to
be careful that we don't begin confusing process.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's go to the public speakers.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any. I do see
Ms. Cook is here.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ms. Chairman, did you have anything
for us here that needs discussing with you so far?
MS. COOK: Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to
speak to you about this. The school board did last Thursday agree in
concept, because there are some particular elements of the agreement
that remain to be worked out, but I think that the fundamental concept
raised by Mr. Hancock really needs consideration. School board
members are constitutionally-elected officers. We are accountable to
the public. I think if we try to innermesh areas of authority unduly,
we're going to create some real problems for this body, as well as for
the school system and our ability to provide facilities for the
students of Collier County.
You know, I think that staff can continue to work on
these issues and resolve some of the particular agreements that are
elements of the agreement. That will be very satisfactory to both
bodies, but I think that what Commissioner Hancock has raised is
really significant and should be considered.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, let me
make a suggestion that might address the other final comment you made,
was obviously we need to be aware and have our staff participate in
the off-site impacts, and this may help with that.
If from a zoning standpoint, where the school's going,
that sort of thing, if we let the school board do their thing, but
prior to the actual construction taking place -- I think some of this
is in here -- preliminary site design of the final site both come
through the board with something more than advice there, but that way
there is some comfort level as far as off-site impacts, but it lets
the school board do their own thing as far as zoning. And so you can
figure out where the schools need to be, and then if there is some
question as to the specifics when it's built on that location, then
we'll ask the county to participate in it.
MS. COOK: I think that's a very important element of
it, Commissioner Constantine, and I think that the attempt in this
agreement and in the drafts is to create a better process of
communication between our agencies so that you know what we're
planning. We have a 13-year capital plan. I don't think there's
another government agency in Collier County that attempts to plan that
far in the future. We will be happy to always share that information
with you and try to coordinate with whatever plans that the county is
drafting for future land use requirements and so forth, but it really
is fundamentally important that we site the schools where the students
reside, because otherwise our transportation costs become exorbitant.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me go off on a kind of a little
bit different angle here. In the last paragraph of Paragraph 5,
Section 5, deals with an exemption or a waiver of property that may be
under contract today before the agreement is approved within 45 days
of the effective date of the agreement. Is that in there because of a
specific property that you have on contract?
MS. COOK: Yes. But that really is moot at this point
because some other mechanisms to resolve that issue have already been
adopted. Because of the time element that this agreement was being
drafted last week prior to the striking of an agreement for the
purchase of that site, it was still in there, but it really is moot at
this point.
MR. CUYLER: For the record, Ken Cuyler, with Roetzel
and Andtess. Yes, from the point of timing, but ultimately this
facility, like any facility is going to fall into that category of
things that we're going to have to coordinate with the county on under
this document in order to ultimately construct the structure. The
purpose of this provision was because it was something the school
board was already dealing with, had already contractual rights on as
opposed to something in the future that they might acquire, that the
board may want to look at that differently than future facilities.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't want to get off the track here
on this particular piece of property but has that deal been
finalized? If it has not we have an alternate proposal that I'd like
to bring forward to you before you finalize that deal, but that's not
a subject for today's meeting, but it's something we should discuss
before you finalize that.
MR. CUYLER: The school board did approve -- they put it
in motion, yes. It is finalized from the contractual point of view.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Nonetheless, we may want to still
offer an alternative to you, and we will do that. Commissioner
Hancock, you had a question?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I sense that you -- and,
Commissioner Constantine, I think you and I are probably shades of the
same position, that we need to find where that line is and keep those
things that should be separate, separate, however, those areas in
which can be complementary and work together and get a better product
for all the citizens in the county, I think everyone is willing to put
those on paper. Whether we can arrive at that today in this hearing I
think is questionable.
What may be appropriate -- and I don't know, Ms. Cook,
if you considered this is -- since the board has appointed me as a
liaison to the school board, there may be a way in concert with our
staff, your staff, and a member of the school board that by sitting
down with representatives of each board there, we might have the
ability to hammer these specifics out and then bring them back at the
same time to each board for a final ratification. I don't want to
hear everything today. I'm saying that might be the process that's
best to achieve that, because I fully understand that -- I was very
involved in the problem at Crescent Lakes and so forth. I know where
that rub is, and I think we can find a way through that.
MS. COOK: Well, I think that that's a good way to
proceed, Commissioner Hancock, and the attempt today to bring it
before you was in the spirit of the agreement to just have open
communications and ample opportunity to exchange ideas. We didn't
expect that there would be a formal ratification today. The school
board has only approved in this concept as well. I think that would
be a very good way to proceed.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me offer a couple of
oversimplified suggestions and that is, again, I don't mind if the
county stays out of zoning part of it and lets you all decide where
the schools need to be. But I'd like to see the county participate
and require a preliminary site plan on a final site plan. So once you
have decided, okay, we'd like to have it in XYZ area, at least the
county then is a participant in how that site is developed, and I
think that deals with the off-site impacts.
MS. COOK: Do you mean at the level at your meetings or
among staff members or --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I would think through
community development.
MS. COOK: Well, I think that the agreement already
allows for that review process.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want just to allow
for it; I want it to require it. MS. COOK: It does.
MR. CUYLER: That's what we're working towards. The
only difference is that we're trying to define the elements that would
be looked at so the school board and the Board of County Commissioners
know exactly what the staff is looking at and what you will be saying,
"yes" or "no" and this type of thing.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We'd be looking at it like any
other --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Schools are not constructed like
any other construction project. There are different sets of standards
for schools on the site development plan. I mean, I'm talking
physical construction of the schools. They have to be built to
separate standards, and we're accustomed to reviewing, and it brings
in a whole different set that we don't typically involve ourselves in.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm not interested in the
structure. I'm interested in the site plan.
MR. CUYLER: And, Commissioner, frankly, there are some
things you are not going to be interested in, even in the site plan,
the internal -- just honestly, I mean, the internal workings of the
site plan your staff will tell you you're not going to care about some
of those things, but there are some things you will care about. We
wanted to find those things. I think we got a lot closer just in the
last couple of days as to defining what those are. You'll be
comfortable that those impacts will be taken care of and that you
won't have to worry about things that you really not going to care
about.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Exactly. I know the most recent
problem with the location and site plan of schools has been with
Pelican Marsh. But, I mean, I sat through several meetings two years
ago with Manatee, and there was just as equal of an uproar there as
there was with the Pelican Marsh. I mean, this is not something new.
This has been going on for a while. Citizens just are not always
happy, and there are some things that could be done to help them be
happier with what the school board is doing. Not saying the school
board shouldn't be doing what they are doing, but compromises are
great.
MR. CAUTERO: Commissioner and Mr. Chairman of the
Board, as Mr. Cuyler said, that's what we've been doing, and we are a
lot closer in the last few days in understanding what criteria they
have to give in their own developing standards as required by state
law and what the development code states. What we're trying to do is
bridge the gap and find the middle ground so those impacts are covered
in the mitigation.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think we've given the staff a little
bit of direction on how to continue to negotiate with the school
board. I assume that you will continue to do so and bring it back to
us in a more revised or final form here shortly.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, do we have a
goal time frame?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That was my next question.
MR. CAUTERO: We do not, Commissioner, other than to
bring it to you today, and we hoped it would be in final form for
reason we stated earlier. It was not. So we are at your disposal on
that, and we'll bring it to you as quickly as you would like. The
school board may have some specific dates in mind, so we would leave
that to your discretion. We will certainly bring it to you as soon as
you would like.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have some more questions,
too. Dealing with the paragraph number 7, towards the end of that
paragraph there's mention of joint recreational use agreements and
exchange of dedication of easements. This is an area that's probably
near and dear to my heart with the Golden Gate Estates Park and the
current rumors that the school is going to prohibit people from using
the park as a whole.
MS. COOK: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. Could you
repeat it? I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There are current rumors
throughout the state that the school, Big Cypress School, is going to
prohibit individuals from using the park. And Mr. Olliff and I have
talked about it, and we know that's not true, but we need to put this
to rest. There is -- I have been told that the school is going to
prohibit people from using the ten-acre portion.
MS. COOK: I'm not at all familiar with that, but Dr.
Ferrante, I think, can answer your question.
MR. FERRANTE: Hi. It's a pleasure to be here. Let me
respond to that very quickly and put that rumor to rest. My name is
Robert Ferrante, assistant superintendent of Collier County Schools.
The school board is committed to an interlocal agreement with regards
to parks and recreation, more specifically, Big Cypress Elementary
School. The back side of Big Cypress has already been discussed with
your director of parks and recreation as of late, in the last couple
of days. I received a letter from your director. He's asked for the
right to use the park area this summer behind our school, meaning our
school portion of that community park which is ten acres. He wants to
use that and inside of our cafeteria and our facility indoors as well.
That's been granted by the principal and has been granted for some
time now. Number two, you're all asking to build a soccer field
you're getting October 1, and that's under review by us right now.
That will be reviewed and approved undoubtedly by our school board.
We already have an agreement to agree. It's just a matter of going
through a very simple process with us.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is why, though, recreation
easements are important to me and going to be important to the
citizens in Golden Gate. Mr. Dotrill, what does it cost to build a
soccer field roughly?
MR. DORRILL: I'll say a quarter of a million dollars.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Quarter of a million dollars.
If the school board decides to expand Big Cypress School, and they're
going to use this site without an easement for the recreation use and
soccer field, you as the school board can come forward and say, gee,
we're sorry, County Commission, you got to take your quarter-million
dollar soccer field and do something else with it, because we need
that land right now. And Easements would kind of help us get through
that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's see if we can get back to our
regular scheduled agenda here.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is part of it,
Mr. Chairman, because it's part of Item 7, and I'm trying to make the
school board aware --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I was going to say that there is a
second interlocal agreement to parks and regs.
DR. FERRANTE: I'd be glad to respond briefly and say
that Naples Park School -- I've been here 25 years in Collier County
schools. Naples Park School and its facility have been enhanced by
you for gosh knows how many hundreds of thousands of dollars. We have
added to that school on three occasions. It hasn't caused a single
problem, because we did that cooperatively.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand that. The other
question that I had dealt with the term of this contract, Item 13.
Since we're moving into unchartered waters we could say, I'd rather
think a ten-year term is a bit long, especially if there's not
particularly a clause in here that allows for amending the agreement.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think ten years -- if we
can come up with an agreement that we can agree on, I think ten years
is a logical amount of time.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't, because it's
unchartered areas. We don't know how this is going to work out. We
don't know whether the agreements can be too restrictive or not
restrictive enough from either side, and I'm all for -- would just
either like to see a shorter term so we can adjust it or at least put
some language in there to amend it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Dr. Ferrante, did the state
law that passed this year have any reference to time frame in it?
DR. FERRANTE: Does the law reference a time frame?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
DR. FERRANTE: No, it doesn't.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The parties can always agree to
amend contracts. If we mutually agree, we can always decide.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Might I suggest we wait until the
final form of the contract, and if someone is incredibly unhappy about
an element of it then and wish to reduce the time frame, that would be
the proper time for that discussion. Again, this discussion is
heading down the path of someone being an evil villain here, and that
hasn't proved the situation between this board and school board in the
past, and I don't anticipate it in the future.
MS. COOK: Mr. Hancock, I appreciate you saying that,
because As far as the unchartered territory, Ms. Matthews, we have
been operating in effect as this interlocal agreement requires, short
of the public hearing requirements and some of those specific
elements, for many, many years our staffs have been working together,
so this is not a totally new direction.
And then, secondly, the issue of the term of the
agreement. That relates specifically to the length of our capital
budget and our attempt to plan ahead in the future and purchase sites
for schools. And That's why the ten-year clause was the school
board's preference.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, there is
no evil villain here looking at this agreement to fall apart. The
reason I bring that up is a comment that was made to me yesterday
afternoon that the school board's opinion of this is they only want to
go through it once, which tells me that they want to lock something
down fast and firm. And yet I'm at the same time saying, well, wait a
minute. We may do something today that two years from now three years
from now or five years from now, we find doesn't work very well. And
I'm just asking for either a shorter term or at least some clause,
some wording in here that allows for either party to come forward and
ask for amending.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Couple of thoughts. I agree
with Mr. Hancock. I think we're going to need to decide that as we
come to our final negotiated agreement rather than now, but also I
don't think the school board is looking to do anything fast, and we
had our disagreement on Pelican Marsh and that's fine, but I think
what they're looking at is the same thing we do. They have got a long
term they're trying to put in effect. Rather than have a moving
target to work with, they'd like to have some ability to plan long
term just like we do. Again, this probably isn't the time to try to
finalize the term of the contract since we don't have --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: In fact, going back to what
Mr. Cautero brought forward today is what I'm going to try and wrap up
with here. Under the items that have been listed here on this sheet,
let me hit each one by one so we can try and get some direction to
Mr. Cautero. Items 1 through 4 I think are things that just simply
need to be worked out and can be. But the itemized sections on No.
5.A, site landscaping, as far as requiring the school board to set
aside 25 percent native vegetation. That's really requiring them to
buy 25 percent more land and use 25 percent more tax dollars, and I'm
not so sure that's a prudent move. And, again, let me just hit these
and then if the board members have problems, we can discuss it. The
programs for exotic removal, I think that makes sense. The ten
percent instead of five percent set aside as parking areas, that makes
sense. I know if you've ever been in a high school parking lot when
all the kids get out, you'd like a few meetings here and there to slow
the rate of flow sometimes.
The parking, I think that needs to be a discussion
point, because I don't believe the schools are having parking
problems. Site standards, as far as screening and buffering, I think
that's an area of good discussion because, again, where you've fix
problems, you've exceeded county standards, and where you haven't I'm
not aware of, but we can certainly talk about that. As far as
building setbacks, again, I think that's fairly innocuous and
something that is on the surface agreeable. So I'd be happy to take
all those items except for 5.A.1. I think making that a requirement
is really going to cost the taxpayer more money in the end run and I'm
not so sure it really provides us anything worthwhile.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't mind requiring
business to do that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, I don't.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, that's my feelings, and --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I think we go too far
even with business. That's my point. 5.C is my main concern here in
that we don't have specifics as far as -- there are no specifics and
there need to be some specifics in there. There need to be
requirements for buffering and so on, and that's where we get into
some of our trouble now. So that's one where I think I agree we need
to meet at least the minimum amount that's in the specs CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's hear the one speaker.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Good morning. My name is Gilbert
Erlichman. I live in East Naples. I'm speaking for myself. I didn't
hear the three previous speakers here. I know Mr. Cuyler, but I don't
know who the other two speakers were. And I'm sitting back there in
the audience as a person that's going to be paying for all this or
whatever is discussed, because I have no papers. I have no
information. Papers are passed out to the commissioners by
Mr. Cautero. And there's nothing in the agenda, pardon me, the
executive summary, so I don't know what's going on here. I really am
mystified, and it looks like a private discussion between the school
board and the county commissioners. And personally I don't trust the
school board, because they're very unresponsive to the taxpayers. I
don't know what else to say, commissioners. Mr. Norris. I have no
idea what's going on. Could you please enlighten me? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Erlichman.
MR. DORRILL: There are no other speakers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We suggested direction for the board
-- or for the staff -- I'm sorry. Does any other board member have a
suggestion to amplify that or --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, you'll
work with him on that?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, I'd like to work with
Mr. Cautero and our staff, and if I could ask the school board to
appoint maybe one of their board members, and before this comes back
to our respective boards, we have a meeting, hammer everything out and
make sure everything seems palatable to both parties, and we'll move
on from there, bring it back to a public form with a complete item on
the agenda with backup so Mr. Erlichman can have all the input he
wants.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Cautero, and thank you,
school board, for your corporation in this matter. We appreciate it.
MR. CUYLER: Thank you, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Who was that man in the dark
suit?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Before we continue with our regularly
scheduled agenda, I want to recognize that we have our state
representative, Butt Saunders, here and who has brought his father
along for support, Mr. Seymour Saunders. Could you have him stand up
and wave. (Applause).
Item #8A2
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR DOCUMENT TO ALLOW THE REIMBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ARTIFICAL REEF OFFSHORE OF GORDON PASS, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA - APPROVED
Our next item is the former 16(A) (5), which is now
8 (A) (2) .
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: 8(A) (2) and (3). I'd asked to
have these moved from the consent agenda mainly because I believe in
the last two or three weeks you've each probably received a memo from
me regarding the artificial reef program and my trying to find out
information regarding the stockpiling of items for the reef. And I'm
told in my search to find out what was right and what was wrong, but
I'm told that our landfill site no longer accepts items for storage
for transport to the artificial reef. And that disturbed me a little
bit, and then I got a memo from Mr. Russell who indicated that perhaps
the reason for that was that it costs $100 a ton to transport it to
the reef. If I've misunderstood this, I'm sorry, but, you know, help
me if I misunderstood the numbers that I got. But anyway I took this
off because I found it interesting that the federal government
reimburses us for some of that cost and at the same time we're
awarding a bid, and I'd like to know where we're going to get the
stuff from.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Matthews, if I could expand
on that, it was a year ago I received a phone call from someone in
Pine Ridge Industrial Park who had concrete pipes sitting on their lot
that they wanted to donate for the reef project. They could get some
level of a write-off I guess, and we would have that material for the
project but, again, storage was the problem. There was nowhere to put
it, plus the transport and hauling costs and so forth. So I had a
similar experience, so it's helpful to get a clarification on what are
our options.
MR. RUSSELL: For the record, David Russell, solid waste
department. What has been discovered is that the most cost effective
way to accomplish the reef projects is once the funds are available to
actually stage materials close to the shoreline, the contractual cost
of moving material that was moved to the landfill then has to be moved
by a contractor, reloaded and moved to the shoreline is a waste of
funds. And there's always materials -- good materials available when
they're ready to do the projects so they can actually get more tons of
material on a reef if they direct materials directly to the staging
area. So it's not as if -- we could always find some space for some
material, but there's always more materials out there available than
we have a need for. So it doesn't make any sense to burn all those
dollars moving that heavy material a second time.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I guess then maybe our
citizens who wish to contribute to the artificial reef programs maybe
are not aware of any changes that may have happened in the last year
or so with the program, and I guess maybe we need to make them more
aware that they can continue to store these on site and we'll let them
know when there's a staging and so forth to get it moved over. What
I'm hearing lately is that this material rather than being saved for
the artificial reef is being disposed of and actually put in the
landfill which is just consuming more square footage or cubic footage
of the landfill.
MR. RUSSELL: That material wouldn't go into a lined
cell. It's kept separately and used as a back fill. We all know that
fill material is expensive here. But The point is if we started
setting material aside again, it would never get used because of the
time that the grant monies become available, they can always get
material directly from the provider delivered directly to the
shoreline, and it doesn't make any sense to amass a stockpile of
material. It's just not cost effective.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In other words, someone who was
going to haul it to the landfill, now hauls it to the transfer site so
it goes directly on the barge and heads out -- MR. RUSSELL: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and there's little or no
hauling cost for us because --
MR. RUSSELL: It's a matter of timing. So it allows the
people running the program to actually get more tons out on the reef
themselves. There's just way more of this material than can ever be
used because of the monies available to build these reefs.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand what you're saying.
My concern and I wanted to get it before the public and before this
board is that apparently there's been a change in the method for
stockpiling the material for assembling the material and moving it to
the reef, and I'm happy to see the program is still there. We're just
doing it a little bit differently, and perhaps we need to let our
companies that accumulate these concrete pipes and so forth let them
know that the program is alive and what and what they can do to
contribute toward it.
MR. RUSSELL: I can discuss that with the staff member
of the natural resources on that project and make sure of that.
MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural
resources director. Also note that we do receive private donations.
Last year we received I think it was 600 tons of material that were
privately donated and placed on the reef. As Mr. Dotrill said the
cost was transported in placement. We have more than enough material
than we can put out for the $25,000 that we get in grant funds. So we
do communicate that to the people who do call in, and we have a number
of reef sites for the public to realize that we have a number of reef
sites. If they would like to donate it to us and provide the
transport and the placement, we will work with them and inspect the
materials and allow them to be deposit the permit.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. I'm happy
to hear that the program is still going, and Mr. Chairman, if you
don't object, I would like to make a motion that we approve both
8(A) (2) and (3).
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion for approval of both
8(A)(2) and 8(A)(3). All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
None. Approved.
Item #8A3
BID #96-2518 FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF MATERIAL FOR THE ARTIFICIAL REEF
OFFSHORE OF GORDON PASS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - AWARDED TO HC CULLEY
MARINE SERVICES, INC.
This item was discussed and approved in conjunction with Item
#8A2.
Item #SB1
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS ON THE BID RECEIVED FROM
THE ADVERTISEMENT TO SELL THAT SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY FORMERLY KNOWN AS
THE LANDFILL EXPANSION PROPERTY - BID ACCEPTED CONTINGENT UPON IDA
ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RECOHMENDATIONS
Next item is 8(B)(1). For the record again, David
Russell, solid waste department. This item addresses a sale of
surplus property adjacent to the landfill. This item was bid out,
advertised for bid. The only bid that responded was the Collier
County Golf Authority. The authority did have a couple of exceptions
to the bid and most significant of which is that they requested that
the 20 percent up-front payment be waived, probably the most
significant variation in the bid here. Additionally there is the need
for issuance of some industrial revenue bonds in this case. The bid
by the authority was for $4,025 per acre for that 52.5 acres that was
advertised. The authority added some conditions themselves. They
suggested requiring a 27-hole course rather than an a 18-hole course,
a stipulation for no commercial development other than that affiliated
with what would be normally affiliated with a public golf course. No
residential housing development and nature trail may be contained
within the boundary of the property and that recreational activities
beneficial to the public would be permitted at the facility.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As far as the deposit being
waived, obviously we'd still close and have the total amount within 60
days. There was no suggestion to change that? MR. RUSSELL: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The closing will still occur
within 60 days?
MR. RUSSELL: That's my understanding.
MS. ASHTON: Excuse me, if I have could comment for the
record. I'm Heidi Ashton, Assistant Collier County Attorney. The
advertisement that was placed in the paper did provide for the 20
percent deposit within five days. It's our opinion that you should
readvertise that changing the terms if you elect to proceed or have
the closing occur within five days of your acceptance. If you desire
to accept it today, that would mean the closing would have to occur
within five days from today in order to comply with the terms that
were advertised in the paper.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Don't they need time to acquire
some of the other property?
MS. ASHTON: Pardon me?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There are some privately-held
properties within this area aren't there still? MR. DORRILL: I believe that there are.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm just questioning, you know,
if we require them to close this in five days and they're unable to
acquire some of the properties that are still within the area, then
they might be caught with a million dollars' worth of property and
nothing to do with it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's less important to me than
complying with the advertisements and bids.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand that, too.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, I need some help
here on this, because I guess if there were other bidders, then that
would be a very valid concern. There was one responder to this and
from a technical standpoint I understand that; from a real-life
standpoint I don't think -- I would be shocked if there was a
difference if we went through all the expense of advertising again,
and went through another 60 days or 90 days and we're going to end up
back at the same point.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, fine. As always the county
attorney office would advise you of the risks, and the board can make
the choices they wish to do. The advertisement provided for 20
percent down within five days of acceptance. An argument might be
made that an entity that would otherwise have bid for the property but
for the 20 percent down may not have bid and was foreclosed by the
term in the advertisement itself. There may or may not be someone or
some entity that would come forward and attempt to challenge in that
regard.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a time frame which
the challenge would have to be brought forward?
MR. WEIGEL: It's a significant time frame for a
potential lawsuit of this kind. It's not a question of days. It
would be months or conceivably even years. But the board, you know,
can make the informed decision based on it understands the market
place and the risk that it takes. But the advice that Ms. Ashton gave
was just that if there was to be -- the board were to except a
material change from what appeared to be a specific shall mandatory
term of the bid specification, that it could still comply if, in fact,
the closing were held within the time that the 20 percent would
otherwise be proffered. Obviously, based on the bid response, it
would appear that that would be an impossibility with the proposer at
hand here.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, maybe we could have
Ms. Ashton elaborate on this. I know as part of your purchasing
policy, the board has the ability to make findings pertaining to
either exceptions that have taken in bids, the bids that we received,
which is a fairly routine practice or in some instances to waive
irregularities of the bid form for the sealed bid itself, so long as
the board makes findings to that. And unless there's some specific
preclusions to that in the statutes as it pertains to the dissolution
of surplus property, my question would be why can't the board avail
itself of the purchasing ordinance that you have that otherwise gives
you the ability to do that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was going to be my
comment is it certainly wouldn't be the first time that we had done
that. Secondarily, I think if we're talking real life here, one very
real possibility is if we go through this process again, the bidder
has the advantage right now of realizing they were the only bidder.
They could very well come back with a much lower bid and the county
loses a bunch of money over what is essentially a technicality. So if
there is a legal way to deal with that, it could save us and the solid
waste department, where this money will ultimately go, potentially a
pile of money.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I recognize that, too. I think
we also have to factor in that this is not an uncontroversial -- if
that's a word. It's not an uncontroversial matter because it's
related to -- I mean, this closes the door on future landfill
expansion at that site. And there's a great deal of discussion in the
community about citing a new landfill in the Golden Gate Estates area
near Orange Tree. And I think that the possibility of someone filing
an objection if we aren't very careful to comply with the bid process
is a real possibility because of, you know, this isn't just about a
golf course, this is about landfill.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, let's not mix the
issues, though. The board has made -- on several occasions they
promised not to expand at that site, both the old board and this
board. And You may or may not agree with the sites that have floated
to the top in the process now. No specific site has been justified.
We may or may not end up going to one of those sites, but regardless
of how that process unfolds, this board has made a commitment numerous
times to the public not to expand to the 300 acres to the north, so
they are separate issues.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They are separate, but we don't
have the ultimate decision there if we can't get the permits for
another landfill. They are separate, but my only reason for bringing
that up is that --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you suggesting we renege
on the promise to the public?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I'm suggesting that the
state agencies might not allow us to permit a landfill elsewhere, and
so I'm suggesting that -- and that is a separate issue. My only
reason for bringing this up, however, is that when we're evaluating
the business risk associated with a minor variation to the bid process
which is what -- our attorney gives us advice and we have to evaluate
that risk. A factor in evaluating that risk is the likelihood of
someone filing an objection to the waiver of the bid process ten years
from now when we're in a fight over a landfill permit, so I just raise
it for that point.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I guess that -- that
takes us back to Mr. Dorrill's question for Miss. Ashton. Is this --
we've done that sort of thing before?
MS. ASHTON: What I could comment on is that if you
readvertised it and the current applicant were to, you know, reduce
his price, don't forget that you provided the advertisement in the
paper then they're response to the advertisement is the offer, then
you have the option to accept it, so should it come in lower, you
always have the opportunity to say we'll keep the property then.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, we do. But, again, the
option is to hold a piece of property and not get any money to go
toward another site wherever it would be. So you can get a particular
price or you can get no money. That doesn't -- there are all kinds of
options we have, but the idea that we have a particular price now that
is actually a tiny bit per acre higher than what we paid for the land,
and that same price may or may not come back if we go through the
bidding process again.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a
question of Commissioner Constantine?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It may be appropriate to the
petitioner, but since this discussion is dragging, let me ask this.
Is the reason that the 5 to 20 percent can't be made because a bond
from the IDA, Industrial Development Authority, has to be -- I'm
curious why can't the deposit be made and what are the constraints if
the deposit can be made instead of five business days upon approval of
the bonds from the Industrial Development Authority does that give us
leeway that is sufficient and so forth? Why can't that be made
Mr. Glass?
MR. GLASS: My name is Arnold Lee Glass for the record.
You've hit on the point. The bond will be issued after these meetings
take place. We've got this one, we have one with the IDA, then we
come back to you for the final blessing on the IDA bond which is
coming up rather -- is moving ahead rather rapidly. And if it is --
and I'd have to defer to your attorneys and ours. If I'd known I
needed them, I would have brought them to answer. We'd be prepared to
issue a bond anticipation note that binds us to that deposit, too,
like you would in any situation, if you want that. I can understand a
concern for that, and I understand from my previous days up there you
got to think about all kinds of things. And I have no problem -- we
have no problem giving you a note. And we will close -- when the
closing takes place after the final thing here, it will be rapidly,
because we've been assured by Everon, our former Kemper Financial,
that they are prepared to at this point. If this meeting was a final
meeting today, we'd be closing very quickly.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there a board meeting within
five days of the IDA bond request? There may be a way around this.
If we can continue this item to a board meeting that is five days or
less before the Industrial Development Authority meeting, we may be
able to accomplish the objective set forth here today.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: That was just what I was going
to ask. What's the time line that we're looking at?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's the date for the
Industrial Development meeting?
MR. GLASS: We're supposed to report to them with the
material from here, but the IDA board meeting was scheduled originally
for May 13, and we're behind that now. I know they're going to be
calling the board together as soon as they can. Major point, we do
have to have the land available to us. Maybe it's on a contingency
basis or something, I don't know, but we do need that, because we
can't close the bond -- keeping in mind the bond that we are getting
is totally unencumbered of anything for the taxpayers here. It's just
straight money that we're responsible for in revenue, and even the IDA
does not have a security interest in it. So they're basically doing
the perfectory procedure to make sure it's all --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You would have it if we scheduled
it so that it's a board meeting within 5 days of the Industrial
Development Authority meeting, that decision would be made, and if it
doesn't happen at the IDA, then you fail on the five-day time frame --
MR. GLASS: We don't lose our deposit because -- that's
why we worry about things like that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, one other way to
do that -- and actually I like your idea a lot, Commissioner Hancock.
It says within five business days of board acceptance. Can you make
an acceptance contingent upon IDA action, so it won't actually be an
acceptance until their action -- until their acceptance?
MR. WEIGEL: I think that's appropriate. And, again,
all we wanted to do is advise you of a potential risk that was out
there. You're not even -- it's not that you're prevented from taking
action today, but I want you to know that the potential for something
that might occur. It may well not occur. But you're absolutely
correct. If that works for the golf authority, that kind of timing
standpoint, that would work obviously for the board.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That means they didn't have five
days from the IDA approval if that occurs, to do it to meet the
contract requirements. Is that what you're suggesting? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now, I'll ask my second question,
because It's more specific about the project. Can you define for me
on here "championship level" because the --
MR. GLASS: I'll tell you right now we are using USGA
standards, and we will meet every standard there is to meet to certify
us --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I ask is these courses
are high on maintenance dollars and nobody uses the fourth and fifth
tee, no one I know. Former county attorneys use them.
MR. GLASS: We'll have a special designation for county
attorneys then.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I ask that is I would
just request that the USGA currently is proposing courses be a little
bit shorter --
MR. GLASS: They are going to be shorter, about
fifty-seven hundred to six thousand maximum. We've already discussed
that with them.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two or three tee boxes, not four
or five?
MR. GLASS: That's correct. That's a necessity for the
speed of the course and everything, and it's a public course and you
have to keep them moving, and a lot less water, too.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is that still classified as
championship level?
MR. GLASS: Yes. It will meet their levels for
championship tournaments. We have been asked by some people who
talked to you recently about allowing them to come to our course one
week a year, too, so -- they want to place to go home to too, I guess.
That's neither here nor there at this point.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, do we have any other
public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Just one. Mr. Simonik.
MR. SIMONIK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. My name for the record is Michael Simonik. I'm the
environmental policy facilitator for the Conservancy of Naples, not to
be confused with the Nature Conservancy -- Conservancy of Naples. I'm
here making comment on behalf of our 30 board of directors, our 400
volunteers, and our 5,000 family members.
We believe that the selling of this surplus land near
the landfill is premature at this time. There is 20 years left on the
life of this landfill, and we believe it's still uncertain as to
whether or not there's a need for moving the landfill and creating a
new one. As you know, Commissioner Constantine, one of our staff
members is on the committee for the selection process of a new
landfill, and he's on that as a citizen. We are not uncomfortable
with that process, the selection process of a new landfill. It's very
clean and apolitical. But this does not in anyway suggest that our
policy supports a new landfill, rather that the selection process, if
there is a new site to be had is to be built and take into account the
environmental restrictions and so forth. Twenty years is a long way
off, but we may be able to preclude any need for another landfill by
using some of the alternatives that have already been in place like
recycling and source reduction. The odor control system that has just
been newly placed into the landfill, those kind of things. Maybe we
can move the life of this landfill from 20 years to 50 years with some
new technology and new alternatives, and that is the supposed life of
the new landfill, 50 years. If we can have the current one at 50
years, and maybe there is need for that extension, that surplus
property. I guess everyone is calling it surplus, but maybe it's not
surplus. Maybe it's needed for the current landfill to make it to 50
years so that we don't have to go to new landfill. And, again, I
realize my comments obviously at this time are just for the record,
and I just wanted to state that on behalf of the Conservancy. Thank
you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just want to clarify, sir, that
it is the Conservancy's position that we should expand the landfill in
the Estates?
MR. SIHONIK: That is not the position that I stated.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thanks. I just wanted to
check, because I thought that's what you were alluding to. MR. SIHONIK: I did not allude to that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do appreciate you pointing
out the processes between apolitical and trying to determine what the
future needs are, and the representative from the Conservancy has been
great. You're right. We can look at all kinds of alternatives, but
as I mentioned earlier, this board has made numerous times a
commitment not to expand to the north. Like you said you're not
asking us to do that anyway, and as I result then it is surplus
property. There are other alternatives we can look at as far as what
-- Commission Matthews has mentioned several times, alternative
technologies. Can we do more with recycling and so on. Those are all
going to be part of the process. Those aren't part of the process of
the 252 acres to the north. And I think the commitment's been made
and we should honor that commitment to the public.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, any other public
speakers?
MR. DORRILL: I have one. We have Mr. Perkins.
MR. PERKINS: I can't hear without my glasses. Not
funny, I can't see without my hearing aid. A1 Perkins, Belle Heade
Group, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights. We're in hundred
percent agreement for you to sell this piece of property because of
all of the statements are not coming out. If we close the landfill
right today, we have to monitor it for the next 30 years for the gas
and collect it. If you maintain and keep the fill going for another
50 years, we're looking at 80 years. So let's get real. Now we have
the technology and the ability to fix the problem. Let's get in line,
and let's fix the problem. I'm sure that wealthy Naples can take and
get their act together to take and fix this problem when all the
country and even around the world is looking at us that they can do
it. We have the facilities, we have the areas, and we have the
technology. So as far as that landfill goes, let's see if we can't
fix the problem. Recycling is the answer. Composting may be part of
it. There's a ton of things we can do to eliminate the need for a
landfill. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to make a motion to
accept the bid contingent upon IDA action and in accordance with all
other items outlined, the staff requirements.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought you were supportive of
the continuance.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I pointed out earlier and
Mr. Weigel nodded and I said before, we agreed that it would be
contingent upon and the acceptance doesn't take effect until IDA takes
their action. So it still gets us to where we need to be. Lets us
move ahead today That falls within the scope of the requirements.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Also, the golf authority has to
have a clear commitment on land.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, I saw you nod
again but that's --
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. That's correct. That is my
understanding and I expect the record will show that the board's
acceptance today is not a final acceptance. It's based upon factors
yet to occur.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
One step forward gentlemen.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 96-239, CALLING A REFERENDUM ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 IN THE NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT
RE EXPANDING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE FIRE DISTRICT TO INCLUDE SECTIONS
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23 AND 24, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, AS SET FORTH IN HOUSE BILL 2085, AMENDING CHAPTER 84-416, LAWS OF
FLORIDA, AS AMENDED - ADOPTED
Our next item is 9(A), a resolution calling for a
referendum in the North Naples Fire Control District.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, we had this item
for discussion time and time again. Motion to approve other than the
public hearing.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
approval. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #9B
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA JOB TRAINING CONSORTIUM
AND APPOINTING PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTATIVES TO THE JOBS AND EDUCATION
PARTNERSHIP REGIONAL BOARD - APPROVED
9(B) is a recommendation to approve local elected
officials' agreement for Southwest Florida Job Training Consortium.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unless someone has any questions
on this, I'm involved with this as the representative from Collier
County, and I'd be happy to answer your questions, but I would move
approval.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What exactly is this?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What happened in the past is we
had state and federal grant monies in the Job Training Partnership Act
that have come into the county through several areas. The state is
anticipating reduction and -- in those amounts and is presenting block
grants to regions throughout the state. The consortium consists of
five elected officials, one from each of the five counties in
southwest Florida. That consortium then appoints a 45 member board
that will direct those block grant funds to accomplish the same
objectives at a more efficient-- in a more efficient way. I am the --
one of the elected officials on the consortium and, in fact, chairman
of the consortium.
We recently appointed the 45 member board and this is in
essence ratifying an agreement to the structure of that. It is
nonbinding on the county and does not cost the local taxpayers any
dollars. In fact, there is 20 percent savings on the funds that were
expended to achieve the same objectives. We're just redirecting it in
a more efficient way.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a lack of funding
somewhere?
MS. ASHTON: Yes, there is. And for the record I'm
Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney. We did put this on under
county attorney. But because of the time frame -- I received the
agreement last week, and we couldn't get it on the regular consent
agenda in time, so it was distributed on Friday, and the title that
was distributed is recommendation to approve supplemental interlocal
agreement for the Southwest Florida Job Training Consortium and to
appoint private sector representatives to the jobs and education
partnership regional board. This was distributed on Friday, and if
anybody else needs a copy, I have copies for distribution.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will say that comforting
element that creates a difference in this versus the way it's been
done is it used to be that the monies were sent directly to the
bureaucratic agencies for their handling. This has a citizen
oversight board that directs those funds. These citizens that are
made up from each county are owners and co-owners of businesses that
may use some of the job training aspects and so forth. So as far as
I'm concerned, it's going to be a much better program and less
splintered than what's been done in the past, and the counties'
representation on that committee is based on population, so we are the
second highest representative in the five county consortium.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
approve. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Let's take a real quick break, and we'll come back with
the Healthy kids' presentation.
(A short break was held.)
Item #10A
PRESENTATION RE HEALTHY KID'S PROGRAM - CONTINUED TO JUNE 11, 1996
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I guess I sort of feel like a
little bit like a bad dream. I keep coming back.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, Commissioner
Hancock was just saying that to me in the foyer.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: But I also -- I did come with
gifts. These will go with your vests and with your hats. And I don't
know if you got T-shirts, but these will go very nicely with that.
Mr. Weigel, I have several up there for anyone who --
I also want to thank you for the opportunity to present
to you what I think will be very interesting program. And I would ask
-- and I know this will be the case -- I would ask that you have an
open mind to the presentation that's going to be made to you today
'cause I think it will impressive to you.
In January I formed a local health care advisory
committee to assist in addressing Collier County's local health care
problems and issues, and I have some material I'd like to hand out.
The first thing is a list of the health care advisory committee
members. And then there are two articles that appeared in the Naples
Daily News that I'd like to hand out.
The committee that we formed is a large cross-section of
the medical community, the business community, and the civic leaders.
And they have thoroughly evaluated the Health Kids Program and had
recommended its implementation in Collier County. Some of those
committee members are here today, and there are several other people
in the community that would like to speak about the program.
First, what is the program? The Florida legislature
determined that it was in the best interest of the citizens of the
State of Florida to develop a state-funded insurance program for only
school age children who have no other access to medical care. The
Healthy Kids Corporation purchases for eligible children only private
insurance that provides in-depth coverage. I'm going to continue to
emphasize school-age children. There are no adults that are covered
by this program; it's only school-age children.
We have a letter of intent from Blue Cross-Blue Shield
expressing interest in writing this insurance, and we will have other
expressions of interest from other carriers willing to set up the
health care network necessary to establish this program. Liz Freeman
with the Naples Daily News has done an excellent job in reporting on
this particular issue, and I wanted to -- I've given you an article
that she wrote, and I wanted to just read a couple of short paragraphs
from that article, because I think they're very indicative of what
we're trying to accomplish. According to the article, advocates say
the program now in place in nine counties makes for healthier
children, reduces school absenteeism, and cuts the amount of
charitable medical care provided by hospitals, and it spends
traditional costs shifted to the entire community with higher hospital
charges. Ms. Freeman goes on to talk about some of the other programs
around the state. If Collier opts not to move forward, that means
four other counties slated to start Healthy Kids programs this Fall --
Palm Beach County, Dade, Escambia, and Alachua -- could get more
children enrolled than planned. All four have local funding for the
project. Palm Beach is aiming to enroll 10,000 kids and the Palm
Beach County Health Care District, which is a health care taxing
authority, has pledged 500,000 hours which is four times the local max
required to get this program started.
According to Rose Naff, the executive director of the
Healthy Kids Corporation, they are being very aggressive to put
themselves on the top of the list. In Dade County, Jackson Memorial
Hospital, a large public hospital, has pledged $125,000. The goal in
Dade County is to get 6,000 students enrolled in the program. And the
article goes on, as you'll note, to talk about several of the
counties. Finally the article concludes with something I think is
very important. Recently, the Ford Foundation and the John F. Kennedy
school of government at Harvard University named Healthy Kids as a
semifinalist in a 1996 innovations in American Government awards
program. It could be eligible for $100,000 grant from the Ford
Foundation. Collier County has had some experience with that
Innovations program as you know, and I think that speaks volumes for
the quality of this very innovative program.
The nine counties that are currently involved in this
program involve some large counties and some small counties ranging
from Broward County to Hardy, Highlands, Okeechobee, Pinellis,
St. Lucie, Santa Rosa, Volusia, and Duvall County. As I said there
are about 22,000 children enrolled. Until this year the maximum
number of counties that could be funded by the state legislature was
nine.
The legislature recognized the tremendous benefits of
this program and because of that has increased the number of counties
that can enroll in this program beginning in 1996 -- '97. And I want
to emphasize one thing that I think all of you have heard about that I
think is important. The legislature cut over $400 million out of HRS
social programs in 1996-1997, major cuts in social programs. But at
the same time the legislature saw fit to increase funding for this
very important program, the Healthy Kids program.
The Collier County School Board has approved the
program. Our application has been completed; it's been filed. And
the only thing we need at this point is local matching dollars for the
state grant. The local match is five percent of the total program
cost, five percent. The other 95 percent is paid for by the state
and/or the parents of the children.
What does this five percent equate to? The $90,000 that
we're talking about turns out to be .005 mils. So if you have
$125,000 house in Collier County that's homestead, you're going to pay
50 cents towards this program if the county commission funds the
entire $90,000 max. That's 50 cents that the average taxpayer in this
community is going to pay for this program. And the benefits are to
3,000 children that currently have no other access to medical care.
Why should Collier County join this program? First,
this is not a violation of your policy prohibiting funding or
charitable organizations. This is a state matching grant program.
The program is administered by the Health Kids Corporation, which is a
state-owned corporation. The citizens of Collier County are paying
tax dollars into this program right now. The nine counties that are
benefitting right now are receiving tax dollars from Collier County.
We're getting no benefit from it. If we don't participate in this
program, the additional four or five counties that will be added in
'96 will get Collier County tax dollars. Collier county taxpayers
and citizens will get no benefit.
Secondly, by providing this health insurance to
school-age children, we're giving these children the extra boost they
need to perform well in school. I think that there are certain social
benefits that will flow from that, certain economic benefits that will
flow from that to all of Collier County. We'll have reduced
absenteeism. We'll have students performing better in school, and
that should reduce dependence on welfare and other social programs
down the road.
Third, with more children covered there is less indigent
care, the cost of which is cost shifted to paying customers. I think
we all recognize Collier County Government as an entity pays a premium
for health care to help offset the cost of indigent care.
At this point, I'd like to introduce Rose Naff, who is
the executive director of the Healthy Kids Corporation. She has a
short presentation and a video that I think really tells the whole
story of Healthy Kids. I do want to thank Rose for a couple things.
She is an excellent example of a state employee, someone who is very
dedicated to what she does. She does an excellent job. I want to
thank her for coming down here. This is her second visit to Collier
County in the last several months.
MS. NAFF: Hi. I'm Rose Naff, executive director of the
Florida Healthy Kids Corporation. I was not sure if you had received
the informational pamphlet that we have, so I will pass one over to
you. I also have for anyone in the audience who would like to receive
the brochure, there are copies on the table right here. I heard some
testimony earlier about materials. I do have a video that is -- there
was a news broadcast on ABC World News Tonight. It's about a
five-minute-piece. We had a lot of coverage. All the major networks
covered this. This is my favorite piece. I'm going to pretend it's
second grade and invite the members of the class to come sit on the
floor if they want to watch it. Sorry we're going to do this to your
back, but I'll go ahead and start the video. It's a good introduction
piece.
(A video presentation was made.)
MS. NAFF: I introduced you there to Heather and Jimmy
Wilkinson. I want to say a little bit about them. Their family
represents the average family that enrolls in this program. That is,
there are two married adults, one or both working. They happen to
have two children. The average age is 11. Heather was 11 at that
time. They are high school graduates, and they have some college
credits. They happen to be in there mid 30's. That's my family. The
only difference between there family and my family was that my family
had insurance. A little history about Healthy Kids and the concept
and how it came to be.
There's a gentleman at the University of Florida,
Dr. Steve Freidman, whose job it was to conceive of different things
that would improve the health of children in the State of Florida. He
developed a concept, and it was published in the New England Journal
of Medicine in 1988, and the concept was school enrollment based
health insurance. The idea was to take instead of a traditional way
of obtaining insurance that most of us are familiar with where an
employer would go out and negotiate a group policy for his employees
and employees could then opt to insure themselves, perhaps receive
subsidy from the employer and then elect to insure their spouses and
dependents. He took that and wanted to turn that upside down a little
bit and say -- there was a couple of facts he was aware of that 75
percent of the uninsured in Florida were related to a child in school.
So he thought if he took -- as an alternative grouping mechanism, he
took children in school and there was a negotiated agreement much like
an employer would do where there would be a negotiated policy
purchased, and that the children in theory could elect to insure
themselves and potentially their family members, siblings, their
dependents, possibly adult members of the family. The concept was
modified a little bit when Healthy Kids was formed to implement that
idea, and it is a child focus. It is Healthy Kids. It is just a
children's idea, but the concept of using the school system to insure
children and their siblings is one that was implemented first in
Volusia County in 1992 and has proven to be successful.
Representative Saunders has done such a good job with
some of the details that I don't have a lot to say now. So there are
9 counties participating. We started in 1992. And we most recently
this current year added Pinellas and Duvall County. We have received
petitions from five counties to do programs in 1996-'97. The
legislature has authorized the funding to do that, and we are
considering how we're going to take the enrollment in this program up
to almost 50,000 children during the next school year and which
counties will be participating. It's a partnership program. Everyone
contributes to this in some way. Families contribute financially.
School districts contribute by providing very streamlined system of
eligibility determination and are going above and beyond. They're
also assisting in marketing the program. The state is contributing
general revenue dollars to the program, and we do look for
contributions, a financial stakeholder from the local community also.
Providers participate in this program and often discount their rates,
Both hospitals and physicians. Often they are looking at the effects
of cost shifting and receiving something for care rather than nothing,
so it benefits everyone. The insurance industry when it participates
cuts it's profits. Sometimes there is no profit. Sometimes the
profits are invested back in the program so everyone contributes
something or gives something up to do this.
The benefits are very comprehensive. We started out
with a blank piece of paper and sat down and discussed what did
children need to learn. We started out with immunizations and
checkups, eyeglasses, hearing aids. They need to be able to see the
blackboard, hear the teacher speak. After that we added physician
office visits and pharmacy benefit. If you have children, you know
they got to get the pink stuff in their system somehow, get the -- or
strep throat or whatever --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's 50 bucks a bottle for that
pink stuff.
MS. NAFF: There's all different variations of the color
of the pink stuff, too. There's multiple generations of antibiotics.
But the pharmacy benefit is one that is very highly used. The
physicians on our board of directors felt that if you could get the
child to the doctor and get a diagnosis but you couldn't actually get
the treatment into the child's system, so that was listed as a very
important benefit.
Hospitalization is a covered benefit all the way up
through transplants. We include dental care in some of our sites.
It's an option that some of the counties have added in. It just
depends on what seems to be important or most needed in that
community. Mental health benefits, rehabilitation stays, the list
goes on and on. It's a very comprehensive benefit that's been
designed. We do seek both the county -- if it decides to implement
program -- could enhance those benefits and add more days. It's a
million dollar lifetime maximum benefit. There is no medical
underwriting. There is no preexisting condition exclusions or waiting
periods. Eligibility for the programs can vary from place to place,
typically we start with a program of children K through 12 enrolled in
school uninsured, not on medicaid. If they're eligible for the
program, we can then certify them financially eligible for assistance
by their enrollment in school lunch program. One of your neighbors
over in Broward County, on the free lunch program, the children pay
$10 a month for their coverage. On the reduced lunch program, they
pay $25 a month for their coverage. And if they're not on the lunch
program but they meet the programs criteria, they can still
participate no matter what their income level, but they will pay a
hundred percent for the coverage. When you add those sliding scales
up, typically in our program, the families are contributing close to
-- between 38 and 40 percent of the total cost of the program, so
they're a significant contributor.
In the brochure I passed out, there are some
demographics that show you that the family profile, the age of the
children enrolled typically, and it's a bell curve that peaks around
10, 11, and 12. We have numerous studies that are -- have either been
completed or are on their way of the program. We did have a four-year
demonstration grant with the US Health Care and Finance Administration
which has been concluded. An exhaustive study was done by APT
Associates out of Boston. I have the results of those. They examined
utilization, patient satisfaction, perception of care.
We have an active medical quality audit that we
undertake in each project also. So, we're constantly monitoring the
projects and looking for enhancements. Typically a community may add
to its eligibility by adding children in preschool programs or little
brothers and sisters of kids who are enrolled. But that is an option
for future consideration. I'd be happy to take questions from anyone.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll start. I'm glad that
Mr. Saunders brought the newspaper article, because a quick perusal of
the article brings out a very good question here. The school board,
Collier County School Board endorses the program, but declines to fund
apparently.
Let's see, Palm Beach is being funded by the Palm Beach
County Health Care District. In Dade County, it's Jackson Memorial
Hospital. And Escambia County, it's being provided by several private
hospitals. And in Alachua County it's being provided by Shands
Hospital. And so the question becomes why in Collier County would you
expect the general county government to fund it when normally it's
being funded through the hospitals in other areas. Did our hospital
decline to fund this?
MS. NAFF: I don't go to a community and determine what
funding sources are to be.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's perhaps a question that's
better directed towards Representative Saunders. Did Naples Community
Hospital decline to fund this?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: No, not at all. They are
willing to work with us. We have no commitment from any entity or
individual to fund this. We need -- we need some credibility, and we
think that Collier County Government participation provides that
credibility. We also -- let me go through this list because it's an
interesting list. Palm Beach County, that's an ad valorem tax
district. Dade County is the public health trust, which is an
ad valorem based public hospital funded by Dade County taxpayers.
Shands Hospital is part of the state university system and funded very
heavily through state tax dollars. In Escambia County they mention
that there are several hospitals that are providing. We only have one
hospital, so that's a big price tag to say to one entity let's get you
to pay the entire amount.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm glad you used that phrase.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Couple of quick questions.
Those two you mentioned Palm Beach and Dade County were both
ad valorem based. Were those passed by referendum? I think Palm
Beach was. That's why I asked. I have no idea --
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Palm Beach was. Dade County
is so old, I don't have any idea.
MS. NAFF: I think Dade County is a half penny sales tax
for health care that was adopted by Dade County.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Is that Dade County or
Hillsborough?
MS. NAFF: They both did the same year I think.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Well, Dade County does have a
taxing district that's been on the books for decades.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The difference being both
districts were set up specifically to address health care concerns in
the community versus being a general fund obligation on the local
government. That distinction does exist, doesn't it?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I'm not sure.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe in those two.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Dade County is an example of a
taxing district; so is Palm Beach County, that has provided
substantial resources with great results in terms of public health.
And if you go over to Dade County to the public health trust, you'd
have hospitals like -- you could just name a whole bunch of them that
are centers of excellence that are well known around the world.
we're really kind of mixing apples and oranges there. They do spend a
lot of tax dollars there for health benefits, and they have a
tremendous benefit from that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But the distinction is in both of the
cases that you cited -- or all three of the cases that you've cited --
is that they did that through a conscious effort to set up something
and perhaps with a referendum for the voters to set up a special fund
for health care items, and that's not the case here in Collier County.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: That's correct.
MS. NAFF: Maybe it would be helpful if I --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was just going to say I think
-- at least what I'm wrestling with on this is no one can argue the
benefits. There's no point in sitting here trying to argue the
benefits of this type of program, because they're apparent. They're
clear. The discussion I had with Representative Saunders yesterday
was what's still going through my system is the funds that are
currently being expended that would be alleviated to this program are
for the most part not general tax dollars. They're dollars that are
either spent in Naples Community on emergency care that are cost
shifted to folks that are insurance paid. There are funds that are
done in doctors giving services for free that they're not going to be
reimbursed for. And should this program move ahead those funds then
become available for payment of those services if necessary. The
dollars don't return to the general tax base. Okay. That's not
always the only litmus test for proceeding.
And the title Healthy Kids is something you can't argue
with. But if the title were publicly subsidized health insurance for
children, you might have a different response. But we're really
talking about the same thing. We're talking about taking general
ad valorem dollars and subsidizing a health insurance program for
children. That's where I have the rub, and that is whether or not it
is indeed the responsibility of local county government to step into
the role of subsidizing health insurance programs for its citizens.
And, I'm sorry, I have a tough time getting over that hurdle, because
it really is in excess of what we're being asked to do regardless of
the benefits. The benefits are there. I don't argue that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But the question -- one analysis
-- one factor to analyze in that, because you're right. That is the
question -- what, corporately, as a government can we offer an
opportunity to the residents of this county to pay less than they're
presently paying. Because when we go to the hospital in the emergency
room, we're subsidizing this health care. Could we offer the general
taxpayer an opportunity to pay less for that subsidy. The subsidy
exists through the extra charges that the hospital presently makes.
Isn't this a cheaper alternative for the public. And they can't do
that on a one on one basis, and isn't that a appropriate action for
local government to take.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I have a little bit different
perspective on what the question before us is today. I think we all
agree that this is an excellent program. It has enormous benefits for
the 3,000 people that it would affect. The question before this board
today is who is the appropriate party to fund it on the local basis,
and my argument is it's not the Collier County general government,
because the Collier County citizens have not made a conscious effort
that they want to additionally tax themselves to pay any kind of
medical costs. They have not done that has been provided to us in
some of their literature here like other counties have done.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me share a couple of
important thoughts. I agree. Obviously the number one goal here is
if we can make our kids healthier and their lives can benefit from
that. Nobody can argue that. Everybody wins with that. And if we
ultimately save some dollars by not wasting the emergency room, that's
a bonus. That's a benefit as well. The only way you could make this
picture any better is if we weren't tapping local tax dollars to do it
and if you get all those benefits and you don't hit the taxpayer up
for it. I've -- since being given this package at the end of last
week, I've been on the phone with a few different folks, both
corporate and our local hospital, and some others, and I am convinced
that we can do this and have the program here locally but not do it
with general ad valorem tax dollars. And what I'll do today is I'll
make a commitment myself to work with Representative Saunders and whom
ever else is appropriate to put together a local group who can fund
this. I think we can get the job done and not hit the taxpayer with
it.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Let me make a couple comments.
First of all, in reference to Commissioner Hancock's issue of what is
the real role of government. I think that we can all agree that one
role of government is to protect children. We do this -- you do this
every day when you spend money on a juvenile detention center or
juvenile drill camp. You are spending lots of money trying to deal
with children, because we know as adults that we have a responsibility
to our children. We're not talking about children in another county
now. We're talking about our children. And so I think that you can
certainly argue that government has a substantial role in protecting
our 3,000 children covered by this program.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Why not our sixty-five hundred,
Butt?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Number two --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now, wait a second. I have to
take exception to that, because that's how you tug on the heart
strings of people and you get us to make decisions based on our
emotions instead of what we feel is a principle-based issue. If our
responsibility is to protect those children, why stop at 3,0007 Why
not go to sixty-five hundred and double the amount? There are those
financial limits we have to deal with and the role of government has
to take those into consideration, not just what we want to do.
MS. NAFF: I would like to respond to that 6500 versus
3,000. Those numbers were developed on our experience. We find that
of the ultimate population when given an opportunity to enroll, half
will elect to do so. So we feel that 3,000 is really reaching all of
those families who would desire to participate.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do take exception to that we're
ignoring the kids if we don't approve this, and I know that wasn't
maybe your intent, but Lord knows it will come out in the letter to
the editor, so I thought I'd address it anyway.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: In terms of the funding for
this program, the way this works is the first year the local matches
five percent. That's $90,000. The second year it's ten percent. And
then it's 20 percent, then 30 percent, and 40 percent. Eventually,
when it gets up to 40 percent, the local match is $720,000 plus or
minus. Now, we are committed -- and I appreciate your offer of
assistance, Mr. Constantine, but we are committed to raising local
dollars for this program. That's an absolute given, because we're not
going to come back in 1997 and say okay we need $180,000 for this
program. We're asking Collier County Government to levy .005 mils to
help us -- give us the credibility we need to fund raise privately.
We're not going to ask you for more money next year. We're going to
ask you for the .005 mils, but we're going to have to raise $90,000
next year, $180,000 the next year, on up to $360,000, on up to
$540,000 we're going to have to raise from private funds. And I think
it's shortsighted to simply say, "Well, we will tell you we are
supportive of this program, but you go raise all the money for it."
We're going to raise the bulk of the money for it, but we need some
help.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you ask the school board
for money?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I was not able to attend the
school board meeting, because I was in Tallahassee.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But was the request made
right before the school board for funds?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I don't believe so.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess because your comment
there is it's shortsighted to say we support it, but we're not giving
you any money, and that's exactly what the school board did.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: As Rose Naff indicated the
school board is participating by providing all of the logistical
support that we need to make the program work.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what I'm suggesting is --
I hope we can, and I will personally work to make the program work by
helping facilitate getting that $90,000, but I'm hoping to do that --
my offer is to help do that from some source other than a taxpayer,
and I think we can realistically do that. I mean, is there a reason
why the taxpayer has to pay it? If we can still get the programs in
place and have all the benefits for the children and have the local
savings at the hospital, which benefits us all -- you're right -- and
do that without hitting the taxpayer, what's the objection to that?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Well, I know the realities of
raising money, and when we're talking about raising $520,000 or
$780,000 for an insurance program without any government support other
than lip service, we've got real problems. That's the reality of it.
And I think everybody on the board understands that. So your offer of
support in terms of fundraising is appreciated, but it doesn't get us
to where we need to be.
We have one other speaker that I'd like to ask -- and
he'll be very brief -- Dr. William LeShide is representing the Collier
medical facility, is a well-known physician and has more energy and
enthusiasm than I ever hope to have.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, before he gets
started, I would like to ask a question to Mr. Dotrill. Mr. Dotrill,
in our current county budget that the taxpayers of Collier County is
paying for, the self-insured programs for medical insurance that we
have, what is that costing us each year? What is it costing the
taxpayers?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I didn't hear the question.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The self-insurance program that
we're currently supplying employees.
MR. DORRILL: I'll say offhand $2 million.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Two million?
MR. DORRILL: That's just a guess. I don't know
exactly.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: And Included in that cost is the
cost shifting Commissioner MAc'Kie has talked about. The hospital
bills us for part of that cost shifting for caring for these young
children who come into the emergency room who have fevers and what
have you that ordinarily could go to the doctor; is that not true?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course, it's true.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you suggesting that
hospital rates will go down if we approve this program?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm suggesting -- exactly that,
that hospital rates may well go down or at least not accelerate
anymore if this program is approved. And, frankly, I like the concept
of the government stepping forward with a small amount of money and
then a citizen group forming itself of which I'd be more than happy to
work with as well to go over the next four years and secure the
$700,000 that it is going to take to keep it going.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We do matching grants for roads.
We do matching grants for so many things in this county. It seems
like we could do --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner MAc'Kie, that is our
business. We build roads, we build parks, we build libraries. We
don't do social services. The board has made a conscious commitment
not to do that. We don't subsidize social services for people.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We do social services. I'm
sorry, but we do --
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Let me say one thing also at
this point. This is a type of issue that you're going to be dealing
with as a commission much more frequently in the future. As we
devolve power from Washington down to Tallahassee in terms of welfare
and Hedicaid and lots of other programs, you're going to wind up
dealing with these types of issues. As a matter of fact, there was a
proposal before the health care committee this past legislative
session in the event that there are block grants from Washington or
Hedicaid, they have a block grant programs to the local commission
districts, which would result in 67 Hedicaid programs. These are the
types of issues you're going to be dealing with much more frequently.
DR. LESHIDE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members
of the board, Mr. Dotrill. At the present time I feel a little sorry
for you up there, because I know you know it's a motherhood and apple
pie issue, and you don't want to turn your backs on it. I speak for
the health care advisory committee, the Collier County Medical
Society, and for the children of Collier County. As you've already
heard the Healthy Kids Program is a school enrollment based program
of subsidized insurance premium for lower income families on a sliding
scale. The children of these families would no longer need to worry
about access to health care for their illnesses or for preventive
medicine. They will no longer have to wait until the children are so
sick that they need the hospital emergency room or hospital bed before
getting treatment. They will have the same access to quality medical
care that your families and mine enjoy. The Healthy Kids Program is a
design that highlights the best in public-private partnerships.
You've heard some of the figures, and I'm not going to go into those,
but at this point we have a window of opportunity to have Collier
County be number nine or ten, whatever the numbers are, as far as the
Florida counties that are able to participate in this Florida Healthy
Kids Program. With your help we can seek the state funds, and these
obviously are for our kids. The Healthy Kids Program has the support
of our county, of the Collier County School Board, the Collier County
Medical Society, the Collier County Medical Society Alliance, the
Naples Community Hospital, the Health Care Task Force, the League of
Women Voters, the Collier County Public Health Unit, the Healthy Start
Coalition for Southwest Florida, and the Alliance for Children. This
program needs financial support from the county. We need it. I
understand and I appreciate, Mr. Constantine, your willing to help out
with this program from a standpoint of private sources, and I applaud
you. Anybody else in the room that would like to dig into their
pockets, we would certainly be happy to have contributions. But we do
need financial support. Unfortunately we need it in a hurry in order
to be competitive against the other counties who are bidding for these
state dollars. I know that the Collier County -- I know that this
body, the Collier County Commissioners, will not turn their back on
the children of Collier County. Thank you.
Now, I do have another spokesperson who happens to be an
intern of mine. Now as you probably know, some of you have
participated, but the Collier County Medical Society has an internship
program to shadow physicians for two days, and I would invite all of
you who have not participated in this to do so. But I'd like to
introduce, if I may, Dr. John Cardillo.
MR. CARDILLO: I'm John Cardillo, and I have been a long
admirer of Dr. LeShide, and I did actually intern with Dr. LeShide,
and it brought me to the epiphany of whatever professional ambition I
ever had. And that is while I was in his office visiting with his
patients and following him around in my white jacket and my
stethoscope, he went to perform an operative procedure in his office,
and I was there assisting him at which time over the loud speaker it
said, "Mr. Cardillo, there's a telephone call for you from your
office," and I turned to Dr. LeShide and said, "This is my moment.
Would you tell them that I'm in surgery." And for that, Dr. LeShide,
I will be forever grateful. I wanted to make couple of remarks about
this particular project. I served with Dr. LeShide, who in my opinion
is the spokesman for the conscious of the medical community in this
county as well as for the public, and I know his commitment to this
project.
We have to look at this in some other perspective, and
we can rationalize whatever we want. We can have paradigms. We can
have tracks. We can have all kinds of rules and regulations and
policies. But when you look at this matter in perspective, the county
has been in the health providing and funding of health provisions for
many, many years in one way or another. We've done it in Immokalee
for years, and we've done it in Collier County down here in Naples
through the hospital, and we've done it through the county offices.
We've done it through our public health service.
As much as I know we enjoy the benefits of our golf and
things like that in this community, we have rationalized, properly so,
that we can take money from a specific source and pay hundreds of
thousands of dollars for somebody else's golf tournament to ultimately
benefit the economy of our community, and we can do that with respect
to fireworks, because it comes from a particular course. We've
rationalized that when you take and support those things, but when you
take a look at that, and then you look at what is in the ultimate
economic benefit of our community for our children, the amount of
money they're asking for and the method by which they're asking for it
should put it in some kind of perspective that we will spend a little
bit of money now and save our community millions of dollars later, and
I would ask you to support this project. Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Dr. Polkowski, and then, Ms. Campbell, if
I could have you stand by please.
DR. POLKOWSKI: My name is Jane Polkowski, and I'm the
director of the Collier County Public Health Unit. I'm here to speak
about the benefits of the Healthy Kids Program, which of course you
all recognize and have heard about. It will provide great benefits to
the children in Collier by giving affordable health insurance for
those who are not eligible for Hedicaid and who lack other health care
coverage. Many people erroneously think that Hedicaid covers all the
medically indigent, and it doesn't. For most school children
household incomes have to be at less than one-third of the federal
poverty level. So that's really a poor level for Hedicaid coverage.
And then, of course, many of the families do not get health care
coverage through their work, and cannot afford it. So this is a
program which can make it affordable through a sliding fee scale. A
number of studies have shown that when children lack health insurance,
they are more likely to delay health care and get complications, which
can then lead to less productive adults, besides of course being less
productive students and while they're children. And studies have
shown that there's tremendous cost savings to the community, to all of
us in our society, by providing ongoing basic and needed health care
for children. Government has a responsibility to protect and promote
the health and safety of its population, and I feel that Collier
should make the Healthy Kids Program possible for our children.
Healthy children will be better students and more productive future
adults in our county. Thank you.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Dr. Polkowski, I have
a question for you. If I have a child and don't have health
insurance, and I come to the Collier County Public Health Unit and
request a checkup, can I get it today? If I walk up today and don't
have health insurance. I have a child. They need a checkup or need a
physical exam for school or have a cold, and I come to the Collier
County Public Health Unit, will I be seen?
DR. POLKOWSKI: Chances are you won't be seen today.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: But I will be seen?
DR. POLKOWSKI: If we have the openings available --
there is a problem with the current ability to provide health care for
people who lack financial resources. Health care services cost money,
and when people don't have the funds to pay for the services that they
get, the health care facilities are also limited in terms of how much
care they can provide. And so it is, in fact, possible for a number
of children to get care, but it's also difficult for children to get
all the care that they do need, and also there's a limit in terms of
how much children can be accessed.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But it is happening. You are
doing it on a daily basis. You are seeing children at the public
health unit that do not have medical coverage.
DR. POLKOWSKI: Not all. There's a lot that are not
being served, because it's not possible to reach all children.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm aware of that, Dr. Polkowski.
I'm aware of limits. I was asking if that is happening right now, and
the answer is yes.
DR. POLKOWSKI: Yes, to a limit. Right.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Campbell and then Ms. Shapiro.
MS. CAMPBELL: Ann Campbell with the League of Women
Voters of Collier County. I don't want to restate a lot of the points
that already have been made. I would like to say, though, that the
League at the state level advocated for this program, for the
expansion of funding for this program. And as a member of the state
board, I would really like to see us get it here in Collier County.
The community has repeatedly stated concerns about access to health
care and about affordability of health care in our focus and in our
visioning. And I think many of us been involved in that process hope
that you'll strongly consider this program. It's really a very good
thing.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Shapiro and then Ms. Morton.
MS. SHAPIRO: Hi. I'm Ira Shapiro. I'm president of
Naples Alliance for Children. You're probably going to think I'm
going to start in repeating what everyone else has said on how we have
to do this. It's great for the kids. You know that. That's a done
deal, right. You know it's done. Well, you may not know it's done,
but they do. They know that it's needed in this county. You're not
going to pay for it, right? You feel you shouldn't pay for it.
First of all, I'd like to correct one of the things that
was said. I hate to correct Jane Polkowski, but the health unit is no
longer giving -- running the clinics. CHSI is running the clinics in
-- as a public-private partnership with the public health unit. I
think you realize this. The reason this was done was because funding
for public health at a national and state level was cut to such a
degree that public health is no longer able financially to have those
clinics take care of themselves. So CHSI is running those clinics. I
thought this year that the Naples Alliance for Children would be able
to do away with our free physicals for kids coming into the schools.
We cannot. There are too many kids that have to wait too long who
come into school with medical problems that need taking care of before
they even enter school. I'd like to just say that we are -- we're
taking care of roads. We're taking care of fireworks from wherever
the monies come from. We're taking care of a lot of things in this
county for us that we're supposed to, and I grant you we need to take
care of roads. We had landfill. You have all that stuff coming
before you all the time. But who's going to use those? Who's going
to use those? It's going to be your kids. Not my grandkids, because
they live up north, so I don't care. I just care about keeping those
tax dollars down. But those kids -- you're putting money into
juvenile crime. But those kids, if they're taken care of at a level
where they -- when they're in preschool, when they get into school,
where they don't fall back in their school work, which then pushes
them out of school. They'll drop out, and then you're going to be
paying money for crime prevention. Crime prevention is popular.
Health prevention is not popular. Let's make it a little bit more
popular. Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Morton.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Was that a suggestion to fund
this out of the sheriff's budget?
MS. MORTON: Good morning. My name is Linda Morton.
I'm the president of the Collier County Council of PTAs, and the
Collier County Council of PTAs supports the Healthy Kids Program and
its implementation. We believe that in order for children to be
better prepared for learning, they must be healthy. I did have a
unique opportunity. Every year I help with the health screening. One
year I was in the group that did the hearing screening, and I don't
know if any of you have been able to do that, but when children have
colds they don't hear. I kept thinking, "My gosh, what's wrong with
all these kids? They can't hear." And the person who was from the
health department with me said, "We need to see them again, because
they can't hear because of their colds." So, they had to rescreen
them. But that's something that I think, you know, is kind of an
interesting thing to think about when you think of the number of kids
in school that have difficulty learning that may have a chronic sinus
or other kinds of problems that's aren't detected because they aren't
going for physicals that are really having a difficult time learning.
The Healthy Kids Program would provide comprehensive year-round health
care coverage to school-age children on a sliding scale, and we
believe that this availability of this type of coverage is especially
important to families in Collier County since many of the jobs in our
county are in the areas of retailing, hospitality, service, tourism,
or agriculture, and a lot of these people don't have the opportunity
to get health care for their children. Being a volunteer in the
school, I know a lot of the parents, and I've heard them say that they
really can't afford health care for their children or coverage or
routine physicals because they want to pay their bills and they kind
of save their money and wait until a crisis happens, and then go ahead
and pay. They are very proud people, and they work very hard, and
they work very hard in our community for us, for all of us.
This particular program will allow an opportunity for a
all parents in Collier County to give their children the two most
important tools to success, good health and a good education. I would
like to also say that I don't know if you're aware of it, but every
year the state issues a report on every school gathered from the
statistics from those schools, and they report on things such as
dropout rate and -- not income level, but just a variety of things.
It's called the Florida School Report, and they do report in here on
the number or the percentage of students on free and reduced lunch in
the various schools, and I thought it might be interesting for me to
tell you some of the higher rates of free and reduced lunch right here
in the area of Collier County. Avalon Elementary School has a 74.5
percent rate of children on free and reduced lunch. Manatee
Elementary has a 67.9 percent rate of children on free and reduced
lunch. Shadowlawn, 57.7; Lely Elementary School -- that's where I'm
involved -- 52.7; Golden Gate Elementary, 52.6; and Golden Terrace
Elementary, 41.5. These schools would benefit. The parents would
benefit from this program. And I really hope that you would support
it and help the parents and the kids in our county. Thank you very
much.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Mossikella.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While she's coming up, two
comments. One is my attempt to persuade one more -- because I see
another button down there on other end -- in my attempts to try to
find one more vote on this board. Please pay attention to those
numbers that you just heard on free and reduced lunches. Those are
people who live in your district who are going to vote for you if you
get their kids some health insurance. Be practical about it.
(Applause).
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you advocating preservation
of our office over principle?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one other question that I
want to ask somebody. Is it possible to find out how much Collier
County tax money goes into this state program so that we could try to
find out how much money that we're sending out of the state -- out of
the county?
MS. MOSSIKELLA: Yes. My name is Kate Mossikella. I
follow the school board issues very, very closely, and I've been
following this issue to the extent that the public has been involved
in it. First of all, what you need to understand about education
funding is that nearly 50 percent of our children are on free and
reduced lunch programs, and in my personal opinion, that is the
funding mechanism for a variety of other federal and state programs,
so it behooves the financial area to seek funding in that way. So I
don't consider that necessary -- or necessarily real number of need.
But I think more importantly, this is really part of a much larger
debate. What are the roles of the schools, government, and families,
where do those lines cross. Is it fair to ask this board to address a
national health care problem that, you know, where we're going to
apply a solution possibly that's only going to make it worse? And I'd
also like to point out that recently the president vetoed tort reform,
which would have allowed doctors to volunteer their time free of the
liabilities that they now face if they vote to do that. So there are
less doctors giving of their time freely because of the burden of the
lawsuit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is an argument in support
of this program.
MS. MOSSIKELLA: No, it's not. It's an argument in
support of tort reform.
Secondly, this was heard on April 18th by the school
board by Dr. LeShide, and this was not placed in the regular agenda or
on an old business. It was placed on comments from the public. He
did not ask them for an endorsement. When the paper is writing -- I
have to disagree with you, Mr. Saunders. I don't think the paper had
done a good job of covering this at all. They waited almost a month
before they even talked about it. When they endorsed this in 1991,
they applied for funding. I really don't know the details of that
argument, however, they didn't get it, and to use that '91 regular
vote put out before the public and on a regular agenda as an
endorsement today I think is unfair to the public. And if it's so
great, why are only nine counties doing it? There were only seven in
'94, by the way.
Secondly, this is a three-prong issue really. This is
another source of my frustration. In October 1994 the Naples Alliance
for Children had a workshop at the school board and presented a
comprehensive holistic health/sex education program. Now, they didn't
get anywhere with that, and it would have included nurses in the
schools very comprehensive where they could be charged with Medicaid
so on and so forth. Well, since that time three different issues have
all been brought separately totally ignoring the integration of the
issue. And I'm concerned about it, because also on April 18th,
Mr. Ed Morton made a presentation to the board that was listed as an
agenda item, Naples Community Hospital benefits agreement. When I saw
that I thought that was our employees of the school system. It wasn't
until he spoke that I understood what, in fact, he was offering. And,
again, it's not going to cost the school board anything. Well, if it
doesn't cost anything, sure, you know, that's been the attitude. I
don't feel that, in fact, there is really very much public knowledge
about this at all.
Secondly -- or fifthly -- whatever we're up to now,
these benefits probably exceed what your own employees are getting.
Do your children get eye glasses in there program from the county? I
know in private sector they do not, and I think that's a legitimate
consideration. I'm concerned about how many more free and reduced
lunch recipients will we have. I have a privacy issue here. This is
a supposedly a private insurer, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, even though
it's run through a state program. Same thing with the Naples
Community Hospital situation. When these people -- some of them
certainly need -- share all of that private information with the
schools, do they automatically become part of a marketing program? Is
there any protections? Because there were no guidelines instituted by
the school board when this was even discussed, so there is no policy
that really will guide or protect anyone. And they're going create a
data base and so on and so forth. And I'd also like to know how many
emergency room visits take place during the hours when doctors are not
generally in the office. People that have children ought to know that
after a certain time in the evening, you can't reach a doctor. So I
don't know if that's necessarily going to cut down emergency room
visits. And I think I pretty much covered the issues that I'm most
concerned about, and I think it's very unfair to put this board in the
position right now where you're going to be the bad guys if you don't
approve this. I don't think -- it's much, much larger debate. Thank
you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman, then Ms. Stevens.
MR. ERLICHMAN: For the record, Gil Erlichman, East
Naples, and I'm speaking for myself. The thing that I've heard most
of all in so far as money is concerned is grants, federal grants,
state grant. Let's call it the redisbursement of taxpayer dollars,
which is all that a grant is. It's my and your tax money being
redistributed to someone else for certain purposes. So therefore
these grants are not gifts from the great God above or from some
benevolent person or part of our society. Itws our money being
returned to us. For the second time today -- this morning I was
confronted with one sheet of paper in the executive summary, and this
blue sheet of paper is a letter concerning this agenda item, is a
letter from Mr. Saunders to Bettye Matthews. And Iwll excerpt a
portion of it, because it refers to the Healthy Kids Program, and it
says, as you probably recall, this is the program whereby the state
pays a portion of the insurance premiums or private insurance to cover
school-age children only. In addition to the funds paid by the state,
a portion of the premiums, less than ten percent, must be paid through
a local contribution.
The school board has endorsed this program -- and they
just found out that the school board didnlt endorse the program --
endorse this program, and will work with the county to implement it if
a local funding source can be identified. Well, that means that
theylre not -- the school board didnlt vote to give any money or
theyld endorse the program according to this, but theylre not going to
give any money. Though an effort is being made to locate funding
assistance, it is hoped that the county will endorse the program and
agree to provide local funding in the event that private sources are
not available. Okay.
According to this letter theylre talking about private
sources for funding, so why are they here now asking the county
taxpayers to provide I think -- what is it -- $90,000 for a start for
this program and eventually as Mr. Saunders said before, it will work
up to over $700,000 per year. In other words, itls incremental
steps. Each year the funding becomes less and the local taxpayers in
Collier County will have to pay more.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Although they said theylre not
going to come back --MR. ERLICHMAN: Well, I donlt believe that. I donlt
believe that. I have heard that promise before made right before this
commission, and it never happened. They came back for more money.
Iim a grandparent. Iim a senior citizen so, therefore, I could be
earmarked that I donlt care about children, but that is the hot
button, children. Our hearts go out when we see a child regardless of
whether the child is healthy or sick. We feel -- we feel for the
child because welre human beings. Itls natural. But the idea to come
here and ask for taxpayer funds when actually this money should be
asked for in private sources. Iim a member of The Elks. We fund the
Florida Elks Childrenls Hospital in Unitilia, Florida. Itls a 50-bed
orthopedic pediatric hospital. Itls any child between birth and six
-- seventeen years of age can go to that hospital and have orthopedic
correction to their spine, their legs, whatever. Itls all free as
long as they can not afford to pay. Itls a 50-bed hospital, and itls
funded entirely by The Elks by private sources. There was no tax
money involved, no federal money, no state money. Itls funded
entirely by the Florida Elks. There are many other organizations out
there, charitable organizations, which provide tax-free money for care
of children. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Stevens.
MS. STEVENS: Thank you. Iim Jackie Stevens, and Iim
the executive director of the child protection team here in Collier
County. Iim also a parent of a child who is school age. I would like
to urge you in listening to all of this today. In the years that Iive
been in child protection, I've seen state money dwindle. I've seen
federal funding that is supposed to trickle its way this far south,
and it never makes it. I've seen a big effort on the part of the
government to turn control over to our communities for a grass-roots
effort. I would like to urge you that it is the responsibility of our
county government to be involved in the lives of our children, because
our children don't have anybody else. So please keep that in mind
that our kids need your involvement. That's all. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mrs. Cook.
MS. COOK: Hello again. I'm Debbie Cook, chairman of
the Collier County School Board. And I would like to clarify some of
the things said today. The school board did endorse the Healthy Kids
Program application in 1991, and my recollection is that by unanimous
vote the board did consider this again a month or so ago, and it was
endorsed by consensus at that meeting. The board was not asked to
fund the proposal. I wouldn't speculate as to the rationale for not
asking us to fund it, but I would personally suspect that it has
something to do with the perception of the mission of the school
system versus the mission of the county. The county's mission is much
more broad. You're asked to do all sorts of things that your school
system is not. We specifically are responsible for the education of
the school-aged children in Collier County. We don't address all the
multitude of issues that the county addresses. Nonetheless, the
school system -- the school board did see fit to support this proposal
and to offer in-kind support through the administration of the
proposal and identification of children, access to the kids to enroll
in the program. We do think it's a good idea, and I just want to
again reiterate that we did endorse this. I can find the records and
demonstrate to Mr. Erlichman and Ms. Keller that the board did vote on
this in 1991, and it was endorsed specifically. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Cook is your final speaker.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to hear
more from Representative Saunders if he has anything more to say, but
I'd like to make a few comments.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I think the only thing I would
say is I'd like to thank the board for your indulgence. I know this
is a tough issue, and I am sympathetic with the position that you're
in. I've been in that position, as you all know, from time to time,
and continue to be in that position as member of the state
legislature. I think that we're dealing with -- we are dealing with
emotions, Commissioner Hancock, and sometimes emotions can help
dictate what policies and principles should be. We've got a matching
program where 95 percent of this program is paid. We can say by the
taxpayers because that's where the money is coming from, but it's paid
by an outside source, by the State of Florida. Citizens of Collier
County are paying into that in their general revenues to the state,
but it's 95 percent matching grant program.
Mr. Erlichman -- and I don't often agree with
Mr. Erlichman, but I will on this point. He said this is a tax
program where tax dollars are being redistributed. That's what
happens with tax dollars. He also said -- and I wrote this down. He
said, "Our money is being returned to us. He said that. Now, I don't
think he meant to say that, but he said that. And the money he's
talking about that's being returned to us is the 95 percent that will
match your 5 percent. That money is being returned to us. If you
don't do that, we run the risk of having that money go elsewhere.
Now, why do we need $90,000 from the county now? The reason is that
the Healthy Kids Corporation budget has to be finalized in June of
this year. That's a few weeks from now. If we don't have commitments
for the $90,000 now, then in June when the Healthy Kids Corporation is
budget set for 1996/1997, they're going to take the other counties
that we listed that are going to try to expand their programs; Palm
Beach County, Dade County. Remember, Palm Beach County is paying five
times or four times the local match required, because they want to be
in this program, because they want their money going back to them.
And I think that that's the message I will leave with you. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews, you have some
comments?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, I do. I can think of
several reasons why we ought to support programs such as this. One of
them being that we, this board, in the last two and a half to three
years have gone through a really searching and heart-wrenching problem
of solving medical insurance problems for our own staff in arranging
in the end PPOs and other insurance products. At one point, we were
really considering taking the health care for our employees outside of
Collier County in order to meet those costs. Another issue, employers
in Collier County have an increasing reluctance to provide health
insurance for their employees as they, quite frankly, are continually
squeezed by government regulation dollars and by the consumer's demand
for lower and lower prices, so they cannot provide the health
insurance that their employees need. It's just a bottom-line effort.
Also these funds as Representative Saunders has said are earmarked for
this program.
Collier County can decide to participate or not, but I
think we have here an opportunity to give our employees or employers
and their employees and our kids the safety net that they need for
health insurance purposes. They deserve it, and the devastation that
caused by childhood problems, illness, in the form of hearing loss,
vision loss, respiratory distress -- those problems remain throughout
their lives, and it's an economic loss that we, this county, can never
recover it. Once it happens it just can't be helped. This happens
not only with the undercared person but the undermedicated child, the
child who gets medical care from their physician but can't afford
prescription, can't afford to renew the prescription when it has to
run one more course.
There are lots of reasons, and the complications of
these diseases not only hurt the child and their family, but the
economy, and so this is a far-reaching problem. We've got to look at
11 year olds who are going to be 20 year olds some day. And with
that, I would just like to conclude that we do endorse this project
and that we do find a way to fund it. Should private money not become
available, we need a commitment to meet the budget with the Healthy
Kids Corporation by June. I'd like to make that commitment, and I'd
like to make a motion that we do endorse the project, that we do
provide the $90,000 being requested assuming that private funds cannot
be raised in time to meet the June commitment.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: May I ask what the source of the
funding is?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Probably the same source that
will fund the Sheriff's $5 million funding.
(Applause)
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I support the program and
endorse the concept completely. Obviously, it's good for kids, good
for the community. It's a great idea. But, again, I repeat I made on
Friday and Monday some calls and received informal commitments for
funding. Now, if I can do that in two days, I have no question that
we can raise $90,000 to fill the entire block. I use the analogy if I
went to the grocery store and bought $90 worth of groceries, and I had
in my pocket either coupons or a gift certificate that would pay for
those groceries, and I just chose to ignore them and spent $90, you'd
call me a fool. It's not a matter of do I need groceries or not; it's
a matter of wise expenditure of dollars.
Now this is the exact same thing. It's not a matter of
whether or not we need healthy kids, because we do, and we can move
forward with this program and have all the benefits you outlined, but
let's not be fools with the way we spend the money. There are sources
out there like those coupons or gift certificates. And, again, I make
the commitment for the third time now to work with you to assure that.
I think we can move forward with the program, and we should. But I
don't think we should just put up $90,000 when there are other sources
out there for us.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine, I just
need to correct something. I'm not asking this board to put up the
$90,000. I'm asking them to put up the $90,000 should private funding
not be available. If we can raise that money in the next week or ten
days or whenever it is that the budget needs to be finalized, fine.
I'll help do that too, but I want to make sure that this program moves
forward.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask Representative
Saunders one question. In your letter to Commissioner Matthews, it
says you hope this county will endorse the program and agree to
provide local funding in the event private sources are not available.
What have you -- have you attempted to get private sources --
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: The committee that we have
formed is beginning the process of doing that. We may very well be
able to raise that money between now and two or three weeks from now
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess what concerns me is
this is dated April 23rd, a month ago, and you haven't gone to any
private sources. Your first stop on the tour was here looking for
public money. And It seems to me that with the content of this letter
that the first logical step was to go to the hospital and go to the
other sources and try to raise those private monies, and then if you
were $10,000 short or $30,000 short, come here. But it's a much
harder incentive to do that backwards and say, well, we'll put 90,000,
and good luck, raise what you can.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Well, as you can well imagine,
on April 28th I was relatively bogged down in some legislative matters
that certainly took the next ten days. The issue of fundraising is --
as you all know, it's a very difficult one. We're not looking at just
simply raising $90,000. We're looking at next year raising $180,000,
and then next year raising $360,000. And I've said this before when I
was a member of the County Commission. If we can get the additional
credibility that comes with County Commission funding, then we can go
to the hospital, and we can say, hey, listen, we've got the county
political leaders in support of this program, and you better consider
helping us out. But to simply say to the community, well, we got the
support of the county commission in the sense of, well, they think
it's good program, we should take care of our kids, but we're not
going to back that up with anything of substance, then I think that
makes our job this year and our job next year and the year after --
It's not impossible -- darn near impossible. That's why we need this
extra boost to get us moving in terms of the perpetual funding for
this program.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: By that statement do you mean to
indicate then that you have not contacted the hospital at all?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: No. I said that we have been
in contact with the hospital. We have been in contact with several
potential sources of money. We don't have the commitments. I think
everybody is kind of waiting to see whether this program is one that's
going to be put together properly.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely. And that's the problem
with the motion that's on the floor is that if we're going to give a
safety $90,000 commitment in case no private funds come forward, guess
what, there aren't going to be any private funds come forward. That's
a self-fulfilling prophecy.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: We're not fundraising just in
1996. This is a program that we want to be in place and operating for
the next 20 years in Collier County. And in order to do that we know
that no matter what you do, we're going to have to raise a lot of
money to make it work.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If this request was for a subsidy
that would provide insurance for 3,000 adults, it never would have
made the agenda. The reason it's here is because it deals with kids.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: And I never would have asked
if it had anything to do with people other than children.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Even though the benefits for
providing insurance for 3,000 adults would parallel what's presented
here, no one would think to bring it to this board for consideration.
Yes, the monetary benefits that everyone is talking about are still
present with the lack of insurance for adults as it is for children.
I keep hearing about the savings. Funds will be saved here. Funds
will be saved there. Funds will not be expended here. And I have a
nasty little habit of funding things with the savings that are
accrued. And that's the way we've approached budget items in the
county at least in the year and a half I've been here. I'll point out
the domestic violence unit as a perfect example. We're able to fund
that with monies already being expended, restructuring it with a
nominal increase, and the result is going to be a reduction in case
load, and they could show that with the tracking.
What's being asked here is a complete additional $90,000
on top of everything else. And I've heard local government referred
to as the safety net, and where I run into a difficulty with principle
is that government as a safety net has put us in the condition we're
in federally, state, and local, and that we are committed funding for
so many things that used to be the prudent responsibility of the
individual. And based on that the only way I can support this is if
the money allocated results in an exact commensurate reduction in the
Collier County Public Health Unit budget dollar for dollar. And if
that can't happen then we need to go after where the savings actually
are going to exist. Otherwise, we're adding -- just being asked to
add to public health unit commitment or public health commitment and
I'm not comfortable doing that.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you where a big
chunk of the savings is going to exist is the indigent health care the
hospital provides and tells us year after year they're providing and
then spreading among the rest of the users.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that will be my first stop
to try to offset the $90,000.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie, you had
something -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I already had the answer to
Dr. Polkowski. I know the answer.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I remember not too long ago
when I was sitting up there where you are that Dr. Polkowski was very
effectively, and rightfully so, kind of on her hands and knees asking
for money so for me to turn around and say, Dr. Polkowski, can we pull
$90,000 out of your budget, I wouldn't purport to do that. I just
can't do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the deadline for the
application?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: The application has been
filed. I think the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, the budget or --
DR. POLKOWSKI: Our board will be meeting June 24th.
We're finalizing the commitments, and all budget work papers are in
development right now. The deadline would be June 19th that we need
the commitment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Dotrill, what's the meeting
right before June 19th, the next board meeting?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Near the 18th.
MR. DORRILL: The 18th.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have a meeting on the 18th?
I'd like to make a motion to table Commissioner Matthew's motion until
June 18th. And let's see where we are on the 18th. Let's see if we
have anything from there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion to table which takes
precedence over all other motions. Is there a second to table?
That motion dies for lack of a second. Is there a
second for Commissioner Matthews' motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I seconded it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie, if you
make your motion again, I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I make a motion we table
Commissioner Matthews' motion until the meeting on June 18th. Let's
consider this because at least then you can find out what the answer
to your question is on private funding. The challenge is in your face
at that point. Get the private funding and we'll withdraw this on the
18th.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion to table which takes
precedence over other motions. All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The motion fails by two to three vote.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, obviously I can
count to two, and we don't have the votes to get funding from the
county commission. I don't want to put you in a position of having to
vote against a motion that will be perceived by the public and the
whole world as a vote against children. And with that in mind, I
would ask perhaps if Commissioner Matthews and Commissioner Mac'Kie
would go ahead and withdraw the motion. We'll withdraw the agenda
item --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make a suggestion. If
Commissioner Matthews would withdraw the item, rather than you
withdrawing the agenda item in lieu of the motion, I make a motion we,
A, support and endorse the program, but, B, this board makes a
commitment to work with you in the next 30 days or however many days
that is between now and June 19th to raise that money privately,
because I think that each one of us has particular actions. You
certainly do, and I think that can be done. I know for a fact that it
can be done, but I don't think it's a good idea to simply abandon the
program at this point. I think we can support it but do it without
taxpayers' dollars.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely. And I will second that
motion.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine, the
only problem with what you've said is -- early on in your conversation
you had said that, well, the school board endorsed it, but they didn't
offer any money, and now we're doing the same thing, and there's just
no teeth to that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The point of that comment was
simply -- Representative Saunders had made the point that it was
useless to endorse it and not get money and yet just moments before
that he pointed out the school board's action. It wasn't to say they
have done a wrong thing or anything else.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm going to withdraw the motion
not only because the petitioner has asked it to, but I'd like to
substitute that motion that we continue this item for three weeks,
which will give us ample time to look at whatever private funding
sources may be available.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and second to
continue. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I support the motion
to continue is it doesn't stop Commissioner Saunders. By the same
token, in the mean time, if the sources of the potential savings to be
identified and transferred so that it's not new tax dollars, I'm
willing to consider it. It doesn't mean that I still think the
taxpayers should be paying for subsidizing health insurance for
children or for anyone for that fact.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But we get to look at the
private sources.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if identified sources can be
brought out and don't result in new tax dollars, then I'm not going to
slam the door, but I'm not standing here telling you that I think
that's a strong possibility.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we'll see this back then in
three weeks? That's June llth.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Representative Saunders, if
you give me a buzz, we'll square away a time --
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I'll take you up on that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, no, I asked for
three weeks, which was June llth which gives us a little more time to
work with.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me make a comment. I think you
may have hurt your cause by doing that -- this action that you just
took. Commissioner Constantine had a motion on the floor that was --
would do the same thing that you wanted done, plus the additional step
of directing the county commission to be directly involved in
negotiations with private sources to get money. Now, if you want to
reconsider your motion, I think it would be prudent for you to do so,
because I think it helps your position.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: MAy I ask what the petitioner's
input on that would be?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I am presuming from everything
that's been said that on June llth, number one, if we can identify
direct savings, then those monies made be moved to this program
according to Commissioners Hancock's argument there. I also presume
based on what Commissioner Constantine has said and what others have
said that all of you understand the benefits of this program and you
all understand -- most of you believe that this should be funded
totally with private sources. And I think from that, all of you are
going to help us in doing fundraising. I'm presuming that to be the
case without there being a formal motion. But if I'm wrong on that,
then we would want that formal motion saying that you're going to help
us try to find these private sources. That would be helpful to us.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: After my calls on Friday and
Monday, I'm absolutely 100 percent convinced we can raise the $90,000
like that and have the funding. But my concern was the one comment
you just made was that spending energy looking -- I'm paraphrasing,
but looking for ways to transfer tax money, and if that makes
Commissioner Hancock happy, that's fine, but I hope our primary effort
here is to find those sources, because I'm convinced they're there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That needs to be clarified,
Representative Saunders, because the point I'm making is that if we
are expending dollars within the public health unit or within social
services that directly apply to the exact same provision of services,
I want those dollars identified. If they can be smarter and better,
than those funds should be used smarter and better.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I understand that. That's
what we'll try to do between now and June llth. I would ask the board
then to make an additional motion as per Commissioner Constantine's
earlier comments. If you could restate that motion, that puts the
board on record as giving us the moral support, as well as the perhaps
the willingness to make a few phone calls.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Unfortunately, we had voted to
continue this item until the llth so we can't -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank God.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That is my point. I think that motion
that we passed was counterproductive to your efforts. If you'd like
to reconsider it, we'd be glad to make another motion.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I tend to think it's not really
counterproductive and I tend to thing also --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's fine, then we'll continue to
move forward.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I tend to think also that even
though we agreed to continue this item, that certainly the board
members on this board are committed --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't need a motion.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- That will commit to help with
it regardless. You got mine, too. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We need to apologize to the people who
are here to apply for the authority, the regulatory authority. We've
gone a little bit past 11 as some of you might have noticed.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just make one
suggestion? The other items are all like 30-second items, and I know
there are a couple of people here for them. Maybe we can blow through
those and then do the --
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 96-240, APPOINTING L. FOX, R. GUIDIDAS, P.A. HUFF, D. P.
LITCHFILED, E. A. MORTON, M. SAADEH, AND B.N. WALLACE - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That's fine. Item 10(B),
appoint board members to the Council of Economic Advisors.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know what the program
would be, but are we each going to appoint some or -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There is a list of recommendations
there, and those would be the ones with asterix.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a suggestion. Why
don't we run down the line and then if we'll need to fill in one more
__
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll say Dawn Litchfield.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Great. You take my choices.
I'll say Lawrence Fox.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Patricia Huff.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Who did you say?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Patricia Huff. Yeah, she's not
one of the recommended.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Bob Wallace.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion that we
approve those six names.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There's seven.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then I'll withdraw that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to add Ed Morton.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion we approve
those seven names.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a motion and a second?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I only have six still.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me try one more time.
Fox, Guididas, Huff, Litchfield, Morton, Saadeh, and Wallace.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #10C
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION
BOARD - STAFF DIRECTED TO READVERTISE AND COME BACK
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That raises a question on the
next item, historical archaeology preservation board opening. Doesn't
Ms. Patricia Huff sit now on the two boards within the county?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She was only willing to sit on
one. According to her application, she has to be appointed to one of
those two, and having been appointed to this one it looks like.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That means we'll have to
readvertise.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Looks like it to me. Her letter
said she didn't want to.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we
readvertise the historical archaeology preservation board opening.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is appointment of member to
-- I'm sorry.
We have a motion and a second. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 96-241 APPOINTING DELORES BARR TO THE MARCO ISLAND
BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
Next item is appoint of member to the Marco Island
Beautification Committee. The recommendation is Delores Bare by the
committee.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve Delores Bare.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 96-242 APPOINTING ANN STICKFORD, RICHARD BERGMANN, SCOTT
FRENCH, NENO SPAGNA, AND GEORGE SCHROLL TO THE UTILITY AUTHORITY -
ADOPTED
Now, we're down to the interview and appointment of members to the
utility authority. Can I have a show of hands of how many people are
here for interviews today? One, two, three, four, five, six.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Eight, I think.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Eight. What we would like to do is
the procedure similar to what we did on the airport authority. We
would like to ask all of the applicants to leave the room, and we will
interview one at a time and ask you to after your interview to go back
outside and wait, and then we'll make our selections. Step into the
sound proof booth and all that business.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, you have one speaker outside
of an interviewee today. He's Mr. Robert Bennett, who may be
interested as a point of order concerning the legal ad that ran in the
newspaper. He wanted to know if he could be heard in advance of your
starting the interviews.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Bennett, I'll have him come up now.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I wasn't here for the airport
authority business, but doesn't that mike carry out into the hall.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're going to turn that off. There's
a switch. We're going to turn that one off.
MR. BENNETT: I'm Bob Bennett. I've lived here for 18
years. I would have been in my blue suit had I known I was going to
talk today. I came to hear the golf authority, but listed at 10 a.m.
and found that it was almost a done deal. I applied for this. I
called into Sue Filson when I saw the article in the newspaper and was
told that I missed deadline. I also talked to Ed Day, and they both
told me that they thought that since there were fewer applicants then
they expected that they would probably readvertise, and I've been
sitting waiting for that to happen and here I was this morning and saw
10(E) on the agenda.
A little background. I've been here for 18 years. I
serve now on the Citizen's Advisory Board. I've been on the Black
Affairs Advisory Board for a couple of years, and I was elected vice
chairman last week. So I'm involved, and my background may fit with
the utilities commission. I was a senior officer of a Fortune 500.
I've been in my own business for a number of years in the electrical
business where I was executive vice president of the company. We
dealt with utilities quite often and so I have some background there.
That's it. I'd like to be able to apply if I can. That's why I'm up
here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, just as
absolutely no reflection on this gentleman, but as a practice we tried
to stay within our own requirements, and we did have a deadline, and
we have ten folks for the position.
MR. BENNETT: If I might just say something else. We
discussed this in our board meeting the other night. We're looking
for more members there. The system -- not criticizing the system,
criticizing the way it gets out there in the public. It's either in
the newspaper sometimes at the will of the Naples Daily News. When it
happens, if it happens, where it happens, and it's on the bulletin
boards over here in the county building and maybe some other places.
I didn't see it and I obviously have been efficient enough to make the
deadline on two board meetings, two board applications. This one I
missed, because I did not see it. I read the paper everyday, and I
did reply to an ad that came after the deadline.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Bennett, we are left with the fact
that you applied after the deadline, and we're left with that. I'm
sorry.
MR. BENNETT: You're missing some good talent.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're open to suggestion on trying to
improve, because Ms. Filson struggles with this all the time.
Because, you're right. The paper --
MR. BENNETT: I'm not arguing with Ms. Filson. We
understand -- I think you may remember our conversations. I was told
that the chances are that if I -- I was told by both you and Ed Day
that there would be a readvertisement. That didn't happen, okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's entirely possible that we will
readvertise at some point, but we have not, and therefore, we are left
with the fact that you did not apply in time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the reason isn't to be
difficult. The reason is particularly back five or six years people
seemed to be sliding in under the gun and their application had never
been put in on a formal process. It was very loose and fancy free.
In order to have some rule and regulation to it, then we tried very
hard in the last few years to --
MR. BENNETT: If I may suggest that the county studies
how this information may be disseminated more broadly to the citizenry
or that it might want to be on time. I'm -- I was not negligent in
this. I just didn't see it.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Perhaps this is one more thing
we can put on the Intellinet -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Internet.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- Internet which we now have a
home page on.
MR. BENNETT: It could be a lot of places which people
may listen to. It could be on radio and TV, but it's not.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We also need to make better
use of channel 54, which we have access to now but don't do very much
with.
MR. BENNETT: I'll quit now, but this is a victim of
lack of information. You can't make an exception to make me a
possible candidate?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
MR. BENNETT: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I suspect the interest has
been noted for future reference then.
MR. DORRILL: Dr. Biles has a similar point she'd like
to make.
MS. BILES: Yes. Faye Biles, Marco Island resident. I
agree with your decision, because we also had another person who was
out of town and did not get back until Friday afternoon at three
o'clock, and I just faxed a letter to Sue Filson to ask that he be
granted, because he was applying, but he didn't have his material in,
and that, too, was refused. So I agree a deadline is a deadline.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Filson, if you would bring in the first contestant,
please.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can we get rid of the television by
now you think?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there any active attempt
right now to better utilize Channel 54?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Good afternoon.
MS. STICKFORD: Good afternoon. I'm sorry. It's not
morning. State your name, please.
MS. STICKFORD: I'm Ann Stickford.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ms. Stickford, how long have you lived
here?
MS. STICKFORD: I've been a full-time resident since
July of '82.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: '82. That's a good long time. And
you're with A.G. Edwards?
MS. STICKFORD: I am.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Since '86?
MS. STICKFORD: Yes. You read it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ten years. What do you feel your
experience brings to this position if you were to be appointed?
MS. STICKFORD: I'm a certified financial planner. And
as a certified financial planner, it's my job to be able to read a
balance sheet and to determine what the internal rate of return is for
a corporation as well as for my clients' portfolios. I spend a lot of
time doing a fair amount of analysis of the different corporations'
public stock my clients own. I know that Florida Power and Light, for
instance, gets an average return on equity in excess of 15 percent.
TECO gets an average rate of return on equity of about 13 percent. I
also know that there is a legal limit in the State of Florida as to
what the average return is supposed to be for a utility. So part of
looking at what the smaller private utilities want to propose for our
community would involve what those averages are and what the legal
limit in Florida is.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're appointment to this board will
entail the use of a lot of your time. Perhaps that could be done
after business hours in a lot of cases. But there will be meetings
for you to attend that could become quite lengthy. I would assume
that it's certainly within the realm of possibility for a meeting then
to consume the entire day, and that may happen on a interval of a few
times a year. Is this going to interfere with your work schedule? MS. STICKFORD: No, not at all.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are you going to be able to dedicate
the time to this that would be required? MS. STICKFORD: I believe I will.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I notice you have a Golden
Gate address here, and you have been a Golden Gate resident for a
while?
MS. STICKFORD: Since '83.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The water and sewer bill
increases several times. Have you followed -- have you participated
-- what's your awareness of those various steps along the way with
Florida Cities?
MS. STICKFORD: I've been to some of the meetings over
the years. I found that most of the meetings are rhetorical. People
come, they say "Our rates are too high." We get the notices in the
mail saying this is what the increase is going to be. And after the
meetings the rates are increased by what the notices said they were
going to be, and I find that it's a very frustrating process for the
residents.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you personally feel that
utilities have a right to make a profit. If so, what do you consider
reasonable?
MS. STICKFORD: Well, there is a legal limit in the
State of Florida. I know there is. I'm not sure. I read the
amendment that said there is this board that's going to be formed, and
it does say in there that from 1985 and after ten years, we would be
under Public Service Commission. But after ten years it was the right
of the community to withdraw from the Public Service Commission and
create its own entity which is what this is all going to be about. I
don't know yet what you are going to allow as a legal limit. I know
what the average has been around the State of Florida, but I don't
know what the community is going to authorize as a legal limit, and
that's what we're going to have to be dealing with.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Based on your research what has
that average been?
MS. STICKFORD: Well, as I said, Florida Power and Light
has been averaging over 15 percent on their return of equity. It's
actually a little over 16. And TECO is averaging over 13 percent. I
talked with a couple of my utility analysts and they said that in
various parts of the country it's 11, maybe even 11 and a half. So if
we're going to be trying to give our residents a more competitive
rate, then what Florida Power and Light or TECO has been offering them
is going to have to be less than the 16 or the 13 percent and
something hopefully more in line with the 11 percent that I've heard
is available in other parts of the country.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Anything further?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I got one question for
Mr. Weigel more than anything, and that is this board is going to be
listening to several different utility proposals coming forward, not
just Florida Cities or possibly SSU in the future, but there's Orange
Tree and Immokalee and all kinds. Because Ms. Stickford lives in
Golden Gate City and is a rate payer for Florida Cities, is that going
to present a conflict for her or any other person who lives within the
jurisdiction of a specific utility? I don't think it will, but I
want to know
MR. WEIGEL: No, I don't believe it will.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't have any other
questions.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Anything further? Thank you,
Ms. Stickford.
MS. STICKFORD: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's a formula so each
utility is different. Florida Cities on average right now is around
11-1/2, or has -- I don't know what the latest update is on it, but
they were around 11-1/2.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Good afternoon, sir.
MR. DAVIS: Good afternoon.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: State your name for the record.
MR. DAVIS: I'm Michael Davis.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Davis, could you tell us a little
bit about what qualifies you to be on the board, please?
MR. DAVIS: Probably the one thing that qualifies me as
much as anyone is my desire to serve. My background is in law and in
accounting. I have served in various capacities in another county in
this state. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I felt that I gave a great deal
to my county there. I'd like to give the same effort, service,
whatever I have to this county as well. I like to participate in the
area that I live and just be a part of it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to ask the same
questions you asked him for the first time. How long have you lived
in Collier County?
MR. DAVIS: I haven't been here quite a year. It will
be a year in August.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I notice you are a resident
of District 2 which many of the hot-button topics are, in fact, water
-- particularly water --
MR. DAVIS: I enjoyed that last wet summer.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Too much or not enough.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. And some of these services
you may not be certified. You think that would be a hinderance to you
in reviewing them fairly or adequately?
MS. DAVIS: No, I don't. I think I would be very fair
in treating anything that came before me.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you familiar with the
history of how this board was created and why? MR. DAVIS: No, I am not.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you familiar with the
authorities and responsibilities of the board?
MR. DAVIS: No. That would be a question I would ask
you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Good response. Anything further?
Mr. Davis, I appreciate it.
MR. DAVIS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I noticed you coming in with your hat
in your hand, Mr. Bergmann. Good afternoon. MR. BERGMANN: Good afternoon.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: State your name for the record,
please.
MR. BERGMANN: Richard Bergmann.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could you tell us a little bit about
why you would be qualified to be on this particular board?
MR. BERGMANN: Well, I've done quite a bit of work on
the general matter of water AND sewer systems on Marco Island in
particular and in the county, in general, to A great extent. And I
feel as though I have a fairly good working knowledge of how the
entire county's water sourcing matters are in the picture and what
might be done to make the whole thing as efficient as possible. I
think Marco has a very unique problem in that we are both a barrier
island. We have great difficulties sourcing any additional water
whatsoever. We use tremendous amount of water out there for
irrigation, which I think is going to be a very difficult thing as we
go into the future. I think that we have a real challenge with a
private-sector utility out there who naturally has to make a profit
and return on their investment, and I think that getting all the lines
to cross to make the system fair to the supplier of the water as well
as the customers is going to be a very interesting challenge for
everybody on this board. I think my knowledge and background could be
of help in coming to the decisions and groping with the issues that
are going to be faced.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you stay in the county full time
now?
MR. BERGMANN: I'm here probably about eight and a half
months, but I'm here every month of the year. When I am gone I'm back
here probably once a month, something like that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So the real point of the question,
obviously, is your schedule going to allow you to be flexible enough
to attend every meeting?
MR. BERGMANN: I can assure you that I will be available
to attend every meeting.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I need to ask our attorney probably
the most pertinent question. I asked -- we had a conversation a
couple days ago. Mr. Weigel, Mr. Bergmann has been involved in the
past with this issue in a -- as a legal intervener in a suit before.
Is that in your opinion --
MR. BERGMANN: It was the rate case in 1993, a rate
case.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For this issue?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, against this issue. Is that going
to disqualify him from serving on this board?
MR. WEIGEL: Not necessarily in and of itself. I'd like
to, if we could, ask an additional question. And that is Mr. Bergmann
is currently a member of the existing Marco Water Rate Defense
Commission, Inc.
MR. BERGMANN: I have been on the committee. I have
attended several meetings. I'm not an officer of the committee. I'm
not a -- well, I guess I could say not a major decision maker.
I might also add that in the 1993 rate case, I was asked
to serve as an intervener by the public council's office up in
Tallahassee, and I more or less assisted their people in preparing the
response to some of the issues and matters that SSU brought up.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. I would appreciate it if he
could state what the purposes, intent, or actions of the Marco Water
Rate and Defense Committee Inc., is if you could you paraphrase what
their purpose and what their activity is?
MR. BERGMANN: Well, I think the purpose of the
committee was to get a fair representation for the users of the Marco
system with the Public Service Commission. These matters always get
to be a bit testy, and some of the issues get fairly heated as you
probably have seen from the press. But I think the general -- as I
would describe the purpose of the committee, it was to see that the
Marco Island system users got fair treatment on the part of Public
Service Commission.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And your role with that was
simply as a concerned citizen and rate payer? You weren't paid for
that?
MR. BERGMANN: No, no, no. No paying. None of these
jobs were paying jobs at all. I might add that in terms of serving on
this committee, when the committee was formed last summer, I was not
hear on the island. My wife was ill, and I had to be away from the
island for several months. I did not return until November. And when
I got back, I was asked to join the committee, which I did. And I
probably have been to three or four meetings, something like that.
But I might also add that in terms of my relationship with SSU, after
the 1993 rate case I came to the conclusion that one of the problems
that Marco really faced was the tremendous investment that SSU was
making and was planning to make. And I worked with them to, in my own
modest way, try to keep the investment within reason and, therefore,
hopefully future rate increases would be moderated somewhat. I also
worked considerably on getting some effluent line delivery systems
scoped out and developed so we could build them down Collier
Boulevard. This was all with an idea of greater use of the water
resources available and not -- of course, conservation.
MR. WEIGEL: I don't have any further questions.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Any board member have a
question?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just have one, Mr. Bergmann,
to clarify. When you intervened in the 1993 rate case, it was at the
suggestion of another governmental unit?
MR. BERGMANN: Yes. It was the public council's office
up in Tallahassee, and there was really at the time oddly enough
despite the fact that it was a fairly important issue at that time,
there was nobody else from Marco who seemed to be particularly
involved, so I guess that was why I was invited.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Bergmann.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I ask a general question as
we're trading off here, please. We're going it appoint five members,
and they're categorized as either civic or credentialed, and we have
to -- it says we need three of each. That doesn't make any sense.
I'm just confused with that. Exactly what are we supposed to be
doing? Three civic and two credentialed or something different?
MR. McNEES: Commissioner, there are three that are
being technically qualified by reason of experience and credential and
two that are just good civic citizens interested in public service.
In examining the list at Ms. Filson's request, they all meet the
requirement for being good citizens, civically qualify.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question was --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got a comment, too.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just state your name for the record,
please.
MR. FRENCH: My name is Scott French. I live in Golden
Gate at 4181 30th Avenue. I've lived there since 1983 and been a
customer of the Florida Cities water all that time, so I'm familiar
with some of the utilities. I'm retired, and I have time to spend
reviewing whatever we have to do on that. I might say that I'm in
favor of the county commission in taking back the control of the water
authority bill. In my position or jobs I've had before I retired,
most of those were in management, and I always kept my own set of
books, and I'm not at a loss at reviewing statements, financial
statements. I can do that. I don't know what else you want to know.
That's about it. I've got the time. I'm retired. I don't play a lot
of golf.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You don't leave for the summer?
MR. FRENCH: No, I don't.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. French, I know you're in
Golden Gate, and have you been active in a number of rate increases
there and also have a utility group up there?
MR. FRENCH: I have attended most of those hearings,
which the commission came down, and to get a rate increase, and one of
the things that always concerned me they never brought up they had an
automatic rate increase or have had. I don't know whether they still
have. But three percent about every six months whenever they wanted.
And I don't know whenever that passed, but they invoked that the last
couple years before they put that big rate increase out in Golden
Gate. Of course, our biggest problem I think in Golden Gate is that
if we don't use any water at all, it will cost us about $500 to be
hooked up per year, because it's something like about $40 to $48 a
month just if we don't use anything, and that makes our water rate
pretty high even if we don't have any.
Last night I was at meeting and two older people there
-- I say older, they're older than I am. They were complaining their
bill was $84. And they said they didn't hardly use any water. I
don't know why that was so high. But we told them they'd probably
have to start taking baths together, but that might not have been the
right answer. It is a problem with the older people out there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. French, I notice you're
president of the Golden Gate AARP and a member of the Golden Gate
Civic Association.
MR. FRENCH: The Civic Association asked if I would be
interested in -- suggested that I did put in my application.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I bring that up is in
some cases when we've made appointments, and I think environmental
committees come to mind, is if you appoint someone who is affiliated
with an organization, they tend to bring that party line with them.
And my question is this duty and the duty of this committee is very
much isolated to the petitions you receive, and do you feel you would
be able as president of AARP if they take a position to be independent
of that position if the merits of what's presented require that?
MR. FRENCH: Oh, I don't think that would bother me too
much. I usually have always been an independent thinker. I don't
always go with the crowd I don't think. Sometimes I don't even vote
the party line.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe -- I wasn't assuming --
MR. FRENCH: I didn't say what party.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Like I said, we may need to talk
about that. But anyway it's just a concern of mine on some of these
appointments, but thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Anything further? Thank you,
Mr. French.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If I could ask Ms. Filson to hold
off just while I get to ask my other questions before you bring
someone else in. The rest of my questions had to do with who
categorized -- did people apply for a position based on civic or
credentialed? Who applied that label to different applicants?
MR. HcNEES: They did not apply that way. They just
applied for appointment TO the commission, and the county manager's
office received a memorandum from the board office asking us to
categorize them.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I wanted to just say right up
front that it is frustrating to me to see, for example, Ann Stickford
down as civic pride when the credentials for being in the credentialed
group have to do with finance and business administration. And so far
she's the one in here telling us more detailed financial analysis than
anybody else so far. I just wanted to say I'm personally not going to
be bound by your categorization of these applicants when we're
deciding three and two, and I question whether or not those are very
accurate.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would think all of them under
the civic pride.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How in the heck did somebody
reach neither category? How did this one guy -- McCray, he's not even
a civic pride.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He hates the community.
MR. McNEES: Well, there is no evidence of civic
leadership or anything in that record, and there was no technical --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I suggest you be more involved in
the analysis in the future, because this doesn't look like to me
something you would have -- I don't think it's very well done. Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Before you open the door, Ms. Filson,
Mr. Weigel, are you ready to make a determination on Mr. Bergmann?
MR. WEIGEL: I can speak now or at any time you'd like.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Now would be fine.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I don't find a conflict in the fact
that he has participated in the process some years ago, a few years
ago, but I do have a particular issue on the fact that he's currently
a member of a committee on Marco that's involved with I would expect a
particular agenda. He'd indicated fairness, but it's a rather
participatory element in rate making and clearly the two -- I'll back
through this -- the two, an appointment to this utility authority and
membership with that Marco committee could not exist simultaneously
without my expressing that there is a true conflict.
The second thing I'd say that obviously the appointments
in the aggregate are important to this board in the sense that if
there is an individual appointed to the board for which a defense
would have to be carried, it may put the activities of the board as a
whole at a risk and the actions that it takes, and I would see that
there is a potential. Without a crystal ball, I can't say the element
of success of challenge, of a potential challenge to his -- on the
element of conflict of his participation on the board. That's not to
say that it couldn't maybe be successfully rebutted but I think that
maybe --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask a quick question.
He mentioned he's on there as a rate payer and active civic member of
his community. So I don't know how far beyond that you need to go
before you have a conflict. But secondly, if he resigns that, does it
then end the conflict?
MR. WEIGEL: If he resigns then there is no conflict
from that standpoint, and that's where I made the second discussion
which was there may be a challenge. I can't state if it were to be
successful or not. It could -- again, weigh the risks. It could put
the response or activities of the authority as a whole at some risk.
Again, this may be a small risk.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is the current litigation
between that group and the state or the Public Service Commission or
SSU -- I don't understand the conflict if you have a civic group that
takes an interest in a particular item. Now, if there's a legal issue
going on, I understand the conflict. Otherwise, I don't get it if
Commissioner Hancock is a member of the District 2 association and
then some issue that comes up effects, that's not a conflict. He's an
active member of the civic group.
MR. WEIGEL: That's true.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there litigation ongoing?
MR. WEIGEL: No. The only ongoing litigation of
relevance is the question of whether there is an issue of
jurisdiction of SSU with Collier County.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this group that he's a member
of a party to that litigation? MR. WEIGEL: I don't know.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the only way I can that
there might be a conflict. Does anyone know?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's -- the leader of the group
happens to be sitting here. If we could ask him to state his name and
answer the question for us.
MR. PETERSON: My name is Joe Peterson, and I'm chairman
of the Marco Island Fair Water Rate Defense Committee. Yes, there is
indeed a litigation ongoing that we have represented by counsel up in
Tallahassee. The Florida Public Service Commission which is a
judiciary forum and it's really a court of competent jurisdiction
involving the utility. So it's an ongoing litigation that will be
consummated or completed in September of this year. So, yes, we are.
It's the public or the consumers versus Southern States.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir.
Next, Ms. Filson.
Good afternoon. State your name for the record, please.
MR. HcHAHON: Edward HcHahon.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How long have you lived in the county?
MR. HcHAHON: I've been visiting the county since '91
and have primarily lived here since February of last year.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And could you tell us just
briefly how you feel qualified for the board? What do you think you
can bring to the board?
MR. HcHAHON: Well, I was listening to WNOG, the radio
program, and heard your plea for volunteers and -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That shows the power of WNOG, doesn't
it?
MR. HcHAHON: Yes. And since I've retired -- I'm a
full-time retiree now since January one of this year. I've been
looking around for some way to give something back to the community.
And when I heard your comments on the radio, I decided that I had the
time and the energy to serve on some committee. I feel I'm qualified
for this certainly because of the financial experience. I am a CPA
and have had various types of experience as a CPA in various
countries, but basically my thrust is to volunteer and get some
experience.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Do you stay in the county now
year round?
MR. HcHAHON: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So you won't have a conflict if you go
up in the summer and we need to have a meeting? MR. HcHAHON: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other questions, board members?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Have you been active at all
in the SSU case this past year?
MR. HcHAHON: Not really. My thrust would have been
toward volunteering at the hospital, but I decided I would wait to see
how that monopoly situation checks out before I decide to participate.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other questions?
Thank you. I'm glad you applied.
Dr. Spagna, could you state your name for the record,
please.
MR. SPAGNA: I'm Neno Spagna.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And could you tell us a little bit
about your qualifications that would be pertinent to this particular
board?
MR. SPAGNA: Sure. I'd be very happy to. First of all,
I'd like to tell you that I am happy to be here and pleased that I am
being considered do serve on the authority. I do consider that a very
serious authority that will have a lot of hard decisions to make, and
I feel like with my background and knowledge of the county, the early
formation of the utility authority -- I was here in 1974 when the
utility authority was originally formed, and even though I didn't have
a direct part in the process, I sat in many meetings, both with Harmon
Turner and the city engineer and at the commission meetings I listened
to all of the early problems that were faced. And I sort of followed
the progress of the utilities every since until last January or
February, I believe it was, when you all decided go ahead and form the
utility authority.
I have read the entire ordinance, which is pretty long.
I still feel like I would be able to make a meaningful contribution to
the group. I think I would be very open minded and listen to all
sides of the case and be fair in my decisions to both the utilities
that would be regulated by the authority and the people as the
customers that they serve. And I only make one promise, that is if I
am chosen to serve on the board, I'll do the best job that I know how
do like I tried to do with all the other committees and authorities
that I've had the privilege of serving on.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are you currently on any of the other
county boards?
MR. SPAGNA: I'm on the County Airport Authority and
also the Fair Board.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I think you can only be on two
boards.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The fair board is not a county.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm sorry. Got carried
away.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does anyone else have a question for
Dr. Spagna?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you very much.
MR. SPAGNA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Good afternoon, sir. Could you state
your name for the record, please.
MR. McCRAY: Rob H. McCRAY.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. McCRAY, could you tell us a little
bit about your qualifications that make you suitable for the board
here, please?
MR. McCRAY: Well, I worked through the years for the
government on a project and medical center or also the procedures and
in the course of time was under general -- on the medical center.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Are you a full-time resident?
MR. McCRAY: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you stay all through the summer?
MR. McCRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Then you would be able to make
every meeting? There wouldn't be any other kind of commitment
conflicts?
MR. McCRAY: No conflict at all.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All right. Any other
questions? Commissioner Matthews, you have a question?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, no, I don't. I'm just
looking at his civic involvement, and he's been involved for quite
some time on several issues.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie, do you have --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. HcCRAY, Thank you very much.
MR. HcCRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Good afternoon, sir. Could you state
your name for the record, please?
MR. DUKLAUER: Robert Duklauer.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Duklauer, take a moment and tell
us your qualifications that make you suitable for this board, if you
would.
MR. DUKLAUER: Well, my educational background, I
believe, would be very helpful. I graduated from Stevens Institute of
Technology with a mechanical engineering degree. My business
background has been in the field of plumbing and industrial piping.
The term plumbing is -- in this case is not just the conventional
plumbing that you see in buildings, but did a great deal of industrial
work, sewage disposal plant -- private plants, not municipal plants.
We also did industrial waste disposal plants which are very similar in
their purpose. Briefly, that's it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. You've been in the county since
when? When did you come?
MR. DUKLAUER: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: When did you move to Collier County?
MR. DUKLAUER: 1987.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And you're a full-time resident?
MR. DUKLAUER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you leave for the summer at all?
MR. DUKLAUER: Occasionally. Not occasionally, usually
the month of July and -- rather August and September, but that's not a
must. Needless to say this position would alter that program.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: In other words, you could amend your
summer vacation schedule as need be if there are meetings?
MR. DUKLAUER: By all means, yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other questions?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir.
MR. SCHROLL: Mr. George Schroll.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Schroll, would you please tell us
in your words the qualifications that make you suitable for the board
here, please?
MR. SCHROLL: Well, I'm an engineer by training and
experience, a chemical engineer. I've had executive positions. I
only had one major employer throughout my career, but I've had
executive positions in various levels in that company. I have dealt
with foreign governments in negotiating contracts. I've dealt with
labor unions. I have been able to analyze financial statements and
see justification for courses of action.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: When did you move to Collier County?
How long have you been a resident?
MR. SCHROLL: I moved in September of '91. I bought the
property in Marco the year before.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And you're a full-time resident?
MR. SCHROLL: Full-time resident.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Do you go away for the summer
at all?
MR. SCHROLL: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You are here 12 months?
MR. SCHROLL: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you have any other commitments that
would keep you from making one of our meetings?
MR. SCHROLL: No, I do not. I'm currently president of
the Rotary Club, but that will end on the first of July.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think we can work around the Rotary.
We'd be glad to adjust that schedule.
MR. SCHROLL: No other commitments. I resigned my
consultancy as of the first of July of last year, which required me to
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you have full-time availability?
MR. SCHROLL: I'm available full time.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's very good. Any more questions?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Have you been active at all
in the SSU case there on Marco?
MR. SCHROLL: Only to send a check in to the defense
fund, a small check. I forget whether it was twenty-five or thirty
dollars.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're not an actual member of that
committee?
MR. SCHROLL: I'm not a member of the committee, no,
sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In your brief tenure of 41 years
with Colgate-Palmolive Company, what element of that do you think will
assist you the greatest if you're selected to serve on this committee?
What application from that experience from Colgate-Palmolive do you
think you can carry to the committee and be a benefit to the balance?
MR. SCHROLL: The ability to do financial analysis. I
assume we'll be dealing with rate increase requests and so fourth --
to analyze financial figures, engineering background, chemical
engineering deals with flows of fluid and so forth.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. SCHROLL: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other questions? Thank you.
That's the last one. There are a number of very good ones here.
Let's get a final determination.
Mr. Weigel, you're telling us we are putting ourselves
at risk to appoint Mr. Bergmann; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: I just want to advise the board there may
be some risk. To what degree, I can't state how much. It may be
rather minimal. It is important, I think, for him not to have an
active affiliation with an entity that's involved in rate affairs,
which he apparently is still currently member of that Marco --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If he resigns that, your comfort level
goes up; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: Significantly.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me?
MR. WEIGEL: Significantly.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, there are three
folks that jump out. There are a number of folks on here good, three
folks that jump out at me. Under the what I call the professional
category, couple of them, Ann Stickford, the first one particularly
under finance, and our final interviewee, Mr. Schroll.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Those are my top two as well.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I agree with those two.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Under the civic category,
Mr. French, and that's because I know Scott very well. I know he's
been active and is well informed on the utility issues in the Golden
Gate area.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would hate it disqualify
Mr. Bergmann for participating if that group and others like it. It's
really impetus for us having reassumed this authority, and so, if it's
required, we could ask him if he would be willing to resign, but with
that condition, I'd like to add him to the list. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I like him, too.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There is something I'd like to
propose for the board's consideration. Neno Spagna brings a history
to anything he deals with.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He's the last of my five.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: He's the last of my five, too. I don't
mean last on the list, but he rounds out the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll go ahead and make a
formal motion with those five names, that we approve Stickford,
French, Schroll, Bergmann, and Spagna.
MS: MATTHEWS: Should we ask Mr. Bergmann --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, subject to Mr. Bergmann
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But should we ask him to come in
and commit to either resigning or not so that we can pick another
person from this list?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me go over those. You went
through those pretty fast. Stickford, Bergmann, French, Spagna, and
Schroll.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with Commissioner
Matthews' suggestion. We has him here. Why don't we ask him to come
in and ask if he's willing to do that. If so, then we have our
answer. If not, then we'll have the ability to make the next
selection.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just ask Mr. Bergmann to come in for a
moment. While he's coming in I'll note that the utility authority
Ordinance 96-6 provides it will be the commission that determines the
term of appointment for the members. Obviously the commission can use
various mechanisms to do that. They can either ratify the drawing of
straws that might occur at the first meeting.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Bergmann, where were you
on the night of the 21st?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Bergmann, if you are appointed are
you willing to resign immediately from the Fair Water Committee and to
submit that resignation in writing both to the committee and to the
county commission?
MR. BERGMANN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. That's all.
We have a motion then. Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do we want to put a term on that, or do we
want to do that in a second motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's let them do their terms. We've
done that with most of the others.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Draw from a hat.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. If they can't decide, we'll decide for
them, but they're supposed to decide without our help.
So we have a motion on the floor to appoint Stickford, Bergmann,
French, Spagna, and Schroll.
MR. WEIGEL: Could you designate which are civic and which are
technical?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have -- Scott French is civic and Ann
Stickford is civic.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bergmann is civic because
that's his primary activity down there. It's all civic.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It doesn't matter, because all of them
are civic.
MR. WEIGEL: We need three that are technical however.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Stickford, Spagna, Schroll. We have a
motion and a second to appoint those five. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
And opposed?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to need to take a
little break. I suspect our court reporter definitely needs a break.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I suspect our court reporter does,
too. I'll tell you what, why don't we take a lunch break. Before we
break, though, let's call -- I think we need to tell the members that
we appointed. We'll take a little lunch break and come back and
finish up our agenda. There's only a couple items left.
We would like to first of all thank all of the members
for applying, and it's too bad we didn't decide the board should be
ten members big, because everyone who applied was obviously very well
qualified, and we certainly are very appreciative of the offer of help
that we get from our citizens. Unfortunately we were left, as the
County Commission, with the decision of having to pick five out of the
ten when all ten were great applicants. And we have -- the board
made a motion and was approved. The names are Ann Stickford, Richard
Bergmann, Scott French, Neno Spagna, and George Schroll. And for
those of you who did not make if this time, I will remind you that
some of the terms are short. There's a one-year term, and a couple
two-year terms, and there may be -- as happens periodically there may
be a member drop off of the board early, so please reapply when the
time comes, because we think everyone that applied today was very
highly qualified and certainly deserving of being on the board. Thank
you very much for coming, and we're going to take a little lunch
break.
(A lunch break was held.)
Item #11A
RESOLUTION 96-243 BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS AND UNITED
TELEPHONE COMPANY OF FLORIDA FOR THE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF A
LOCAL OPTION FEE FOR PROVISION OF ENHANCED EMERGENCY "911" TELEPHONE
SERVICE AND EQUIPMENT - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene. Pick up item ll(A),
a recommendation to approve a resolution between the board and United
Telephone Company of Florida.
MS. D'ORAZIO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Debbie
D'Orazio, 911 coordinator, Collier County Sheriff's Office. We're
looking to have the resolution approved again this year to continue
collecting the 911 fee to be able to fund the 911 service here in
Collier County --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. Third.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Nice presentation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well worth the wait.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There's not any, so that passes four to one -- four to
nothing, or as Carl Loveday says, five to one.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Five to one. Doesn't that just
crack you up. I love that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to continue the next
item. I'm sorry. Withdraw that.
Item #lib
UPDATE REGARDING THE SECOND OPIONIONS RELATED TO THE ARBITRAGE
CALCULATIONS - ARTHUR ANDERSEN'S REPORT ACCEPTED AND CLERK TO PROVIDE
BOARD WITH CRITERIA TO KEEP THIS FROM HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Item ll(B). Mr. Mitchell.
MR. MITCHELL: Chairman, Commissioners, good afternoon.
For the record, Jim Mitchell. I'm the director of the financing and
accounting department, and I sure hope my -- my item goes as quick as
the last one was.
The item that I'm bringing forward to you today is
basically an update on the arbitrage issue, bringing you up to date
and also to seek some direction on one specific issue. As you're
aware, on March 12 of this year the clerk of the circuit court, along
with myself, came to this board with certain concerns we had regarding
arbitrage.
(Commissioner Matthews entered the board room.)
MR. MITCHELL: At that presentation, we disclosed to you
that we had competitively engaged the services of Arthur Andersen to
come in and take a look at all of the arbitrage on all of the bond
issues that we had issued since 1986 to ensure that we had performed
the calculations and we did not owe money to the IRS.
We further disclosed to you that at that time we had a
significant liability to the IRS for three specific bonds. We also
disclosed to you that there was a refund potential for some
overpayments in the earlier years due to some payments that were made.
At that particular meeting, you gave us the approval to go ahead and
make payment which we did, and we became current with the IRS.
At the meeting of March 26, the clerk of the circuit
court stated his intention to get a second opinion on the calculations
that were performed by Arthur Andersen. My office engaged the
services of two firms, Ernst and Young, L.L.P., out of Jacksonville,
Florida, and also Rauscher, Pierce, and Refsnes, Incorporated, out of
Dallas, Texas, and it must be noted that these are both the arbitrage
rebate services groups related to each one of those firms. We
provided each one of the firms identical packages which included
everything that we had in regard to those and authorized them to
contact Arthur Andersen with any concerns or any issues that they
needed to talk to them about.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I ask just -- I know the
answer to this, but just for clarification, this was -- we were going
to get a free second opinion.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, ma'am. When -- When -- When the
clerk of the circuit court brought this to you, we had already been
approached by one firm that says this is something that occurs in the
industry, that they'll take a look at the calculations as a no --
no-cost service.
Both of the firms have reported back to us, and it's --
it's amazing that both of them have identified the same specific
concerns, primarily allocation methodology, mark to market approach,
and what's known as the transferred proceeds computation.
The firm of Rauscher and Pierce has contacted the firm
of Arthur Andersen and has talked in very specific detail about those
issues and why Arthur Andersen chose the methodologies that they --
they chose, and they have provided us with an opinion which I have
included with the -- the executive summary. And basically what it
says is, is at the county's request, Rauscher and Pierce contacted
Arthur Andersen to discuss the noted areas for discretion, impact of
the computation process. Arthur Andersen indicated that the list --
listed items were addressed during the computation process, and the
reports were prepared utilizing the most globally beneficial approach
and taking into consideration certain limitations arising from the
length of delay of the required payments.
It goes on further to say that based upon the points
raised from the cursory review and the response from Arthur Andersen,
Rauscher, Pierce's summation of possible opportunities to reduce the
county's rebatable arbitrage were offset by various global factors.
The firm of Ernst and Young, as I said, have identified
the same concerns. They have not talked in as much detail with Arthur
Andersen as Rauscher and Pierce have, but they have requested the
opportunity to review the work papers of Arthur Andersen, and that's
why I'm here today.
The cost that it would cost this county to have Ernst
and Young travel to Philadelphia to look at those is somewhere between
2,500 and $3,000, and that's where I'm seeking the direction, is if
this board is willing to pay the 2,500 or $3,000 to get one more
opinion on the calculations themselves.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We already have two. What --
MR. HITCHELL: We have the original calculation from
Arthur Andersen and the second opinion from Rauscher and Pierce. Yes,
ma'am.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask -- Can I ask a
question on that?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On the second one -- I just
saw this letter this morning, and I need you to walk me through the
comments in here because it says -- This is the Rauscher, Pierce. The
-- The paragraph you have underlined --
MR. HITCHELL: Yes, Commissioner.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: .... At the county's request,
RPR contacted Arthur Andersen .... I'm having a little trouble speaking
today. "Arthur Andersen indicated that the listed items were
addressed during the computation process and the reports were
prepared .... blah, blah, blah. I just see that as they're reporting
what Arthur Andersen reported to them.
MR. HITCHELL: That will be correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then in the next
paragraph, you point out -- This is what I need the help with, I
guess, is the cursory review. "Based upon the points raised from the
cursory review and the response from Arthur Andersen," which you
mentioned above -- what exactly is consist -- where is there a cursory
review? What is that?
MR. HITCHELL: The cursory review would be the summary
calculations that we packaged up and sent to both of the firms. We
sent not only the summary calculations but also the official
statements related to each of the bond issues that were in question.
They had an opportunity to look at that.
And -- and I know exactly what you're saying,
Commissioner. What did they do to arrive at that? And what they did
is they looked at -- based on what they had in front of them, would
they have reached similar conclusions; did we go through step A, B, C,
and D to come up to these conclusions. They don't know. They don't
know what -- the summary calculations. They then, in turn, contacted
Arthur Andersen, and said did you do this, did you consider this, did
you consider this. And the -- the conclusion was, yes, we did. But
-- And when you consider that, you can't just consider a specific
bond issue. You have to consider every bond issue that's in our --
our debt portfolio. That's why we're looking at it from a global
perspective. That -- That would be your cursory review. And it goes
on further to state -- they have given you an opinion as far as
they're going to go.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: For free.
MR. MITCHELL: For free. Now, if we want to pay money
and give them an opportunity to review the pool of investments and
things of that nature, they're willing to do it.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's where I was going
MR. MITCHELL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- because on their final
comment on this page, you're saying without reviewing those things --
MR. MITCHELL: That's -- That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- they can't confirm rebate
liabilities.
MR. MITCHELL: We -- We have got the free service. Now,
if we want it to go a step further and pay someone else for something
that we've already paid for, that's an option that you have. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The one thing I'm not interested
in doing is pursuing the Ernst and Young avenue because I think what
they produced was sufficiently vague to garner more work. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yep.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If we do have substantial
questions or there are questions on this board, the -- I would rather
not mess it up -- the funny-name firm would be the one that I would be
interested in --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: RPR.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You mean the Dallas firm?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I like the funny-name firm
personally but I -- I don't know. Just based on the discussion I've
had with the clerk and with Mr. Mitchell, we may be -- you know, we're
-- we're rolling the dice a little bit on that, and I don't see
substantial reservation or concern on their part in that letter. I
don't even see a hint that we really think we're going to uncover
something, and I'm a little concerned about that with -- with pursuing
the next level. Do we know what the next level from them would be as
far as cost?
MR. MITCHELL: Rauscher and Pierce?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
MR. MITCHELL: I -- I -- We have not discussed that
issue, but I'd say probably the same -- pretty much in line with what
we just paid Arthur Andersen to do.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: 180,0007
MR. MITCHELL: Well, we're only talking about two,
potentially three, bonds. So if we break it down by bond, it's
probably somewhere in the neighborhood of nine to $10,000 per bond.
You know, what it comes down to is what level are we comfortable with.
We competitively engaged Arthur Andersen to do the calculations in
good faith. Arthur Andersen identified the concerns. They identified
the refund opportunities. They've worked with us to establish new
procedures to make sure we don't find ourselves in this boat again,
and they're also working very aggressively with us to pursue the
refunds. We've got one opinion. You know, where -- where is that
comfort level? Do we need to do anything else? What does this board
need to do to find the comfort level regarding the arbitrage? See,
that's a decision you really need to make.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And my vote on that is going to
be -- we spent a fortune already. It's a shame we had to, but we did.
It was the right thing to do, but the only reason we're having this
discussion is because Ernst and Young said, "Well, we'll do another
opinion for you for free." Well, you know, I guess they were just
kidding.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, they -- they did their
free examination. They want to dig a little deeper and -- and I'm a
little bit concerned that they want access to another accounting
firm's work papers.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm just not interested in going
any further. We already have -- We've already paid for hopefully --
You know, if we have some reason to doubt Arthur Andersen's
conclusions, then let's talk about it, but it looks like this firm,
RFR, [sic] says --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean the funny-name firm?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The funny-name firm says they
don't see any -- you know, there aren't any red flags waving here.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So '-
MR. MITCHELL: For a little background information on
Rauscher, Pierce, they're -- they're out of Dallas, and they're
primarily in the southwest area. They're a very prominent investment
banking organization out there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It -- It -- It seems to me that
if there were a glaring problem, the language in their letter would
have been a little more --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Edged.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- you know, consistent with that
to imply that they believe they could end up saving the county some
dollars as Ernst and Young's initial letter did state. Ernst and
Young did not come back with another letter of the same type saying,
yeah, we think there are still some real serious problems. They were
very qualified, as was this letter.
So I don't see the writing on the wall that would
warrant a possible expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars to
pursue it, particularly if we don't know how many dollars may be at
risk to be saved here, you know. So I -- I'm hesitant to proceed with
-- with expending any more dollars on this and probably more
interested in the future controls of not allowing it to happen again.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a motion that
we not pursue this any further, that we just simply accept Arthur
Andersen's report. We got what we paid for, and we're actively and
diligently pursuing whatever it is we need to pursue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to ask the
motionmaker to amend this, and Mr. Mitchell can tell me if this has
already happened, amend the motion to include requesting the clerk's
office provide the board with criteria that's been established to keep
this similar situation from occurring again in the future.
MR. MITCHELL: I'll be more than happy to do that,
Commissioner.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I -- I think he's already
done that in the -- in the report, but I'll be happy to amend it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just to make sure so that we --
there's no -- no question about that.
MR. MITCHELL: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Second amend?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Anything, Mr. Dorrill? Do you have
anything left for us today?
Mr. Weigel, do you have anything?
MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. Nothing, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just a growl for Commissioner
Constantine.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just a growl?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: A growl?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
Item #14A
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE BUDGET WORKSHOP ON FRIDAY, JUNE 21 - MEETING
TO BE CHANGED TO JUNE 17 OR JUNE 24 PROVIDING THERE IS NO CONFLICT
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine does.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One item. We currently have
our budget workshop scheduled for Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. I
wonder if there would be any objection to Friday's being either moved
to the previous Monday or the Monday after. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I wonder if there would be a
majority objection to --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What are you looking to do?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What date is this?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Friday the 21st.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: To move it --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want to miss any of
our budget workshops. It will just open up an opportunity for me to
do something else that particular day that I'd like to do in addition
to our workshops.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So you're looking to move it
either --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To Monday, the 17th --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- to the 17th --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- or Monday the 24th.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- or the 24th? Doesn't matter
to me.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or any other day, for that
matter.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Doesn't matter to me.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have my schedule in front
of me, so I'm -- I'm hard-pressed to say either one is great, but if I
don't have a conflict on either one, I'd be happy to stretch to
accommodate one of my colleagues on this matter. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Likewise. I don't know what my
schedule is, so I would need to check.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Likewise. Anything further?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nothing else.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Filson, how about you?
MS. FILSON: I have nothing further.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're done.
***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Hancock
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
consent agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1 - This item has been deleted
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 96-235 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "PHASE FIVE QUEENS
PARK AT AGO VERDE" - WITH STIPULATION
See Pages
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 96-236 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "CORINTHIAN GARDENS
AT WORLD TENNIS CENTER"
See Pages
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 96-237 AUTHORIZING A 50% WAIVER, 50% DEFERRAL OF WATER
SYSTEM IMPACT FEES FOR A TWO BEDROOM HOUSE TO BE BUILT BY MARK OWENS AT
1266 SOLANA ROAD; SAID IMPACT FEES TO BE PAID FROM AFFORDABLE HOUSING
TRUST FUND (191)
See Pages
Item #16A5 - Moved to Item #8A2
Item #16A6 - Moved to Item #8A3
Item #16A7
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "YACHT CLUB OF MARCO ISLAND, REPLAT"
Item #16B1
QUITCLAIM DEED FOR PETITION AV-96-009 TO VACATE A PORTION OF A CANAL
EASEMENT IN THE AREA OF PELICAN HARSH DEVELOPMENT AND ACCEPT A
REPLACEMENT EASEMENT
See Pages
Item #1682
TOURIST TAX FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DOCTORS PASS INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN
See Pages
Item #1683
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION CASE NUMBER
95-5071-CA-01-TB (PARCEL NO. l17A) FOR VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD FOUR
LANING IMPROVEMENTS AND STAFF TO DEPOSIT $5,049.95 IN THE COURT
REGISTRY WITHIN 30 DAYS OF JUDGMENT DATE
Item #1684
EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, UTILITY,
SLOPE, DRAINAGE, SIDEWALK AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT LYING WITHIN THE
PROPERTY KNOWN AS AUGUSTA WOODS CONDOHINIUH ASSOCIATION, INC. FOR
RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD FOUR LANING IMPROVEMENTS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $13,800 - WITH STIPULATIONS
See Pages
Item #1685
GRANT AWARD AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA COHMUNITIES TRUST RELATED TO THE
MASTER MITIGATION PROJECT AND CHAIRMAN TO SIGN LETTER TO FLORIDA
COHMUNITIES TRUST CONCERNING POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY
See Pages
Item #1686
BID #96-2522 FOR BRANCH NO. 1 PRAIRIE CLEARING AND SNAGGING PROJECT OF
OPEN DITCH ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF GOLDEN GATE ESTATES SOUTH OF 1-75 -
AWARDED TO HALONEY & SONS EQUIPMENT, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,968.00
Item #1687
SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING MONIES FROM FUND
470 RESERVES, TO COMPLETE REPAIRS OF EROSION DAMAGE ON CELLS #3 AND #4
AT THE NAPLES LANDFILL
Item #1688 - This item has been deleted
Item #16B9
WORK ORDER NO. JEI-FT96-6, IN THE AMOUNT OF $34,250.00, WITH JOHNSON
ENGINEERING, INC., TO PREPARE, APPLY FOR, AND OBTAIN PERMITS FOR THE
LIVINGSTON ROAD CORRIDOR PROJECT FROM RADIO ROAD TO PINE RIDGE ROAD
See Pages
Item #16D1
AGREEMENT ALLOCATING A MAXIMUM EXPENDITURE OF $50,000.00 FROM THE GAC
LAND TRUST FOR PURPOSES OF CONTRIBUTING FUNDS TOWARDS ACTUAL
CONSTRUCTION COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE NORTH GOLDEN GATE EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES FACILITY (MEDIC 12)
See Pages
Item #16D2
AGREEMENT WITH SENIOR FRIENDSHIP CENTERS, INC. FOR THE RETIRED SENIOR
VOLUNTEER PROGRAM (RSVP)
See Pages
Item #16D3 - This item has been deleted
Item #16D4
WORK ORDER WMBP-FT96-3 WITH WILSON, MILLER, BARTON, AND PEEK, INC.
UNDER RFP 95-2422 REGARDING THE CURRENT ANNUAL AGREEMENT FOR
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SERVICES IN PREPARATION OF THE
UPDATE OF THE NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE PINE RIDGE
INDUSTRIAL PARK MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT FOR TAX YEAR
1995/96 IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,000.00
See Pages
Item #16D5
EXECUTION OF CANCELLATION OF CLAIM OF LIEN ON MEECHAI AND BOONMEE
PHEWFHAD FOR SEWER IMPACT FEES
See Pages
Item #16D6
WORK ORDER WMBP-FT96-2 WITH WILSON, MILLER, BARTON, AND PEEK, INC.
UNDER RFP 95-2422 REGARDING THE CURRENT ANNUAL AGREEMENT FOR
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR PREPARATION OF THE
UPDATE OF THE NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE NAPLES PRODUCTION
PARK MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT FOR TAX YEAR 1995-1996
IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,000.00
See Pages
Item #16D7
WORK ORDER WMBP-FT96-1 WITH WILSON, MILLER, BARTON, AND PEEK, INC.
UNDER RFP 95-2422 REGARDING THE CURRENT ANNUAL AGREEMENT FOR
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR UPDATING THE FIVE
DISTRICTS WITHIN THE EAST AND SOUTH NAPLES ASSESSMENT ROLLS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $10,000.00
See Pages
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENT 96-383
Item #16E2
RESOLUTION 96-238 ACCEPTING THE DISSOLUTION OF THE PRIVATIZATION PLUS
TASK FORCE
See Pages
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATES FOR CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER
1994 REAL PROPERTY
NO. DATE
203 5/7/96
1995 REAL PROPERTY
240 5/7/96
Item #1662
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:23 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
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: Heidi Handel and Christine E. Whitfield