BCC Minutes 02/04/1997 R REGULAR HEETING OF FEBRUARY 4, 1997
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:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE-CHAIRPERSON:
Timothy L. Hancock
Barbara B. Berry
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
ALSO PRESENT:
W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager
Hike HcNees, Assistant County Hanager
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
(The meeting convened with Chairman Hancock not being present.)
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning, and welcome to the
February 4 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. If you would
please rise for the invocation, and remain standing for the pledge of
allegiance. Mr. Dotrill.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we just thank you this
morning. We praise you for what a wonderful and beautiful morning
that it is, Father, especially this week with the country watching
Naples and Collier County. We -- We pray for good weather throughout
the week for our golf tournament.
Father, as always, we thank you for the opportunity that
we have to serve as public officials, whether elected or appointed.
Father, it is our prayer this morning that you would guide the hand of
this commission as they make the important business decisions that
affect the people of this community.
Father, finally, this morning on a personal note, I
thank you and praise you and give you the glory for the opportunity to
have served as county manager for the past ten years. We pray these
things in your Son's holy name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Dorrill, do we have any changes
to the agenda, please?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Good morning. We have a
number of changes. We have one add-on item under presentations this
morning. This item will be 5(C)(2). This is a presentation by
Mr. Gene Vaccaro of the Florida Sports Park as it pertains to local
tele -- or national telecast on the Nashville Network on the swamp
buggy races. That's 5(C)(2).
Then I have a number of additional add-on items this
morning. I'll work through these as quickly as -- as I can. Item
8(A)(5) on the regular agenda under community development will be that
the board authorize the payment of funds related to an abatement case
and part of the abatement Ordinance 91-47.
Item 8(A)(6), also under community development, is an
update on the density discussion time frames as directed at the board
meeting of January the 28th.
Item 8(C)(1) is a recommendation that the board
authorize the county to directly pay the Immokalee Childcare Center's
utility bills up to $11,000 as opposed to a single lump-sum payment.
That's under public services.
Item 8(D)(1) under support services will be a
recommendation to reject CO Bid 97-2639 for certain advertising of
delinquent real estate and personal property taxes and to authorize
the rebid of that item.
Item 8(D)(2) would be a discussion and any direction for
your independent citizens' committee pertaining to the recruitment of
the next county manager.
And then the final item that I have this morning, Madam
Chairman, is Add-on Item 10(C) under the Board of County
Commissioners. This is at the chairman's request as a result of our
joint workshop with the city yesterday pertaining to a discussion of
the Enterprise Florida support proposal for Allen Systems,
Incorporated. And that's all that I have for you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do I hear a motion for acceptance
for the changes?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Move we accept the agenda.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that motion.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: All those in favor?
Motion carries unanimously.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a tough one.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Really rough.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Vigorous debate.
Item #4
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 14, 1997 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make a
motion we approve the minutes of the January 14, 1997, regular meeting
of the board.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: All in favor?
Motion carries unanimously.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION THANKING COUNTY MANAGER NElL DORRILL FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF
DEDICATION, HARD WORK AND PRESERVANCE IN HELPING TO HAKE COLLIER COUNTY
THE BEAUTIFUL COHMUNITY THAT IT IS TODAY - ADOPTED
Proclamations and service awards. This -- This morning
we have a proclamation that I would like to read. This has to do with
our county manager. The proclamation reads -- Mr. Dotrill, if you
would please stand.
MR. DORRILL: Do I have to?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Stop hiding behind those
flowers over there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I made him keep the flowers down
on his desk. Now that everybody's seen them, he can move them out of
his way.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: For those of you that may not be
aware, today is Mr. Dorrill's last commission meeting. So those of
you that are in attendance, you are -- you are witnessing another
milestone in county government.
It's at this time, though, I'd like to read this
proclamation stating that whereas, in October of 1979, Neil Dotrill,
age 23, was hired as administrative assistant by then County Manager
C. William Norman; and
Whereas, in 1982 Neil was named project manager for the
new county jail and justice center which was completed $1 million
under budget; and
Whereas, in 1982, age 25, Neil was promoted to public
safety administrator. Hurricane Alberto welcomed Neil on his first
day of office as it threatened Collier County; and
Whereas, in HAy of 1987 Neil Dotrill became the youngest
county manager in the United States; and
Whereas, in Neil's ten years as county manager, he has
been instrumental in many projects, such as the purchase of Barefoot
Beach Park, the development of Clam Pass Beach Park, the opening of
Regional Water and Wastewater Treatment plants, the development of
Collier County Airport Authority, the creation of the first
informational technology department for computerization and
communications, the completion of the largest beach renourishment
project in Florida's west coast under budget, and the creation of the
new citizen-oriented department of utility rate regulation and
franchise administration.
Now, therefore, the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, wish to thank Neil Dotrill for his many years
of dedication, hard work, and perseverance in helping to make Collier
County the beautiful community that it is today.
Done and ordered this 4th day of February 1997; signed
by Timothy L. Hancock, Chairman.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And I'll make a motion that we
accept that proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All those in favor?
Motion carries unanimously.
(Applause)
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 2-8, 1997, AS VETERANS
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hiss Hac'Kie, I think you have a --
or I'm sorry. Mr. Ha -- or, Mr. Constantine, I believe you have a
proclamation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll work our way back down
today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do have a proclamation.
Mary Chenery. Mary is -- There you are. Can -- Can you come up?
And -- and then I know once we've read the proclamation, you're going
to have a few items too.
This is one of -- one of those stories that's kind of
nice when county government gets involved and does a good thing. And
a couple of years back our local veterans transport back and forth for
medical service, and they had a van that had, I think, about 130,000
miles on it and was quickly dying, and -- and just by chance Ford
Motor Company, who many people know provide vehicles for our sheriff's
department, but they had a new prototope (phonetic) -- type. I think
it was -- 1994 was the year because they had a 1997 or '98 engine that
they needed to get road-tested. And they called me and said, "Do you
know any place we can get a lot of miles put on this thing?" And I
said, "Boy, do I." And -- and -- So we hooked them up with the
veterans, and -- and they have fulfilled that obligation of putting a
lot of miles on it, and I think it's several thousand miles a month,
but let's read the following proclamation, and that is:
Whereas, the Veterans' Transportation System is an
integral part of the Collier County Department of Veterans' Services;
and
Whereas, during the past three years, the volunteers of
the Veterans' Transportation System have provided in excess of 11,000
volunteer hours; and
Whereas, over 170,000 accident-free miles have been
driven to transport 2,946 veterans with medical requirements to the
Department of Veteran Affairs facilities located in Bay Pines,
Fort Myers, Hiami, and Tampa; and
Whereas, the program has been extremely cost effective
with $12.22 being the average cost per client transported.
And, again, that was Hiami, Tampa, Fort Myers, and Bay
Pines. That's pretty darn good.
And whereas, the veterans of Collier County are
extremely appreciative of the Collier County Board of Commissioners
and the volunteer staff for their dedicated devotion and its continued
support of this vital program.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that extreme gratitude and
appreciation is extended to the Veterans' Transportation System
volunteers for this successful partnership between the public and
private sectors of our community.
We, the Collier County Board of Commissioners, do hereby
reaffirm our commitment and support this vital program of those
serving those who serve by designated Feb -- designating February 2
through 8, 1997, as Veterans' Transportation System Week, honoring
these citizens who have given so much to Collier County.
Done and ordered the 4th day of February 1997; Timothy
L. Hancock, Chairman; Board of County Commissioners, Collier County,
Florida.
Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve
this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All those in favor?
Motion carries unanimously.
MS. CHENERY: May I say --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me give you this, and
we'll have you go to the podium.
(Applause)
MS. CHENERY: Thank you very much. Actually --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The microphone.
MS. CHENERY: Oh, okay.
We appreciate the fact that you do appreciate the work
that is done. It's vital to the veterans. However, I'm president of
the council, but the man that has done most of the work is Richard
Hartley, and he has the list of the volunteers. He'll be up here
shortly.
(Chairman Hancock entered the board room.)
MR. HARTLEY: Our --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good morning.
MR. HARTLEY: Good morning. Our volunteer drivers
serving 1 to 99 hours, first of all: Eugene Caudill, please come
forward. Agnes Vincent, please come forward. John Vasseur, Thomas
Clancy, Neil Pritcherd, Margaret Rutkowski, Richard Golden.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Richard, if you can just pull
that microphone down a little bit closer -- I think she's having a
little trouble hearing you.
MR. HARTLEY: And Arile Canttell.
MS. CHENERY: Would Sam Kandel and Ralph Lambert, Norman
Petitte and Kay Flynn line up over here, and then we won't be holding
it up so long.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Each one of those are 100 to
199 hours?
MS. CHENERY: That's right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wow!
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Wait until we get to the
bottom of the list. You'll be amazed how many hours there are.
MR. HARTLEY: 200 hours to 399 hours: Ed Ferringer,
Edwin Sneed, Andy Clavelo.
This is 400 to 599 hours --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wow!
MS. CHENERY: 599. Okay. Andresen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you hear that, Tim? 400 to
599. Are we getting there? Wow!
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're getting there. That's
some driving time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's some driving time.
MS. CHENERY: And, Rick, you go up there too.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please. Thank you, sir.
MS. CHENERY: Okay. The next bunch is from 600 to 999
hours. Okay. Ju -- Julius Futo -- (Applause)
MS. CHENERY: -- Earl McKenzie --
(Applause)
MS. CHENERY: -- and Harvey Butt.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're all approaching 1,000
hours?
MR. DORRILL: These would all be non-golfers. Nobody
could play --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No time for golf.
MR. HARTLEY: And the star of our program with 1,048
volunteer hours is Edward Ringl.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wow!
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My -- My question is --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: My goodness.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- when do you sleep?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's more than some
commercial pilots have.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's wonderful.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Thank you so much.
MS. CHENERY: Service is a pleasure.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mary, thanks. Richard.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Were all of these hours put in on
the same van?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's two vans. There's a
Dodge van and a Ford van.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wow!
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, it's always a pleasure to
recognize the volunteer efforts, particularly in an area that serves
the veterans, and I personally would like to thank each and every one
of you for all your time and commitment to -- to a very worthwhile
effort.
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Item 5(B) on the agenda, we have service awards.
Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Speaking of, thank you for a
significant amount of time well served. If Vince Doerr will come,
we'd like to thank him for 20 years of service in the Ochopee Fire
Department.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We also have a ten-year award
today for James a -- Angers.
HR. ANGERS: Anjers. (phonetic)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A -- Anjers? (phonetic)
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Anjers. (phonetic)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you, sir -- Angers, for the
water treatment plant on 951, ten years.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Host people don't know. He prefers
to be called Senior Chief.
MR. ANGERS: I want the day off.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Neil, one of your last executive
orders: Give Senior Chief the day off.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And last, but not least, we have
Hark Buttchin also for ten years in road and bridge.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I spent several years in the Coast
Guard with Senior Chief Angers and -- up in Fort Myers, and I'm glad
to see you once again in a different capacity. Thanks for all your
work.
Item #5C
PRESENTATION BY JOEL WHITTENHALL, TREASURER OF COLLIER COUNTY LOAN
CONSORTIUH, REPORTING THE PROGRESS BETWEEN THE LOAN CONSORTIUH AND THE
COLLIER COUNTY EXTENSION SERVICE IN ASSISTING LOW INCOME FAMILIES TO
SECURE HOME LOAN MORTGAGES
On to Item 5(C), presentations. We have Joel
Whittenhall, treasurer of the Collier County loan consortium
reporting -- giving us a progress report on the loan consortium and
the Collier County Extension Service in assisting low-income families.
MR. WHITTENHALL: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Good morning.
MR. WHITTENHALL: For the record my name is Joel
Whittenhall, executive vice president and senior lending officer for
First National Bank of Florida. Today I'm here on behalf of the
Collier County loan consortium, a program that, thanks to you, the
commission, we put in place in July of 1996.
If you'll recall, the plan was to identify some ways to
find affordable housing for residents of Collier County, and we've put
together a partic -- participation between the Collier County
Extension Service and ten local banks in Collier County.
First of all, we want to thank a couple of specific
staff members of your staff, Bonnie Fauls who runs the day-to-day loan
consortium program as well as Denise Blanton who oversees the Collier
County Extension Service.
As I said, we initially set out to find a home for 20
residents in Collier County. We thought that would be a realistic
goal. We had ten financial institutions, all of which committed to
$300,000 in loan funds. These funds are 30-year fixed-rate mortgages,
up to 97 percent financing, no private mortgage insurance, at a
below-market interest rate.
The ten banks initially committed were AmSouth; Barnett
Bank of Naples; Chemical; Comerica Bank & Trust; First Union National
Bank; First National Bank of Florida; Gulf Coast National Bank; NBD
Bank; SouthTrust Bank of Florida; and SunTrust Bank, Southwest
Florida.
Again, our initial goal was 20 loans for the first year,
and I'm pleased to provide you with an update as far as bottom-line
numbers. In seven months, from July of '96 through January of '97, we
have completed 78 purchases of single-family homes and/or condominiums
in Collier County. Total purchase price is $6.4 million --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wow!
MR. WHITTENHALL: -- which is an average purchase price
of approximately $82,000. We have lent a total of $5.8 million, which
is an average loan amount of approximately $74,000.
And this is not just set out in one area of Collier
County. I think it's important to note that every district is
represented. Mr. Constantine, your district, District 3, leads the
chase with 28 of the 78 loans, which is 36 percent; Mr. Norris, 14 of
the 78 or 18 percent; Mr. Hancock, 13 of 78 or 17 percent;
Hiss Hac'Kie, 12; and Mrs. Berry, 11.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You've got some work to do, Barbara.
MR. WHITTENHALL: But, again, I think it's interesting
that this is throughout the county, and it -- it does show and
evidence that affordable housing is available and can be achieved for
members of our community.
A couple of action steps that we had to address, as I
said earlier, the banks originally committed to $300,000 a piece which
would have been $3 million, and we've done 5.8 million, so each of the
banks have stepped up with additional contributions and -- as far as
dollars that they would set out to this program. And our goal for
1997 is to increase the dollars available which is to be done two
ways, either add additional banks to the consortium or increase our
commitment. And to date, from the responses of the banks, we have
$7 million available for this program in 1997.
We feel there are several benefits to the community with
this program. Number one, home ownership has proven to provide us
with a more stable employee in our work force. Number two, disposable
income that these individuals spend is probably now being spent in
Collier County rather than Lee County if they were possibly renting in
that area. And, three, and most importantly, it serves a demand for
affordable housing.
Again, we want to thank the commission and especially
your staff for making this a reality. I do have some handouts for you
that will give you the updates in numbers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You can actually pass those just to
your left, and Mr. Weigel or Mr. Dotrill will save you the walking
distance.
MR. WHITTENHALL: And, in conclusion, on behalf of the
consortium, member banks are very proud to be part of this, and we
look forward to continuing to reach low- to moderate-income
individuals in the years ahead.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Whittenhall, do you see any
change in the consortium or the -- the application of funds in this
area? Does it look like it's something that's going to continue for
the foreseeable future?
MR. WHITTENHALL: Again, it certainly appears, because
the initial commitment was 3 million and our commitment to date
for '97 is $7 million. No delinquencies to speak of to date.
we're all very pleased with the program. And, again, your staff has
done a very fine job in underwriting and taking the application,
processing the application, and counseling with the applicants that do
come in.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand we have two other
speakers on this, but I just want to thank you for your involvement
and your time in this because this home ownership is exactly the kind
of stakeholder that we want to develop in this community, and thank
you again for all your work on this. MR. WHITTENHALL: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Hiss Nocera, did you wish to speak? And,
in addition, Dr. Flinchum, if you'd come -- come up and stand by,
please.
MS. NOCERA: Good morning. My name is Mary Nocera. I
represent Barnett Bank who's a proud member of the Collier County loan
consortium. As a representative of Barnett, I've had the pleasure of
working with the Collier County Extension Service in helping people
achieve their dream in home ownership. This program is helping to
fulfill a critical need in our community. Home ownership provides
stability for our Collier County families and provides a safe haven
for the children of our community.
Within this program Barnett has closed loans for
disabled person, single parents, retired couples, and individuals who
do not benefit from having dual income within their household. In
1996 Barnett committed 300,000 to the program. In early August the
success of the program required additional commitments from the member
banks. Nineteen ninety-six Barnett closed a total of $750,150 within
the program. We are very pleased to announce 1997 we're committing 2
million to the program and will provide additional funding f needed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Wait. That --
MS. NOCERA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That deserves one of these.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. Thank you.
MS. NOCERA: I would be remiss if I did not thank Bonnie
Fauls and her entire team for the outstanding job they've done. Thank
you very much.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And thank you to Barnett.
DR. FLINCHUH: Mr. Chairman, I'm Hitch Flinchum. I'm
the district director for the cooperative extension service,
University of Florida. I just wanted to be here to say how happy we
are for the University of Florida, Collier County Cooperative
Extension Service to take part in this very successful program that
looks to be even more promising in the future.
I also wanted to introduce myself to the Collier County
Government because, even though I'm not new to Florida, I am new to
this region. I have ten county responsibilities for our extension
programs, and I'd like to reaffirm our relationship to the Collier
County Government which has been in existence more than 50 decades --
five decades -- excuse me -- 50 years, and tell you that we stand
ready to help you address any of the problems of Collier County that
can be addressed through long- and short-term educational needs and
activities. So thank you for your support, and I look forward to a
long and productive relationship.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you and welcome.
Again, I -- I'd like to thank all the -- the banks that
are involved in this. This is exactly what we had asked for in
pursuing home ownership, and the private sector came through with the
assistance of our staff, and you're all to be congratulated. Thank
you for a job well done so far. We look forward to greater successes
in the future.
Item #5C2
PRESENTATION BY GENE VACCARO OF THE FLORIDA SPORTS PARK WITH REFERENCE
TO PROVIDING TWO MINUTES OF TV TIME TO PROMOTE COLLIER COUNTY ON TNN
DURING LIVE BROADCAST OF THE SWAMP BUGGY RACES
On to Item 5(C)(2) which is a presentation by Mr. Gene
Vaccaro of the Florida Sports Park. Gene.
MR. VACCARO: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Gene
Vaccaro, executive director at the Florida Sports Park, and I am here
also, like a couple of other speakers, to say thank you for -- for
your support.
And before I get into it, I want to thank Mr. Dotrill
for his years of service to the county. It's been significant, and
it's made a lot of us proud that he's been representing our county in
the past several years. And we wish you well in the future -- MR. DORRILL: Thank you.
MR. VACCARO: -- and thanks for your support in the
past.
I'm here to tell you a brief success story. I won't
take much time, and it's about TDC and TDC funding. I can tell you it
works, and I'm here to say that we at the Florida Sports Park and the
swamp buggy races are living, breathing examples of that.
From its inception I think that swamp buggy races have
perfectly fit your criteria. We're one of Naples' oldest non-profit
organizations founded in 1949. All of the funding we've ever received
has been spent out of season. All of the funding we've ever received
has been spent out of the county. And all of the funding we've
received has been spent for advertising and promotion only. We
absolutely, perfectly fit your criteria.
Thirty years ago our audience for swamp buggy races was
90 percent local and 10 percent from out of town. Today our audience
is 75 percent from outside our county and 25 percent local. And not
only have we changed the complexion of that and now bringing in
out-of-town people, our crowds have doubled in the last five years to
an average of 14,000 per event. That tells you that TDC funding,
handled properly, works, and again, I want to say thank you.
One way we can do that is on February the 28th, the end
of this month, we are fortunate enough to receive three hours of
prime-time television exposure on TNN, and we have negotiated with
those folks to allow us to provide a few minutes within that show to
advertise the virtues of Collier County and its amenities and its
beaches and its golf courses. And we'll be working with Tammy
Matthews of Visit Naples to assemble that -- that broadcast footage
here in the next couple of weeks. And what I want to do today is to
donate $20,000 worth of that national television time back to the
county to promote tourism as our way of saying thank you for your
support in the past. That's all I've got. Thanks.
(Chairman Hancock exited the board room during the prior
speaker's speech.)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wonderful. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much, Mr. Vaccaro.
(Applause)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That -- That certainly is a positive
statement that the TDC funds certainly -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- do work and -- and a positive
note rather than -- than the negative.
Item #7A
DORIS D. CURRIE REGARDING RIVIERA GOLF ESTATES REQUESTING A WAIVER OF
A PERMIT FEE FOR A HARDI GRAS PARADE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF RIVIERA
GOLF ESTATES
Moving on, then, to the -- Item No. 6, the approval of
the clerk's report. Is that something we don't -- I'm sorry. I'm new
at this so I'm -- I'm learning.
Moving on then, public petitions. Miss Curtie, you
understand the -- the rules for the public petition? You have ten
minutes to state your case and --
MS. CURRIE: I won't take ten minutes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. And we probably will listen
to what your concerns are --
MS. CURRIE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and deal with it at a later time.
MS. CURRIE: Good morning, Madam Chairman and
Commissioners. My name is Doris Curtie, and I'm here as social
chairman for the month of February in Riviera Golf Estates. We have
been planning for over a year to have a Mardi Gras celebration. As an
over-55 community, this is strictly a social event, and the biggest
part of it will be our parade which we have planned for February 8.
It will be a strictly community affair with only the members of our
community taking part. We also will be parading just in two of our
streets in the community. We will be forming on Estelle Drive and
marching down Charlemagne Boulevard to the clubhouse. These will
include floats and bike riders and roller bladers and vans, and sports
clubs will be participating. There will be no outsiders involved and
no outside publicity. And my purpose today is to ask you for a waiver
of the permit fee for our parade. There's no entrance fee for the
parade, and the $125 permit fee would be a hardship to our committee.
So we respectfully ask for your consideration. Thank you.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Curtie, I think the -- the
parade is -- is strictly all within the boundaries of the Riviera
community and you won't be going outside -- MS. CURRIE: That's correct.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: -- at all? Is that --
MS. CURRIE: It's only about 1 mile long.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I -- I'm sure you don't want to
get out on Rattlesnake Hammock and have a parade the way the road is
today.
MS. CURRIE: No. This is within the community really --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MS. CURRIE: -- down a divided highway.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm surprised you have to have a
permit at all, for heavens sake, for some little -- MS. CURRIE: We were surprised too.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I think -- I think it's been our
policy to waive these fees in the past for events such as this.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Looking at the time-line too --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it's Saturday.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- it's -- it's Saturday, and -- and
so we won't have another meeting prior to that time. So what's the --
the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We can just direct Mr. Dotrill --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Can we do --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: -- to do that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are we within our --
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- limit to be able to do that?
MR. DORRILL: We'll -- We'll process that, and to the
extent that we need a budget amendment approval, we'll just do that on
a future consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris is quite
an accomplished roller blader himself. Will he be participating in
any way?
MS. CURRIE: We'd be happy to have any of you participate in our
parade.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, they -- they said that -- no
outsiders, so I guess I won't do.
Thank you, Miss Curtie. And -- and you did that quite
well, by the way.
MS. CURRIE: Thank you for your time.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
Item #SA1
RESOLUTION 97-68 REGARDING BREEZEWOOD PUD REQUIRING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN
AMENDMENT TO THE PUD PRIOR TO HAY 19, 1997 - ADOPTED
At this time we'll move on to the community development
and environmental services. Mr. Reischl.
MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners. Fred
Reischl, planning services. This resolution is to correct a staff
error that was made at the presentation of the Breezewood PUD
sunsetting. It was the first PUD sunsetting. There were two
resolutions, depending on the action that the board took.
Unfortunately I made the mistake of submitting the wrong resolution.
It was signed, and this new resolution corrects that error.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just a simple error like that,
that doesn't affect the direction that we gave?
MR. REISCHL: It doesn't affect -- The letter that was
sent to the petitioner still reflects the Hay date for the amendment,
etc.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All those -- Any discussion?
All those in favor?
Motion carries, 4, and noting that Mr. Hancock is not
present.
Thank you very much.
Item #8A2
RESOLUTION 97-69 REGARDING THE STILES PUD REQUIRING SUBHITTAL OF AN
AMENDMENT TO THE PUD PRIOR TO JUNE 5, 1997 - ADOPTED
Moving on to Item No. 2, the ordinance concerning 89-07,
the Stiles PUD. Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record, planning services
division -- section or department. The Stiles PUD is located on the
south side of Immokalee Road approximately 1,000 feet west of 1-75.
It was adopted in January of 1989. It's a PUD that we consider to be
dated. It has -- it -- it -- It does not afford us the opportunity to
implement the county's access management plan. If we're ever going to
implement the access management plan, particularly near interchanges,
we need to provide for a system of access drives, service drives that
are parallel to Immokalee Road. Reviewing -- or requiring this PUD to
come back with an amended PUD would provide us that opportunity.
The setback requirements are less than is currently
required under the Land Development Code. It exempts itself from
landscaping provisions that are as -- as onerous -- not onerous but up
to the standards of today's landscaping requirements. We're of the
opinion that this PUD ought to be approved on a condition that they
come back in six months with an amended PUD.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is there anyone here to speak on
this particular one?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, the petitioner.
MR. DORRILL: Wait. We --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: The petitioner?
MR. DORRILL: We do have one. Miss Cawley is here in
the event that you have questions.
MS. CAWLEY: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Barbara Cawley, and I'm here today representing Mr. Ward, Mr. Owen
Ward, who is the owner of this PUD.
First of all, we would like to say that we are going to
be amending the PUD, and we will concur with the staff recommendation
on that. We -- We do believe that this PUD needs to be updated, and
we'll work diligently in the next six months to get that accomplished.
The issue that we'd like to bring up -- and we want to
work really well with the -- very well with the staff and with the
county on this -- is the access question. This property when it was
purchased was purchased with superior access to Immokalee Road. We
knew that the -- The property owner knew that there was going to be an
access point at that location, and a premium was paid for the property
for that access. What the staff is recommending is that the -- that
their acc -- that there be access granted to adjacent property owners
to the east with no compensation, and we believe that we -- We don't
have a problem with the access provision. We will work with the
adjacent property owner to provide that access, but we believe that in
all fairness there ought to be a compensation requirement from that
adjacent property owner who paid less for the value of his property
than did this property owner. And we've try -- We've met with the
adjacent property owner. We're working that out, but it is a
difficult situation to determine values and that type of thing. And
we believe that the -- the access management provision in the county
code never intended for property owners to donate their properties to
adjacent property owners to improve their values.
So what we would like to do is to just put on the record
that -- that we are willing to do the access management provision in
the code but with a fairness statement in there about the compensation
from the properties to the east.
Additionally, we -- we were a little bit -- We have a
question, I guess, about the six-laning of Immokalee Road, and we were
under the impression that when the right-of-way was donated by our
client as well as purchase -- some of it was purchased by the county,
that enough was taken to six-lane Immokalee Road and that additional
right-of-way wasn't needed, and we just aren't sure what the -- what
the position is right now about Immokalee Road, and -- and we need a
clarification of that in terms of right-of-way donation in the future.
Those are really the points we'd like to make, and we
are willing to come back and -- and do a revised PUD, but we believe
there is a fairness question here. Thank you.
MR. NINO: Madam Chairman and Members of the Commission,
we really -- with all respect to Mrs. Cawley, we really don't need to
address those issues. Those issues will be fully discussed when an
amended PUD is submitted to you. I don't know that it will be well
advised to -- to take a position today on the issue of -- of a service
drive. If -- if -- If indeed the county has sufficient right-of-way,
then that won't become an issue when we're reviewing the amended PUD.
I -- I thought I should make those comments for the record.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we know what the -- the thoughts
are on the six-laning of Immokalee Road? Is there anyone that can
address that --
MR. NINO: I --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
MR. NINO: I --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
addressed at the time --
MR. NINO: It --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
PUD?
-- issue --
-- or is it something that can be
-- they come back with the amended
MR. NINO: It -- It can be addressed at that time.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. NINO: However, with regard to the matter of access
and -- and a service drive, let me say for the record that this
wouldn't be the first time that a PUD has been required to provide a
service drive and there has been no consideration that that property
owner is entitled to -- to a fee or to compensation from adjacent
property owners. I would remind you that the Angileri PUD was exactly
such a PUD which you dealt with recently which requires that PUD to
provide access to adjacent lands.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So there is precedent for it. But
in any case it seems that these are matters that will be discussed in
depth when the amended PUD comes before the board; is that correct?
MR. NINO: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Very good.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve staff's
recommendation.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further discussion?
All those in favor?
Motion carries 4 to 0.
Item #8A3
COHMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT 59.591, JIH WEEKS CATFISH FARM, FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF IHMOKALEE ROAD ON CORKSCREW LANE - APPROVED
WITH STIPULATIONS
Next item is the Permit 59.591, Jim Weeks, the catfish
farm.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. My name
is Stan Chrzanowski. I'm with the community development department.
And this project is a catfish farm located on 10 acres of land on the
south side of Immokalee Road about 2 miles east of the Corkscrew Swamp
Sanctuary about 600 feet south of Immokalee Road.
The petitioner camein to our office for permission to
dig a catfish farm. The catfish farm is a permitted use, aquaculture
under the agriculture zoning that the project is in. The -- The
zoning is A, slash, mobile home overlay.
Because of the size of the excavation -- He's digging
three ponds for a total of 4.17 acres on the 10-acre parcel. You can
see the -- the green area is going to be -- is wetland. It's going to
be preserved. The yellow area is upland. It's going to be preserved
around the perimeter of the project. The pink is a berm that
surrounds the excavations. And the blue areas are the three ponds.
The ponds take up so much of the land that the petitioner will have to
remove the fill off site. If -- If this were a normal earth-mining
operation, he would have to come in for a conditional use, but the
Land Development Code says that any time fill is generated by an
agricultural operation, it's an accessory use to the agricultural
operation and has to be hauled off site. It -- It can be hauled off
site. The petitioner wants to do this.
The ponds -- I understand normal aquaculture -- and I'm
not an expert on this -- normal aquaculture is done by berming up and
having ponds slightly above grade. But the only way with the water
table in this area -- There is about 18 to 20 feet of sand out there.
The only way with the water table to hold water in the ponds is to dig
the ponds down into the water table if -- if you don't line them. The
petitioner does not want to line the ponds because he wants the
catfish to eat the aquatic vegetation he plans to grow in the ponds.
The depth of 20 foot is allowed under the commercial
excavation portion of the ordinance. He -- Actually, he's going 18
feet below the wet-season water table. There's a slight discrepancy
on the drawing of about 2 feet. He's not going to -- he -- He's going
20 feet from original ground. He's not going to do any blasting. If
he runs into any rock, blasting is not permitted.
If you have -- The petitioner is in the room, Jim Weeks.
He'd like to talk. If you have any questions about the engineering
portion of this project, I'd be glad to answer them; otherwise, we
have people from community development to answer the zoning-type
questions.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I believe I heard you say that if
this were an earth-mining operation, that it would require a
conditional use.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And what makes us confident that
this is not an earth-mining operation?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The petitioner tells us that he is
conducting aquaculture. It's the same as if he told us he was
conducting any other agricultural operation on the site.
MR. WEEKS: I didn't know that I was going to make a
presentation. I apologize. I'm not a great orator. My name is Jim
Weeks. I -- I understand I have ten minutes, is it?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. You have five.
MR. WEEKS: I've got five minutes. Okay. I'd like to
read Florida Agricultural Law. I know this is a county -- a county
body, but what Florida Agricultural Law says, "It's important to the
health and welfare of the people of this state and to the economy of
the state that additional problems are not created for growers and
ranchers engaged in Florida aquacu -- agriculture -- which is
aquaculture -- is agriculture -- industry by laws and regulations that
cause or tend to cause agricultural production to become inefficient
or unprofitable."
Now, I am earth mining. I'm not doing it because --
solely for earth mining. I'm not a wealthy man. This is a new
business venture. I'm coming in solely to offset the cost of
excavating 4 acres of ponds and putting in pump houses and whatnot.
I'm offsetting that cost with the sale of the dirt off my property,
which is a natural resource, which the state recognizes to be
necessary for me to improve agriculturally. I'm just -- I'm asking to
use the land in the scope -- it's zoned agriculture.
The -- What we had for an environmental advisory board,
their -- their staff paper shows all surrounding properties
undeveloped. I'm on a private road. There's no neighbors to be of a
concern. The -- As you said, earth mining is actually permitted in
this particular zoning but I -- you know, I don't have the finances to
come through and go through the procedures to get into that kind of
a -- an operation. I mean, I don't know the procedure. Development
services could tell me, I'm sure, but you know, I don't have that --
that kind of capacity to do that.
This -- This particular operation is going to start out
as a private operation until I get established and can -- I mean, I
may very well be a year, a year and a half just getting the thing
started and getting that much material moved and sold and whatnot.
I'm wanting closed systems in these ponds. I'm not
going to have a system where I'm throwing large amounts of feed and
fertilizer in. I'm going to be trying to raise a brown catfish which
is a herbivore. It -- It feeds on aquatic growth, and in that sense I
need the earthen ponds, ponds that have natural earth to the bottom of
them, not liners. I just -- I hope that you all can consider this.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weeks, what is the nature of
your operation after you get this going? Is this going to be for
public use or what are you --
MR. WEEKS: I would like --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're doing this commercially
obviously.
MR. WEEKS: I'm trying to see if I can effectively raise
catfish in this climate in this -- I was last involved in this over on
the east coast. It was a -- In the location in Stuart, it was a bit
too close to Lake Okeechobee where there's not a whole lot of demand
for fish.
I would like in the future to be able to eventually,
possibly on another site, get into a fee-fishing situation where I
could actually offer fee fishing which is common in other parts of the
country which is a legitimate, you know, operation where people can
simply pay and come in and fish. But at the time being, this is, you
know, being done on a very limited budget.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you sell these fish to
wholesale markets or -- MR. WEEKS: I'm going to try. I'm going to try. As of
now I'm going to try to do that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Weeks, you -- you have -- you
will have how many surface acres of water when you're -- you're done?
MR. WEEKS: It should be in the area of 4 1/2 to 5
acres. It's in that area.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That's close enough.
What -- On an annual basis, how much income can be generated per acre?
MR. WEEKS: I would like -- I would like to say it would
be far more than it may be, but at this point anything I would say
would be speculatory. I would like -- you know, it's -- I don't know
how to -- on my -- On my land I'd like to come in and venture and do
this, you know, if it's --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I've got a little research
here, and my research indicates that a typical fish farm is 250 to 500
acres; in Florida, more typically maybe 10 or 20 acres. But what is
really something I need to clear up here is that the -- the optimum
depth best business practice for a catfish pond is 5 or 6 feet. If
you have 20-foot depth here, how do you plan to get the catfish out?
MR. WEEKS: Okay. What -- What I'm limited by here is
I'm not allowed to pump any type of water off my property. I'm in an
area that South Florida Water Management -- I'm in the process of
permitting with them. They have given me an exemption letter. It's
in the mail. They don't permit me to pump off site. Neither does the
county permit me to pump off site. I like to have sufficient volume
in the ponds so that I can pump from one pond to the other and have
capacity on my own property to obtain -- to -- to hold whatever I pump
out so I don't -- none of it has to leave my property. And if I can
get the things down to 4 or 5 feet in depth, then I seine up my catch
and I harvest.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Do you understand the --
the market price is around 70 or 80 cents per pound on catfish? MR. WEEKS: I --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And the -- the cost to raise is
generally --
MR. WEEKS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- 60 to 70 cents a pound?
MR. WEEKS: The -- The environmental advisory board
started bringing these issues up to me and I -- I ki -- I had to ask
them, well, were they concerned with my general well being or with my
success in business or possibly did they have other motives. I wanted
them to know that this could very well be simply a private fish farm
that me and my five-year-old -- two-year-old daughter walk out and
fish every month or so. I mean --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And we don't have any
concern about that.
MR. WEEKS: You -- You see what I'm saying?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. We don't have any
concern about that. I don't think we do. What we have concern about
is a rock excavation operation disguised as a fish farm. That's what
we have --
MR. WEEKS: That -- Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- concern about.
MR. WEEKS: I saw that in the -- in the staff -- some
sort of staff report or whatnot in this executive -- My question is, I
did not ever encounter this until I started trying to permit this.
What is the crime with digging dirt? I -- I -- I -- When I presented
this to them and then we got into this issue of, well, you know -- oh,
you're commercial. I've never -- I'm not a large operation. I'm sure
there -- there's other operations that -- I've come into this
realizing what is the harm or what is the crime to this in this
county.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That -- That's a good
question, and there isn't a crime. As you pointed out yourself, it
is -- it is permitted under the conditional-use process in your zoning
district. It's not a crime but -- but --
MR. WEEKS: But it's treated as such almost. I was
amazed.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, it's not that at all. It's
just that we want to make sure that procedures are -- are followed and
that's -- You know, really the charge of this board is to make sure
that the laws, ordinances, and codes of the county are -- are adhered
to.
MR. WEEKS: Well, I've made every attempt. You know,
I -- I came to -- to -- to the county development services, and they
told me everything I did was within the scope of what I was allowed to
do. So we're here for approval. They -- They said this was necessary.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What -- I -- I came into this
with a healthy respect for the fact that it might not really be a fish
farm, that it might really be a commercial excavation. But giving you
the benefit of the doubt that you were really in this for the business
of -- I'm from Mississippi. There are catfish farms all over
Mississippi. I mean, I know about this a little bit. But what I hear
you saying today is that you haven't done the research to know -- I
mean, I don't hear a business plan here. It sounds to me like what's
really happening -- and -- and God bless you. There's, like you said,
nothing wrong with digging up and selling the dirt on your own land,
but if you're going to do that, there's a process called a conditional
use that you have to go through that apparently is more expensive or
time-consuming or something. I don't know why you would have -- would
not have chosen that, because it sounds to me like what's happening
here is, "I got -- this is a no-lose proposition for me. I'm going to
sell the dirt. That will fund me some catfish. I might make a nickel
off of them. So I'm going to try it." But I'm asking you if you can
convince me becau -- that you're legitimately trying to go into the
catfish farming business, because if you are, then you're entitled to
this. If you're not, to sell your dirt, you've got to go through a
different process.
MR. WEEKS: Okay. I'll -- I'll address that. I've --
Like I said, when I -- when I entered into this, I came to them for
one particular use which was aquaculture. I'm a fan of aquaculture.
I'm going to pride myself on the fact that I'm going to have a closed
system, a balanced system in these ponds that doesn't need any
exterior stimulation like feeding, things of that nature. This is a
private operation. I don't want you to get the idea -- I would like
to go commercial but it's -- like has been mentioned, is there a
demand; is the price -- is the thing feasible.
Where it's -- it's -- it's -- It's in your all's
determination, I know, to determine what my motives are but -- I mean,
I -- I guess one of my questions is, just how many people come before
this board on a monthly or however your -- asking to dig dirt and haul
it off the property? That's where I ran into a problem.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's a big profit-making
business in this county.
MR. WEEKS: Well, if I was a rich -- As was mentioned in
the EAB, they said, well -- well, what -- you know, you're on such a
small piece of land doing it. Well, what -- and I kind of asked them,
well, if I was a -- a wealthy man and I could afford to put -- to put
people --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm really sorry to
interrupt, but can you just answer Commissioner Hac'Kie's question?
Because what anybody else does in the county really doesn't matter as
part of this hearing.
MR. WEEKS: Okay. I agree. Okay. Thank you.
Yes, I'm going to turn this into a commercial operation.
I'm going into this as a new business venture, and I -- I would simply
like approval.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What was your experience on the
other coast you referred to in this business?
MR. WEEKS: I -- I was involved with -- with an
operation. I knew the owner over there. I did not have the
opportunity there to grow and go into it myself. I'm wanting to do
that here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So you -- your experience is that
you have a friend who's done this before, and you saw them do it, but
you weren't involved in that business over there? I'm just trying to
get the facts.
MR. WEEKS: No. I would like to open this as a new
business venture myself.
MR. DORRILL: Madam Chairman, we do have one additional
speaker.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Weeks.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Gil Erlichman. I reside in east Naples,
and I'm a taxpayer and voter in Collier County. I -- I'm very, very
happy to see a young person like the gentleman that was -- preceded me
that wants to start a business, whether it's fish farm or what --
whatever, and I -- I'm happy to see peo -- young people with that --
put forth that effort.
Now, to me a fish farm -- and what he's talking about is
a -- a fee-for-fishing area which are all over the United States. In
fact, up in Chicago when I go to visit my grand -- grandchildren, I
take them to this fisherman's dude ranch which is on a -- I would say
it's only on about 4 or 5 acres, and you can catch trout there.
They've got different ponds with different kinds of fish, and it's
almost guaranteed to catch fish whenever you drop your line in with
the proper bait.
So I -- I think this is a great -- a great idea that
this young man has. If he wants to raise catfish here, that's great.
I love catfish, especially farm-raised -- you know, farm-raised --
farm-raised catfish and the -- It doesn't create any odors. You've
got a nice clean business and I -- Unless he has ulterior motives
which you -- which the commissioners have been trying to -- to find
out, if this gentleman wanted to just dig the dirt out and sell it and
nothing else, but I -- I feel he should be encouraged, and I -- I
would -- I would have no objection if I were his neighbor to having a
fish farm next to me. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Erlichman.
What is the pleasure of the --
MR. DORRILL: They eat catfish in Chicago?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Pardon me?
MR. DORRILL: They can find catfish in Chicago?
MR. ERLICHMAN: Yeah, they really do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They ship them up from
Mississippi though.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. We do have them in the rivers
up there, but some of those you don't want to eat. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anyway, what's the pleasure of the
board, please?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I personally am willing to
take the risk. I don't see any harm. The worst-case scenario here
is, if this man is tricking us, then he has avoided the
conditional-use process. If you'd come in for a conditional-use
application in this area without blasting, without watering off site,
I would probably vote for it. I'm unwilling to call him a liar. He
says that he's in this business, and code enforcement can watch him
and see if he is. So I move in favor of the petition.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further questions or concerns?
Mr. Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I just -- I'm not going to
support the proposal because a catfish farm typically is only a few
feet deep, this being 20 foot deep. You have to go by the evidence of
what you're presented. Twenty feet deep means earth-mining operation.
Five or 6 feet deep would mean catfish farm. So for that reason I --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Your feeling is that -- that this is
used as kind of a ploy to sidestep --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
to go forward with.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
The conditional-use --
-- what --
-- process --
-- conditional-use process.
-- which is a simple enough thing
My feeling is on this -- and -- and
the -- the problem is, I guess, this went before the planning
commission, and I believe their -- their recommendation was that based
on the current land-use code that -- that this is an acceptable
process. It comes -- It becomes very questionable, as Mr. Norris has
stated, when you start looking at what a traditional catfish farm is
supposed to be and -- and what is stated here. It becomes very
suspect in the -- in the motive of the person that is -- is applying
for this, and that's -- that's where I'm at on this particular
situation.
However, at this point in time, since the -- he's gone
through this process, I -- I'm not sure that we have any other
consideration than to go ahead and accept this and watch very closely
to see what's happening.
So we have a motion and a second. I'll call the
question. All those in favor say aye.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Aye.
All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 3 to 1.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The catfish farm will be this
week's duck issue.
Item #8A4
STAFF DIRECTED TO PURSUE CODE ENFORCEMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND REPORT BACK
TO THE BCC ON MARCH 4, 1997 REGARDING HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS IN THE LAKE
AREA KNOWN AS AYALA LAKE IN IMHOKALEE
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on, then, to the Lake Ayala
in Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Lake Ayala mud pit.
MS. SULLIVAN: Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning.
MS. SULLIVAN: Linda Sullivan, code enforcement
director. We were directed by the board to bring this back a couple
of weeks ago with the county attorney's alternatives that we might
pursue. So basically that's what we've done. I believe you have four
of them there.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
(Chairman Hancock entered the board room.)
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And the chairman has just returned.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you going to share --
share this with us?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ayala Lake pit.
Are you going to -- Were we going to go over those now
or '-
MS. SULLIVAN: I was going to -- The county attorney
came up with these, and I was going to ask Heidi -- Heidi Ashton to
come up here in case you had any questions on those.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 8(A)(4).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You missed the catfish farm.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I have a question, but it's
not for Heidi, if that would be okay. I -- actually, two questions.
One is, from a code enforcement perspective, from the health and
safety perspective, is fencing this -- I hate to call it a lake -- is
fencing this water body a -- a -- would that address enough of the
concerns? That's one question.
And the second is, how did we go in a week from about --
I think it was about 5,000 bucks, is what we thought it would cost us
to fill this, to now 65,000? Two questions.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I never heard $5,000.
MR. WEIGEL: No.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I thought it was a few
hundred.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Eight hundred was --
MS. SULLIVAN: For the permit.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: That was for the permit but --
MS. SULLIVAN: To see how much it would cost.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But we thought -- I -- I thought
I heard that it -- you know, we were going to have donated materials,
and we thought that because of that we were going to spend in the ball
park of $5,000. How did it get to sixty-five is one question. And
then what's your advice on the fencing alternative is the second
question.
MS. SULLIVAN: I think there may have been some
misunderstanding on the -- actually what we were here for. We were
asking for a permit to see if there were any environmental problems
and, from there, see how much it would cost. If there were no
environmental problems, then we thought, you know, with their donated
fill and -- and I guess maybe that's where the $5,000 came from but we
involved --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, during the same
presentation, though, you told us this was a dumping pit, that people
threw in old appliances and everything else, so it shouldn't have been
a surprise to us that there would be environmental problems.
MS. SULLIVAN: Right. But what we were wanting was
the -- the permit so we could get on with the water testing and all
the agencies that we had to involve. The $65,000 came from a meeting
with pollution control, I believe, as to what would be necessary as
far as if anything were found. That's my understanding.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So that's a worst-case if it were
polluted?
MS. SULLIVAN: That's the worst case.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And please understand,
Hiss Sullivan --
MS. ASHTON: If I could comment for a minute --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Hiss Ashton, just quickly.
Please understand, Hiss Sullivan, the questions up here
are in no way a reflection of the work you've done. This is just a
first --
MS. SULLIVAN: I understand.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- first blush at something like
this. So I think there's a lot of -- of concern over process. I'm sorry, Hiss Ashton.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you for being practical in
trying to come up with a -- some solution so --
MS. SULLIVAN: I'll answer your second question. We
have talked about this, and we believe that probably fencing would be
the cheapest, quickest, most practical solution right now, but we
don't feel it will solve the problem because, like we say, we've
cleaned up a lot of debris and things around this lake and -- and
experience tells us that people are either going to, like, tear down
the fence or -- or get through the fence, or they're going to dump
over the fence. So I don't see it as a long-term, permanent solution.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Last week the question of
liening the property came up, and we were told the property wasn't
worth much. How much did we say we thought the property was worth?
MR. WEIGEL: I -- I recall a figure it was $260. Part of
the consideration that came up in the initial discussion was that it
was determined that the lake was not solely on that Ayala property.
It was on several properties -- owners -- property there, and so the
ability to go in and fill a lake which would affect several properties
became a legal and a practical and financial consideration, and that's
why looking at maybe a scale of -- or different modes to address
different parts of the problem is that the fencing would address the
hazard as far as falling in. It would create a practical barrier to
things being dumped in there.
Obviously when you have several parcels and several
owners involved -- and I think it's up to 14 and not just 1, having
done that homework -- some individual property-owner responsibility
would certainly be appreciated.
In the meeting that was held with pollution control,
code enforcement, and the county attorney office, we tried to
brainstorm and -- and see how the county might act as a facilitator as
opposed to an underwriter of correcting some of these conditions. And
maybe they can't all be done immediately but it -- thought -- the
thought was that maybe fencing might be -- again, working with the
property owners, not necessarily in a policing action but initially in
a communicative way and then, if necessary, in a policing or code
enforcement action. We could facilitate and encourage and get the
owners to start to work in -- in -- in a -- in a communal way, come
together toward potentially that solution.
Secondarily, though, with the potential for pollution on
the site, pollution control told us that although the permit
application fee may be six to $800, the study that's required to get
the permit is where the significant expense comes in, and that was not
before the board before.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many owners are we
talking about?
MR. WEIGEL: I believe it's up to 14, if that's not
correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because perhaps my memory is
faulty, but my recollection is the reason we were looking at doing
this ourselves was because the property was only worth $260 and
Mr. Ayala is in jail and not expected to get out for several years.
If there are 14 owners, I'm not sure why the county is expending funds
trying to correct this. If this was anywhere else in the county and
there was a problem, we would cite those properties and expect them to
solve the problem. We wouldn't go spend $65,000 in tax money to try
to correct it. And -- and the -- the story seems to have changed from
what we heard a couple of weeks ago, which bothers me. It's gone from
1 owner to 14 and -- and possibly growing. And why -- why aren't we
citing all those owners then and trying to correct it? Why was the
initial reaction that the county should spend money correcting it
ourselves?
MS. SULLIVAN: I was told recently that there may be
other owners and the drawing -- I think real property has been working
on this. And the drawing that I received yesterday shows the lake on
Mr. Ayala's property, and there may or may not be, it's my
understanding -- David, correct me if I'm wrong -- an overlap, a tiny
overlap on some of these properties, and this was from an aerial
thing.
I -- We came up with another suggestion yesterday.
Maybe if the county attorney's office has definitely determined that
there are other owners, they could send letters to these other
property owners, and maybe we could get them all together on a
one-on-one and ask them what -- you know, what kind of participation
they would be willing to show in this.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, a couple things: One,
I guess we should know all that information before it comes to us.
That's not -- That is not what was told to us a week ago or two weeks
ago when we last dealt with it. So I'm upset that we're given
erroneous information and -- and we were asked to make a decision a
couple of weeks ago based on erroneous information.
Second, I -- I don't know when there's code violations
in other parts of the county that we make a habit -- and maybe we do
now -- but that we make a habit and go and ask people if they're
willing to participate. If people have personal property, they are
responsible for that, and the purpose of code enforcement was to
enforce the codes, and to ask them if they want to participate isn't
in my mind enforcing the codes. We should figure out some
alternatives, and if we can perhaps give them different alternatives
how to correct it, that's great, but -- but we shouldn't be going to
private property owners who have a piece of property that is in
violation of code and asking them if they would like to correct it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't necessarily disagree with any
of the points you've made, and I think those are all procedural points
within code enforcement that we may want to address at another time.
But I think at -- at this point what we have before us are a list of
options, none of which to me seem to provide a solution to the
problem. I think this is a situation that most of the folks that -- I
think three people have been pulled from there. It's suspected they
came from the flop house that is next to the lake, you know, as best
as anyone can tell. First of all, what's the zoning for a flop house?
Is -- is -- In other words, if that is a source of the problem, maybe
we need to address that structure and its proper operation under
county codes since this other one is appearing to become so cumbersome
and difficult and costly that it doesn't look like we can find another
viable option.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I happened to be in Immokalee last
evening for a town hall meeting, and this was a concern that was
brought up to me, to go -- Their desire is to have something done with
this particular piece of property. What the answer is I don't know,
but it's not only for the bodies that get pulled out of there.
There -- there also -- The concern happened to be in regard to
children that might be in that particular area. So that, again,
perhaps to me raises a question if -- in the meantime while we're
waiting to get some kind of an answer on this, if perhaps fencing
this, if this is an option, that we could go ahead and address on an
immediate kind of thing until we can determine what we can do in
regard to this.
I do agree with Mr. Constantine, that if this is a
public nuisance and there are several property owners involved here,
why can't we cite those property owners to get rid of this nuisance.
That -- That's just a question I have.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think back to the Embassy
Woods clubhouse fiasco a few years ago when we had a clubhouse that
was one-quarter finished, and we had concrete blocks and then exposed
construction materials, and it was the same idea. We had the exact
same concerns with children in the area, families in the area, kids
wandering over. It was an attractive nuisance just like this. And
the county, through code enforcement, corrected the problem, but it
was corrected at the expense of the developer, not at the expense of
the county taxpayer. And -- and so it was a private piece of property
that was an attractive nuisance, and we got the private property
owners to correct it. And -- and I think you're right; we need to
take the health, safety issues into consideration here, but the
taxpayer at large shouldn't be expected to pay for it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there any further comment by the
board?
We all know what the -- the spin on this is going to be.
It's going to be the commission ignores nuisance. I can hear that one
coming --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, we can't ask the question
without getting that spin.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But we don't care; right? I
mean, good grief.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, we don't care.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please let me -- let me finish my
comment, if you would.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, don't let them think we
care.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The problem we have is this -- this
has blossomed into an issue that is not even similar to what we looked
at two weeks ago. What I would like to ask is for code enforcement to
pursue the line that Commissioner Constantine and Commissioner Berry
have -- have identified as what are our code enforcement opportunities
now knowing that there are some 14 or more property owners involved
here. Can we force a remedy through existing codes with those
property owners? If not, and the last resort is a fencing as a
temporary measure until a long-term solution can be made, I think that
would be the appropriate time to make that decision. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I think so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I'll suggest that as a staff
direction and ask for board comment on that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you're suggesting if not,
that that fencing item would come back to the board for -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. If we find that there's no
other code enforcement remedy available --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with you
wholeheartedly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- that we -- we look at that as a
last-ditch alternative.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's two on -- three?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I agree with that.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Four?
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Five.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: (Nodding head)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good enough.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Weigel has a statement.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Two weeks ago when this came up, part of my
response at that time was -- is that there are some property rights
that had to be looked into and in that -- in that looking into it is
we determined that it appears from the aerial view and overlay,
looking at tax maps, that other parcels are involved. To -- To make
an exact determination of how many of those parcels are, in fact,
involved with the lake, I think it's going to require a survey, like
the equivalent of a stake survey so you know sure enough that land
does, in fact, intrude into that lake. And that was part of the issue
that -- that I was concerned with a couple of weeks ago, was that if
you start putting in fill in the lake that affects other property
owners, although the solution is relatively simple on the outset, it
creates some property rights' problems otherwise.
A second thing in regard to putting fill in that comes
from construction sites or other matters is that when that comes in,
if, in fact, it is a contaminant and HRS or EPA or DEP should through
their own auspices -- and they have their own abilities to -- to do
environmental checks -- should determine that there's a contamination
that possibly came from the fill that the county altruistically
engineered to go in there, then the county gets involved with a
liability issue that it wouldn't otherwise have had. And those were
the things that we were looking into in the last two weeks here trying
to come up with some potential solutions that would cost far less in
either liability or true expense of the county, but we may have a
survey requirement to make exact determination of the properties that
are underlying in the lake.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. If that's -- yes, Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we need to do a survey,
fine. What would make sense to me is go down to Abe Skinner's office
and see what he tells us the tax records say, and then if someone
contests that, we go do a survey. But if -- if Abe Skinner's records
tell us that there are 14 owners and all 14 of those or 12 out of
those 14 say, "Well, yeah, you're right. That is part of our
property," then we've saved some time and effort in doing the survey
on those number of -- of -- the time and money of doing that. MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And since the survey is required at
the time of purchase, they should have surveys of their own --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- property to determine whether they
are or are not. So I think we can avoid that cost up front and use it
as you have identified. Is there any further additions to this item?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none -- Hiss Sullivan, thank
you very much. We'll look forward to hearing something back hopefully
within a week or two weeks on this.
MS. SULLIVAN: Okay. So as soon as I can get the -- the
property owners, I can go ahead and do the regular code enforcement
thing --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. SULLIVAN: -- and notify all of them. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you again.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just for clarification on that '-
I'm trying to understand -- how much time are we willing to let pass
before we hear -- I -- I'd like to know that in a month, if we don't
have a solution, we're going to talk about the fencing item.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is a month a reasonable period for
your department, Hiss Sullivan?
MS. SULLIVAN: If -- If legal can -- can give me the
property owners, I can do it rather quickly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Then we'll set a target that if code
enforcement action cannot be -- bring a resolution, then within 30
days we will hear this item again.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
Item #8D2
DISCUSSION OF COUNTY MANAGER RECRUITHENT
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a -- what was supposed
to be a time-certain at 9:30, and we're running behind on it. It is
Item 8(D)(2), the -- an add-on for discussion for county manager
recruitment. I believe I see Mr. York and Miss Edwards. If we could
have the folks that have requested that as an add-on please come to
the podium.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're all leaving.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They're all out calling their offices
saying -- saying why they're late for their next meeting.
MS. EDWARDS: That's correct. I'm Jennifer Edwards,
human resources director. John Passidomo has been elected chair of
the screening committee, and he's on the phone at his -- calling his
office, and he'll be right in. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. EDWARDS: You did receive the report, Commissioner
Hancock, from our office regarding the number of applicants we've
received. As of five o'clock, we've received 91. We've had one
withdrawal. That was today. A gentleman from Ohio, who is a state
senator in Ohio, has withdrawn. So we're down to 90. And we did have
a successful organizational meeting on Friday and have a tentative
calendar, which each of you has received, to move forward.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And with that -- Wonderful
timing, Miss Edwards. You stalled beautifully. MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you, Jennifer.
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board of County
Commissioners, thank you for your indulgence. Good morning. My name
is John Passidomo. It's a privilege to serve as a member of your
newly appointed citizens' county manager steering committee. I'd like
just to take a minute to introduce you to the other members of our
committee. They are Nick Carsillo, a vice president, retired, of a
precious metals trading company; Don York, who joins me here today, a
local banker and civic activist; Don Herman, a retired computer
software entrepreneur; and Gary Wrage, a local banker.
We appreciate this opportunity to make a preliminary
report to you and to respectfully request your direction as to the
scope of our responsibilities based on questions which arose and
sentiments which were expressed at our organizational meeting last
Friday. The committee, however, joins me in congratulating County
Manager Neil Dorrill on ten years of public service to the citizens of
Collier County as our county manager and wishes him well in new and
exciting challenges in the future.
We thank you also for inviting the citizens of Collier
County to actively participate in this process. We undertake our
responsibilities fully recognizing that the search for this position
concluded last Friday and that ul -- the ultimate selection for the
new county manager is yours and only yours.
We recognize, however, that our job in the screening
committee is to ensure that we provide you with the names of 10 to 15
of the most highly qualified candidates who we believe meet the
criteria you have established for the next county manager to take our
community into the 21st Century while preserving the special qualities
which make Collier County such an extraordinary place to live, work,
raise a family, retire, and visit.
We will do our job by using the candidate profile your
staff has developed from a compilation of your responses to a recent
questionnaire seeking your direction as to the qualities, skills, and
experience you want in our next county manager.
At our meeting last Friday, we took the following
action: We adopted a screening guide to facilitate that process. We
reviewed an applicant -- application supplement which will be sent to
each candidate to afford them an opportunity to elaborate on their
qualifications. We recommended demographic data and other materials
for transmittal to applicants to provide them with an in-depth view of
our community, and we developed a tentative time table based on
assumptions that the period during which an indication to apply for
this position terminated last Friday, January 31, and the period for
which applications are due will terminate on February 14.
With those basic assumptions, we concluded that the
committee will meet again on February 12 and will meet in what we
anticipate will be an all-day session on February 24 with the
objective during that latter meeting to reduce the number of
applicants -- from what we now understand, it may be as many as 91 --
down to a list of what may appear to be 20 to 25 of candidates who
appear, based upon their responses, based upon their applications, and
based upon their resumes, to be qualified to fill -- fulfill these
responsibilities.
What we need your direction for, Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Board, is how we take that process from those 20 to 25
apparently qualified candidates to the 10 or 12 or 15 candidates that
we can feel are highly qualified for this position. And we all
recognize that there are inherent limitations in looking at an
application, looking at a resume and try to make an intelligent
determination as to whether the criteria are met.
We respectfully request an opportunity after our meeting
on February 24 to -- with your indulgence and with your active
participation, to submit a list of questions to each of those 20 or 25
applicants, questions that have been approved by the Board of County
Commissioners, and afford them an opportunity on videotape to respond
to those questions and give us the tool we need to reduce that number
from 20 to 25 to 10 to 12 so we can come back to you as early as March
15 with a list of the most highly qualified candidates and reasons why
we think they're the most highly qualified for your selection. And
that's the direction, Mr. Chairman, we're simply seeking from you
today to see if that is within what you perceive to be the scope of
our responsibilities and if you had any other comments concerning our
initial activities.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Passidomo.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any questions?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I think they
sound like they're right on target, and I think the suggestion they've
made with follow-up questions to the first-cut list is a very good
one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd really like the idea of a video
response. How someone handles themselves in -- in front of a camera
or with a question-and-answer situation is -- is paramount, I think,
to the public presentation of the job. Mr. Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask a logistics question.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Will the applicants be supplied
with the questions before their interview on tape, or will they just
be asked the questions impromptu?
MR. PASSIDOMO: Well, because it will be a public
process, because the Board of County Commissioners will be asked to
actually approve those questions, it may be -- it may be disingenuous
to suspect that they wouldn't have had an opportunity to know what
those questions are beforehand. So I suspect that they would know
what -- those questions because they're part of a public process in
developing those questions.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just as a supplement because I
think all of that is wonderful, and I wonder if we might could make
those videotapes available on Channel 54 of the -- you know, the
Collier County TV so that the public -- we could get input from the
public about their responses to those who are videotaped. MR. PASSIDOMO: That's great.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, that's -- I
think that's a great idea. What may fall along the same lines is, as
we get down to a group that we would like to interview, I have
suggested the idea of having a -- a broadcast evening of having a
panel ask them questions so that people can attend in person and watch
on TV and then, through the Kandu line at the county, register
comments of approval or disapproval with individual members so we can
get a -- a public wash of -- of what their perception of the
individuals are.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume we draw the line,
though, in have a -- having a 900 number to cast your ballot for your
favorite video response.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. I -- I think what happens is
the standouts that the public perceives will -- will -- will show up
in that type of a situation. However, if you want to have a
900-for-charity number, you just knock yourself out. But, no, I -- I
don't think we're going to go that far.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: They can call in on your TV show,
Tim.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any further questions of
Mr. Passidomo?
I, for one, think it's a fantastic direction and approve
of it wholeheartedly. I see the balance of the board is the same.
And if that's the asked-for direction, so be it.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thanks to you and your committee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why don't we take a five-minute
break, and we'll return with Item 8(A)(5).
(A short break was held.)
Item #8A5
AUTHORIZATION OF PAYMENT OF FUNDS TO PELICAN LAWN SERVICE IN THE AMOUNT
OF $48,000 PURSUANT TO THE NUISANCE ABATEMENT ORDINANCE 91-47 ON
PROPERTY HELD IN TRUST BY SUN BANK FOR AL GALLMAN - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're going to reconvene this
morning's Board of County Commission meeting. We are on Item 8(A)(5)
on the agenda, payment of bonds per nuisance abatement ordinance.
This was an add-on. Who do we have on -- on staff that will be
presenting this item?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe Linda.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is anyone --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nuisance abatement --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Anyone? Anyone?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nuisance abatement item. Are
you -- MR. DORRILL: I don't think Mr. Camell does nuisances.
He's just -- MS. SULLIVAN: Mr. Carnell's going to do that, I
believe.
MR. DORRILL: -- traffic copy. Mr. Cautero, we're on to
8(A)(5), either you or Hr. Arnold.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Saving him from getting his ear bent
out in the hallway, my guess would be.
MR. CAUTERO: I apologize. 8(A)(5) is the nuisance
abatement ordinance, I believe, Mr. Chairman. Vince Cautero for the
record. This situation is one that we have been working on with the
legal staff, finance department, as well as purchasing for several
months now. To make a long story very short, several years ago a
contractor was -- received verbal approval by staff to remove exotics
from a piece of property on Airport Road. The property was formerly
known as the Gallman estate. I understand it's changed ownership now.
And the vendor was Pelican Lawn Service. The work was performed, and
the payment was never made, and that led to the county changing its
bid procedures on how we would contract with professionals to remove
exotics, weed, and litter from -- from properties.
The information that was presented to us by the legal
department leads us to believe that the payment should be made to the
vendor, Pelican Lawn Service; however, the county had never filed a
lien against the property due to the fact that the county never
expended funds. In October of 1995, this was on -- an agenda item for
the board, and it was pulled at the last minute, again, due to the
fact that the county never expended any funds. So we have a situation
where the exotics were removed from the property, and the vendor has
never been paid.
In our discussions with the legal staff, code
enforcement, staff also came to me, and we were trying to determine
what the proper course of action would be, and it appeared that we
would have to come to the board for a budget transfer and that the
taxpayers would ultimately have to pay for this. However, a few
months ago -- maybe not even that long ago, maybe a month or so ago,
by a stroke of luck, an attorney called Linda Sullivan from Fort Myers
named Jay Brett and said he had $48,000 that he wanted to send to the
county. Well, needless to say, we accepted the funds, and we have
deposited that money -- the finance department has deposited the money
into the bank. What we're working on now is some type of a procedure
on how those funds can be paid to Pelican Lawn Service. And one of
the problems that we had, of course, with the finance department was
due to the -- sir?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Cautero, I'm going to attempt a
cut-to-the-chase line here. All you're asking is that -- currently
our procedure does not allow for this scenario to be -- MR. CAUTERO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- completed without specific board
authorization; is that correct?
MR. CAUTERO: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This has no net revenue impact to the
county. This is simply a pass-through payment from -- MR. CAUTERO: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- who was responsible for the bill
to who did the work?
MR. CAUTERO: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any questions?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I move approval.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none --
MR. CAUTERO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you very much.
Item #8A6
UPDATE ON THE DENSITY DISCUSSION TIHE FRAMES AS DIRECTED BY THE BCC AT
THE JANUARY 28, 1997, MEETING - COUNTY TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT WITH
DAVID PLUHMER AND ASSOCIATES IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,500 TO BE FINANCED
OUT OF HPO FUNDS
We are on Item 8(A)(6), update on density discussion.
Good morning, Mr. Arnold.
MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. Wayne Arnold, planning
services director. Last week you heard a discussion from our office
related to the issue of density throughout the urban area, and you
asked us to come back this week with an update of whether or not we
could meet a 30-day time frame to bring back different scenarios.
And looking at the minutes from last week, we found five
issues that were in need of further refinement over this 30-day period
of time, and I'll just rehash those. One was to look at reduction and
size of the urban boundary. Another was to look at the transfer
development rights program. Another was to look at removing the
density bonus. Another was to look at maximum density reduction
throughout the urban area. And the other issue would have been to
look at the road network, especially the financially feasible plan
that we have for the year 2020.
Our staff has -- has met, and aside from the road
network issue, we believe that we can come back to you within 30 days
to look at a fairly comprehensive analysis of those scenarios. One
thing I would point out, I'm not confident at this point that I can
give you a full range of financial and operational impacts of some of
those decisions should you make them. I'm not sure that I can come
back to you and tell you what exact impact these decisions might have
on things such as affordable housing or tax base or cash flow for
impact fees, etc., and those are things that may need a little bit
more exploration.
I -- I would tell you we've spoken with the HPO's
consultant of record relative to the road network system which they
designed the 2020 financially feasible plan. One thing that staff had
looked at and -- and is focusing primarily on -- if -- if you may
recall, the map that was created by our graphics department,
everything in green and west of the red boundary is primarily vacant
agriculturally zoned land within the urban area. It's approximately
18,000 acres, give or take a few hundred. And it seems one of the
easiest scenarios for staff to model might be to take a look at those
vacant agricultural acres that we currently have in the urban area,
try to modify the model that produced the original 2020 feasible plan,
and determine whether or not taking what we believe is the easiest,
without dealing with a lot of property rights issue, downzonings,
etc. -- take a look at these agricultural lands and find out what, if
any, impact taking that area out of the urban area or reducing it to a
much lower density might have on the overall network because if you'll
recall some of our discussion, the 2020 road plan does include some
things like fly-overs in some various locations of the county, some
eight-lane road segments, a couple of new corridors that also have to
be completed. And part of that is because of the concurrency
requirements we have in maintaining our levels of service, and that's
a big reason that those are there. The other component of that plan
is a mass transit system operating on some very fixed routes and at
this point very much undefined routes, but it's another element that
was plugged into the model.
So the scenario would be -- as we would present it,
might be to take and remodel our traffic analysis zones by putting in
very minimal populations in these agricultural areas that we currently
have, asking them to remodel it based on those scenarios, determine if
that has any impact at all on the need for these other facilities to
maintain a concurrent traffic system. That's something -- We have
some in-house expertise that could perform that, but as you may know,
our MPO staff is operating at about 50 percent right now.
We do have a contract for service with David Plummet &
Associates. We did speak with David Plummet & Associates. This would
be an added contractual obligation on their part. Approximately
$13,500 is their initial fee for completing this type of analysis,
producing a new feasibility plan for us. That would include a
presentation to you, possibly a presentation to the MPO. That can be
done through a task order with the MPO to get them on board if -- if
that's something we desire to do.
We know that once they obtain our data that we would
give them for a land-use scenario, it's going to take them at least 30
days to produce that model. It apparently takes a lot of
hand-modeling to take out different segments and looking at different
level-of-service standards throughout the road network.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me see if I -- I follow your --
your proposed course of action. We know that our 2020 financially
feasible plan has a road na -- roadway network that will not support
the projected population at that time. That's -- MR. ARNOLD: That's close, yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. It's close, but it's --
it's -- it's a shortfall. What you're saying is those properties that
have not taken action that would give them any form of -- of standing
for a significant property rights discussion or argument would be
subject to review and, in essence, saying until the capacity is
increased to allow for it, we would have a need to cap these
properties at this amount to ensure that our infrastructure is
adequate. Once the infrastructure picture changes, that cap may
change within the urban area. Is -- Is that kind of the scenario that
you're looking at at this point?
MR. ARNOLD: It is and I think -- to me, this is one of
the most simplistic approaches we can take because if, in fact, the
model shows that by heavily reducing the densities on these parcels
that are currently in the urban area but are now zoned agriculture --
if that in itself does not make an impact on your road network needs
in terms of you still need fly-overs, you may still need a mass
transit component, you still need these segments so you don't have
concurrency problems, it clearly is going to show us that we're going
to have to go back and make some much harder decisions relative to
zoned property and take a look at how much that's going to cost
potentially because I think at that point we're talking about reducing
densities which may involve some takings of property and may involve
acquisition of properties, but that has to be compared to the cost of
building that road network as well.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The -- we paid -- was it David
Plummet & Associates? MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- to do the model; however,
transportation modeling, in essence, is a software program now that
you input specific criteria of your area and -- and out come the
numbers. Of course, you need someone to -- to be able to interpret
those numbers.
When we paid David Plummet, did we receive a -- a disk
with the model on it that allowed us to manipulate it, or did they
maintain control of that so that if we want to go back and -- and
relook at those things we have to go through them to do it?
MR. ARNOLD: We do have the model on -- and their
software package, and we do have the capability in-house to run those
models. Our -- Our biggest problem is -- is just one of logistics in
trying to prepare the mandated comprehensive plan amendments that we
have with that staff. They're trying to put together a whole new
traffic element for the plan, and we're doing that with two staff
persons at this time. So it becomes a matter of allowing them to get
through that process before they could undertake this one. We're
putting off some of those mandated comprehensive plan issues as far
back as we could to allow them to do this modeling.
There's also a couple of just operational things
software-wise that we would need because they've used some updated
files that we don't have. So we need to talk with their software.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So what's cau --
MR. ARNOLD: So that's a minimal expense.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So what's causing the conflict really
was the 30-day time frame and the short time frame we've put on you
because the comp plan -- MR. ARNOLD: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- amendments cannot be pushed back.
They are time-certain by state statute.
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. I -- I think primarily the 30-day
deadline is our biggest hurdle at this point, and again, we can get
that probably closer to 45 days if we're willing to go and hire David
Plummet & Associates to do this. They would come and make a
presentation and maybe explain in greater detail than staff could in
terms of some of the other operational things that could be done if we
make other assumptions or land-use assumptions.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that proposed cost was?
MR. ARNOLD: $13,500.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that would come out of general
fund reserves or would it come out of -- MR. ARNOLD: Both. I haven't checked the budget, but I
would assume it could come out of the HPO's budget.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We might have enough in HPO's
bu -- well, God knows we're saving staff salaries right now, aren't
we?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I just say it seems to me
that what we're -- My first reaction was, "Oh, God, no. Let's don't
go spend another $13,000. We can wait 30 days." But on reflection
in -- in private business, when you have staff leave, you find that
you have to lease staff, and frankly, what I find in my own practice
is that it's cheaper sometimes, and I'm not paying health benefits and
I'm -- I mean, it may be cheaper to -- to pay David Plummet to do this
for thirteen five than it would be to staff up to be able to do it.
So based on that -- and -- and what I think is -- you know, "urgent"
might be an overstatement -- but a very important matter for the
county, I'd support the thirteen five.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that would be coming out of HPO
budget --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Out of HPO budget.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- existing HPO budget, not an
allocation from general fund reserves.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that a motion?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's a motion.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second.
Mr. Arnold, do you require any further clarification in
what the motion is presented to you?
MR. ARNOLD: No. You'll be seeing this before the HPO
to create a task order to have David Plummet & Associates perform this
work, and that presumably would come up this month. So we could expect
the work within 30 days of -- of that task order being signed by the
HPO.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none -- Mr. Arnold, thank you
very much.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
Item #882
ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO PERFORM LANDSCAPE DESIGN FOR U.S. 41 AND
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SCOPE OF WORK AND PHASING TO BE PHASE "A" (SR 84
TO CR 31) AND PHASE "B" (CR 31 TO CR 864) - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On to Item 8(B)(1) -- which has been
continued.
8(B)(2), recommendation for Fiscal Year '96, '97
allocation of funds to perform landscape design for U.S. 41, East
Trail. Who do we have as a presenter on this item? I see -- see
someone stepping up to the plate as we speak.
MR. BOBANICK: Dave -- excuse me -- Dave Bobanick,
acting transportation director. On January 7 the board recognized a
public petition for landscape improvements on U.S. 41 East as part of
that reconstruction effort by FDOT when the Davis Boulevard and -- or
between Davis Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock.
Staff was directed to provide design funding for the
landscaping effort for Fiscal Year '97, '98. On review there's a need
to begin design immediately -- immediately so as to coordinate, plan,
and permit landscaping elements into the construction phase which is
to begin in June --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Bobanick --
MR. BOBANICK: -- nine -- nineteen --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- Mr. Bobanick.
MR. BOBANICK: Yes?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We -- We have someone who's going to
assist in your presentation. MR. BOBANICK: Pardon?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is just the formalization of
what we directed you to do back on the 7th; is that correct?
MR. BOBANICK: Except that we're asking for funds to be
approved for design for this fiscal year.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion on the motion?
Do we have any speakers, Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: You have one. I presume he's here in
support. Mr. Ryan, do you still wish to speak in light of the motion?
MR. RYAN: No. That's okay.
MR. DORRILL: Smart man. We appreciate that.
MR. RYAN: Thank you for all of your support over the
years.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion on the motion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none -- fine presentation, Mr.
Bobanick.
MR. BOBANICK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Have a good day.
Item #8C1
COUNTY DIRECTED TO PAY THE IMMOKALEE CHILD CARE CENTER'S UTILITY BILLS
TO INCLUDE WATER, SEWER AND ELECTRICAL BILLS UP TO $11,000 RATHER THAN
A SINGLE PAYMENT - APPROVED
We're on to Item 8(C)(1). This is an add-on, the
Immokalee Childcare Center. This is a request for payment, instead of
lump sum, to be paid out over a period to address the water and sewer
bills, is that correct, Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. Tom Olliff, public services
administrator. This item was previously approved by the board, but
the direction was to pay a lump-sum payment for $11,000 which was the
estimated cost for the utility expenses for the day-care center.
Unfortunately the -- the clerk's office feels that it -- that doesn't
meet certain preaudit requirements that they have in order to be able
to pay directly based on invoices.
So our recommendation is that we -- we go back to the
historical way that this was handled in the past, which was that the
utility bills all associated with the day-care center would be sent
directly to the county. The county would pay those bills up to an
amount not to exceed $11,000.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does the Immokalee Childcare Center
have any difficulty with this?
MR. OLLIFF: None at all that I'm aware of. I -- I
think we've also recommended as part of the -- the closing
recommendation that we pay any of the utility expenses that have been
paid by this childcare center since the time that that motion was
actually originally approved.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Any discussion on the
motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none -- thank you, Mr. Olliff.
Item #SD1
BID #97-2639 FOR THE ADVERTISING OF DELINQUENT REAL ESTATES AND
PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR 1996 - REJECTED AND ITEM TO BE RE-BID
Item 8(D)(1). This is an add-on, request to reject Bid
No. 97-2639 and rebid. Mr. Camell, good morning.
MR. CARNELL: Good morning. For the record, Steve
Camell, purchasing general services director. The recommendation is
to reject the single bid that we have received for the advertising of
delinquent real estate and personal property taxes for 1996. The one
bid that was received was from the Naples Daily News. We were
anticipating bid responses from potentially as many as three other
newspapers. There was a mixup in the delivery and mailing of the
packages. Apparently none of the bidders received a package from what
we can tell and so we're --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Camell, my guess is there's
probably enough information on this for a motion.
MR. CARNELL: Yeah. So we're just recommending that we
re -- reject the bid received and -- and get authority from the
board --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move staff's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none -- Mr. Camell, thank you
very much.
Item #BE1
DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL OF FY98 BUDGET POLICY - GENERAL POLICY APPROVED
Item 8(E)(1) has been taken care of. We are on to Item
ll(A). Oh, I'm sorry. We have 11 --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 8 (E)(1) --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 8 (E) (1).
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 8 (E) (1) we --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- is still active.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. You're thinking of the
county manager.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I apologize. That's what I -- I
apologize. That's what I get for missing the first few minutes of the
meeting, isn't it?
Okay. We have Item 8(E)(2) [sic] Then, discussion and
approval of Fiscal '98 budget policy. Mr. Smykowski. I'm sorry.
This is 8(E)(1).
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is -- and I want to mention, I
already received one note from a commissioner about what do we do
about the -- the summer recess, when does it occur and so forth, and
as I explained, this -- this is how we set it. We need to find out
what our budget timing is going to be and then -- Mr. Smykowski,
that's not -- not the most important thing on the agenda today for
this but --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct, but if you'd like to
get that administrative task out of the way, we can probably address
that right away. Based on last year's schedule, just reviewing the
dates and times, we had set aside three days last year. The like days
this year would be Wednesday, June 19; Thursday, June 20; Monday, June
23. And we have a --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Excuse me. June 19, June --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: 19, 20 and 23. That's a Wednesday, a
Thursday, and a Monday. Typically the board has not chosen to meet on
Fridays, and obviously Tuesdays are board meeting dates.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're going to miss us then,
aren't you, Neil?
MR. DORRILL: In fact, I offered to them to come back
and wear them out one more time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The -- Those are the -- the first
three dates for the first run-through of the budget, as I understand
it. We then have the -- the final scheduled hearings for final
adoption --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and they usually occur in early
August. Is that -- if my memory set --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: September.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: September.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: September.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: September. And, in fact, these -- there
is a -- a, quote, "pecking order," in terms of selection dates. The
school board has first priority in setting their public hearing dates,
and due to TRIM laws, no other taxing authority can have their
respective meeting on the same date as the school board. So we'll
have to see -- The school board will have to set its date. We are
second in -- in the batting order, so to speak. And then all the
respective independent taxing authorities set their dates after
notification of the board's setting its hearing dates. So that is --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- something we've typically done in --
in July. What I'd like to do, though, as a courtesy to the other
taxing districts, the earlier we set that, the better because then
they can, in turn, follow suit and set their own dates.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- You said the 19th,
20th -- Mike.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. June 19, 20, and 23.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me, Miss Filson. Mr.
Smykowski --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- you said the 19th, 20th,
and 23rd?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. And Miss Filson is correcting me,
and I appreciate that. It's Wednesday, the 18th. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: 18, 19, and 20?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 18, 19, and 23?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I'm just thinking I know
the four years I've been on the board we've usually taken the first
two or three weeks of July off and I was just -- I think your
schedule's good there because if for some reason we had to drag a
couple of extra days, that would leave us the rest of that final week
in June, and then we could take our first three weeks --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. And the idea is too
we're -- we, by state law, release the tentative budget on July 15,
and that gives the budget staff an opportunity, if there are changes
recommended by the board, to implement such changes and still release
the documents and rebalance the funds as need be.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Although --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't come back and have
the other public hearings until after Labor Day in September? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Although it's not on the agenda for
today, we -- we're moving into the discussion of when the -- the
recess will be scheduled this year. Is that something that we need to
bring back as an -- an item on the agenda, or can we set that
informally, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: You -- You can go ahead and set it --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: -- informally today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let --
MR. DORRILL: You don't have to vote on that separately.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make a suggestion we
just stick with our standard -- we'll take the 1st -- July 1 actually
is a Tuesday. Can we take the first three Tuesdays in July and the
last two in August, which is pretty much what we've done each year
anyway?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So what you're saying, then,
there'd be a meeting on July 22?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. We'd come back the
22nd.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what was August?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Last two weeks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The 19th --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Last two Tuesdays.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and 26th.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that will give staff a
chance to put everything together in time for our budget hearings the
first of September.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Why -- Why not 15, 22, and 29?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Of July?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know traditionally we've
done the beginning. Two reasons: My understanding is right after we
close our budget hearings at the end of June, they take some time to
assimilate all that, and by not having Tuesday meetings, it frees them
up with more time to do that, not only on Tuesday, but in their
preparation time --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: But you normally would not meet
that fifth Tuesday in July; right? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, the 29th.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: See, that's what I'm getting at.
So what you're doing is you're going to have three, then you're going
to meet, and then you're going to have another week off which breaks
up --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I suppose there's nothing
that prohibits us from meeting on the 29th. I'm just --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing at all.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I'm also thinking that
most people also schedule -- including staff, schedule vacation around
the 4th of July. A lot of people do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can I ask --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: At -- at --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- Commissioner Berry --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did you have something to add?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: At the end of July though -- This is
pertinent to the discussion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: At the end of July, we're typically
asking the board to set the proposed millage rates for the upcoming
budget year, and that's traditionally been done about the third week
in July.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, you've got kids
that are school-age. And I'm asking this because my wife's a teacher.
When do they go back to school in August?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think they --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: About the third week.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- go back the last week.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: See, that -- that's why I'm looking
at August thinking the 12th and the 19th may be more appropriate
because it gives you the last two weeks before school starts, and we
have one commissioner with school-age kids and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. I -- I was just
thinking as far as we --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It doesn't matter. That's --
We've always taken a couple weeks toward the end, and if it's --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the second and third, that
works.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The suggestion is July 1, 8, and 15,
August 12 and 19 will not be scheduled as board meeting days and will,
in fact, be -- be put on as a recess. We will meet the fifth July --
fifth Tuesday in July, the 29th. So we will return the 22nd and meet
on the 29th. We then have another meeting the 5th and then have a
two-week break then. Is that --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sold.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: You're going to meet two weeks --
Okay. You're going to have a break two weeks in August?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. The 12th and the 19th would
be scheduled as a recess period.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. And what -- Go again on
July, Tim.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: July the 1st, the 8th, and the 15th
would be scheduled as a recess. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does that meet with everyone's
approval?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Then why don't we schedule
that as the -- the recess dates. And, Mr. Smykowski, that in no way
interferes with the budget process? MR. SHYKOWSKI: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Fantastic. That's what we're looking
for. Do we need a motion to set the 18th, 19th, and 23rd of June as
hearing dates?
MR. DORRILL: I would. And I think as part of that,
keep in mind as part of -- somewhere in your discussion today you need
to have some agreement as to how early you want that information in
advance. We had made a commitment last year to the Greater Naples
Civic people as to how early that information would be available, not
only for commissioners, but the public.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I assume that means from
constitutional officers as well. We went through this last year, and
whatever we set for a date, perhaps your office can communicate to the
constitutional officers so there's no surprises to them.
MR. DORRILL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I'll go ahead and make a
motion we set aside the 18th, 19th, and 23rd of June for budget
hearing dates, and we'll reserve later in that week if we -- if -- as
necessary. Hopefully we can get through it in those three days. And
I'm open to a suggestion how early we'd like that information. I
think we actually shot for Hay 1 that it should be all turned in to
you --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yep.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- last year.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct. In fact, that's the
first order of business that is on the budget policy, and we can get
into that. But last year we -- we strove to provide that information
two weeks or ten days before the board workshops, and that was hairy,
but -- but we managed to pull that off. So we will endeavor to do our
best.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How about by June 2, which is
the first working day in June and that's still a couple -- That gives
you two weeks -- two weeks and two days.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: We'll do our best to do that. A few
more days would be better. June 1 is the date at which we're getting
the tentative millage or tentative property values from the property
appraiser so we are --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Going to the June 2 date,
what are you referring to?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As far as when all that
information will be in its final compilation as we'll take it into our
budget hearings on the 18th. That will be available to us -- I -- I
assume in piecemeal it will be available to the public sooner than
that. But in its comprehensive form, we'd like to have it June 2.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. That -- That is aggressive though,
I will tell you. The 6th would be much better.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The 6th would allow for almost two
weeks of -- of review before being heard. And if, Mr. Smykowski, what
you're telling us is we can set June 2 and -- and make your life
miserable and probably miss the deadline, that doesn't sound like --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. You -- you --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- an attractive situation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I think the 6th is fine.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- yourself yesterday spoke about
setting deadlines that -- setting yourself up for failure. So I'm --
I'm telling you June 6 would work much better, given that we get the
property values on or about June 1.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which is something we don't control.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. That is controlled by
state statute, the TRIM law for the property appraiser.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me start my motion over.
I'll make a motion we schedule our public hearings on the budget for
the 18th, 19th, and 23rd of June 1997 and that we request our very
efficient budget staff to have all that information available both to
us and to the public by noon on June 6.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: D-day.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And a second. Any discussion on the
motion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
None opposed.
Mr. Smykowski, thank you and --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. And I do not intend to have my
wife deliver a baby on or about two weeks before the budget workshops
this year, which should make my life a little easier this year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Make it a little calmer this
time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, Mike, you do a good job. We
appreciate it. Thank you for this information today.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Now we're on to -- Did you have
something else? I'm sorry.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. We need to set some of the
policy direction regarding cost-of-living adjustments, etc. That's --
This is kind of the -- the initial direction to the staff. And as I
stand before you today, I'm happy to report that our general fund
scenario is certainly much better due in large part to the actions the
board took last year in terms of reducing some of our fixed costs.
The board did increase the millage last year. What we're -- What
we're looking for today is direction from the board regarding a number
of policy issues and budget assumptions that will affect the
preparation of the FY '98 budget.
We've also, as part of the -- the policy document,
included our three-year ad valorem update, projecting out three years,
taking a look at inflationary cost of existing services that are --
that are currently funded as well as factoring in growth-related-type
items within the county manager's agency. We're looking exclusively
at items that are related -- growth-related. For example, Sugden Park
this year was opened as a phase-in. It was only operational for
perhaps six months of the year. Next year obviously we will absorb or
annualize the cost of operating that facility, and the budget would be
reflective of that.
So what we've attempted to do is just show you in a
nutshell what the general fund tax picture looks like. Also included
in the analysis, the sheriff has done a -- based on his manpower
analysis projections, has -- has included assumptions regarding
additional bailiffs and road patrol deputies as well.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- I don't know when it
would be appropriate, but one of the things in this staff report
related to law enforcement impacts fee and --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, ma'am.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- from my --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: I -- I was just going to propose to walk
through it kind of page by page, item by item, but we'll get to that
very quickly if --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I just wanted to tell you
that I want to see that happen. I -- I definitely -- and I think
there's a majority of the board -- want to see that that is included,
that we are going forward with the law enforcement impact fee.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: And we are -- One of the items today is
asking for a policy direction to get a definitive answer from the
board that, yes, you want us to pursue implementation of the law
enforcement impact fee, and with that we'd be looking for direction or
authorization to utilize a consultant as we have in the past, as the
impact fees must stand up in court certainly, and begin that process
and approve the associated budget amendments --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On that topic don't we have
some activity going on and that's scheduled to come back to us in a --
some formal hearing process anyway? I mean --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think this is --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Haven't we given direction
to -- I mean, right now obviously isn't the time to say, yes, we're
going to, or, no, we're not. I -- I thought we had asked for some --
some information from whomever it is, Tischler & Associates or
someone, to put this together and to bring it back so that we could
discuss the topic, and if we haven't, then we ought to give that
direction.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Last week we broached the subject as
part of -- as a -- one potential means of balancing the non-CIE plan
that was before you. Some of those costs would be eligible law -- for
law enforcement impact fees. And at that point, we said, you know,
next week we'll be bringing that discussion up as part of the budget
policy but will be seeking your authorization to pursue at least the
study that would determine what the law enforcement impact fee as
proposed would be, and that would give an indication as well to the
building community what type --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. It seems that we need to do
two things where that's concerned. One is determine whether or not
we're going to proceed down the path of development of a law
enforcement impact fee and what the time frame should be for that.
The second thing is how to factor it into the '97, '98 budget. Is it
going to or do we want to factor it in as projected revenues at this
early stage? I'm always cautious about doing that. I'd rather end up
in a better position on the out -- the -- the out end than a worse
one. Since we don't know what revenues we're really talking about,
I'm a little concerned about including that. But those are the two
decisions we need to make on impact fee today, whether or not to
pursue it with -- with some -- some haste to make it a part of the
budget discussions and whether or not to factor that in on the front
end, is that correct, Mr. Smykowski? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Don't we have to be careful with
the impact fee from the standpoint that if -- when that is put into
place, it can only be for growth? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: So don't we have to be real careful
about what we do --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- if -- if -- if we put it in the
budget, how we put it in there to --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We certainly do, and it would be
limited, is my understanding, to only those capital costs that are
growth-related. Obviously if we stop growing tomorrow, you know --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- we aren't -- we probably
wouldn't -- You know, if no one else moved to the county, the chances
of needing a -- a new jail expansion are very limited.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And growth-related from day
of implementation on, not -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- prior growth.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, if I could just add
one comment, I happened to meet with the productivity committee on
Friday with the sheriff's department, and this very item came up in
addition to how they want to proceed in terms of the productivity
committee, some recommendations that they've made, and part of this
gets back to the capital for the -- the jail expansion, etc. So --
and I don't know what point in time you're going to hear that
particular part of it -- some things that they kind of resolved at
that time. I don't know if now is the appropriate time to talk about
that or if that should be at another time. I'm --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I -- I think that's something
that will be more appropriate in the discussion of the formulation of
an impact fee and its application -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- but probably not right now.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think the more pertinent discussion
now is, do we want to project revenues and include them in the budget
discussion. And for my 2 cents, we're premature in that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In the '-
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Since we do our capital
improvement planning on a five-year basis, however, I think it's safe
to include the law enforcement impact fee projections in the five-year
capital improvement program. I'd like to include them there but not
in next year's budget because government goes too slow to get money
collected by next year.
The most important thing that we can do today is to be
as clear as possible because we have talked about this, Commissioner
Constantine, so many times in the last couple of years. Let's be
very, very clear in our direction today. Please go forth, hire the
consultant, do what it takes to start the process of -- of
implementation of a law enforcement impact fee. I would like to be
perfectly clear about that today. And for my vote on the second
question, it's -- in the five-year capital improvement program, I'd
like to include the revenues but not in next year's budget.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And if we find that we can, that will
be a -- certainly a welcome addition late in the budget process.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That -- That is correct. Again, you
have until the last final hearing. We've adjusted the millage rate in
the general fund up until the final public hearing -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- which has been anywhere from
September 18 to September 25 for the fiscal year beginning October 1.
At that point if we have a study in place that says we're going to
generate this much money and the public hearings have taken place and
collections could commence on October 1, it may be feasible to fund a
portion of the sheriff's growth-related expenses from a law
enforcement impact fee --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It sounds -- It sounds like we have
direction on the impact fee. Is there any further consideration of
that?
Mr. Smykowski, what other elements need specific action
by the board in your --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Just --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- in your package today?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hay I ask a question on the
next item, which is self-insurance, Mr. Ochs? MR. SHYKOWSKI: You certainly may.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It says every two to three
years the county solicits quotations from private insurance providers,
and it indicates that last summer the county solicited quotations, but
it says through a joint project. Was -- was -- Was the only
comparison we did the existing -- what was then the existing and
through the joint project, or at that time did we bid with private --
put bids out for private companies as well?
MR. OCHS: For the record, Leo Ochs, support services
administrator. Commissioner, what we did in a joint venture with both
the city and the school district was put together a joint request for
proposals, worked through our broker and went out to the marketplace
getting both private insurance quotes and protected self-insurance
quotes for all three entities. And as a result of that analysis, the
conclusion was that the best value for the dollar was the protected
self-insured program, which all three HTDs are all working under a
joint contract.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the most recent
opportunity for the private sector of the bid was last year? It
wasn't two or three years ago?
MR. OCHS: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Smykowski, is there any other
particular area of difficulty you need to work us through?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. I'm going to work backward,
actually, to the --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- constitutional officer budget
submissions on page 2, and I'll try to get through this as quickly as
possible. The board last year adopted Resolution 96-123 which
required tentative budgets for the sheriff, clerk, and supervisor to
be submitted by Hay 15 last year, and then for every year thereafter,
Hay 1. I just wanted it to be stated up front on page 1 in the policy
that Hay 1 is the expected deadline submission for those
constitutional officers, and I have communicated that with them
individually as well for --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And I'm -- I'm sure --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- for the record.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- some of the constitutional
officers are listening to this. I do know we have a representative
from the sheriff's office. Is -- Is that fairly clear and carried
forward?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (Nodding head)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: She's nodding yes. Okay. I just --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. I --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- want to make sure. You happened
to be here, so I'm picking on you.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. We have discussed that with them,
and their -- their plans are following along on Hay 1 time table.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good. We're all on the same page.
Love to hear it.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. Great.
The next thing is coming into our CIP development.
Obviously the county on an annual basis adopts a five-year capital
improvement element consistent with the Growth Management Plan and it
obviously what -- needs to provide sufficient funding to fund those
projects identified in the first year of the plan.
The next thing -- item is in the ad valorem capital
funding. The general fund on an annual basis provides funding for
capital projects, as not all capital projects at this point are deemed
growth-related and impact fee-eligible, and that goes back to our
discussion we had initially last week regarding the five-year non-CIE
program.
Over time -- There's a chart on page 3, a chart and
graph that shows the history of the capital millage in the general
fund. In FY '91 we were levying a full mill, at that point generating
$12.8 million. In FY '97 we levied $5.5 million. The available
dollars through board action had decreased to that level. As part of
the discussion last week, we recommended at a minimum increasing it by
4 percent associated with the anticipated new construction coming on
the tax roll due to the construction inflation eventually eating away
the purchasing power of the pot of funds at the $5.5 million level.
If the board were interested, I've calculated for every
$100,000 increase in the pool of funds available, you're looking at
that equating to 53 cents per every $100,000 of taxable value for a
typical homeowner. And I had discussion with Mr. Dotrill this
morning. Obviously you all gave us direction. The plan as submitted
last week -- the non-ClE plan had a deficit ranging from $10 1/2
million, and then there was some additional sheriff's office
submittals which might bring the shortfall to $18.2 million. So we're
fighting -- fighting that battle within that range.
At this point the board has requested additional
information regarding the law enforcement impact fee, some information
on the work-release center, the -- the animal-control facility, and
we're also evaluating options regarding the county maintenance
facility but that -- that is something -- at this point you're
grappling with a $10 million shortfall to an $18 million shortfall.
And if the board is interested, increasing -- obviously increasing the
available pool of funds to fund those projects is an option available
to you, and that may be better flushed out when we bring that -- bring
those alternatives back to you probably within the next month --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Certainly.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- as that additional information is
made available. As long as we have the direction prior to the budget
workshops --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- of how much money we can assume --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we'll know in about a month
when that's brought back whether or not we want to -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- consider an increase in ad
valorem, and we want to look at the impact fee at that time and so
forth. So that -- that can be decided later. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We've talked about the law
enforcement impact fee --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- self-insurance.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Self-insurance.
Debt service is kind of our -- our standard policy in
terms of how we go about funding projects. Obviously if -- if we
utilize debts, we only want to leverage that debt to the extent --
limit the repayment period to the useful life of the project.
Reserves -- we typically budget a 5 percent reserve for
contingency in all funds. For the constitutional officers, we took --
we appropriated that money within the county general fund. The board
in -- in the past has made an exception in the case of the supervisor
of elections who has a separate reserve within her fund. Although
at -- at year-end, any unspent funds, again, are turned back to the
board. So that doesn't pose any great difficulties.
We're, again, recommending a 4 percent attrition level
based on historical, and that's an assumption. That includes the
sheriff, 4 percent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why not the tax collector?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because he doesn't have any. His
history has shown that his attrition has been --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: His -- His history has been --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- nonexistent.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- not at a 4 percent level.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I smile as I look at EMS
saying 1 percent too because week after week when we do our service
awards we have EMS people that are here 10 years and 15 years and
probably why we have such --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. And when an EMS
employee leaves, obviously we're just -- we're not foregoing an
ambulance being on the road. Someone else is filling that void in the
interim. It's not a luxury where you have the accrued salary savings
that you do in other --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Understood.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- in other places.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Great. Privatization.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: We're still going to use the indirect
cost allocation plan and enterprise fund payment in lieu of taxes. I
have noted based on the previous direction to include the interim
government services fee. That is a revenue source that we are
considering within the general fund in FY '98. And we have assumed
the million three sixty level as recommended in the consultant's
report.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't see any problem in the
contract agency funding language. Budget presentation format -- are
there any changes for the upcoming year? Because I think we got some
pretty good compliments last year on --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- the way in which it was presented.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: And we're -- we're proposing to utilize
the same format again. I -- I think the consolidation of the program
budgets and line-item budgets worked quite well. I briefed --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Like --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- Commissioner Berry as well in that
regard.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Likewise, there are no changes
in both an indirect cost, enterprise fund, or in -- Well, the interim
government services fee is still being adopted. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We may have to make some revisions to
that based on the timing that has now been delayed; is that correct?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct. And we'll have --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- further information as we approach
the budget process.
Just so you're clear, in terms of the gas taxes, last
year was to be the third year of a transition of the gas taxes from
road maintenance to road construction. You -- You made the policy
decision last year to defer that. We have assumed for FY '98 that
that final transition will take place. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: One other thing on the -- in terms of
expense assumption. Again, we haven't included any millage impact of
a jail expansion. The productivity committee is currently evaluating
alternative funding sources for a jail expansion; and -- and,
therefore, there's no -- also no associated operating impacts
obviously. Once -- If and when a jail expansion occurs, there will be
an operating impact due to additional correctional officers --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Understood.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- being required.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Carryforward is the same?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. And that -- that's
actually -- I -- I will get to that in a moment.
Salary administration, the recommendation through human
resources is a 3 percent general wage adjustment to be effective on
10-1. And, in addition, continuation of the 1 percent merit bonus
pool is again recommended and that's -- this is a policy decision that
the board --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For the board's consideration, the 3
percent is projected unless cost of living shows to be lower than
that, and then we meet cost of living. Is that what we have -- I
believe it's what we've done in the past. Cost of living plus 1
percent bonus or 1 percent bonus pool?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So the 3 percent is a plug
number. If cost of living is two nine or if cost of living is three
one, we -- we'll look at that adjustment once those numbers are
available.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I appreciate you pointing
that out because I know on at least one year we used a higher number
and said, well, we can always scale it back if necessary, except then
everyone counted on the higher number and thought they were being
robbed when --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we had to scale it back
so '-
MR. SMYKOWSKI: It -- it -- It works much better from a
policy standpoint if you chart your course and stay on that course.
That one year it started out at 6.3 percent and ended up, I believe,
at 2.7, and it did create some expectations. Be it artificial or not,
there were expectations, and at some point you all had to make the
decision on what it ultimately was. And then we had built a budget at
that level, and it was June 23 or thereabouts, and we had a week to
redo all the budgets. So it's much easier from an administrative
standpoint to --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we're going to go ahead and --
and do it at 3 percent with the -- the adjustment to cost of living as
necessary during the budget process.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. In terms of overall where the
general fund sits -- Maybe I'll just kind of cut to the chase here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That would be well advised.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. Thank you.
We're at -- looking at a 2.2 percent increase over the
rollback rate based on the assumptions utilized in the model. Again,
that includes 20 additional sheriff's deputies, which may or may not
materialize. And from the clerk and supervisor of elections'
standpoint, we made assumptions about what their transfer from the
general fund would be for -- based on, again, assumptions. That is
not at this point based on their actual budget submittals, and they
may deviate from that level, and hopefully they will deviate to the
good.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Smykowski, for clarification,
when you say 2 per -- 2.2 percent over rollback, is that including an
increase in revenue projections for next year -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- versus cost?
So we're -- you know, if thing -- If revenues go up as
you expect or as you have projected and costs go up as you have
projected, we're going to have to cut 2.2 percent of the total budget
to avoid affecting the -- the ad valorem rate at rollback; is that
correct?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, given the assumptions again and
that the sheriff would request the full complement of -- of deputies
that is proposed, which in this case was 20 road patrol deputies and
three bailiffs which may -- In the past I'm comfortable in saying that
the manpower analysis is -- is utilized for purposes of this analysis,
but how much -- how much money the sheriff ultimately asked for may --
has differed in the past, and it has been lower than the manpower
analys -- analysis would indicate.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Certainly it will be a far percentage
lower than last year, and for the county likewise because of the --
the pay plan. I mean, we're -- we're in a similar boat so --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: From a -- From a business standpoint, I
need to point out a few things to you. Constitutional officer
turnbacks on page 13 -- and there's actually in the detail -- one of
the handouts is page 34 -- actually shows the gross dollar amounts and
the history of the actual constitutional officer turnbacks versus the
amount budgeted and they --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We could start budgeting a higher
turnback is what I saw from that.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, ma'am. That -- That's it exactly,
and -- and that's part of the reason -- rather than walk in here and
say, "We need a 7 percent tax increase but -- but leave the
constitutional officer turnbacks at the previous budget levels," we've
taken a look and taken a more aggressive stance in budgeting those
con -- constitutional officer turnbacks. And, again, I have spoken
with each of the constitutionals regarding -- regarding that and
didn't have any major objections based on the historical trends.
For -- for instance, in the clerk's office last year,
the budget was 250,000; the forecast, eight fifty; the actual was
almost a million seven. So we -- we've taken a historical average,
and we've tempered it, and having gone out to the -- we haven't walked
out to the very end of the limb but we're --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Getting a little closer.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- we're getting a little closer.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: In that regard, though, part of the
reason the general fund has been stabilized over -- over the past few
years is additional receipts and sales tax revenues, state-revenue
sharing, as well as the constitutional officer turnbacks.
In essence, what we are doing here is we're playing our
cards up front, and I won't have any more aces up my sleeve. And, in
fact, that's part of the reason why in FY '99 the model suggests a
large drop in carryforward and potential -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Understood.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- for a -- a larger need for a tax
increase in -- in '99.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Understood.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Again, the further you get out in the
model, though, the -- you know, it's, again, built on assumptions
based on what is assumed to be included in the '98 budget as well
as '99 and --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Understood. Commissioner
Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Smykowski, one quick
question on EMS in a policy we set a couple of years ago as far as
trying to set the reimbursement rate consistent with what -- or trying
to keep our rate consistent with what the Medicare reimbursement rate
was. At one point it was two fifty. I think it went up to two
eighty-five or something and --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: And three o two currently.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just saw in here expenses
increase in EMS subsidy. I'm wondering, is there an adjustment this
coming year, and have we budgeted the notch up along with Hedicare.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: We have --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just think -- That would
likely take a big chunk out of that nearly a million dollars for the
EMS subsidy.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. Part -- Part of the reason for
a large increase, though, in the EMS subsidy is proposal for two
additional units --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- coming --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Two units stat -- the -- the
operating cost of those. But I will tell you, Commissioner
Constantine, on a work day, I went through Department of Revenue and
found -- I -- I said, "Okay. I'm an EMS bill. Walk me through.
Where do I go?" I went through that whole process and found where
there were things that could be done better. Diane Flagg is now
working with John Yonkosky in a pro -- in a way that may increase
collections. So we may have another way to knock some of that down
that's not included in this information that they're working on right
DOW.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. If -- if -- From a
policy standpoint, if you want us to continue to increase the EMS rate
to the maximum allowable under Medicare, we would -- that direction
would be helpful.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that was the policy
directive we set a couple years ago. We probably need to reinforce
that. But if Medicare is going to reimburse it, that was our primary
concern. We don't mind having a higher price as long as John Q.
Public isn't actually paying it -- the majority -- majority of the
people, anyway.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. That's fine and if --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't see any reason to vary
from --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: If that's --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- that policy.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- again the direction of the board,
that -- that will help us -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And it is.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- in preparing that budget.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You've got it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Smy --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: I've also included the MSTD general fund
and the pollution-control fund.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mike, do we have specific
policy objectives we need to be setting from this point forward within
this presentation?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because in the interest of time, I
think these are consistent with what we've done in the past. I know,
Commissioner Berry, you're on the -- the county learning curve. After
going through the school board learning curve, I think you'll be
pleasantly surprised.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I just --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- want to offer something for the
board's consideration concerning the MST general fund. That may be
something that's outlived its original intent and purpose and may --
may be something that we would want to consider discontinuing this
year.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That is specifically -- I'm sorry --
the -- the countywide --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The HSTD general fund, yeah,
the --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- unincorporated area general
fund.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that's probably a
good idea.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Well, to avoid -- it's -- it's not as
simple as just dissolving that. Obviously there are dual taxation
issues with the City of Naples, and that would require us on an annual
basis to have an interlocal agreement as to how much we are paying the
City of Naples because there would not be this differentiation of
expenses segrega -- due to the segregation of funds at this point.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you're suggesting we
should investigate that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I '-
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I -- I am suggesting that that
may -- this may be something that's outlived its usefulness and is --
that we should have the staff investigate the potential for
eliminating it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I -- I would just say I think
that -- that you might be surprised with the -- what the analysis
would show. And that, in fact, would be opening up -- I -- I'm happy
to open it, and I think that the city would be happy to open it
because I'm afraid what you would find is that this is more beneficial
to the county generally than what an actual interlocal agreement each
year would result --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Well --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- so --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- let's find out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's find out.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there anything additional or any
further changes?
Seeing none -- and -- and, by the way, Commissioner
Berry, that was just a joke.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not pouting.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Anything further from the
board?
Okay. I believe on this we do need a motion to ratify
the policy.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed? Very weak "ayes" there.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, motion carries
unanimously.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 97-70 APPOINTING ANTHONY P. TESAURO TO THE PUBLIC VEHICLE
ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hr. Chairman, on 10(B) we
have one member and -- open and -- one vacancy and one person.
like to make a motion we go ahead -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and approve Tony Tesauro.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Any
speakers on this at all?
None, of course. Thank you.
MR. HCNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll call the question. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Seeing none -- congratulations.
Item #10C
DISCUSSION OF ENTERPRISE FLORIDA SUPPORT FOR ALLEN SYSTEMS - STAFF
DIRECTED TO INVESTIGATE FUNDING
We have an add-on, item -- or number -- or C on this,
discussion of Enterprise Florida support for Allen Systems. Mr.
Mihalic, good morning.
MR. MIHALIC: Good morning, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Good morning.
MR. MIHALIC: Yesterday there was a discussion of
Enterprise Florida in assisting Allen Systems Group with some
interplaced Florida economic development funding which required a
partial local funding which would cost the county approximately $6,100
a year over five years. This would result in the creation of 61
high-wage jobs within the county. You wanted some additional
discussion on that issue today?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, sir. We were all there at that
meeting yesterday, so we probably don't need to rehash in -- in total.
The tea -- The reason I put this on the agenda is to ask the board to
give direction to staff formally that we look at the state statutes
that allow for tax abatement of new businesses.
And I'll give you just real quickly why I think that's
a -- a -- a decent idea. Many times if you have raw land that a
business is going to be built on, the incentives may bring the
business here. Without the incentives the business doesn't come. So
we collect taxes on the raw land regardless. If we abate a portion of
the improvement taxable value to the land, we, the taxpayer, wins; the
business wins; the community wins overall, and we're not writing out a
check that -- that the taxpayers paid the year before in giving it to
business.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You still see a net increase
in the tax revenue, yet you lighten the burden on the business.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Exactly, if, and only if, they meet
criteria that our council of economic advisors and Mr. Mihalic have
developed for the type of jobs we want. These are not $5-an-hour
jobs. These -- You know, the qualifications have to be specific. I'm
asking the board to give specific direction along those lines to Mr.
Mihalic and to the county attorney's office to investigate the tax
abatement issue and report in full back to us as soon as possible
because we want to be involved in the Allen Systems decision on what
our options are in that regard.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a -- a -- a possible
addition, is -- is I heard at the city yesterday that their community
block grant funds are available for this kind of a purpose, and I
don't think we are accessing that grant.
MR. MIHALIC: Well, we are not an entitlement county
yet. We will be entitlement county when we have over 200,000
population in the unincorporated area. That probably will occur in
the next three years or so, at which time we may avail ourselves of
that type of use for future applicants for this kind of program.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought that it was -- we would
be entitled to it at that point but that we could apply for it at --
prior to reaching that population.
MR. MIHALIC: Well, we can probably apply a year ahead
of time. We receive notice from the Department of Community Affairs
when they believe we've met the standards --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I just want to identify
that as a source.
HR. HIHALIC: -- but we can't proactively plan for that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Appreciate that.
Is there any further discussion?
Call the question. All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
for your work on this.
MR. MIHALIC:
Seeing none -- Mr. Mihalic, thank you
Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #11A
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO SATISFY THE ARBITRAGE REBATE DUE THE IRS ON THE
$2,253,470 POOLED COMMERCIAL PAPER NOTE A-3-1 - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're now up to Item ll(A), seeking
approval from the board to make necessary budget amendments to satisfy
the wonderful word "arbitrage" again. I'm -- I'm equating that word
with "pay more."
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Earn more, pay more.
MR. HITCHELL: One of our favorite subjects.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Hitchell, what do we have here?
MR. HITCHELL: It's -- It's very simple. What we
have -- For the record, Jim Hitchell, the director of the finance and
accounting department. I come before you today to seek the approval
to satisfy an arbitrage rebate payment due the IRS related to the
$2,253,470 commercial paper draw, commonly referred to as A-3-1 which
was originally issued on December 8 of 1994.
The note was originally issued to finance the
acquisition and construction of various capital improvements at the
Immokalee Regional Airport and the Everglades Airport. We
extinguished this debt in December of this -- this -- of last year, so
this will be the only arbitrage matter that we'll ever have to deal
with with this particular debt.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would it bother you terribly if we
just kind of went to the fiscal-impact bottom line here?
MR. HITCHELL: Fiscal impact is -- What this really is
is excess interest income. We have recognized $49,000 in -- as of
September 30, 1996. The only thing we need is the approval of the
budget amendments to take $4,600 out of your reserve for contingencies
out of Fund 496 to make the payment.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The staff report says forty-nine
ninety-one. Is that correct, or has it changed to 4,600?
MR. HITCHELL: It's -- It's forty-nine four. We have --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. HITCHELL: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just wanted to make sure --
MR. HITCHELL: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- we -- we were solid on the
numbers.
MR. MITCHELL: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I move approval of Mr. Hitchell's
request.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Is there any
discussion?
I assume -- I'm sorry. Mr. HcNees, do we have any
speakers on this?
MR. HCNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
I'll call the question. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none -- Mr. Mitchell, thank
you very much.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
A. GIL ERLICHHAN RE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX
Public comment, Hr. HcNees.
HR. HCNEES: Yes, Hr. Chairman. You have one speaker.
Gil Erlichman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning, Mr. Erlichman.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Good morning. Well, since time is of
the essence -- I only have five minutes, and it's taken me over two
weeks to get the information that I needed. I'm referring to the
January 14 meeting of the Collier County Commissioners' Agenda Items
9(A) and 9(B) and also to the Collier County -- the audit report,
Collier County, for the tourist development tax, January 1997, which I
received a few days ago.
I would like to read -- read some excerpts from the --
Agenda Item 9(A), trans -- the official transcript here. And Item
9(A) was amendment to the contract between Collier County and the PGA
Tour, Incorporated, for the funds of the 1996 Greater Naples
IntelliNet Challenge and other amendments to Category B contracts.
Staff recommendation: Approved. And I would go to page 31 of the
transcript, January 14, 1997:
"Commissioner Mac'Kie: Actually, Mr. Mitchell, could
you come back to the podium, or maybe it is Bob but could you also --
could you share with the group -- there is a letter. The most recent
correspondence to the PGA was requesting the information, and as I
understand it, there's been no response.
"Mr. Mitchell: We have had one piece of response, and
that had to do with -- The way this contract was written, as you're
all aware, it says any revenues in excess of expenditures shall be
returned to the county. The largest expenditure that we -- pardon
me -- that we -- that the PGA Tour incurred was for television
production. That was for $435,000. Included on the invoice that was
submitted to us was a credit for $45,000 which was a -- classified as
a rights fee, which is revenue going back to the PGA Tour. So, in
turn, the total cost to the PGA was 395,000 for that production.
They, in turn, billed us the full $435,000. The concern with the
audit is that we looked at the expenditures, but we have no idea what
the revenue side is."
Now, I'll skip to page 32:
"Commissioner Mac'Kie: Okay. What I'd like to know is
what Mr. Mitchell described a moment ago. I would like to know how
much money came into this event and how it was spent. To date we have
not gotten that information from the PGA.
"Mr. Mitchell: Correct.
"Commissioner Mac'Kie: I'm going to -- I'm going -- I
am asking you just to leave in the contract the right to get the
information."
I skip down further:
"Commissioner Hac'Kie: But let's don't weaken the'96
contract until we have a response.
"Mr. Mitchell, again, I don't think you answered this
question. We wrote to the PGA and said, Here's a list of questions
that we have. What's been the response -- and asking for some
specific financial information. What was the response from the PGA to
that letter?
"Mr. Mitchell: We sent certified mail to all of the
people outlined in the contract requesting three specific items.
Those items -- If you'll give me just one minute, I'll get a copy of
the letter.
"It said copies of all paid invoices are -- as required
by the provisions appearing in the contract.
"Number two was an accounting detailing all the
revenues of whatever form, type, or nature, including, but not limited
to, any entry fees, insurance fees, dues paid, service fees, rights
fees, credits, discounts, rebates, or offsets against expenditures.
"And the third item was an accounting detailing all
actual costs incurred and monies expended by the PGA Tour,
Incorporated, in staging the event or project.
"The only information that we have received to date is
a letter from Edward Moorehouse who is with PGA Tour highlighting the
$45,000 rights fee. That is the only thing that we -- we have
received, and this letter was sent certified to PGA Tour on November 8
of 1996."
I'll skip further. Page 40. This is going to the end
of the agenda item of 9(A).
"Commissioner Berry: -- and to meet -- to fix it up to
meet a category that I was -- obviously wasn't provided for in the
contract. The more serious problem here is a contract was drawn that
did not and was not appropriate for this kind of an event obviously,
and I have a real problem with that. I don't know who's to blame, but
there is a problem here.
"Chairman Hancock: Well, under Item 10(A) you're going
to hear an update on why -- how we can avoid this situation in the
future. To be quite frank with you, Category C has been nothing but a
problem since we started.
"Commissioner Berry: Oh, I'm -- I'm aware of that.
"Chairman Hancock: And I think who has -- we as a
board -- who, by the way, five to nothing approved the contract --
need to shoulder some of the blame. I mean, you know, it is our
responsibility to ensure that those -- those things -- these things
get done, and if we make errors in the initial contracts, rectifying
those errors again lies with us as a board."
(The speaker timer goes off.)
MR. ERLICHHAN: Well, I have so much more to go here,
but evidently I --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Erlichman.
MR. ERLICHHAN: -- I'm cut off. I'll finish it next
week.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. HcNees.
B. TY AGOSTON RE SECURITY OF VARIOUS STATE AGENCY HEETINGS
HR. HCNEES: You have one more speaker registered, Ty
Agoston.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning, Mr. Agoston.
MR. AGOSTON: Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I
attended a Scenic 41 meeting last Thursday, and to be honest with you,
I kind of walked into it half blind because I thought it was locally,
and when I found out that it was in the Everglade -- in Everglades
City, it was too late to back out of. The fact of the matter is it's
an hour's trip, and I wasn't really prepared to spend it.
At any rate, I drove out, and the meeting was well
attended by taxpayer-paid people, meaning the Department of Forestry,
the Department of Transportation, the sheriff, what have you. I asked
the lady who was apparently in charge of the administrative section of
this meeting -- Amy Taylor, I think her name is -- that while -- I
asked to be on the list because I'm kind of interested why wasn't I
notified. Well, the answer somewhere came out that they're not under
the Sunshine Law, they do not have to tell you that they are meeting.
And the question that came to my mind, how could we allow, I mean,
various government components forever looking for a tax increase and
they're looking for more people -- why do these people sit there and
make presentations advocating expenditure of public money and they are
not liable for public -- I don't want to say "supervision," but it's
certainly -- you know, would -- we'd like to see what's happening. I
have a very strong sore point in that entire issue.
They are including southern Golden Gate Estates as a --
kind of a fate accompli situation where these poor people whose
property was taken away essentially or not paid or -- you all heard a
presentation from the lady from the Environmental Protection Agency,
and it somehow seems that it's a cohesive unit of various agencies who
are working at this kind of like a train running along, and nobody can
make a comment, nobody can influence it, and I was just wondering
if --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Were any of these --
MR. AGOSTON: -- your board is --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Were any of these attendees members
of county staff?
MR. AGOSTON: Well, I thought the sheriff was county
staff. No?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. He's -- we don't -- that --
That's under Sheriff Don Hunter. I can't tell his people what to do
and -- and -- and vice versa. The problem --
MR. AGOSTON: They're looking for 23 more people adding
onto the sheriff's -- I mean, I'm, again, not knowledgeable but --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's -- That's what I saw today.
The reason I ask that, Ty, is that -- that I -- I don't disagree that
there are a lot of wayward efforts that -- that agencies may be
involved in and may be spending your tax dollars in driving to and
being a part of. The problem is that, as far as this board is
concerned, our ability to control those state agencies we've been
seeing is somewhat nonexistent or li -- or extremely limited.
So as much as I share your concern about where those
dollars are going or where they're being spent, I don't see what
effect we can have. I mean, we've made about as strong a stance on --
on that issue as we can make.
So I -- I appreciate your frustration. I just don't see
a direction that we -- or a course we can take that will help
alleviate your concern.
MR. AGOSTON: How about the lady from the HPO who was
essentially the administrative center of this? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Hiss Chapman?
MR. AGOSTON: No, no, no. It's a -- a young lady.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Amy Taylor.
MR. AGOSTON: Amy Taylor maybe or -- Amy --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Amy Taylor.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, like you, sometimes we need to
be involved with it just to know what's going on in our own back yard.
I'm pleased to see here we only had one staff member involved.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: This is a committee that I became
the representative, I guess, from the board here because of the fact
that most of this that they're talking about happens to be in District
5. I was not able to attend that meeting last Friday. I'm pretty
good, but I had two meetings at the same time, so I virtually said
whichever one I got first that's the meeting that I went to, and so I
did not get to attend this particular meeting. But it is on that U.S.
41 corridor thing that they're talking about. So I -- I do know that
there's a lot of agencies that are involved in that -- state agencies
that are involved in that particular endeavor, but we don't --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. What I'm --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: We don't control that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I'm going to suggest to you may
be something you've already done, which is -- These are state
agencies, and if state agencies are going to get together and discuss
items of public importance, maybe the state legislature needs to adopt
some level of advertising requirement for those agencies. Right
across the hall.
MR. AGOSTON: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. Thanks, Ty.
C. JUDY LIENWEBER RE SCENIC HIGHWAY 41 HEETING
HR. HCNEES: You have two more public comments.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We are going to close -- After
these two we're going to close public comment, folks. This -- I mean,
you've got to get these in in time. We're trying to -- to get
something done, and we have people that need breaks, please.
MR. HCNEES: The first is Judy Leinweber followed by
Ellie Krier.
MS. LEINWEBER: I'm Judy Leinweber, and I went to the
first meeting for Scenic Highway 41 and I went at -- I had a
ten-minute notice, and I was on the road and got there. It was held
in the Everglades, and the first name for the scenic highway was going
to be Pioneer Highway. So we're in the middle of Indian territory.
There was not one Native American present at the meeting. The only
Native American that came was my driver. I don't have a license. And
she was the only one present. She was -- I think they were invited,
but they did not attend. DOT was there. Every environmentalist just
about in Lee County and Collier County was present.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, Miss Leinweber, I'm sorry, but
I have to bring this to: What can this board do? What are you asking
this board to consider or -- or look at? Because as I mentioned to
Mr. Agoston, we're -- we're '-
MS. LEINWEBER: That was my next statement.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MS. LEINWEBER: I have been given updates where the rest
of the meetings have been set up, and my one complaint: Every time I
get a notice on a new meeting, it is sent on Collier County -- our
county commission stationery and envelopes. Next Tuesday if you want
me to bring the envelope, I will show it, but it's your stationery
they are using at county taxpayers' tax dollars. And I don't know if
you're aware of this, but when I opened it up, I automatically think
it's something from our county commissioners, and here it's on Scenic
Highway 41. I think the system is being used and abused.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I think that's something we need
to -- to look at.
Mr. McNees, can we ask you to find out why we're bearing
any cost and -- and what cost, and let's find out what Miss Leinweber
is -- is referring to --
MR. MCNEES: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- whether we should be involved in
that capacity?
MS. LEINWEBER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Is there anyone else that
has not registered to speak and wishes to? Last call. Thank you.
D. ELLIE KRIER RE SCENIC HIGHWAY 41 MEETING
MS. KRIER: I think that's all that's left.
Good morning, Commissioners. For the record it's Ellie
Krier from the Chamber/EDC coalition. I'll be speaking for myself. I
am a member of the corridor advocacy group for U.S. 41 Scenic Highway.
I did not make Friday's meeting because it was no way for my travel
time to accomplish that to Everglades City. They've made efforts to
site it along the trail at different locations. We've met at the
ranger's station in Oasis. We've met in Everglades City and
different -- We've met at the county in the supervisors of elections'
work room.
The MPO -- and -- and I'm sorry they're not here. Amy
Taylor is your lead person on it. It was Jeff Perry. They're the
facilitating organizing staff to this effort to get the scenic highway
designation. To get a scenic highway designation, you have to create
a citizens -- a corridor advocacy group with all of the parties
involved. Your state agencies are mostly involved because they own
land adjacent to the corridor. That's why you have all those public
employees there, mostly state; some federal, in fact, because of the
Everglades Park.
It is an outstanding -- I believe an outstanding example
of how you can pull together all parties on a designation. The
economic development council and chamber is deeply involved because
this is a commercial corridor, and we want to make sure that we have
control over -- especially as Route 29 comes down for east coast
traffic or commercial traffic into Everglades City.
One of the things scenic highways can do is limit speed
limit, and one of the things that can happen is your speed limit can
be stopped and lowered any day by FDOT if the accident rates go up.
And the accidents exist out there because there's no place for the
tourists. They're parked on the roads. Little kids are crossing in
front of semi-trailers. We have never had serious accidents out there
of a tourist-related nature. It will happen. And this is a proactive
program on the part of your staff to say what can we do proactively
to -- to get this designation so that we can do something constructive
to keep the commercial vitality of the corridor and accommodate the
tourists who are going to come to it anyway.
I think it's been a very well-organized effort. We'll
acknowledge again that your MPO is down by 50 percent. Jeff Perry led
it. Amy has picked up the reins to the best of her ability. Yes,
notices should go out earlier. A lot of us are getting these notices
late. They're doing the best they can, and we would like to help them
in any way possible, but it has been an outstanding effort. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Miss Krier.
Mr. McNees, would you please expand that to -- I know
the board has heard the issue of -- of what to do on that corridor in
the past. Whether we have given direction or not on that matter would
be helpful and I -- because I don't recall specifically. I apologize
for that. But if we could expand that, that would be helpful.
Okay. No more public comment. Thank you.
Item #13B1
RESLOUTION 97-71 RE PETITION CU-95-20E, ROBERT L. DUANE, OF HOLE,
MONTES & ASSOCIATES, INC., REQUESTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF
CONDITIONAL USE "17" OF THE "A" ZONING DISTRICT FOR A DRIVING RANGE FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF AND ABUTTING U.S. 41, WEST OF ITS
INTERSECTION WITH ROYAL HAMMOCK ROAD - ADOPTED
Let's move on to the afternoon part of our agenda. We
only --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing, please.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 13(B)(1). We have a motion to close
the public hearing. Are there any public speakers, Mr. McNees?
MR. MCNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is just a simple extension of
a conditional use, is that correct, Mr. Reischl? MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl. Yes.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The extension of a golf driving range
for one year has been -- been taken care of. Fine presentation,
Mr. Duane. Appreciate you staying through the whole meeting.
BCC communications. Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have nothing today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, sir.
Item #14
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK RE CONGRATULATIONS TO STAFF RE UNITED WAY DRIVE
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One quick item. This was on my desk
this morning. This is from the United Way of Collier County to the
Board of County Commissioners and constitutional officers in
appreciation of your leadership and support of the United Way of
Collier County Campaign 1996.
I don't see Leo anymore, but the United Way exceeded
their goal. This is the first year the county has had an organized
effort internally to be a part of that. Congratulations go out to all
employees of the board and constitutional officers that have
participated this year. Thank you for your support. Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: No. Nothing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. McNees?
MR. MCNEES: Nothing, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Miss Filson?
MS. FILSON: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Y'all have a nice day.
***** Commissioner Mac'Kie moved, seconded by Commissioner Constantine
and carried 4/0 (Commissioner Hancock out), that the following
items under the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted:
Item #16A1
APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "SAPPHIRE LAKES, UNIT 4A" - WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16B1
BID #97-2619 - AWARDED TO FCR HEAVY MACHINERY SALES, FOR THE PURCHASE
OF ONE (1) BRUSH CHIPPER REPLACEMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,350.00
Item #1682
BID #97-2620 - AWARDED TO H. D. MOODY & SONS, FOR THE LEASE PURCHASE OF
ONE STREET SWEEPER REPLACEMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF 23,766.00
Item #1683 - This item has been deleted
Item #1684
APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF TWO (2) TRUCK MOUNTED IMPACT ATTENUATORS MODEL
NO. TMA 619OJ, ALPHA 60 HD SYSTEM, FROM GULF INDUSTRIES, INC., IN THE
AMOUNT OF $23,366.00
Item #1685
WORK ORDER WHBP FT96-14 UNDER A FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES AGREEMENT 95-2422 TO WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC., FOR
THE DESIGN OF LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION AT SUGDEN PARK, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $46,400.00
Item #1686
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE PARKING AREA NEAR THE LIVESTOCK
PAVILION AT THE COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS COMPLEX
Item #16C1
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING SCHOOL BUSES TO TRANSPORT PARKS AND
RECREATION PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS FROM AUGUST 15, 1996 AND AUGUST 31,
1997
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 97-121, 97-125, 97-144 AND 97-145
Item #16E2
CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO TWO CONTRACTS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
COLLIER TOURISM COMMITTEE
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1994 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
No. Dated
143 01/24/97
1996 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
53/54, 56/57
91, 94/95
Item #1662
1996 REAL PROPERTY
01/22 - 01/30/97
01/14 - 01/24/97
HISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:52 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, 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: Christine E. Whitfield, RPR