BCC Minutes 09/15/1998 RTRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, September 15, 1998
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 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
CHAIRPERSON:
Barbara B. Berry
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Timothy L. Hancock
Robert Fernandez, County Administrator
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDAS - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH
CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the
Tuesday, September 15th meeting of the Collier County Board of
Commissioners. This morning we're pleased to have with us our own Tom
Olliff, who will deliver the invocation. If you'll stand, please, and
then remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.
MR. OLLIFF: Heavenly Father, we come to you this morning
thanking you for another day in Southwest Florida. Father, we pray
this morning that you would have your hand on this meeting, that you'd
have your hand on the County Commission this morning, that you'd
provide them the guidance and leadership to do the things that are in
the best interest for all the people of Collier County.
Father, we also pray that you'd have your hand in Washington.
Father, we pray for our nation's leadership and pray that you'd
provide some guidance there as well.
Father, we thank you so much for all the blessings that you've
bestowed upon us and this community. These things we pray in your
Son's holy name, Amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Olliff.
Good morning, Mr. Fernandez. Do we have any changes to the
agenda?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Madam Chairman. Yes, we have one
addition. It's to add item 10(D). This is discussion regarding the
second government cable TV channel. Commissioner Constantine's
request.
Also, we ask that you continue item 16(B)(3) with no specific
date. It's to accrue the transfer of property from Collier County to
the State of Florida to satisfy the requirements of permit no.
11-00368-S. This is the Meli property item. Also at the request of
Commissioner Constantine.
The next is just a note for your information. Last week, item
16(A)(7) was continued to this meeting. We had some problems with the
accuracy of the backup. That item is not ready for today's meeting,
so we ask that that be continued to the meeting of September the 22nd.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie, do you have any
changes?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No changes today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Fernandez has covered my changes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, Commissioner Hancock?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to move item 16(B)(5) from
consent agenda to regular agenda, solely for the purpose of a
clarification.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 16(B)(5). This is for the engineering
services --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- phase?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: There was just something that was omitted
from that that --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- we need to get on the record. And Mr.
Ilschner's here, so he'll be aware of that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 16(B)(5), where does that then go?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 8(B)(1).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 8(B)(1).
Okay, do I have a motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the agenda, consent
agenda and summary agenda -- I'm still not used to saying that -- as
amended.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 21-27, 1998 AS POLLUTION
PREVENTION WEEK - ADOPTED
Moving on this morning then to our proclamations. Commissioner
Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, it's my pleasure this morning to read
a proclamation regarding pollution prevention week. And here we have
Allen Ruth, director of environmental health and engineering, here to
accept. If you could come forward so we can duly see you, embarrass
you, note you, whatever.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Turn around and face the camera so they can
see you at home.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The proclamation reads as follows:
Whereas, Collier County takes great pride in the natural beauty
of its coastline, bays, rivers and streams and its unique locations;
and
Whereas, Collier County supports clean water -- clean and safe
water, land and air for all its residents and visitors; and
Whereas, pollution prevention, also known as source reduction, is
a proactive approach which eliminates or reduces pollution at its
source; and
Whereas, pollution prevention is the most environmentally sound
method of protecting natural resources and reducing health and safety
risks to workers and the general public; and
Whereas, by focusing on pollution prevention, Collier County can
meet the challenge of having both a healthy community and business
environment for its residents and visitors; and
Whereas, recognizing Pollution Prevention Week is an opportunity
for government to join with business, industry, environmental groups
and all community members to work toward a prosperous and sustainable
future.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that September 21 through
27, 1998 be designated as Pollution Prevention Week. Done and ordered
this 15th day of September, 1998, signed Barbara B. Berry, Chairman.
I'd like to move acceptance of this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
MR. RUTH: A1 Ruth, county health department.
On behalf of the environmental pollution prevention partnership
in Collier County, we thank you for this proclamation. We now join in
observances across the country and across the state with proclamations
also issued by the President and the governor.
Our partnership has members from county pollution control and
prevention, stormwater management, mosquito control district, health
department, as well as representatives from city and county -- city
and state agencies, private businesses, environmental organizations,
and private citizens. We thank you for your support.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much for being here.
(Applause.)
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING SEPTEMBER 14-18, 1998 AS INDUSTRY APPRECIATION
WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: ***Our next proclamation, Commissioner
Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'd like to ask
our good friend, John Passidomo, to come forward and stand in front of
the cameras here for a bit. Proclamation reads:
Whereas, industry in Collier County is vital to the community's
economic health, and Collier County's existing industries are the key
to a prosperous future; and
Whereas, the economic development council of Collier County,
through the public/private partnership for economic prosperity with
the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, works to create
additional economic opportunity in Collier County through the
retention and expansion of high wage jobs; and
Whereas, 80 percent of the new jobs created will come from
existing industry in Collier County; and
Whereas, Collier County's industries help sustain our quality of
life and exemplify high standards of excellence and a positive,
responsible approach to economic diversification and community
enhancement; and
Whereas, the economic development council of Collier County and
the Collier County Board of County Commissioners salute all businesses
for making Collier County a desirable place to live and work.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that September 14th to 18th,
1998, be designated as Industry Appreciation Week, and urge all
residents to salute our industries and their employees for their
contribution to our community.
Done and ordered this 15th day of September, 1998 by the Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Barbara B. Berry,
Chairman.
And Madam Chairman, I'd like to move that we accept this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in
favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
(Applause.)
MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you, Commissioner Norris, Madam Chairman.
It's an honor to be here, and a privilege to represent the economic
development council in this recognition of industry appreciation, on
behalf of all businesses in Collier County.
The EDC is proud of its partnership with the Board of County
Commissioners in seeking to create high wage jobs in Collier County.
We hope to do three things by doing so: Shift some of the
extraordinary burden for local ad valorem taxes from local homeowners
to high wage job generators; sustain our high standard of living
without compromising our quality of life or the integrity of our
pristine environment; and three, creating opportunities for our young
people and others for an upward mobility in a growing, vibrant
economy. Thank you very much for the recognition.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
At this time, it's my pleasure to present some service awards.
We have three of them this morning. If we could have Yves Cazimir
please come forward. This is for five years in the department of
revenue.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Our next service award goes to Bonnie
Stephens, in the mail center, for 10 years; 10 years of taking care of
the mail.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And our last service award today is Eula
Parkman, for 10 years in parks and recreation. Eula?
(Applause.)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: John says that's a good start.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Keeps us in line at the community
center in Golden Gate.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's great.
Item #SA1
RESOLUTION 98-381 SUPPORTING THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR FEASIBILITY REPORT OF THE CENTRAL AND
SOUTH FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW STUDY TO BE CONDUCTED AND FUNDED IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT - ADOPTED
WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, moving on then to item 8(A)(1), the
approval of a resolution supporting the Army Corps of Engineers'
Southwest Florida feasibility study for feasibility report of the
central and South Florida Comprehensive Review Study, et cetera, et
Getera, et Getera. Mr. Hulhere?
MR. HULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Hulhere, planning
services director.
At the direction of the board, I've prepared a resolution with
regards to the South Florida comprehensive review study or the
restudy. This actually deals with a portion of that to develop a
feasibility study for Southwest Florida, in particular.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry to interrupt, but are we going
to come back to the Pelican Bay thing that Tim pulled off the --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
have to throw you out.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
That was 8 (B) (1) , I believe.
I'm so sorry.
That's one mistake, Pam. Two more, we may
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Continue, Hr. Hulhere.
HR. HULHERE: No problem.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Little blip in the screen.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the first one in -- well, it's not
my new term, so it'll be the last one in my -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: In your old term.
Oh, I see. I'm sorry.
8(B)(1).
Got it. Forgive me.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's something I'll never say.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We'll see.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, we'll see.
Sorry.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Continue.
MR. HULHERE: Your executive summary deals with the particulars
of this item, the -- probably the most germane issue or important
issue is that the estimated ten million dollar cost of the feasibility
study for the Southwest Florida area in particular will be borne by
the Army Corps of Engineers and the Southwest Florida -- South Florida
Water Management District with no direct cost to the county. I did
indicate in the fiscal impact statement that if county staff were to
be utilized during any course of the action of this feasibility study,
then there would be an indirect cost, of course, to the county in
terms of labor, commitments.
I understand Mr. Guggenheim is here from the Conservancy and has
a couple of issues to speak about. But if you have any questions,
I'll be happy to try to answer them.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll wait.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Obviously we have a speaker?
MR. FERNANDEZ: You have two speakers, Madam Chairman. The first
one is Pat Clark and then David Guggenheim.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, Pat, please.
MS. CLARK: Pat Clark, president, League of Women Voters, Collier
County. Good morning, commissioners.
I'm here to express the League's strong support for this proposed
southwest feasibility study by the Army Corps, and for all of the
reasons that you probably have in your resolution. I just wanted you
to know that if you need additional evidence of community support by
organizations such as the League, you have it. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: David Guggenheim.
MR. GUGGENHEIH: Good morning, Chairman --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning, David.
MR. GUGGENHEIH: -- Berry, commissioners. For the record, David
Guggenheim, president and CEO of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
I don't want to be repetitive of my remarks from last week, but
just a couple of quick points and clarifications. There are a lot of
projects going on. We have the restudy, we have the feasibility
study, we have an EIS. It all gets rather confusing.
One of the questions that came up is, is this feasibility study
for Southwest Florida simply going to send us down the same path as
the east coast? Engineering solutions to many of these very difficult
problems, canals and so on. And the answer to that is that the point
of the feasibility study is to prevent that kind of an outcome, an
over-engineered solution. We still have opportunities here, and those
are some of the themes that have emerged from the EIS work. And
that's precisely what this feasibility study is about, about trying to
prevent those kinds of problems.
I also want to stress that this is an incremental approach. The
feasibility study is simply the first step. It's getting the
information we need to make decisions to move forward from. There's no
obligation to this county, there is no financial burden to this
county. This is all coming from -- from federal government and from
the state government, and no financial burden at all, only benefit for
this county.
I would also say that in terms of the restudy itself and the
feasibility study, there will be increased accountability. And as now
the Florida co-chair of the Everglades Coalition, I have been working
with our position on the restudy. And I want to read to you one
sentence from our position statement on the restudy, which says to
assure the public the taxpayer dollars are being wisely spent for the
primary purpose of restoration, the coalition recommends that the
Corps of Engineers provide a more visible explanation of cost analysis
in terms of cost effectiveness and cost benefit.
That's something I think we've all heard before about many of
these environmental projects, it's something that we at the Coalition
and we at the Conservancy feel strongly about, and we'll continue to
work with the agencies to make sure that that happens.
Finally, I would just like to suggest one minor change to the
resolution that you have before you. The very last -- I'm sorry, the
second to last sentence, line 17, where it says the Board of County
Commissioners supports the joint efforts of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the district in developing the feasibility study, I
would suggest the language following the word study, the feasibility
study for Southwest Florida and the C&SF restudy project. That way
this resolution supports both the feasibility study and the greater
restudy of which it is a part. And I think both of those messages are
important. Given the situation in congress right now, we -- congress
has come back supporting Everglades restoration at a level of one-half
of what was agreed to with the administration in the balanced budget
amendment. A year ago the Everglades was supposed to be a protected
priority. We have a very serious situation up there. The senate
numbers are about three-quarters. These numbers are very low. And
this is a very, very serious situation, as I'm sure you've read in the
paper in some of the articles that I forwarded to you.
The most powerful thing that we can do as a community is show our
local support. That's what congress is looking for. That's why this
resolution is so critical to the future of the restoration of the
Everglades ecosystem and the prevention of water supply problems,
flood control problems and environmental problems here in Southwest
Florida.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay --
MR. GUGGENHEIM: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- would you state that again, David, where
that would come in? The study phase for Southwest Florida?
MR. GUGGENHEIM: Line 17 --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
MR. GUGGENHEIM: -- the district, in developing the feasibility
study for Southwest Florida and the C&SF restudy project. So if you
strike out phase of the and after the word study, for Southwest
Florida and the C&SF restudy project.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Constantine, question?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment. When we brought this
up a couple weeks back, I had three very specific concerns, and one is
that we were not duplicating -- David and I talked some about this --
but when we hear study and restudy and impact study and we start
wondering what they all are.
Also, I wanted to make sure what the fiscal impacts were and
clarify the intent of where we were headed with this. After sitting
down with several of the parties involved over the course of that
time, I'm very comfortable that we are headed in the right direction
with this, that we are achieving the goals that this board has laid
out with water issues, that we're not duplicating other studies. And
it says -- not only do we know, but it says in our resolution we have
no direct fiscal impact.
I think we spoke a couple of weeks ago about lending our staff,
if need be, and doing what will, but as far as making a financial
commitment, we're not being asked to do that. And so I support this
wholeheartedly, and if we need a motion, would be happy to make one.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other comments or questions?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I agree with Commissioner
Constantine, I think this is on the right track. And as long as we
have the assurrance that we're not going to lock ourselves into some
major financial commitment, I'm comfortable with it as well.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll move approval,
including the suggested change on line 17. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If
there's no further comments, I'll call the question.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
MR. GUGGENHEIM: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
Item #8A2
STAFF TO CONTRACT WITH LANDERS, ATKINS, PLANNERS, INC. FOR CONSULTANT
SERVICES TO DEVELOP THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPHENT PLAN -
APPROVED
Next item is recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners authorize staff to contract for consultant services for
the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment plan.
MS. CACCHIONE: Good morning, commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning.
MS. CACCHIONE: For the record, my name's Barbara Cacchione with
your comprehensive planning staff.
On June 16th the board directed us to send out a request for a
proposal for consultants to look at the Bayshore and East Naples area.
We received five proposals. We formed a selection committee, five
members of staff, four from the community, two from Bayshore, two from
East Naples. We ranked the consultants, and basically the consultant
that was selected through that process was Landers, Atkins Planners.
There's detail in your executive summary on the amounts, and there's
also funding sources listed --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm terribly sorry to interrupt, but
it looks like Commissioner Hac'Kie might have a motion.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second for the
approvement (sic.) of the consultant for the development of the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment plan.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Should we assume then that any further
clarification about the millage on the Bayshore HSTU will be discussed
at the next budget hearing instead of today? Perfect. MS. CACCHIONE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But this information will be a part of
that, obviously.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Obviously.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, Mr. Fernandez, did we have a speaker on
that?
MR. FERNANDEZ: You did have a speaker. Kathy Briscoe.
MS. BRISCOE: My question was answered. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Let the record reflect that the
question was taken care of.
Item #SB1
PROCUREHENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE IHPLEHENTATION PHASE OF HTE
CLAM BAY RESTROATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN - APPROVED WITH TURRELL &
ASSOCIATES; HUHISTON & MOORE; AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE; WILSON,
MILLER, BARTON & PEEK; TACKNEY & ASSOCIATES; LEWIS ENVIRONMENTAL; AND
DR. SAMUEL SNEDEKER AND WITH INCLUSION OF $75,000 FOR THE STUDY ELEMENT
FOR TURRELL & ASSOCIATES
Next item is the third quarter revenue and expenditure report
for the fiscal --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- year 1998.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: -- this is --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 16(B)(5).
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: First Commissioner Mac'Kie tries to rush
me and --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- then I'm skipped. I'm not out of here
yet, Barb, okay?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Now I just try and cut you out of the
picture, right?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not out of here yet, Barb, okay?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock, item 8(B)(1). This is a
question that the commissioner wished to have clarified on item
16(B)(5). Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Ilschner, I just may need your
collective memory on this also.
As I looked through this package, one thing that seemed to be
missing to me was the advisory board of Pelican Bay had a line item in
their budget for $250,000 for studies associated with this work. They
made a motion and approved Todd Turfell and Associates doing those
studies for $75,000. When I looked at this, I didn't see it in there,
and I think it's just been omitted. MR. ILSCHNER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And so what I would like to do in
approving this today, because I don't really think there's a need to
table it, is to approve, by way of inclusion, the specified studies in
the minutes of the advisory board to Turfell and Associates for
$75,000.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So that's including -- that's not
increasing the amount, it's just specifying what some of the
expenditure will be, right?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Specifying it in place of a $250,000
budgeted line item, which I think is helpful.
And if Mr. Ward has a problem with that, we can bring it back.
But I just -- I don't want to slow it up, but I do want to -- in a
motion I want to include that and I wanted to have the opportunity to
explain to you that -- the discussion on the advisory board, if you
had any questions about it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I had some contact from members of
the advisory board too to say please be sure that you don't -- A,
don't slow us down but please, we have -- I don't want to -- well, I
guess I do want to do an ad for Todd Turfell. But they're going to
dicker $75,000, what's an otherwise $250,000 project. Please get it
in there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And this was not put together by Mr.
Ilschner. I believe Mr. Ward actually put this together.
MR. ILSCHNER: Mr. -- Ed Ilschner, public works administrator,
Collier County, Madam Chairman, for the record.
Yes --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. ILSCHNER: -- Mr. Ward did put this together. We will take
that direction and ensure that that is accomplished.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wanted to make sure that you didn't
get blamed for leaving something out. We'll blame you when we can,
but this one we can't. No.
MR. ILSCHNER: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do I have a motion then?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a motion we approve item
16(B)(5) with the inclusion of the $75,000 study element for Todd
Turfell and Associates.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Do we
have any -- obviously no public speakers. MR. FERNANDEZ: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll call the question.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Sorry, Commissioner, I wasn't trying to overlook you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just teasing, Barb.
Item #BE1
THIRD QUESTER REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT - FISCAL YEAR 1998 -
REPORT ACCEPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Item 8(E), the third quarter revenue and
expenditure report, fiscal year 1998. Mr. Smykowski.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I just butt in before he even starts,
to say --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Please do.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you, I knew you'd want me to.
-- that this is the best piece of information I've seen since
I've been on the County Commission for four years.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You just like the graphic.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I didn't give a hoot about the graphic,
but I really, really liked the work that you put into it, because if
somebody wants to know what's going on in county government and what
we're spending money on and what we're expecting our employees to
produce --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Take a look.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- take a look. It's right there and it's
very clear.
So Janet Vasey, wherever you are, tune in, because it's here.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, we have to give due credit.
This is called the Vasey/Watler format.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely. It's fantastic.
That's the kind of interruption you don't mind, is it?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you, I'll take that any time.
For the record, Michael Smykowski, budget director. This is the
third quarter revenue and expenditure report for fiscal year 1998.
Pursuant to the board direction, the format of the report has
been changed. It now includes performance measures, as well as
expenditure and revenue detail by individual department, and on those
individual department worksheets, our explanations of major variances
from the third quarter revenue and expense budgets and/or the
performance measures.
Overall, in terms of the report, there's good news for the
general fund. There will be some additional money available as a
function of ad valorem taxes, collections this year, sales tax
revenue, as well as state revenue sharing, and we'll bring forth a
proposal next week at the September 23rd public hearing for the board
to -- the board will make a policy decision regarding potential uses
of that money.
In terms of the ad valorem taxes, the actual tax revenues
received have exceeded the projected level by $127,000. We
traditionally base the forecast at 96 and a half percent of the actual
tax levy. The tax collector actual receipts have exceeded
projections.
Current projections for sales tax exceed the forecast used in the
development budget by half a million dollars.
In addition, as I indicated at the second quarter report, the
June state revenue sharing number is the close of the state fiscal
year. And that's kind of the make or break month in terms of revenue
to be received.
Just to give you an indication, we are projecting a surplus of
almost 1.2 million dollars in this category. A year ago in June, we
received about $800,000. This year we received 1.8 million dollars.
So the bulk of that additional revenue is solely a function of the
June receipt. Again, that's typically a win or lose month. In this
case we came up a big winner, so that's certainly good news for the
county.
Overall enterprise fund revenues, they're tracking fairly closely
with the budget. There are, in the EHS fund, I allude there is --
cash flow within the fund is very tight. There's been some problems
with the software package in terms of actual billings, as well as the
Hedicaid reimbursements and actual collection rate.
We've been monitoring this very closely with the finance
department and at this point we've been able to make every payroll. We
may be short on this last payroll, and part of that additional revenue
may end up going to EHS.
It's important to note in addition to -- on the collections side,
the carryforward included accounts receivable, a portion of which
typically are uncollectible, so the carryforward number was slightly
overstated. That's certainly the part I think we would have to
replace with general fund cash.
As a matter of practice for future years, we met with the finance
department on this and the cash -- or the carryforward for the EHS
fund for future years will only include actual cash as opposed to
receivables so as not to overstate available cash.
I guess the last thing overall is impact fee revenues have
certainly -- it's been a very solid year -- solid's probably a gross
understatement -- in the current building environment we have going on
in the county. And we're -- there are surpluses to varying degrees
within each impact fee category.
We have made changes to the forecast revenues, based on the
year-to-date figures through 10 months, and those were incorporated
into the budget at last week's public hearing, so those numbers are up
to date.
So overall, there's about 1.8 million dollars in additional
general fund revenue now projected. That's 500,000 sales tax, a
million one sixty-seven seven in revenue sharing, 127,000 in ad
valorem taxes. Again, we bring a proposal to the board next week for
potential uses of that. I'm going to be meeting this week with the
constitutional officers regarding their turnback revenues, to see if
those have -- if there's been a major swing either positive or
negative.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And Hike, among the potential uses for
that found money will be a tax reduction, right? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, most certainly. As --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just wanted to be sure.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: As the board has done --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Was there ever a question?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, it said bring it back with the
potential uses.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Well, the board has certainly utilized the --
this report in the past, and the updated information, to reduce the
millage at the final hearing. That is certainly an option that the
board will have in this regard.
I guess the only other question I have just in terms of the
overall format --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Did everybody love it as much as Pam?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Is there something you'd like to see? Is this
format what you were looking for?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's exactly what I'm looking for, because
not just I can sit here and read this and understand what's going on
department by department, but the average person who doesn't know the
first thing about how our budget is put together now knows exactly
where our departments stand on their spending protocols
percentage-wise, hour-wise. It's just -- it's far clearer, and I
think it's the way we ought to do it in the future.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And Hike, could we have this available to
us at next year's budget time? I mean, I'd like to have this --
MR. FERNANDEZ: We'll do this quarterly.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I mean --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- would you please give it back to us at
budget time?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. And one change we'll make, we've always
erred on the side -- there is a lag in collections, so we've always
erred on the side of waiting until we have the first three months'
worth of sales tax information, but you may not have that until
February, so there's always been a delay. Probably to give you the
benefit of this report during the June workshops -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Perfect.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- what we may have to do is just we may only
have four months' worth of actual sales tax collections, but I think
you'd probably be more interested in having this than waiting for the
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Got it.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- two months of additional sales tax
information. So that is a change we will make procedurally in-house
to enable us to bring you this report --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One question, though.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- much more quickly.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't see a column for like a year end
summary. We need to have quarter specified out, quarters by itself.
But maybe there is a way to put a cumulative -- you know, because just
for example, this page is a number of EHS service calls. We have it
by quarter. Well, unless you want to sit here with a calculator and
go down the columns and kind of provide a summary of total calls and
whatnot, it would be nice if we could have maybe on -- in the box to
the right a summary area. I think that's what would help at budget
time, Pam.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: They are cumulative.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: They accumulate.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: They're cumulative.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're running totals, I think.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well see -- okay, then that -- then
something's wrong with this page, because I look at by quarter how
many calls are expected, and it goes from 6,000 budgeted, 7,000
budgeted, 6,500 budgeted in the third quarter.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay, that should be -- they should be
cumulative. That's probably just -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- a flaw in that individual --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In another one they were, and one -- the
one that Mark Skinner put together, I notice they were cumulative.
But on this one, the first three quarters are standalone and the
fourth quarter is cumulative.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it either needs to be cumulative all
the way through --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- or individual all the way through.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good catch.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: They should be cumulative. That was --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- probably just an error in --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Someone go beat Diane and make sure she
doesn't do it again.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or not.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: We also erred --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's probably Steve Rocky. Beat Steve.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: We also erred on the side of giving the report --
this report today rather than next Tuesday so you'd have a week to
digest it before the public hearing. So in a few cases it's perhaps
not letter perfect in all cases, but we erred on the side of giving
you the information an additional week early.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can -- Ty, of Taxpayers' Action Groups
wants to know what we're spending your money on, get a copy of this.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Before I call the --
MR. AGOSTON: Are you giving it away, or is there a charge?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Before I call the first speaker, the only speaker
we have, I'd like to publicly recognize Mr. Smykowski and his staff
for this product. I think they did a nice job on this. And they did
it at a time that is probably the worst possible time in their fiscal
year to give them this additional assignment when I was adamant about
moving forward with this. I knew it came at a time when they were
busily working on the budget and putting that together. So it added
considerably to their workload at a very difficult time. And I want
to express my appreciation to them for that.
And the first speaker is Dr. Faye Biles.
MS. BILES: Good morning, Faye Biles, president of Marco Island
Taxpayers' Association, and also a member of the Greater Naples Civic
Association budget review committee. And I want to compliment Mr.
Smykowski, Mr. Fernandez for this wonderful report. The committee was
adamant about coming up with some kind of a report that would really
share with any taxpayer who wants to look at it and know exactly what
we're spending, when we're spending it and how we're spending it.
Anybody's who's serious about looking at facts and figures, this is
certainly the way to go. And thank you, we compliment you and I'm
sure Janet and Eric will be so pleased. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, this is the Vasey/Watler/Biles
report.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Didn't mean to exclude you, Peg.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, she's the only speaker.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, okay. All right.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I said before she's the only --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You may remember, that was the ad hoc
budget committee we did -- two years ago -- two years ago from GNCA
that really resulted in some fantastic things.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Some serious changes.
Do we need a motion to accept the report?
So moved.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second for the
acceptance of the third quarter revenue and expenditure report.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Thank you, Mr. Smykowski.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You want to put the tape of this meeting
in your personnel file, Mike?
Item #10A
REPORT OF THE AD HOC ETHICS STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE - STAFF DIRECTED
TO DRAFT ORDINANCE AND RETURN WITH SAME AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, moving on then to the next item, is
the report of the ad hoc ethics standard review committee. Good morning.
MR. MUMAW: Good morning. My name is Joe Mumaw, I'm the chairman
of the ad hoc ethics standards review committee.
Also on the committee as members are Frank Holland, Bill Thiesen,
Casey Wolff is the vice chair and Earl Marlin. And Mr. Marlin is in
attendance here this morning.
You set us up and gave us some charges and a time limit to come
back and give you a report. You sent as a liaison with us the county
attorney's office. And we would be totally remiss if we didn't
recognize the excellent job that the county attorney's office did with
us, both prompt and professionally assisting us. That would be Mr.
David Weigel, Ramiro Manalich, and Debbie Allen.
The resolution gave us a three-phased charge: The first one was
to review the existing laws, including gift disclosure; the second was
to review the problems associated with existing laws; and third, to
propose suggestions on correcting these problems. And you also wanted
a status report in 60 days. And since we're meeting, my report is
before 2:00, I'm in the 60th day.
We scheduled nine meetings. We only had seven official meetings
because we didn't have a quorum for two of those. We were unable to
hold one meeting with all five members physically present. The last
three meetings, we had our out-of-town member on a telephone hookup so
we could get at least five persons' views. That's not a very efficient
or effective way to conduct this type of activity, but it was better
than nothing.
One meeting we held in the evening and invited public comments.
We had over 20 people attend and a lot of -- I think we had eight to
10 speakers. A synopsis of what was said is included as an attachment
to the report that was forwarded to you last Friday.
Also attached to that report is a synopsis of the other nine
jurisdictions who have ethics codes that we evaluated. And these nine
are all the ethics codes that are in the State of Florida. Those
codes range in size from one page to 70 pages.
As you would expect, the big population areas have the most
extensive policies. It's Miami in Dade County and Jacksonville in
Duval County. The City of Naples is the latest that we received and,
therefore, it's the one that we used as our guide.
Regarding ethics codes, you don't have to invent too much. You
just piggyback on ones that already exist and cut and paste and put
together something that you think makes a lot of sense. Ethics codes
in reality are nothing more than today's set of acceptable behavior.
And as you know better than anyone, persons who are involved in
collecting and spending taxpayer dollars are expected to stay safely
on the conservative side of the plumb line and avoid even the
appearance of impropriety. And we used that philosophy as our
guideline in evaluating what our job task was.
Our recommendations. We think we should craft a code of conduct
for elected officials and employees, and we think we should do that
because of all the problem areas that we uncovered with the current
ethics program that are noted in another attachment to the report that
we submitted on Friday.
We think the code of conduct should include provisions for
misdemeanor penalties which does two things: It allows for a more
prompt and timely resolution of alleged ethical misconduct by
involving the Sheriff's Department or the State Attorney's Office in
the investigation, and, if warranted, having a speedy trial within a
90-day period.
Further, it would be another deterrent to ethical violations.
Five of the nine jurisdiction codes that we evaluated contain such
penalty provisions.
We also recommend the establishment of a citizens ethics advisory
panel, whose role would be primarily to answer questions relating to
ethical behavior and other duties as make sense, such as liaison with
the county attorney's office, the state ethics commission and the
board.
Two of nine jurisdictions have requirements for ethics panels.
These that exist today are many state ethics commissions with staffs,
investigative powers, subpoena power and big budgets. That's not what
we have in mind at all. We're thinking of a three-person volunteer
citizens' panel with occasional need for assistance from the county
attorney's office.
There were two issues that totally polarized the committee: One
is post-employment restrictions, and the other is the gift policy. On
the post-employment restrictions, there exist in the state a -- that
ex-elected public officials are precluded from lobbying before their
ex-council for a period of two years. There are no provisions for key
employees.
Some jurisdictions, five of nine, place prohibitions on certain
department heads, and the Naples City Code allows special dispensation
if that person has a situation whose key employee is prohibited, as a
special situation pleads his case before the council and by unanimous
vote can be given dispensation.
The second area we had a lot of problems with was gifts. With a
long list of exceptions and definitions, the state allows gifts up to
a value of $100 from a lobbyist, and a lobbyist is defined as anyone
or their principals who for pay come before the board and ask for
something. All gifts over $25 must be reported quarterly by the
lobbyist. Five of nine jurisdictions have implemented a more
restrictive gift policy. Essentially gifts from lobbyists are
precluded and a set of definitions allow as acceptable the following
examples: Gifts received from friends or family relationships; food
or beverage at a professional or civic meeting; unsolicited
advertising or promotional materials or awards, plaques and
certificates given in recognition of service.
This was a very emotional issue within the committee that ranged
from the thought process that no one can be bought for $100, that what
exists in the current system is acceptable. So that was one view is
that the current state system is satisfactory as it is.
The other view is that the current system is too complex, too
cumbersome and a lose-lose catch-22 scenario for the recipients of the
gifts.
A big problem is the valuation of gifts. It's difficult, if not
impossible, to ascertain in some scenarios. Answers to valuation
questions at the time of the gifting is the sole responsibility of the
giver. But if the giver is wrong, the receivers are the ones who are
censured, or worse. The only policy that takes all the guesswork and
the jeopardy out of the process is a zero tolerance gifting.
The committee has not scheduled any more meetings, since the
charge that you gave us in resolution 98-16 has been accomplished.
The committee does recommend that you direct us to draft and propose
an ethics code of conduct for Collier County.
Further, the committee requests the board provide specific
direction on where we should go with the two problem areas we have,
the revolving door post-employment restrictions and the gift policy.
This is a magnificent opportunity for you to make a strong
statement to your constituents on the significance of high ethical
standards and behavior, while at the same time eliminating the
jeopardy created by the current gift policy.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you. I'd be happy
to answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one. I'm intrigued by the idea of
the local panel. But if it's not staffed and has investigatory
powers, can you give me an example of how it might apply? I'm curious
whether or not I can go to the CBIA banquet, because it's something
you can't buy tickets to, and you're invited to go as their guest.
CBIA is, you know, the building industry. I could come to this local
group and ask for their interpretation about whether or not I can
accept that invitation?
MR. MUMAW: Yes, that's the purpose of it, is to answer those
kind of questions. To do it in a vein broader than just what does the
law say, it would be here's the way the law reads, here are the gray
areas or the shady areas that aren't clear-cut defined, and here's a
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And of course it's not a shield. I can't
hide from -- it doesn't protect me from prosecution if in fact I'm
wrong, but it's just helpful. Is that the idea?
MR. MUMAW: There is no such shield, as you well know, today.
This committee could also go to the state ethics commission and get an
advisory opinion if there were enough time to allow.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have other comments, but that was my
only question, so --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I didn't see on the chart here -- and
congratulations by the way on a job well done -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- in a very compact time frame.
MR. MUMAW: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I didn't see on the chart here if --
of the other nine, have any of the others criminalized the penalties?
Because I like that idea a lot.
MR. MUMAW: Yes, there -- I think five of nine did that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have a question --
MR. MUMAW: All penalties, the same as misdemeanors, which has a
fine and a potential jail time associated with it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just think for a couple reasons, I
think that raises the stakes a little bit. And hopefully none of your
public officials are going to require that. But if so, a stronger
deterrent, but also, I think by bringing in the State Attorney's
Office to that, we may be able to shorten that time frame and have a
quicker resolution to any question that's raised. I like that idea a
lot.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel, what is the statute that allows
for that? If you -- can you cite that offhand? What statute allows
the powers to be able to do that?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. It's chapter -- it's chapter 112, Florida
Statutes, part three, the ethics area.
Ramiro, you may want to correct me if I'm wrong. I can turn to
it real quick, but I think it's 112.413. If it's not that one, it's
certainly a statute very close to that.
MR. MANALICH: Yeah, that and also 125.69 under the general
county powers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Identify yourself.
MR. MANALICH: I'm sorry, Ramiro Manalich, chief assistant county
attorney.
125.69 of the statutes under general county powers provides that
county ordinances may have penalties that are prosecuted as
misdemeanors, 60 days and/or $500.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My favorite one of those is that if we
interfere with the business of running the county with the county
administrator's job, we can go to jail and pay a fine -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- you know, so we've already done --
there is a precedent that I'm aware of for us -- for our doing that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Well, I know that Mr. Mumaw and the
committee, if the committee is to be extended, are -- have asked you
for direction following discussion on particularly a couple of the
issues of this subject matter.
And in regard to a local panel and the use of a local panel,
whomever it may be, however it may be constituted, I just want to
advise you and the public and all watching that the local panel may
perform an advisory function. One of the things to keep in mind is,
are they advising solely over the local ordinance that may be adopted,
or are they advising also in reference to the state statutes that
already exist? I would suggest that you keep that in mind.
Additionally, and I think Ms. Mac'Kie raised the question, if the
local panel is used, it may or may not have the requirements of a
Sunshine Law meeting requirement. Sometimes speedy turnaround is of
importance in regard to the event or the issue and the requirement for
a knowledgeable answer to be done. And I think that's another
logistical and important issue in regard to the ethicacy of a panel,
if it were to be constituted, no matter who makes it up, whether it's
attorneys or someone else.
Also, don't lose sight of the fact that although there may be
comfort in a local ordinance being put in place for many valid
reasons, that that will not be in lieu of any ongoing state
investigation of a complaint that should be filed with the state
ethics committee. And that will continue to take the time that it
takes, no matter what it is, with the state ethics committee.
So there is the possibility of a scenario where a local ordinance
may be found locally to be in violation, and that is not a violation
of the state law that's in effect. And the contr -- and the reverse,
that a local ordinance may be found not to be in violation. Someone
or someones breathe a sigh of relief that they haven't violated that.
But an ethics complaint filed with the state ethics commission
continues inexorably toward its end sometime later.
So I think that's maybe a larger picture of what we're contending
with here. The local ordinance process shall not be in lieu of a
state process, in any event.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's not an easy fix.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I mean, anybody that thinks that just writing
on a piece of paper and setting down a list of things is going to fix
this, that's not the case. I mean, you've got -- it's a very, very
complex problem. And the willingness to go ahead and do it is one
thing, but understand that it's going to be complex and it's not going
to be something that can just be snap of the fingers and be --
everything goes away and everything's wonderful.
I still -- one of my big problems is the timeliness issue, and
that is one of the reasons that I do favor something locally, if this
will help on the timeliness issue.
At the same time, I still stand by -- and I don't back away from
it, I think it's part of -- we still must address and encourage our
state representatives and senators to address the timeliness issue. I
just -- it's there and it's something that can be looked at. And I
don't think that's bad. And I don't want anyone to go out of here
thinking that, you know, that we're trying to jump ship on this. But
that still has to be looked at in addition to what's being proposed
here. So let's don't forget about that and say oh, we're going to
draft it here and that's going to -- everything else is going to be
okay. We still fall under and still have to comply with the state
statute. So let's don't lose sight of that.
Commissioner Norris?
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, I'd also like to thank you, Mr.
Humaw, for all the work you and your committee did. That was a lot of
work in a short period of time, really, with some difficult
circumstances with the meetings, I understand. But it was summertime.
On the three-person panel, did you research or make any
recommendation on how that would be constituted, or how you would form
that -- where -- how would they be selected?
MR. HUNLAW: Well, I don't think we really got into that advanced
thinking. We have a proposal from one of our members that's a
two-page job description for the panel members, but we hadn't really
taken the time to go through that in detail and agree with that, or
make recommendations how and who should constitute the panel.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The point I'd be getting towards is that
they need to be selected in some way that would ensure their
impartiality. Otherwise, we would be fostering some potential for
political mischief, obviously.
MR. HUNLAW: I would agree with you, totally, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Could you tell me, you said there were a
couple of issues that you were divided on. Could you tell me how that
division went? I think you mentioned the post-employment.
MR. HUNLAW: My view is that there are two people on either end of
the spectrum, which makes four. The fifth person is somewhere in the
middle. And it's my view that, you know, given the charge to resolve
that, we could sit down and compromise as mature grown people can do
and come out with something that will be in the middle of those two
positions.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And the other had to do with gifts was the
split?
MR. HUNLAW: Well, that's primarily the gifts.
On the resolving door, I think the issue is that may not be a
problem. You know, we're not experienced enough to know. I know that
my experience is with the federal government, and they have a lot of
revolving door requirements, as well they should. But this is a --
you know, the number of people that would be restricted would be in
the neighborhood of five or six or seven people here.
So I don't know if it's a problem or not. And you would, and
that's why we're coming to you for your advice and guidance on this
issue. The gift policy is very emotional, though. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that's one of the -- the revolving
door issue I think is a certain problem. We know what we have to do
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- okay?
MR. HUNLAW: Right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: When we get into the employees, it's a
different situation. And once they are no longer under our
employment, the enforcement to me is going to be a bit of a problem.
You know, they resign today and tomorrow they go to work, they're no
longer our employee, what -- what enforcement power would we have that
would say that two weeks from now they couldn't take a job with a
local company? Now, maybe they couldn't come before us, but what's to
say they couldn't take the job with the local company? At the same
time, does that mean that if you come to work in Collier County
government, that once you leave Collier County government you better
plan to leave Collier County, because you're not going to be able to
work anywhere in this county?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Those are just things -- I mean they're just
questions. Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. But these are
questions that have to be answered, folks. We have to deal with the
problems --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and these are the things that have to be
dealt with. I can imagine what's going to happen, but go ahead.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, you're absolutely right. I think
we may be able to look at a no lobbying policy for your top folks, but
I think to try to create a non-compete is essentially telling someone
when you leave, you've got to move out of the county. And, I mean,
you're -- if we tried to put a non-compete on Commissioner Hancock as
he finishes his career as a commissioner --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm starting my own branch of government,
personally.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The shadow government.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- he's prohibited from coming before
us for two years, but if you tell him he can't work in his trained
profession of land planning in Collier County, you're saying okay,
thanks for being commissioner, now you've got to move out of town --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Get out of town.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and I don't know that that's
appropriate. So he should not be coming before us for a period of
time --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which I knew when I got elected, just as a
new employee would know if they came in under those rules. That's
part of it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So I think a no lobbying provision
might be fine. I think we've got to be careful trying to create a
non-compete. I don't know that that's --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- doable or fair.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock, you had some statement?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I think we probably all have
a list of ideas and potential directions, but before we get too far
into that, I think we ought to hear from those that are here to speak
today, so that we can --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good point.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- try and incorporate those comments into
our individual and eventually collective direction on this.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. At this time then, Mr. Humaw, thank
you, but stay close.
MR. FERNANDEZ: First two speakers, Madam Chairman, are Gina Hawn
and Ty Agoston.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Ms. Hawn?
MS. HAWN: Good morning. I'm Gina Hawn.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Does that say Gators for Jeb?
MS. HAWN: Gators.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Gators for Jeb. Okay.
MS. HAWN: I would like to speak this morning on behalf of the
Collier County Republican party. I'm a Collier County state committee
woman. I would like to address obviously the issue of gifts. That
seems to be a problem. It was a problem when we stood before the
committee. The majority of people who were there that evening, if I
remember correctly, spoke about no gifts. And I would like to address
that today.
In the ethics code proposal, which you all got about -- from our
party earlier this year, I would like to read section one, line 5-A
titled section one, code of ethics and conduct. 5-A, except as
provided in paragraph B and C, which would not relate to this at all,
a person shall not solicit, accept directly or indirectly, any gift,
gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan, or any other thing of monetary
value from anyone who, one, has or seeking to obtain contractual or
other business or financial relations with the county. That makes
sense to me. Conducts operations or activities that are regulated by
the county, another good point. Has interests that may be
substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the
person's official duty. Four, is in any way attempting to affect the
person's official actions at the county, or is offering anything of
monetary value, including food and refreshments, to an employee
because of the person's official position.
For those commissioners who might have had a concern in regard to
luncheons, dinners, there is, under section B, and I would read --
let's see, one -- under two, actually -- one: In addition, food or
beverage may be accepted when offered free in the course of a meeting
or other group functions not connected with any inspection or
investigation, at which attendance is desirable, because it will
assist the person in performing his or her official duties -- so Pam,
when you come to the Women's Republican Club of Naples Federated for
lunch like you did last Friday, we gave you lunch. It cost us 15
bucks.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it is no problem.
MS. HAWN: And it's not a problem. Okay, I just want to point
that out --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If it were me, I would be paying for it. I'm
sorry.
MS. HAWN: -- provided to all panelists as speakers, when a
person is participating as a panelist or a speaker in a program,
seminar or educational conference.
These are found under chapter 112, Florida Statutes. The word
gift is defined to exclude food or beverage consumed at a single
sitting or event. We are saying except this. The state is saying
this.
In conclusion, the Collier County party, Collier County
Republican party, asked this commission to include a no gift policy in
your ethics code. Accept no gifts, nada. Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Ty Agoston, and then Marjorie
Farley.
MR. AGOSTON: Morning, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Ty
Agoston. I live in that unattractive Golden Gate Estates, and I'm
speaking for myself.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ty, I just bought a -- I just got a
contract on a piece of property in the Estates, so I find it very
attractive.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Next door to you, by the way.
MR. AGOSTON: Based on your earlier vote regarding the Army Corps
of Engineers, and then I'm beginning to get a sense of the way this
issue is developing. It appears that you have absorbed and made it
your own, the Naples Daily News' interpretation the results of the
last election.
I personally disagree with that particular result, and I don't
believe that it was about ethics. We have a gentleman in Washington
who's arguing very vigorously the definition of sex and apparently has
no problem with ethics, because supposedly he has a 66 percent
approval rating.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ty, I know you have a language thing, but
he's no gentleman, just a man.
MR. AGOSTON: I am using the term purely as a communication, to
not anything else.
I'd like to paraphrase a gentleman, again. Doug Rankin, last
night at the Republican Executive Committee meeting, he has raised a
point that I happen to agree with. All you guys could be bought for
100 bucks? Any of you? Of course you're not. I mean, this is the
most ridiculous presupposition, that any of you who ran for public
office and claim public trust could be bought for $100.
I had lunch with some of you. Does that mean that I attempt to
buy you? It's meaningless. This is nothing else but the media -- the
local Naples Daily News' attempt to garner a greater control by having
the ability to call you a criminal for something as idiotic as the
golf game you went to, which was a no-show game, it was absolutely
worthless to the promoter. As a matter of fact, you were doing a
favor to them simply by being there. And it became a big issue. Why?
Because the Naples Daily News decided that it was a big issue.
Are we going to allow the Naples Daily News to decide how this
county should be run? Should I not bother coming here? Should I just
simply read the Naples Daily News' editorial and find out just exactly
which way our government is heading?
I am very unhappy with the turn of events. I ache to hear that
Mr. Hancock is going to leave us. I had my disagreements with the
gentleman; on the other hand, that's what makes a horse race. And for
someone to claim that Mr. Hancock has lost his election because of
ethics is worse than disingenuous. I mean, I think that's way out of
line. And the fact that we only have one newspaper in town is the
reason why they can get away with this. Thank you very much.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Marjorie Farley. That's our
final speaker on the subject, Hadam Chairman.
MS. FARLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It's nice to be
here. I don't come too often, but I do have a couple of very brief
statements to make.
I think first of all to remember that when you make a resolution
and when this commission comes to some conclusion about it, it should
be as simple as possible. It should not be bureaucratic, it should
not be having to worry about this or that or the other thing.
According to the Oxford dictionary and the Career Institute
defining ethics, we find its meaning as honest, principled, moral,
righteous, and good. Therefore, for you and the employees to be the
best to serve the people, respecting these attributes, one -- and my
opinion only as a private citizen -- must of necessity refute any and
all offers from lobbyists, whether it be a breakfast or luncheon, a
golf game, tennis tickets or whatever. Paying your own way to these
persuaders must be the rule.
I don't like to bring money into this, but $50,000 I believe you
people get a year. I would think that you could pay your own way more
or less to attend your own tabs and your own checks, and there would
be no problem. You could walk away clear. You would say hey, I did my
own, I talked to this person, but I paid. So to me there were three
points to remember when creating a local ethics resolution. I believe
in making the punishment serious and local. I believe there should be
expedient adjudication of the allegation and, most important, take
nothing.
Monitoring might be through a list of lobbyists that's available
to all and also all the offers made to you people which you
necessarily would reject, so at least we know who's trying really hard
to persuade this county. The Republican Executive Committee's ethics
resolution should be seriously considered. I thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Next speaker, please?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No further --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was the last one.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, is that it? Okay.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- as we start now with what
Commissioner Hancock referred to as our list of ideas, mine are just,
first of all, that I want to endorse what the committee proposed. I
have a question about the practicality of the local board, but I'd
like to investigate that further. But the question that Mr. Norris
raises about how they would be appointed is a really, really important
one.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: For an advisory board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right, for that local advisory board I
have some questions remaining about that, but I think it bears further
investigation.
But I certainly endorse their recommendations for enacting a
code, having a criminal penalty, and then investigating the idea of
the local advisory board.
On the other two issues that they didn't make recommendations on
-- well, I'll take the one that's easiest for me first, the staff
question. I can't get out of my phrase -- out of my mind the phrase
get the log out of your own eye before you get the speck out of your
brother's eye. As far as I'm concerned, there's just not a problem
with staff. It's a Biblical reference, Tim, don't look confused.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Speck.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Baptized Southern Baptist, and we never
had logs in our eyes, but okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll give you the reference later, if you
want.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: All right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tom, you can help me.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We need to separate church and state.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Please continue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But there's -- I am not aware of the staff
problems, so I have not given a great deal of attention to that
particular issue, because I'm too focused on getting the log out of my
own eye. But I do think that a prohibition on direct lobbying in
front of the Board of County Commissioners is probably the way to go.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Two-year?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two-year, same as --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just like ours?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- us.
On the gift question, I think that because of all of the -- all
of the uncertainty, all the possibilities for interpretation on what's
a gift, what's its valuation; and nobody's more familiar with that
than I, having spent a year talking about what were the value of some
golf ticket passes that I gave to my parents.
Because of the valuation questions and the perception problem, it
seems to me the only clear way to go on gifts is this: Have lobbyists
register. We are one of the few counties -- well, I'm sorry, I don't
know that for sure. I know that many counties have lobby registration
ordinances. Lee County has one, for example.
And when I was a lobbyist, I didn't like the idea of being told
to sign up as one, and so I recognize that that comes with some
controversy. But a lobbyist is merely somebody who for pay seeks to
influence a decision of the county government. And that way, if we
had a clear prohibition on gifts from lobbyists, we know what to do.
I know who I can take nothing from. I know that I can allow the
Women's Republican Club to pay for my lunch when I come to speak to
that group because they're not lobbyists. They do not come for pay to
influence decisions of the County Commission. Now, they come down
here and they say please, for the good of the general community, adopt
an ethics ordinance and lower our taxes, and those are things that are
general public kinds of issues.
But if people come and it is a part of their job to seek to
influence decisions of the county government, then we should accept no
gifts from those people. If we know who they are, it's simple enough.
We'll know who they are if we ask them to register as lobbyists.
That seems to me a clear black-and-white way to go and on the --
Ms. Farley's point about keeping it as simple as we possibly can.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me run through the list, too.
Because I, like you, Commissioner Hac'Kie, have kind of made a list of
the work the committee has done here and then some additions to that.
And before I start, I appreciate the willingness for them to go
back to the table and try to further this, but I would like to see at
this point the board take some responsibility, give some direction to
staff and let's bring some finality to the issue.
I liked very much, as I said, the misdemeanor penalty provision.
I think that does a couple of things: It does act as a further
deterrent, but it also has the potential to really speed up the
process, which benefits the public and the elected official in the
event that something is not appropriate.
I like the creation of the panel, both for advisory opinions and
also perhaps to assist the public in understanding the nature of a
complaint so that if a complaint is blatantly political in nature,
perhaps the panel has the ability to say that. If it is a blatant
violation by an elected official, perhaps the panel should alert the
public to that, even while the process goes on. So that may be a
second part of that.
I would prefer to see judges or retired judges in that position
for a couple of reasons: One, they understand the law and how to
apply the law; and two, their career is based on being impartial, and
that is what they do. So I -- and those two elements are the key to
that panel being successful and to keeping politics out and to making
sure that it is impartial and making sure that any recommendations are
-- that are implemented from them are coming from a law based
recommendation.
The gift question, I agree that lobbyists should have some sort
of registration. I had a discussion yesterday with one of the
reporters, and it was interesting how many people who to the reporter
and to myself seem very obvious would qualify under lobbyist do not
consider themselves lobbyists --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and so if we have that registration
process, then it is black and white.
My only concern -- and this goes back to Marge Farley's comment
of keeping this as simple as possible -- is that needs to be very
clearly defined. Because if we go to a zero gift policy and you have
a law firm that is a lobbyist, one member of that firm who never
appears before the board, you know, and they give you a glass of
water, is that worth a criminal penalty of $500 and 60 days in jail?
And I think we need to be very careful there because again, you get
into the bureaucracy and hair splitting of what is and what isn't.
So I think perhaps we should be looking at individuals as much as
corporations -- individuals who work for corporations. You may have a
firm that has 1,000 employees or 500 employees, a dozen of which
frequently work with the board and 400 of which never do. What do we
want to do with that? And so I think there are questions within that.
One of the ways may be rather than splitting hairs on that is to make
sure -- and I think this has failed to be enforced to this point -- is
anything over $25 those lobbyists are required by state law to report.
And some have indicated to me, I've gotten letters saying Disney
last year, who has never been before this board, but sent me a letter
and said, you know, here's a gift. They were part of the Leadership
Florida program and they knew I was an elected official and they said
this was a gift to everyone and you're an elected official, we're
reporting this. Even though they have never lobbied Collier County,
they know in the state's eyes they are lobbyists and they want to make
sure all the T's are crossed and I's are dotted.
I think what would probably be the most effective way to do that,
and to make -- and this I think goes to what Harge had indicated about
let's know who's doing what -- is when you have those lobbyists, we
need to make sure that particular law is enforced, because I don't
think it is right now. And I think that's the key to making sure that
everybody is on the straight and narrow there.
As far as post-employment, as I said before, I think it's fair to
extend the no lobbying provision to our uppermost management. I don't
think we can in any way tell somebody they can't go to work for an
engineering firm or for anybody else in town. We can't tell people
they have to move out of town to get a job if they want to leave the
county.
But if we have some limited time limit on, you know, their
ability to lobby, I think that's fair, and that -- again, I'm not
aware that we have had a problem with that, but that just further
enhances the public's comfort.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have one.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, I have one, Mr. Weigel, you might
help me a little bit on this one. It hasn't been discussed much, if
at all, that I'm aware of, and that is if we have a three-judge panel,
as Commissioner Constantine has proposed, would it be possible or
would it be the intent to have citizen complaints or the complainant
file the complaint with the three-judge panel and from there the
three-judge panel makes a recommendation to go forward or not go
forward? Is that what you have in mind, Commissioner Constantine?
And where I'm going with this is, I would like to see somewhere
in this process the ability -- and if we do constitute a three-judge
panel, to have this three-judge panel be able to determine, as you
alluded to, that the complaint is specious, and that we can quickly
get that resolved.
Is it possible for us to write into a local ordinance that the
complaints would be submitted to a three-judge panel and held
confidential until the three-judge panel makes a determination on
whether to go forward or not?
MR. WEIGEL: I think the answer to that is no. But now, state
law prescribes exactly what are the limitations in regard to
qualifications of public records.
But in regard to the three-judge panel concept, a couple things
to keep in mind are: We're talking about three judges or three
retired judges. If they are going to be judges, it would appear to
me, in my opinion as we discuss this now, is that one has to be
careful with that kind of delegation or assignment. Because remember
that the concept that the ethics standards review committee has
brought to you today entails an investigation -- a complaint filed, an
investigation through the sheriff and State Attorney Office, and then
going to a court of law and, therefore, to use the judges as an
advisory committee, if there's any -- if they have any capacity to be
participating in the courts here -- and retired judges do come and
participate in the courts here, too -- it would seem they would be off
limits to be provided this role and to perform on behalf of the county
local ordinance. So you may have to look to a different panel in that
regard, unless --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We had this discussion in April or Hay
when I had brought forth the idea of the panel, and the discussion
then, and this had been with Judge Baker as well, is that one of the
ways to deal with that, certain judges, particularly those who are
retired and come back, usually deal with specific type issues. When
they are making special guest appearances back on the bench, it is not
usually just at random, or any particular issue. So there may be a
way to address that and make sure you are not selecting --
MR. WEIGEL: And I'm not saying that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- judges.
MR. WEIGEL: Exactly, and I'm not saying there's a bar to that.
But that's an issue that has to be contended with -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right.
MR. WEIGEL: -- to make this effective.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And the second issue is they may not even --
even if they're retired, they may not want to do this. So for us to
just hang our hat and think that we're going to go out and recruit
retired judges --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what I'm wondering.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- you know, I can think -- right now in
Naples you've got possibly two, three that I can think of. And I'm
not sure that they're going to be willing to sit around here 365 days
waiting for an ethics complaint to come to them.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, but I think an important point is
some of our retired judges may not have been judges in Collier County,
they may have been judges in Boise, Idaho, but they still understand
the law. And we do have several people in the community who have that
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's going to be a willingness to serve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I mean, that's going to be -- you know, and a
timeliness issue as well. If they're --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, what I -- obviously, what I'm trying
to get around to is that if we're going to enact a local ordinance, it
would also be helpful to make sure that it cuts both ways and that we
can't have the specious, politically motivated complaints like the
McBride complaint at the last moment come out and become public and be
used as a political tool. I think that's important to try to get into
this ordinance, because, you know, this sort of thing works both ways.
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman, commissioners?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: To further respond to Mr. Norris' questions, in
regard to the ability for someone, an entity or a panel, to determine
the efficacy of a complaint, whether it is specious or not, if the
configuration proposed by the ethics standards review committee of
sheriff investigation and/or the -- and the use of the State Attorney
Office upon ethics complaints being filed here locally, I would
suggest that both the sheriff office and the State Attorney Office
would treat this kind of complaint filing no different than they do
generally under the criminal law, which means that investigation is
done, a report is made, it is determined either at the sheriff or more
particular probably at the state attorney level whether it's specious
and should survive the light of day to go on to the next level, which
is the prosecution of a complaint.
So if you use the state attorney/sheriff mechanism right now, you
will have some -- it would appear to me that you have some capability
as exists generally under state law, and the criminal law, that the
State Attorney Office has the independent ability to make
determinations of what is specious and not to go forward.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and I would think that the
majority of these -- anything that is put forward is going to take
some bit of investigation to find that out. My thought, though, is
there's going to be 10 percent -- I'm just picking that number at
random, but there may be 10 percent that are clearly blatant
violations by an elected official. And if it is very clear, that
panel ought to be able to share that with the public.
On the other hand, there may be 10 percent that are just clearly
blatant political mischief. And in the event that it is that clear,
the panel ought to be available to advise the public that. The other
80 percent of the time, perhaps there is a standard statement from
them saying, you know, this requires a full procedure and so on. But
just in those cases where it is very, very apparent, and that's going
to happen on either end of the scale from time to time, perhaps they
can provide that information to the public. MR. WEIGEL: I think --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's kind of hard for me to imagine the
purely -- the circumstance when we're going to say that -- a panel
would say this is totally specious because I would certainly say that,
although I've told you, I violated the gift law when I took those
tickets, one could argue that there was some political motivation by
the complainant in my case. One could argue that this Lee County
resident who brought the complaint against you had some political
motivation, you know. So I think the reality is --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Let me give you an example then, just off
the top of my head.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Let's say that someone who is a political
enemy of you sees you having lunch with someone they know goes in
front of the board and they file a complaint. Well, they don't know
that you didn't pay for your lunch, and they don't know that the other
person did pay for your lunch, but you're under a complaint now. And
your --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then you provide a credit card
statement that says you paid for it, you probably ought to not be
under a cloud for six months.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure. That's what I'm saying.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I see.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a specious complaint.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And fried locally.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Fried locally.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Fried.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, go ahead.
MR. WEIGEL: The last comment I wanted to make is in -- in your
deliberation here is, is that the recommendation report of the ethics
standards review committee for a three or whatever number constituted
panel is an advisory committee as opposed to an adjudicatory
committee. And I know you'll make that distinction when you give
further direction to us or to anyone else in that regard.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This is one question I had. I almost -- I
was asked about this yesterday. And I look at it almost as two
committees. You have an advisory committee, a group or whatever,
three people, five people, whatever they might be, that you can go to
and get a feel for, if there's an issue at hand, whether you can do
something or not do it. And that's one group, okay, or whatever.
The second group is one that -- who's going to receive the
complaint? And this is a question that I have. Who -- if I want to
go file a complaint -- well, I obviously won't be filing a complaint.
But if I wanted to file a complaint as a private citizen, where would
I go to do this?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Go to the State Attorney's Office.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's exactly right. As Mr. Humaw indicated,
it would be filed with the sheriff or with the State Attorney Office
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Now --
MR. WEIGEL: -- or both.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- can we, if we do this ordinance, assuming
it goes to the State Attorney's Office, can we say that we expect or
that we -- in our ordinance is written that there has to be a 90-day
turnaround?
MR. WEIGEL: I think that it's probably very difficult to demand
that, particularly because what sanctions could the county impose upon
the State Attorney Office if they couldn't conclude their
investigation and bring it into a docket and docket it for a court
schedule within the 90 days?
I think that we could put a recommendation in there that we would
pray would express a desire that it receive expedited treatment on the
court docket and that it would be an element of comity, an element of
respect, that they would do it, if they could. And I would expect
that you would get some kind of treatment that way that may assist.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: See, here --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're not going to solve the problem of
getting it done more quickly.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The timeliness.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's a misunderstanding. Because, you
know, to be blunt about it, John's got the state attorney
investigating his -- the same facts that the ethics commission is
investigating, and the state attorney's not done any faster than --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, see --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- the ethics committee --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- this is the frustration.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- we're not solving that problem.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's a timeliness issue. It goes back to
that every time. And we want to fix it --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can't.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and we don't have the power to fix it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not that --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I mean, this is what -- this is my biggest
concern here. We're fighting this thing, and I want to fix it, and I
want something, but we can't fix it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think, Commissioner --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And that's why I'm in such a dilemma of
wanting to do something, but we can't.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we can do some things.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- I don't think that a local -- if we
took, for example, the state statutes concerning ethics --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and gifts and made it a misdemeanor
locally to violate that, I think we would have a lot more timely
resolution to those complaints than we would otherwise. I really do.
Ninety days might be reasonable, it might take 120, it might take 150,
but I think in --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it's better than 18 months.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's better than 18 months.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- this is it. I mean, a year, year and a
half.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I mean, here we are 13 months out and we
don't have a clue yet. No pun intended.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But I think we would get quicker resolution
if we did it that way.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock wants to make --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You've kind of hit on it a little bit, and
I think we can be more frank in talking about why we're even
discussing this today. Every single ethics complaint that has been
filed on a member of this commission is sheerly politically motivated.
Commissioner Norris' complaint was filed by someone from Lee County
who said that when you don't agree with a commissioner and you have an
opportunity to remove them from office, you should take that
opportunity. He didn't say I'm concerned about his ethical conduct.
He said when you can remove someone you don't agree with, you should
take that opportunity. I think that was even printed in the paper,
not to say that makes it true, but it was probably said.
Then a complaint is filed against Commissioner Mac'Kie by someone
who didn't like what she was saying about a golf tournament.
Then a complaint was filed against three commissioners by I guess
the vice-chairman of the Democratic party of Collier County six weeks
before my election, and only a month after something he supported was
not read and approved by this board.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, and 18 months after the incident
occurred.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And 18 months after it occurred.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not saying that what members of this
board were or were not involved with is not deserving of a look or of
an investigation. But these complaints were not filed out of people
whose heartfelt concern is the trustworthiness of this board. They
were filed by people who had an axe to grind and used a state process
to grind it.
So here we sit, some 18 months after the first one, and then the
second one followed and then a third one followed, with this huge
media blitz caused by one publication; in my opinion, an irresponsible
editorial board that has taken an issue of an individual's integrity
and smeared it all over the front page of their paper. It's
disgusting, it's wrong and it will continue regardless of whether we
have a local ordinance or whether we have a state process.
So the only choice we have here today is to try and find a way to
make a local ordinance stricter and in a shorter time frame to be
resolved than what the existing state process is, so we discourage
someone from going to the state process for political motivation in
order to impugn somebody without having any factual evidence.
It's interesting to note that the complaints that have been
filed, the factual evidence in the complaint were newspaper clippings,
nothing else.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have to say, if I -- you know, the only
-- I need to be sure I understand what you're saying, because if I do
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not done yet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, well, then I'll wait.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're not going to take the political
motivation out of this. We can't do it. You never will. Once you're
elected into this position, your integrity, your character can be
impugned or assassinated by anyone with or without credentials, and
that's just part of it. You have to accept that.
God knows, I don't sit here thinking over the last four years
I've been an unethical individual, but the paper wants to make it that
way about me, you know somebody else wants to make it that way about
me, and it became. Deal with it. Move on. Two months from now I'm
not going to have to worry about this, because they impugn my
integrity, I'll sue their pants off and live a wealthy life. But you
folks are going to have to deal with it. And the people who come after
me are going to have to deal with it.
So we've got to find a way to chart a course that makes more
sense in the state process. And we can't wait on the state to fix it.
They're just not going to do it. So this should be as simple as a one
or two-page ordinance with single line descriptions of what is and
isn't a gift and what the limits are and what the course of action are
(sic.) And I think if we start going to panels, even if it's retired
judges, it's a nonbinding panel.
So let's say you have a question about something is or isn't
appropriate. My guess is, if you can't get correct and proper legal
advice on that, then don't take it. But by going to a three-member
panel and asking them, it really doesn't give you any security. And
so I don't know that that really serves any real purpose. I think we
need to focus more on making something very clear and very concise
with specific limits.
And also, where does the burden of proof rest? Does it mean that
every time an elected official goes to lunch they have to save that
receipt? And for how long? For how long do you have to save a
receipt from McDonald's, or how long do you have to save a receipt
when you sit across the table from someone at lunch? Two years down
the road can someone say he bought you lunch, and if you can't prove
it you're found guilty? Where is the burden of proof?
It goes back to the basic idea that has been fostered by the
media that we get into office -- people run for office for power or
for individual gain and not for the purpose of serving their
community. And, you know, that burns me. It burns me here today, it
will burn me 10 years from now. And no matter what we adopt or don't
adopt, we can't change that. That's always going to be the
perception.
And Harge -- you know, Harge, I have all the respect for you in
the world, but quite frankly, $50,000 a year is a lot of money, but I
look at the people on this board and every one of them could be making
more right now. But they're here because they have a reason to be
here. It's not for personal gain.
And so I'd like to take all of those implications and understand
that one, you're going to continue to deal with them, no matter what
we do today. Set them aside, don't let them be the driving force of
what is right and wrong in Collier County. Let's simply focus on a
very simple, straightforward one or two-page ordinance that defines
clearly what a gift is, defines clearly the reporting requirement for
us. I think we should have quarterly local reporting. It would make
it easier for tracking for anyone who is accepting gifts. And I like
the idea of identifying lobbyists and limits for lobbyists.
If we try dragging in how we're going to change the people's
perception of what is and isn't right or wrong, you know, guilty until
proved innocent is a charge that can only be executed by the media.
We can't do that. And the public shouldn't be able to do it. But
they will be able to. So we are simply going to have to focus on what
is right and not trying to battle what public perception can be
created out there, because that's a losing battle. You just cannot
fight it.
What's right for Collier County in my opinion, is that -- I agree
with Ty in a -- and Ty, thank you for your comments, I appreciate
those. And just so everyone knows, I've never had lunch with you, Ty,
and you didn't buy me lunch, so -- but Ty's absolutely right, if
someone thinks you can be bought for $100, your integrity is such that
you don't need to be in office anyway. And that will be taken care of,
whether it be a year, two years or four years from now.
But I think the lobbyist issue is where people find a great deal
of discomfort. And I think we need to have registration of local
lobbyists and we need to adopt either a level or a zero tolerance on
lobbyists' gifts.
Let me claw a difficulty, though. My wife and I have social
friends that have been friends of ours for years. Were before I was
on the board and are now and will be 10 years from now. And there are
social customs that if you call them to go out to dinner, you pick up
the tab, and next time they pick up the tab. And I think one thing we
have to remember is whatever we adopt here, just because you run for
public office and you're elected doesn't mean you have to give up your
personal or private life or that you should be subjected to a level of
criticism that greatly exceeds what is reasonable, that takes you out
of being a normal person from day to day. And so I'm a little
concerned that we don't go too far with that.
And Commissioner Hac'Kie uses the example, I mentioned it one
time to somebody, and I hope you don't mind, but Commissioner Hac'Kie
is a single lady.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, advertise for dates for me, that's
okay, go ahead.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, my God, now we'll have it --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If Commissioner Hac'Kie --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My dating service right there.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: She's soliciting from the board table. I can
see it now --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We will be classified --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- latest headlines.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in as lobbyists or unlobbyists, Pam.
But now can Pam Hac'Kie not go on a date, and if the gentleman
wishes to buy dinner but does business before the county, that's
unacceptable. I mean, we don't think about all of the things that can
really --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hint.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- impede your personal life, you know.
And so I just want to say again, as someone who's not going to be
here to deal with this in two months, that I don't think we should
tell the people who follow us for the next 20 years that you shouldn't
have a life outside politics or that you should be so unduly
restricted that your friendship has to be proven with someone before
you can sit down and have a meal with them. That's just unreasonable.
So let's be very clear about gifts, let's be very clear about the
process that you have to go through, but let's not have a reaction to
a media frenzy over something -- as I look at the four of you, I don't
see a question of integrity on this board. And I don't see a question
of integrity on the person who is going to replace me, and I'm not
going to place it there by moving forward with an ordinance that
unduly burdens someone who is giving of themselves and of their income
earning potential to serve in this seat.
So that's my preaching from the pulpit. And the one thing I --
the things I think we need to have is let's keep a hundred dollar gift
limit for non-lobbyists. I don't think that CBIA dinner should be
something you can't go to. Period. And at a hundred dollar gift you
don't have to worry about that, gifts from lobbyists.
Someone said zero tolerance. The problem I have with that is
that in my scheduling -- and you've probably experienced this -- your
days fill up and someone has to get in with you because they have
something coming up and the only thing you have left is lunch. My rule
of thumb was, if I've got to listen to your drivel over lunch, you're
buying. You know, I'm not going to spend money out of my pocket to
listen to you plead your case for something coming on Tuesday.
And so, you know, again, if someone wants to sit down and break
bread with you and talk about an issue, I don't see that as criminal.
So I think if for a lobbyist if we set a level at $25, that allows you
to use your lunches the way I've used mine the last four years, which
is for meetings. You know, I'm not going to sit in a park and have a
brown bag. They're usually meetings. Yet, you know, it's not going
to break your bank going to lunch every day. Twenty-five bucks.
Again, if a lobbyist can buy you for $26, you have no business being
here any.
I think quarterly reporting should be a part of it. I agree with
the two-year limit on employees above a mid-manage -- middle
management area on a two-year prohibition for lobbying the board, I
agree with that.
We do need to have a lobbyist registration, and we need to make
it if they fail to register as a lobbyist, there should be some type
of penalty for that so that someone can't say well, I didn't know, and
you get slapped with something --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because they didn't register as a
lobbyist or inform you they're a lobbyist. Because there are people
that may come from the East Coast to present over here. And I just --
I think we need to make it incumbent upon and a penalty to them for
not registering as a lobbyist within, you know, two weeks of ever
appearing before the board, something to that effect.
Gifts, when they're defined, should be as simple as the face
value minus any donation to charity. A lot of people invite county
commissioners to charitable events because the recognition of having
that person there offers support to that organization, not because
they're trying to buy you. We don't give money to charities, and God
forbid we ever start doing that again. We don't give money to
charities, so why should a charitable donation be -- you should be
penalized for attending something, the majority of which was a
charitable donation?
So I think a gift is very simple; the face value minus any
charitable donation associated with it. I don't know why that would
be problematic.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If it's from a -- not from a lobbyist, it
doesn't matter anyway. The whole point here is if we have this
lobbyist registration, the part that the community can't stomach
anymore that we can fix, because I share your feelings, so much of it
that we can't fix, is that they don't want us -- and I'm willing to --
following the lesson learned from Vickie Lopez Wolff in Lee County,
I'm willing to commit not to date lobbyists and therefore, you know,
there's just not a problem.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know how many disappointed lobbyists
are out there right now, Pam?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I know, crying.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: They are jumping off the pier as we speak.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Golly. And they talk about getting grief
from the paper. I get more grief from them than I get from anybody
else.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pam, the reason I said the definition of
gifts, I was talking about the hundred dollars, not about the
lobbyists.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think, though, that it ought to be zero
gifts from lobbyists, zero dollar value gifts from lobbyists.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, and that's -- I'm at 25, you're at
zero. That's not a big difference.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me explain my concern there, and
I'll build on Tim's -- and it's not because any of us want gifts, but
this --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, I'm concerned about our court reporter,
but --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The example he used, if he is a
10-year friend with whom he and Valetie do regular social things, once
a month have a cookout, then even perhaps Tim needs to bring his own
steaks at that point and, you know, bring his own food, because
they're an attorney that works for a firm who sometimes comes here,
but they run out of soda that Tim brought himself and they say, well,
let me get you a glass of water. Well, that glass of water has a
value. And I know it sounds absurd, but you know as well as I do
that's the level that it could -- a complaint could get to if you have
a zero level. And that glass of water for three cents then could
implement or could trigger that potential misdemeanor penalty.
That's not what we're trying to address here, that's not what I
think the public is worried about. But you have to think from a
standpoint of the law, if you have that zero tolerance, that triggers
a misdemeanor complaint under this scenario, which could result in a
$500 fine and 60 days in jail.
So that's why I think when you say zero tolerance you should
never accept, that sounds great. And when you start talking about the
real world, though, a ten cent item could get someone in a great deal
of trouble, and I don't think that's anybody's intent what we're
trying to do here.
And that's why my comments had been in compliance with the state
existing laws of a $25 limit, but making sure that the lobbyists are
A, registered, and B, are really -- we're really enforcing that law.
Because I don't think the worry from the public is, my goodness, he
got a soda, or my goodness, he got a glass of water. I want to be
very careful that we don't raise to the level of absurdity.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Lower it to the level.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Level --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, lower it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At this time, I think everybody's made some
comments. We've got to give our court reporter a break. And yes,
that's part of my duty is to worry about the court reporter. So
anyway, let's take about a 10-minute break.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, this is verification that we do have
people watching out in TV land. I received a message during the break
and they want to know if in this new ordinance, would this prevent --
if people file at the local level, would it prevent them from filing
at the state level.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I think the answer to that is no.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, just triple the attorney fees any
commissioner has.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. Yeah, understanding that when this
happens, we have to pay our own attorney fees, which makes -- I see
Doug Rankin smiling. He's thinking ah ha, we're drumming up business.
No wonder you took the stand you did, Doug.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Whether we're found innocent or not.
MR. RANKIN: Actually, Commissioner Berry, I don't --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're not on the record.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's all right.
MR. RANKIN: I'm an unpaid lobbyist today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one question for our legal
staff, and then I'm going to see if I can craft a motion for us.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we create an ordinance that is
applicable to all our elected officials in Collier County? Because it
seems if the issue is of concern for this elected body, I assume the
same issue is of concern for anyone on the school board that handles
more money annually than we do. And so if we create a local
ordinance, can that apply to all the elected bodies in the county, and
hopefully save them the difficult of going through the same process?
MR. MANALICH: I can't say I've researched that. I mean, there
certainly could be arguments that it could. However, would you have
in mind any kind of dialogue with those elected officers to see if
they would voluntarily do that?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
MR. MANALICH: I mean, that might even make it easier, but I
think it would require some research to see if we have that authority.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
MR. MANALICH: I don't know offhand.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I could just ask, the school board was
an example, but state representatives from Collier County, state
senators from Collier County? You know --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would say at the very least, all
locally elected and locally representative officials, if we can
legally extend that to our state reps and state senators, you know,
any elected official --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mosquito Control.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, that's --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- than we ought to.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I had a question about that as well. Does
this apply to anyone who serves on an advisory committee that has to
file a financial disclosure?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would be Planning Commission --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would just put it to all elected --
anyone elected from Collier.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But see, they're not -- the Planning
Commission is not elected.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Planning Commission's not elected.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: They're appointed.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you're saying extend it one step
beyond.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I'm just asking. I mean, I think we
need to clarify this. What's the intent here?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Planning Commissioners are volunteers --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, I know.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- who spend their own time, and now you
want to take out a big stick and say you're dishonest, let's beat you
over the head? No way.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I -- Tim, the only reason I'm bringing
it up is because it's going to come up somewhere along the line.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If their decisions were binding, I would
agree with you. But their decisions are non-binding and advisory --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's advisory.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and therefore, I think the state law
should apply, and I think to burden them any further would be terribly
inappropriate --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- for volunteers.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chair, I will try to craft a
motion here, and I will start it out by saying I'd like to see this
applicable -- and we'll have to do the appropriate research, obviously
-- but to all officials elected in Collier County. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's give staff direction to draft an
ordinance and bring it back to us posthaste, including a misdemeanor
penalty provision as outlined, again, because that increases the
deterrent on elected officials. It also will hopefully speed the
process. And while it may not be Speedy Gonzalez, hopefully that
makes it quicker than the 18-month process that currently is in place.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We hope it's an 18-month process at this
point.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wishful thinking.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would -- you understand the point.
I would like to see us go ahead and create the ethics panel at the
very least to be able to provide some advisory opinions.
I'd like to see us go a step further and have them provide -- if
there is an extreme at either end -- be able to provide some sort of
word to the public on that, but at the very least, the advisory
opinions.
And I would prefer to see that if at all possible for us to
recruit judges or retired judges, not limiting that by any means to
those who have or do serve here. If somebody was a judge in Columbus,
Ohio and has now retired here, we ought to take full advantage of that
experience.
I would like to see the gift limit stay at the state requirement;
however, require lobbyists to register so that everyone is very clear
on who a lobbyist is, and make sure that the state law is enforced,
because I don't believe it has been, as far as the $25 limit on what
they can do.
I would like to see the post-employment status, as far as
extending the, quote, no lobbying provision, to our division
directors, as well as to the elected officials. Division directors
and above, our top management, county administrator, county attorney
and our division administrators. As we said before -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Division head and above.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. I don't think we can have a
non-compete clause there, but we certainly can have a non-lobbying
provision in there. I think we should do that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that it?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That is it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That covers everything that we discussed
with the exception of a couple of minor points which Mr. Weigel said
we may not be able to implement anyway, so I'll second that motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just as we craft that, hopefully
our staff has gotten this message today, anyway.
But I think Harge Farley's point is a very good one and that is
keep this as --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Simple.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- simple as possible. Because the
more simple it is to understand, the more simple it is going to be to
enforce.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Now, let me clarify something. In your
motion, though, you said that the gift requirement would be as the
state, but I think what you really meant was that both the gift
requirements and the ethics laws would be as state.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If so, I have a question about that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not sure I follow you there. I
wanted to --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There's two separate bodies of
requirements, one is ethics laws and one is gift requirements.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Everything with the state would still
apply. I think we've got a couple of higher hurdles here than what
the state has, so I want to be careful --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- how we word that and indicate --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure, and in essence what you're saying is,
if you violate state law, it's a local misdemeanor.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Got you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was hoping that on that point we were
going to clarify a few gray areas in the state law. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Such as?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The one in particular that troubles me --
I'll just give you my own personal experience example with this -- is,
well, if I were to work for the ABC Company, that's a real estate
development company that I do work for, and they -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, they're good.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- they form -- they're really good, and
they form a new business called the XYZ Company and come to the County
Commission, if -- for me, if they are -- you know, my personal
standard is that if they -- if the person in charge is the person in
charge, then they're identical companies. I don't care if the
shareholders are different, I don't care if the partners have changed.
What I'm worried about here is what I would call the corporate
alter ego issue. And I didn't think we were getting into this today,
but if we are, I really want to be sure that on the conflict of
interest question, that we eliminate the gray area that exists in the
state law and say that alter ego corporations are also conflicts of
interest.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would include as a separate --
inclusive in my motion, but as a separate action for staff to help us
define -- to clearly define that, because I think that's an important
area.
If the principals are identical or virtually the same, that
absolutely should be applicable. If somebody is a principal in one
business and owns 1,000 shares of stock in Exxon and you're doing work
for Exxon, that's not the same, and so we need to word that.
But I'd be perfectly happy to -- not necessarily as part of the
motion or part of the other direction to staff but inclusive in the
same motion, is direct staff to bring back to us in the same time
frame a definition for that. Because I do think we need to be very
clear. It's a great point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other gray areas?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question on the revolving door
policy. Assuming that we're going to grandfather existing employees
in?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We could grandfather them in, or
perhaps we set a time frame, every new employee and any existing
employee still with us after the beginning of the year 2000, or pick
an appropriate date. I don't know if that's it, but -- so that they
have some advance warning, and if someone right now has a resume out
and gets hired December 1st somewhere and has been an employee here
for five years, they're not unfairly penalized, but anyone who is here
now has a two-year lead time to understand it or maybe create that.
I hate to have a grandfather clause and five years from now have
someone slide through --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- so maybe there's a time frame
there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- my worry about that is, again to be
blunt, I don't want Wilson Miller to take Vince Cautero in the next
two years just because he knows that if he's going, he's got to go
now. And --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I already talked to them. They don't want
him.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. But what we're saying is --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's nice.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- he could work with Wilson Miller after
the year 2000, he just could not come and stand at one of these two
podiums?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. Or come and sit down with us
in our office and lobby us on an issue.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me clarify, they said they couldn't
afford him.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, okay. And we'd like to keep it that
way.
But just as an example, that's what worries me is I don't want --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I'm concerned that, you know, how does
this affect our employees?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I want an exodus.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I'd like to know. Anybody want to speak
about it? Because I'd like to know what the impact of this is.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask what Commissioner Hac'Kie's
suggestion is then, on that particular one.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My suggestion was, frankly, that we
grandfather in existing employees, period. And I think that's
probably a pretty controversial way to go, but I think it's the only
fair thing to do. We hired him with the idea that we didn't -- we
know we took this job with this two-year prohibition, they didn't.
Now they've moved their families here and they've got two years to
decide if they're going to stay?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a good point.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I'm comfortable with that, I'm
fine with that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then grandfathering in existing employees
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll include that as our --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: All new department heads from this date
forward --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- need to know --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Weigel is back to the legal pad.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- this new provision.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Does that seem fair? And we've got employees
here. Does that seem --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it does, because the point that
Commissioner Hac'Kie makes is don't change the rules now. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I mean, they -- most of these people are
under contract anyway, right? Employment contracts? MR. FERNANDEZ: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just these guys are contracts.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are we going to -- are we going to use the
state gift definition in our ordinance? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. On determination of value, which is
something that I think could be clearer --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. Me, too.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- so that everyone understands that --
what we're dealing with, I offered as just a, you know, face value
minus any donation to charity. I mean, that just --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
MR. WEIGEL: Yes --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
Isn't that already the state law?
But, you know --
I think so.
Mr. Weigel?
Huch like most state statutes, they took
eight sentences to say that.
HR. WEIGEL: Right. On the reverse side of your quarterly gift
return form, it specifically states that. But I think that we may
want to be specific here.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, so --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would you just elaborate so people do
understand when we're talking about what that means? If you have a --
let's say you have a $125 ticket.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: To the Heart Ball.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well -- oh, you couldn't do it for that
anymore.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay, yeah, 550.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, that's right. But let's go with a $125
figure. And of that --
MR. WEIGEL: Well, of that -- of that, the amount that is the
charitable contribution of the face value of the ticket reduces the
value of the ticket for reporting purposes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just like for the IRS. The part you
deduct is not a gift.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If somebody wants to make a charitable
donation in my name, knock yourself out. I mean, you know, please do.
I don't think that in any way should be prohibited. But --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We can't do anything about it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- much like the Chamber dinner, which
I've gone to in the past, what was the actual value of the ticket?
And I had -- they had to go and break down, you know, how much the
meal was worth and how much the entertainment was, and what was the
prorated cost per person, you know, and that kind of stuff.
Because the truth is, you all know, you get a lot of invitations
to things and you just simply, you know, can't afford to do all of it
and you have to pick and choose those that you think are most
appropriate and whatnot.
One thing I didn't get a chance to say that I think is a real
misconception is -- and somebody will find this out shortly -- the day
you become a commissioner, your life is not full of being showered
with gifts. That is the most ridiculous misconception I've ever
heard. But it's perpetuated time and time again.
And as someone who's been here for four years, you know, you
don't wake up every morning saying -- asking yourself which gift
should I take? It just doesn't happen. It's a misconception. So this
would be a lot easier in application if you understand that this is
not a daily occurrence.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, the trucks don't back up here daily for
delivering --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Garbage truck.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- delivering gifts.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let's see, I had two points on the gift
question. One is I had understood that we were -- that the
committee's recommendation was that civic and community events where
our presence is requested in our official capacity as a county
commissioner, for example, the Chamber dinner, that that's not a gift
because -- it's not a prohibited gift because that's not from a
lobbyist.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The Golden Apple.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Golden Apple dinner. It's not from a
lobbyist, it's from a community organization.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are we -- is that --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, but you're still governed by the
state law, which is at that $100, and you're going to have to do that
anyway.
So what I'm saying is, from a local level -- and I didn't hear
this in the motion; I don't know if you want to do it -- I still think
quarterly reporting of gifts on a local level, just to be on file, is
a good idea.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, we have to do quarterly
reporting anyway, and it is available right in this office.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, it's a state form, but it's
still available here.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But we don't have to report -- we're
talking about a $25 prohibition on gifts.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, so there's no reporting on that.
Okay, never mind.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So the -- for direction to staff, I don't
know, are you perfectly clear about that, Mr. Weigel, on what is the
exception for a civic or community event? MR. WEIGEL: I think, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, though --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're still using the state --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Format.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- definition there. If we can boil
it down and make it simpler for people to understand, great, but we're
still using that definition.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I -- well, okay, I continue to be
unclear about, for example, just because it's in my in box, CBIA's
installation banquet.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I mean, I -- and frankly, you're
going -- we're not going to define everything today. I mean, you
could say the Conservancy has its agenda, the Chamber of Commerce is
the example you used, Chamber of Commerce represents businesses
locally. Does it have its agenda? And, I mean --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So that's a confusing point, and that's
something we'll have to continue to work out, but --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, think about, you know, how does the
Chamber of Commerce or the CBIA differ in principle from any
homeowners' association? I mean, some of them may not be as popular
in some circles as the others, but still, how do they differ? They're
still representing groups of people that are our constituents, and we
need to -- we need to be able to have communications with them.
And they want -- frankly, they want our attendance at these
meetings as a show of support or as a show of community spirit or --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Interest.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- any number of reasons. And a lot of
times in the -- well, for example, I have several homeowners' groups
in my district that like, on a periodic basis, maybe quarterly, come
out and have lunch at their place and talk about what's going on in
their homeowners' area and so forth and so on. What's wrong with that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing, as far as I'm concerned.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we need to --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But how does that differ from CBIA? I mean,
they -- they, on the other hand, represent a group of people.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Twenty-five percent of the economy.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And they may not be as popular in some
circles as others, but --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess we can't over-analyze or
over-define it, because, I mean, we talk about in Washington
lobbyists, and when you think of that you think of tobacco industry or
sugar industry. But the fact is AARP has a lobbying group there --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that's very, very strong.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's one of the biggest.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And is that a bad thing? Well, it's
certainly not.
And so I think at some point common sense has to apply here, too,
on behalf of the individuals on the commission or of those
organizations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just to raise my last gray area for
further discussion, is the definition of -- the valuation of gifts is
just not as easy as the face value less the charitable contribution.
I am in the trouble I'm in over golf tournament tickets because I
couldn't get a valuation for the tickets, and so I gave a best
estimate of a valuation, and now that's the reason for clogging up --
I mean, that's what they tell me, anyway, is the reason for the delay
in my -- so I think we need to do a little more -- if there is no
stated face value, because I have a personal experience with tickets
without a stated face value. Then we have to talk about the fair
market value.
You know, I'm just saying, we should ask staff, yes, the default
definition is face value, less charitable. And in the absence of a
stated value, a fair market value, something that they're going to
have to make a recommendation to us.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are some things, I remember, and I
refused it because I couldn't assign a value to it. There was a
sporting event, and a company was the sponsor of the event, and as a
result they got, you know, some seats. And someone asked me to go and
I said what's the value, and they had no way of knowing, so I just
said no, thank you --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You don't.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because if I can't assign a value to
it, then I cannot make a decision whether or not it's something that I
think is appropriate.
So I don't know how you do that. I could tell you the State
Commission on Ethics I think has opined in the past that if, let's say
-- take a baseball game, for instance, and you know, a seat near or
around that area would cost how much --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
into that, if you need to.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
matter what.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
That's what I'm talking about.
-- you know, and then -- so you can back
I think we'll be with that problem no
Well, you have it anyway on a --
Because we don't control that.
-- you know, if you're in a position of
looking at something that may approach a $100 level, you have to do it
anyway for the state reporting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So whether it's local or not, you're still
going to have to do that. And when in doubt, if you can't find a
value, then you just don't --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because the next place I'm thinking, guys,
is that if we can clear up a couple of these gray areas, they might be
specific recommendations, we would make our state legislators to take
-- you know, propose as amendments to the state law, if we can help
them define those things more clearly.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And one thing to keep in mind is that this
local ethics law is in all likelihood going to be an evolving process.
Over time we'll make amendments to it as situations arise and the need
for an amendment becomes --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And a two-page document will soon become a
50-page document.
But anyway, let's have Commissioner Constantine quickly restate
these just for our own clarification then, then vote on them.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The motion is and the intent is that
every elected position in Collier County will be subject to this.
And that we will include the misdemeanor penalty provision,
increasing the deterrent, speeding the process that will create an
ethics panel, at the very least, for advisory opinions and preferably
to assist the public in understanding the nature of any complaint.
That we go with the state definition on gifts; however, we do
start registering lobbyists and we clearly define what they are, and
we start enforcing, assuring enforcement of that state statute,
because it has not been, to date.
That we deal with the post-employment issue.
Not lobbying, but that we grandfather in existing employees.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I seconded that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's a motion and we have a second. And if
there's no further questions on it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: One more.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One more. Sorry.
Is there a requirement for disclosure of gifts for lobbyists
under $25, or just --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. And again, getting back to the
somebody gives you a glass of water, it's got a five cent value, do
you have to remember to write that down. I think you could get to a
level, probably, of absurdity there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd be a lot more comfortable if we would
disclose them, if we would just disclose --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're free to disclose it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would feel a lot more comfortable if you
would disclose them.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What if I don't take any to disclose?
That's my point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then you don't have that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- I'm not opposed to you showing it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know that. And I respect that policy.
But just -- I want to throw that out there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pam --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just disclose it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I understand where you're going, but I
think that is a reaction again to the -- a perception that this board
is out every night of the week having drinks with lobbyists. I mean,
that's just -- it's silly. Again, if a lobbyist -- if a lobbyist can
curry your favor for $20, what does that say about you?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, that argument is lost to me
completely. Because if they can buy me for a million dollars, what
does that say about me? The same thing --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it says you're a pretty good
economical kind of --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, it says I'm a liar and a cheat.
It doesn't -- it's not the price.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But no, I think it is. I think when you
talk about absurdity, the price wasn't the issue for the complaints
that have been filed so far. Neither was ethics, quite frankly.
So what we're talking about is taking the political monkeying
that you know -- that we all know on this board can happen -- and set
it aside in the face of reasonable, you know, of a reasonable
approach.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So let's -- I'm going to --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to leave it as is, because
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm going to support the motion. And
I'm just going to say, you know, as -- on the day that we have
discussed this ordinance. We could change it. If there's some great
public outcry, we'll find that out.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's going to be wordsmithing when we
see this again, to make sure it meets with the intent --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We've got to read it and see how it's
written.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two times.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make one other amendment, and
that is to -- I'd like to see us craft a resolution at some point in
the not too distant future recognizing the five individuals, because
this -- who are on our committee.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because this --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's let them take us out to lunch.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because the issue is perhaps one of
the most important, certainly one of the most important, but perhaps
one of the most difficult we've had to deal with, and we have five
volunteers who have been under scrutiny --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And maligned.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- trying to assemble that. So I want
to make that some sort of formal resolution in the coming weeks, as
well.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. Absolutely. They took on a task
that was very, very difficult. And I appreciate that, as well.
Anyway, we have a motion and a second. I'll call the question.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: There was not quite a smattering of
applause.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two quick claps.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That was just a smat.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: A half smat.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Just a smat, not a smattering.
Item #10B
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE PELICAN BAY MSTBU ADVISORY COHMITTEE -
COHMITTEE TO BE REDUCED IN SIZE; IF NOT ACCOMPLISHED BY JANUARY 1,
1999, LARRY SALZHAN WILL BE APPOINTED
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, item 10(B), which is next on
our agenda, if I'm not mistaken, there was an unusual recommendation
not to make an appointment. I think I need to kind of convey to you
that the Pelican Bay MSTBU has a sub-committee that is currently
looking at the number of members to serve on their board in making
recommendation to this board come I think by January on that matter.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the concern was they may be wishing to
take the board from 15 to 10 people in an effective sense, to make it
more effective. And by adding someone now, that would just mean
lengthening the process to do that. So --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we're only talking about two to three,
anyway.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. I'd like to honor that
recommendation, even though it's a little odd. I think with that
background, I'm very comfortable that it's a well thought-out
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we make sure that if that does not
happen, like Mr. Salsman (phonetic) still is the --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let's keep it --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- individual --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's keep his name on file, and we'll know
that that was the person.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Should that recommendation not come
forward and be acted on by this board by January 1, then the position
will be filled. How's that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Perfect.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: By this individual.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Fine. Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a motion that --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in
favor?
All opposed?
(No response.)
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 98-382 APPOINTING MICHAEL GERAGHTY TO THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Next item, appointment of member to the
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: One and one.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: One and one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that was a motion by Commissioner
Norris.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to appoint
Michael Garrity as the member to the Emergency Medical Services
Advisory Council.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #10D
UPDATE PRESENTED REGARDING SECOND GOVERNMENT CABLE TV CHANNEL
Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a memo that each of you will
get a copy of going to Mr. Fernandez and Leo Ochs -- actually, to Gene
Merritt, and I'm reading something here with your name on it -- to
Gene Merritt with the suggestion that we should explore -- in our
contract with Media One, it calls for a second cable channel by
September 30th, 1999, or sooner, if requested by us.
The words in the contract say "if technically feasible," which I
suspect Media One may try to tell us that it's not technically
feasible. I suspect that is not necessarily accurate, example being
the city's new -- you may have read the item this morning, they'll be
adding a channel in January, so if that channel can be added in that
area --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Dave says no.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Dave's waving it off back there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not going to happen, Dave?
DAVE: It'll be another year.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll take back that example.
But the point is that I believe it is technically feasible. And I
-- and with the great job our staff has done with our programming and
filling that in, I know the schools have some concern, particularly
just during the school hours and what they use for broadcast
education.
We don't have too much of a problem now, but we are rapidly
approaching that. We're expanding so dramatically in our programming,
the school has had access to a whole new level of programming in the
last year. So -- and I think the point where we need those two
channels is sooner rather than later, and we should probably give
staff direction to move forward with adding that second channel.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Did I mention this --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought that's --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Did I have -- thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just -- having sat down Friday with
our -- with Jim Buchholz from Channel 54 and gone through some of the
specifics and then looked at some of the technical side of it, I
wanted to kind of give --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- an update to where we're at on
that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sounds good.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And so that was just an update.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Channel for the school board is basically
what you're talking about?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, let them do that and let our --
we're filling ours up rapidly, so Gene's almost too good back there.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But they do have a definite need.
Item #lib
PUBLIC COHMENT - TY AGOSTON REGARDING WATER AND SEWER LINES IN GOLDEN
GATE ESTATES
Okay, moving on to public comment. Do we have any public
comment?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have one public speaker. Mr. Ty Agoston.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Less than a smat.
MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Ty
Agoston. Again, I'm from that unattractive section of Golden Gate
Estates, and I'm speaking for myself.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm starting to believe you, Ty.
MR. AGOSTON: I'm trying to talk you out of moving there.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're just wanting to drive the property
values down so you can buy it for less.
MR. AGOSTON: No, no I'm not in the business of trying to bring
down the property values.
I am (sic.), however, like to go back. A number of months ago,
staff has recommended the availability and a potential of installing
water and sewer lines in the Estates.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of doing what to water and sewer lines?
MR. AGOSTON: I'm sorry?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of doing what to the water?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Installing.
MR. AGOSTON: Installing.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Water and sewer.
MR. AGOSTON: Sorry about my accent --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please -- I'm sorry.
MR. AGOSTON: -- Ms. Mac'Kie. I have a problem with this
language.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I noticed.
MR. AGOSTON: It comes with the territory.
Well, anyhow, at that time there were some statements made in
jokes, some statements made in seriousness, and we all recognize the
complexity of the proposal and the financial burden that imposes, but
the fact of the matter is that the proposal was turned down.
The last time I was here in the summertime -- it's kind of tough
to attend your meetings -- there was a proposal put up by a
development that I more than welcome in our area, TwinEagles, and they
were looking for an exception. And forget about the legalese of the
issue, they were looking for sewer and water. Lo and behold, the
county staff and the commissioners were all in agreement to supply
TwinEagles with sewer and water service.
I am probably speaking out of envy because, frankly, I hate
sewers. I don't have much problem with wells, but I personally hate a
septic system. I think they are lousy, I think they have all kinds of
problems, they breed all kinds of -- be as it may, the fact of the
matter is, is that the proper way to go for any human being living in
a dwelling is to have sewers and water supplied to them.
And while apparently the political weight of the Estates has not
reached the level, it's getting there. Eventually you will have a few
more people, the caliber that is inhabiting a development like the
TwinEagles. And maybe I'm saying this wrong, but I generally tend to
believe that the guy who can afford to build a million dollar home can
afford, by and large because of his competence. I don't buy -- don't
buy that the guy stole it. I, you know, tend to believe that most
people are honest.
And I hope that we get more people from TwinEagles and similar
developments coming in front of you speaking for the Estates, because
I think it's a wonderful community, and I don't think there was any
reason why we cannot have sewer and water out there and sooner rather
than later.
One side issue. I'd like to make a side comment on your earlier
vote -- I missed it -- in regards to the Army Corps of Engineers. I
have stated earlier my opinion about the Army Corps and the
sustainable movement in this country.
And one thing that I want to bring up is, as it is right now, we
are paying concealed taxes into the Big Cypress Water Basin board. We
are using our tax money essentially to support something I'm not quite
sure just exactly how widespread of a public support we have. That's
all I have to say. Thank you very much.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Couple of important points. The
connection that was allowed was actually to Orange Tree and to their
system.
And second, it's not political, Ty. There's a financial
feasibility to running water and sewer when there's only a home every
180 feet or 330 feet. There's a financial aspect to that that just
puts it out of whack.
MR. AGOSTON: I recognize that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I didn't want you --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, the assessment cost would be --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You also mentioned it was a political
decision, and I don't think that's true. I think it was what's
financially feasible.
MR. AGOSTON: I don't think it was a political decision, I think
it was a decision --
Item #15
IHMOKALEE ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENT SCHEDULE AND POTENTIAL FOR ULTIMATE
FOUR-LANE IMPROVEMENT - STAFF TO RETURN WITH RECOHMENDATION DURING AUIR
PROCESS IN NOVEMBER
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That brings us to the end of our meeting.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, let's move on then to item 15, which
has to do with the Immokalee Road safety. And I'm amazed that we
don't have a room full of people on this one.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're all working.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, many of them are working.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or they're tied up on Immokalee Road.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Or they're tied up out in traffic out there.
Okay, Mr. Ilschner, the reason I placed this on here is because
of concerns that I have had raised out there. And having lived out in
that area, the number of -- or the amount of traffic on this
particular road with the event of the new high school on the section
from 1-75 to 951 is increased, with the rock pit being located from 95
-- between 951 and Orange Tree.
We have this huge amount of gravel truck traffic mixed with the
residential traffic. And the third thing is that eventually, Golden
Gate Boulevard is going to be torn up, and basically those are two of
the major roadways. The boulevard, there will be widening of Golden
Gate Boulevard.
And if we don't address one or the other of these quickly, it's
going to be very difficult for these people to make their way to the
western part of the county.
MR. ILSCHNER: Thank you, Madam Chairman. For the record, Ed
Ilschner, public works administrator.
If you will allow me to cover this matter in some detail, I would
appreciate it. This is a very important matter that the staff has
been looking at now for approximately a year.
Let me cover, first of all, what I would deem current conditions
on Immokalee Road. First of all, the situation with respect to
accidents.
I have before you and have given you a copy of a strip map that
shows you approximately where the accidents have occurred on Immokalee
Road for two years. And I know it's a very busy graphic that you have
before you.
The types of accidents that are occurring at this -- on Immokalee
Road are accidents involving rear end collisions, intersectional
accidents, and accidents that are -- the types that are correctable by
widening of a road, intersections with geometric improvements and
traffic signals.
If we can look at the accident summaries, we can see that for
1997, from 1-75 to 951 we had a total of 37 accidents. From 951 to
858, which is Oil Well Road, we had a total of 35 accidents in 1997.
In 1998 -- and these are figures to date -- we've had 25 accidents
from 1-75 to 951.
Now, I want to think that the reason we only had 25 year to date
-- and it looks like we might have a reduction in accidents -- are
some of the improvements that we've already made there, which include
traffic signals at Immokalee Road and 951, as well as some widening
intersectional improvements near the high school and traffic
signalization.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That signalization improvement is
fairly recent, too --
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, it is.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that's within the last 30, 40 days,
right?
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, it is.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is there some graphic error, or typo,
because it's five and 10 and zero equals 25? MR. ILSCHNER: That should be 25.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It is 25, but 10 injuries and 15 property
damage?
MR. ILSCHNER: It's 20 injuries, instead of 10.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. ILSCHNER: The graphic is wrong. It's 20 injuries. The total
is correct, 25.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
MR. ILSCHNER: We hope that trend, though, continues, based on
those improvements that we've made.
And then the section from 951 to 858 we can see is already so far
this year well above last year's rate at 43.
I'd like to also point your attention or direct your attention to
that same graphic you had with respect to volumes.
I think it's startling that we have in two years a 37 percent
increase in volume in that section of Immokalee Road from 1-75 to 951.
37 percent increase in traffic in two years is a significant increase.
33 percent from 951 to Wilson Boulevard, that's a significant
increase.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What was that number again?
MR. ILSCHNER: 33 percent increase between 951 and Wilson.
And then, of course, from Wilson out to 858, about a 19 percent
increase in that same two-year span.
Well, the Transportation Department staff has been looking at
this issue for approximately one year, and I've been working very
closely with them on this, as well as the HPO. And let me cover with
you some of the planned improvements that we think will have an impact
on this situation, both the accident situation, as well as trying to
facilitate this increase in volume. These are short-term, planned
improvements.
First of all, traffic signal. We have a traffic signal scheduled
in FY '99 for Wilson Boulevard. That will require also some
intersectional improvements and possibly some permitting through the
South Florida Water Management District. So there might be some
delays in getting that done in the early part of FY '99. We're going
to try to shoot for that.
We think that will have some improvement with the accident
situation, both at Randall Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard, with
respect to creating gaps in the traffic stream.
We're also including a first year program, a shoulder widening
program. That is in the AUIR that you will be adopting or considering
for adoption in November of 1998, and it's also included in the budget
this coming year.
The first year's program is $500,000. We think that's going to
make a significant improvement in the number of accidents that are
occurring as a result of head-on collisions even. It'll allow us to
widen the road, allow us to edge line the roadway, provide some
increased marking capabilities on that roadway, and it will also
enable us to allow some right turning movements off that roadway
without stopping in the roadway, which is always a problem. It will
also allow us to supply some guardrail replacement and placement.
That program is a five to 10-year program. We're hoping we will
be able to schedule five years and go all the way to State Road 29 at
Immokalee, with shoulders. We think that will make a significant
improvement.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the cost --
MR. ILSCHNER: And then a -- I'm sorry?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The cost of that?
MR. ILSCHNER: $500,000 -- about 2.5 million dollars over the
five years. And we're projecting that program in the AUIR, and it's
going -- and the budget is balanced with respect to that.
The other thing that we're doing as well is an advanced
right-of-way purchase program, and that's included in the AUIR and is
balanced in the budget, as well. So the five-year CIP will include
that advanced right-of-way purchase program.
Now, this is advanced right-of-way purchase for projects all over
Collier County, but specifically we're directing the first two years
of that program toward the purchase of right-of-way in the area of --
with board's approval, of course -- between 951 and Wilson Boulevard,
and Wilson Boulevard and 858, Oil Well Road.
Now, I think in a moment you'll -- based on what we've already
shown you, that you'll find that that's probably going to be advisable
to accomplish that in this advanced right-of-way purchase program.
Let me talk a moment now about the future operational conditions
associated with Immokalee Road. I've sat down with our staff over the
last two weeks and we looked at the CIP, the upcoming AUIR
presentation document that you'll be looking at, and in that document
we're looking at U.S. 41 to Airport Road. This is Immokalee Road from
U.S. 41 to Airport Road, presently being a level of service D. Now,
as the board knows, when we reach level of service E, we're deficient.
And then within three years of the date of deficiency, you must have
the project under construction.
So that first section of Immokalee Road, from U.S. 41 to Airport
Road, will be deficient in 1999, and it will require that that road be
improved to six lanes and be under construction by the year 2001. We
estimate that project will probably cost in the neighborhood of five
million dollars to complete.
You can already tell that Immokalee Road is an important corridor
to our community by all the development that's occurring in that
corridor. And that growth is causing the impact, resulting in these
needed improvements.
Immokalee Road, from County Road 951 to Wilson Boulevard is
presently level of service D. It will be deficient in the year 2002
and will require widening to four lanes and be under construction by
no later than the year 2005. Estimated construction costs for that
improvement will be in the neighborhood of seven million dollars.
These two projects will be in your AUIR, your annual update
inventory report that will be presented to you in November.
I think the accident rate history that we have out there is
significant, and I think the shoulder program will be only an interim
measure; and I think we have been requested to indicate to this board
today how we might accelerate the process, what might be the steps if
this board chose, to accelerate and move Immokalee Road ahead in the
process? And could that be done?
I think it can be done. We've looked at the overall five-year
CIP program, and we think that we can accomplish that for the board,
if the board would desire for us to do so, and could bring you a
package in your AUIR update indicating that.
What are the steps for you to direct staff to proceed in this
matter? First of all, the board would need to declare a public
necessity or a public emergency, directing staff to accelerate the
process and to begin road improvements on Immokalee Road as soon as
possible.
Now, let me tell you what I think our best case situation would
be in regard to that. County Road 951 to Wilson -- and I would
suggest that if we're going to accelerate this, I think we really have
a problem all the way up to 858.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Exactly.
MR. ILSCHNER: If you look at the accidents and you look at
what's happening there; I think this shouldn't be limited to Wilson,
but go all the way to 858, if you're going to direct staff to make
those kinds of improvements.
The funding package that we've looked at will enable us to do
that over time.
Best case for us to do that would be two to three years, if you
accelerated it. You said we want this done as soon as possible. I
couldn't get it done any quicker than two to three years. It would
not be under construction. We have to go out and require
right-of-way, we have to do the design. And that would be the best
case, if I went outside to consultants to do everything; do the
right-of-way acquisition, to do the design and everything, two to
three years.
Worst case, I think, would be a three to four-year time frame.
That would be the worst case, where we'd still attempt to use as much
consulting work, but that's contemplating that we might have South
Florida Water Management District permitting issues.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which you're going to have.
MR. ILSCHNER: Which we're going to have.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're gonna have it.
MR. ILSCHNER: So I'm saying between three and four years is
probably a realistic timeframe.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When you're driving down that road in the
dry season and there's water on both sides, you're going to have
wetland issues.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're going to have --
MR. ILSCHNER: That's right.
That would be your first step, however, is to direct us to take
that first step to accelerate it, which we can do.
The second step then would be an HPO amendment to the long-range
plan. That would have to be accomplished. And then of course an
amendment of the AUIR five-year CIP. That would have to be -- that
would have to reflect the changes that you direct staff to accomplish.
Then finally, there's almost obviously going to be some Land
Development Code and Growth Management Plan adjustments that may be
necessary as well.
Madam Chairman, that's as short a presentation as I can give you
with the facts that you need to have.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm certainly willing to explore the
changes you've outlined there at the end, but I want to be a little
careful, because when we start juggling programs, I suspect we can
find other places in the county where we have difficulties as well.
This one, I think when we look at the accident history, clearly
has some problems. And I think your point with Golden Gate Boulevard
is well taken, the traffic is only going to increase here. But with
that time frame in mind, I don't know if we correct that problem while
we're under construction of the boulevard.
So I'm more than willing to go ahead and look at it, but I want
to be sure and see what is impacted, what's delayed, what's slowed
down, if we now take this road out of order. Where do we lose those
funds and activity in other parts of the county, and what's the impact
of that?
MR. ILSCHNER: Commissioner Constantine, we looked at that. Staff
and I have looked at that with respect to the AUIR update, and I can
tell you that we think we can accomplish that without delaying any
other projects that you may be concerned about.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That would be a critical factor. But if we
can do that, as you say -- and I guess you need a little bit more
investigation to determine whether that is exactly accurate or not.
But if we can do it without delaying any other projects or sliding any
other projects, I'm -- this is a dangerous piece of road that we need
to put our attention to, so I'm all in favor of going to the next step
and have you bring this back to us and give us some detailed choices
to make at that time.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Ilschner, is this to be funded out of
the district-wide funds for that area, or for -- or impact fees? Or
what is the intended funding source?
MR. ILSCHNER: It will be a combination of all of our funding
sources, not just road impact fees.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, the road impact fees, the only
problem I have with that is that if we are making safety improvements,
as opposed to capital construction for expansion of the facility, I'm
not sure impact fees are the most appropriate place. But, you know, I
think we do need to look at accelerating the program out there for a
simple safety factor. So my only caution would be that any dollar
spent from impact fees be simply related to expansion of capacity of
the roadway, not just safety issues.
The second thing I want to say -- and this is more of a comment
than a question -- is that in the four years I've sat on this board,
that road has gotten worse and worse and worse. And not until
Commissioner Berry arrived on the scene and took this bull by the
horns have we seen this kind of attention to the road. So Commissioner
Berry, I'm sure the folks out there are grateful, but I just want to
recognize your work on this and your dedication to it. I don't think
a single road issue has come up in the last year where you haven't
reminded us that Immokalee Road is on your stream. But I think it's a
much needed improvement, and hats off to you for working with staff
and bringing it this far.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One potential fly in the ointment as
far as funding. Keep in mind, there is a restriction on the extra gas
tax that was implemented for the purpose of roads in 1993 that that
money go only toward concurrency driven roads, so we need -- in our
process we need to either be able to define that or not use that
particular funding source and juggle some things around, because there
was a restriction on that tax.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just at the risk of opening a can of worms
I'll regret opening, that makes the point that maybe what we need to
be doing is looking at concurrency issues, because it seems to me that
if we all agree this road is deficient, deficient, deficient, but it
hasn't maybe our standards of deficiency as adopted, maybe our
standards are wrong.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I think what we're all agreeing
on is the way it's designed and the way it's currently used is ripe
for accident activity. I don't know that its traffic counts reach,
you know, high enough for four-lane or six-lane or other things, and
we're getting into all that. But I think the accident history is
really the driving force here, and the others are important, but
secondary.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, and Mr. Ilschner has very clearly
pointed out that this is rapidly approaching deficiency, so it will
meet the criteria by the time we can get anything going. MR. ILSCHNER: We believe it will, yes, sir.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Ilschner, can you give me the date again,
speaking about Golden Gate Boulevard, the date that was now -- or the
most recent date when that roadway was going to be torn up? Start --
MR. ILSCHNER: Early 1999.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Early 19997
MR. ILSCHNER: No, excuse me, August of 1999, I believe.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: August of '99.
MR. ILSCHNER: August, 1999.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. ILSCHNER: It's early 1999 for Immokalee Road first phase,
1-75 to 951.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: April of 19997
MR. ILSCHNER: April of 1999 --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is for the -- or from 75 to 9517
MR. ILSCHNER: That's correct, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Well, it's just my concern that
when we start construction on these roadways, that somehow we're not
creating a real bottleneck out there in terms of traffic coming into
the eastern part of the county --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- because that's -- that could be real --
you know, a real concern. MR. ILSCHNER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But that's why we've got to get on this too,
I feel.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just so no one has any confusion about
this, the folks in that road district are going to see an increase in
their district fund in the millage rate in the years to get this done
__
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gotta pay for it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because it's going to be -- it's going
to be a joint funding effort. Just like if the folks in District 2
want more sidewalks on the roads that are built in District 2, then
their funds go up.
So that district fund, make no bones about it, is going -- the
millage is going to go up. But then again, it's those same folks in
that area that are saying we have a safety issue, and it's their lives
and their children's lives --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that are most at stake. So I just
don't want anyone to think that the Commission's going to come in with
a magic bullet from somewhere else. Most of that funding is going to
come from that district, so we're going to see an increase in the
fund, but it's worth it because it's necessary.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely.
Any other questions for Mr. Ilschner?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez, any comments?
I don't think we have any public speakers on this issue.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, we don't.
MR. ILSCHNER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much.
At what point in time can we place this so we can declare the --
or at -- where do we declare the public emergency?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I would suggest that we prepare an executive
summary that will give you the necessary support in the record for
that conclusion --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- so that we have it clearly established, and
we'll bring it back to you in that form.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. And that can be done in a relatively
early time frame?
MR. ILSCHNER: Certainly one option, Madam Chairman, and Mr.
Fernandez, might be the AUIR process in November where that can be
accomplished.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is that length of time going to be a problem?
MR. ILSCHNER: It would not create a problem for us as far as
moving the project ahead and getting it underway.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It would give us that comparative
information we're looking for, too.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's fine.
MR. ILSCHNER: It would allow me a little bit more time, as
Commissioner Norris has said, to make sure the dollars are all
correct, that kind --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's fine.
Okay, Mr. Fernandez, or Mr. Weigel, any of you -- any comments?
Mr. Weigel, do you have any comments for us?
MR. WEIGEL: No comment, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez?
Item #14A
BILL LORENZ APPOINTED TO LAND HANAGEHENT REVIEW BOARD - APPROVED
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, I have one brief one. We
have been requested by the Department of Environmental Protection to
name a member on the Land Management Review team. You'd asked for a
staff recommendation on that. The reason I'm bringing it up in this
form is that there's the need for a quick response. Our
recommendation is that Bill Lorenz from our natural resources
department be the board's designee on that team. This is a review
team to determine whether natural resource lands titled to the
internal improvement trust fund are being managed for the purposes for
which they were acquired in accordance with approved land management
plans. So I would ask the board to --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You want a formal motion on this?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, please.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I move approval of Mr. Lorenz --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- to that appointment.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, the content of that again?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Land management board.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Land management --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Land management board.
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- review team.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
to be named to that.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY:
MR. FERNANDEZ:
We have a motion and a second for Bill Lorenz
Hotion carries five-zero.
Thank you very much, Hadam Chairman. That's all I
have.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Wouldn't think of it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nor do I.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I bet Ms. Filson has something.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: I just learned early this morning we received 155
appeals. We will have the value adjustment board on the 28th only.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: 1557
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And so we have how many, just the one day?
MS. FILSON: Monday the 28th.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Monday, the 28th, is it. Okay. Nothing
further? We're adjourned.
***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Constantine
and carried 5/0, that the following items under the Consent and Summary
Agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16B1
CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 TO CARDINAL CONTRACTORS, INC. FOR CONTRACT NO.
97-2696, SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT ODOR CONTROL
SYSTEM, PROJECT NO. 70020 - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $76,921.40
Item #1682
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR SOUTH REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT FACILITY ODOR
CONTROL SYSTEM OPERATING COSTS
Item #1683 - Continued No Date
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY FROM COLLIER COUNTY TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO
SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF PERMIT #11-00368-S (HELl PROPERTY) -
Item #1684
BID #98-2840, "MOWING OF GRASSED OR VEGETATED AREAS" - AWARDED TO
SOUTHERN SERVICES OF LABELLE, INC. AT $14.50 PER ACRE
Item #1685 - Moved to Item #SB1
Item #1686
CONTRACT INCREASE FOR COHMERCIAL LAND MAINTENANCE, INC. IN THE AMOUNT
OF $6,685.79 FOR THE COST OF SERVICES THAT WERE PERFORMED ON BEHALF OF
THE GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION HSTU
Item #16D1
RESOLUTION 98-380, RE COLLIER COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Item #16D2
BID #98-2818 FOR FURNISHING AND DELIVERING HERBICIDES, PESTICIDES AND
FUNGICIDES - AWARDED TO THE VARIOUS VENDORS AS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 98-338; 98-398; 98-409 AND 98-419
Item #16G1
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
Item #1662
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the BCC
has been filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated:
Item #16H1
ENDORSEHENT OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT'S OFFICE GRANT
APPLICATION FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA DRUG CONTROL AND SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENT FORMULA GRANT PROGRAM, EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL STATE AND
LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, FIVE PERCENT SET ASIDE FUNDS
There being no further business for the good of the County· the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:00 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
BARBARA B. BERRY, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
presented or as corrected
· as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING
SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC