BCC Minutes 03/03/1998 R REGULAR MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, March 3, 1998
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, 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 9:04 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Collier County Government Center, Administration Building,
Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry
Timothy L. Hancock
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
ALSO PRESENT: David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Robert Fernandez, County Administrator
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's go on the record at 9:04.
Good morning. I would like to call the March 3rd meeting of the
Collier County Board of Commission to order. If you would please
stand for the invocation by the Reverend Read Heydt of
Trinity-By-The-Cove Episcopal Church and remain standing for the
pledge.
REVEREND HEYDT: Almighty God, our heavenly father, we ask you to
send down upon these, our commissioners of Collier County, the spirit
of wisdom, charity and justice, that, with steadfast purpose, they may
faithfully serve in their offices to promote the well-being of all
people. And, Lord, teach our people to rely on your strength and to
accept their responsibilities to their fellow citizens, that they may
elect trustworthy leaders and make wise decisions for the well-being
of our society, that we may serve you faithfully in our generation and
honor your holy name, for yours is the kingdom, oh Lord, and you are
exalted has head above all. In the name of the father and of the son
and of the holy spirit. Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Reverend Heydt.
Mr. Fernandez, do we have changes to the agenda this morning,
please?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we do, Madam Chairman. The only change that
I have is to ask the board consider that we continue Item 8(A)(1),
which is a recommendation for action by the Board of County
Commissioners relative to Ordinance 93-82, as amended, also known as
the Golden Gate Health Park PUD, which has not commenced construction
as defined in Section 2.7.3.4 of the Land Development Code. This is
as a result of the petitioners' request, in that they were not able to
be in attendance today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Is that the only --
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's the only change.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No changes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No changes today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No changes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Wouldn't think of it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I have no changes as well.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the agenda and consent agenda as
amended.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #4
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10 AND WORKSHOP MEETING OF
FEBRUARY 11, 1998 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Move approval of the minutes of February
10, regular meeting, February 11, workshop.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1998 AS ROTARY INTERNATIONAL
GROUP STUDY EXCHANGE TEAM DAY - ADOPTED
Proclamations this morning.
Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, it's my pleasure this
morning, as we do each year, to welcome the Rotary International
Exchange, Study Exchange Team Day. And today we have George Drobinski
here with our team from Japan. I would like to ask George and the
team members from Japan, if you would, come forward, please.
It's my pleasure this morning to give my best shot to the
pronunciation of the Japanese team members. I hope I do so with honor
and with some aplomb this morning.
If I could ask you to go ahead and come forward, and I would like
you to turn around. Our meetings are televised and we'd like everyone
at home to see you. And, as I introduce you, if you'd please indicate
who it is I'm introducing.
With the team this morning we have Yasuhiro Nakamura, we have
Takeyasu Suzuki, we have Takayuki Hoshinoya, Ikuki Tarunuma, and Yoko
Tsukada. Got through that with only a couple of problems.
We welcome the exchange team every year and I would like to go
ahead and read the following proclamation into the record on your
behalf.
Whereas, we welcome the Rotary International Group Study Exchange
Team from Rotary International District 2820 Japan to Collier County,
Florida; and
Whereas, the Rotary Foundation of Rotary International Group
Study Exchange Program, has sent to us a team of four professionals
who are visiting Collier County to study our institutions and ways of
life; and
Whereas, the team members will also observe the practice of their
own professions and exchange ideas; and
Whereas, the team is able to personally experience family
lifestyles as they are hosted by Rotary Clubs of Collier County and
given accommodations in local homes; and
Whereas, the Rotary Foundation is a nonprofit corporation
supported by Rotarians and others worldwide. Its objective is the
achievement of world understanding and peace through international
humanitarian and educational programs.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Tuesday, March 3, 1998,
be designated as Rotary International Group Study Exchange Team Day.
Done and ordered this 3rd day of March, 1998. Signed by Barbara
B. Berry, Chairman.
Madam Chairman, I'd like to move acceptance of this proclamation.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 5-0.
(Applause.)
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And, George, I'll turn to over to you, if
I may.
MR. DROBINSKI: For the record, George Drobinski with Group Study
Exchange. This morning, on behalf of District Governor Leo P. Cypher
and the Rotarians of District 6960, I bid you, Ohio gatsiamatsu meno
son Toma Arigato (phonetic).
As you have recognized, the Group Study Exchange is made up of
one Rotarian team leader and four professionals that travel to
different countries. The district has, in fact, worldwide, 500 such
exchanges every year and these Rotarians will be on a rigorous
schedule, staying with other Rotarians, and they will be serving as
ambassadors, both vocationally and culturally as well.
I'd like to recognize the number of individuals that have
participated, with the Commission's cooperation in the past with Group
Study Exchange. Of course, I'd be remiss without recognizing Mr.
Michael Davis, who was a team leader to Colombia, and Sam Saadeh --
Sam, are you here -- Sam Saadeh, who was a team member to India. And
who is on the team, I will have in a moment Yasuhiro Nakamura, the
team leader, just give a brief introduction as far as what these young
professionals do for a career. They will be going to Fort Myers after
spending a week with us and touring many areas. Today is our
government day.
We took the liberty of placing a pin in front of you. It is the
symbol that we use for Group Study Exchange. It's a pin that is the
Japanese flag and the American flag. And just to whet the whistle of
certain other individuals that may be in this room that we constantly
try to cultivate to participate on this program -- Tom Olliff -- I've
mentioned that we have been to Colombia, that we have been to India.
We've also sent teams over to the Netherlands. I had the privilege of
leading a team to Italy. We've gone to England and Sweden. We will
be going to Japan after the Japanese team has left our shores, and
also a tour will be going to the Philippines. And we have locked down
northern Italy as well for the next tour.
So, as you can see, we travel lands far, and we get to stay with
these Rotarians, we learn the language. It's usually about six months
of rigorous training involved with this. So there is an amount of
sacrifice, but, as they say, it's not work if you enjoy what you're
doing. And I believe anybody who's experienced the Group Study
Exchange understands the pleasure that's involved with that and you
come back a better person and the world is a smaller place.
So, without further ado, I'd like to introduce Mr. Nakamura, who,
if you could just tell us what your team does for a living. You can
stand at that podium, if you would like.
MR. NAKAMURA: First of all, thank you very much to, you know,
introducing to GSE team. And I'm very appreciative, you know, the --
sorry. I can't speak English because I am Japanese, so we always
speak the Japanese English so -- we call it the Janglish (phonetic).
Maybe you can understand?
So, how to suggest, you know, you told me that -- anyway, we --
two days ago we arrive from Japan. We -- it takes about twenty hour
flight to here, so we also, you know -- how to speak -- we are
becoming nervous.
Anyway, after arriving here and we want to learn United States
culture, how the life and the thinking. Also I want to introduce the
Japanese way to the thinking, also our culture. Just, I want to learn
for the exchange this trip. Okay? And also we brought four member.
This order, district student. And maybe they are each different
person, the different working. So they are maybe the one ready also
teacher and one is working for the University, one is working for the
sheriff office, and one working the government. So maybe they learn
more from the United States. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. DROBINSKI: Thank you, Commissioners.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's always a pleasure to have this group
come. And we thank you, George, and also Mike, for bringing them up
here today. Thank you very much.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS PRESENTED
At this time we have four service awards that I'd like to
present, starting with Gary Arnold, Emergency Management, ten years.
(Applause.)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What are the chances Katy's zooming in
right about now?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, she's saying.
MR. ARNOLD: She better not.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Next one is Mike Smykowski, ten years.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thanks so much, Mike.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Don't they double the years?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I actually started on a leap year day so some
people say I only have two years of service.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Our next recipient is Jess Nettles from the
library for ten years.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Congratulations.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mike, we don't get to see the baby?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we would like to see the efforts of
this team, I think that would be -- the latest edition.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: She's seven weeks old.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Seven weeks?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: All of us up here love babies and we're
trying to talk Tim into it, so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on, Tim. Oh, gosh.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What a sweetie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Name? Name?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Christine.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Christine. What a beauty. Fortunately,
she looks like her mother.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: She's only quiet because she's already
learned that government can be boring sometimes.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: We forgot her pacifier so that may be a momentary
thing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Congratulations.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much for bringing Christine
down here. I think this is important, to have her see Dad get his
ten-year pin.
And certainly last, but not least, Thomas White with EMS for ten
years.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's no points against you, Tom.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Apparently 1988, a good recruiting
year.
Item #7A
THE NAPLES JUNIOR CHAMBER, INC. REQUESTING THE COLLIER COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS BE THE TITLE SPONSOR OF THE UPCOMING JULY 4TH FESTIVAL AT
SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK - STAFF TO WORK WITH JAYCEES AND BRING BACK AS A
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Next on our agenda under Public Petitions,
we have Mr. Robert Nadeau, Executive Director of the Naples Jaycees
regarding July 4th Festival.
Mr. Nadeau, you have ten minutes to tell us all that you want us
to know.
MR. NADEAU: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning.
MR. NADEAU: I'm back again. You told me to come back and see
you again this year, and I have given you our proposal. There are
very few changes from last year. Our intention is to provide a family
oriented, patriotic July 4th festival for the community at large to
continue our tradition we ran thirty-one years at the beach.
Basically, the changes this year being that this is a, I feel,
wonderful way to inaugurate what a wonderful new facility that we're
going to have. My understanding is the facility should be done about
June 1st. It pretty well outlines it in my cover page. Even more so
this year we can eliminate traffic problems because we have the
bridge. I would like to make this an annual event, this being the
first of many.
I also report to you that, on our side of the funding, we have
already put 5,000 in the bank and we have pledges for two more $5,000
each sponsors, so we have $15,000 in funding already.
Just to remind you of what we discussed last year, part of the
request is that this be a county sponsored event through Parks and
Recreation because it's one of their facilities and that the county
budget $25,000 for a portion of the fireworks. An important part of
that, in light of many things that have happened in the past, is that
that funding would be paid directly to the fireworks company by the
county. It would never see our checkbooks.
Basically, that's it. You've got the schedule. As I said,
there's very few changes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
MR. NADEAU: Any questions?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. Bob, we've talked a little bit
about this and you're absolutely right, the park's prepared and done
now. That's one big difference from last year. Also, I like the
difference -- when you say the proposal is very similar to last year,
I like the difference there. You're just looking for the county to
help out with the fireworks, not with any expenses anywhere outside of
that, and the Jaycees --
MR. NADEAU: Absolutely not.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- will take the rest of that on
themselves.
I love the idea. The 4th of July is a family day, it is a time
when everybody seems to take a little break and usually kicks back and
enjoys time with their family. And a couple of weeks back we had the
bonfire down on the beach the city sponsored. It's just a great
event, to see families out there and young people out there and people
of every age enjoying a community event like that, and all the little
things going on, with the music and everything in the park at the same
time. And if we can create something like that for our own community,
I think it's a fantastic idea. I would love to see us pursue this and
make it a regular event.
And I like the way you've outlined things, you know, from the
afternoon all the way through to the fireworks. And I support the
idea wholeheartedly. I would like to see us pursue it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Along similar lines, when you go out there
in the community and you talk to people, they talk about how this felt
like a small town when they moved here and it doesn't seem like a
small town anymore. And the things that make a small town a small
town or, you know, everyone having the opportunity to get together in
the community, things like a fireworks event, things like parades, the
little things that we don't seem to really do that much of.
I am a hundred percent supportive of the county participating and
helping to enable a fireworks display at Sugden Regional Park, period.
The city has done the fireworks for a long time, will continue to do
them, but the truth is, the county's just too large and too many
people here to rely on that one display to give everyone the
opportunity to do what my family did when I was a kid.
So, I'm supportive of it. I want to stop short of support of the
proposal because I need to -- I need Mr. Olliff to work with you on
the logistics. I need things to be put together in a plan that our
park system feels they can understand and handle. I need the
sheriff's input, because we're going to have people stopping on the
side of the road to watch this thing and whatnot. So, I would like to
see this come back after working with our park staff in the form of a
formal proposal and partnership with our Parks folks, and I thank you
for bringing it forward.
MR. NADEAU: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think this is a great proposal.
This is what Sugden Park should be used for, this sort of thing. Now
that it's completed, I think we feel a lot better about using it this
year.
I think Commissioner Hancock hit one of the important points
about having an event like this where people have the opportunity to
get together. But also, this year, if the only fireworks is down on
the beach, we have to remember that the City of Naples has terrible
traffic problems that we don't have out here in the county, and so we
would -- we would certainly do our citizens a favor by having the
fireworks display out here so that they don't have to battle that city
traffic down there.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any questions?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I was feeling just a wonderful
community spirit there for a moment, but felt just a little twinge of
a break in that big broad, all-enveloping community spirit there, but
let that go and just say, I think, yeah, that the county has gotten so
large that we need to look at, the population base has moved so far
east that getting everybody on the beach for the fireworks is probably
unrealistic anymore. So, I think it's a great idea to look at it at
Sugden and want to get staff -- it's got to be something that our
staff comes forward supporting, for my vote, but --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion
that we direct staff to work with the Jaycees -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and bringing this back as a
regular agenda item in an appropriate amount of time, as deemed by Mr.
Olliff.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion. Do we have a second to
that motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, mid-sentence.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second to bring
this back on a regular agenda item.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Carries 5-0.
Thank you, Mr. Nadeau.
MR. NADEAU: Thank you, Commissioners. Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good luck.
MR. NADEAU: Thank you.
Item #8A1 - CONTINUED TO 3/17/98
Item #8A2
RESOLUTION 98-59,REGARDING PETITION ST-97-2, REBECCA D. ANDREWS,
TRUSTEE FOR TAMARAC LAND TRUST, THROUGH THEIR AGENT GARY BUTLER, P.E.
OF BUTLER ENGINEERING INC., REQUESTING A SPECIAL TREATMENT DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL OFFICE PARK ON A PORTION
OF THE PROPERTY WITH A SPECIAL TREATMENT (ST) OVERLAY LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD & PINE RIDGE ROAD - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on to Item 8(B)(2), or -- I'm
sorry, 8(A)(2), petition ST-97-2, Tamarac Land Trust requesting a
Special Treatment Development permit.
MR. LENBERGER: Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning.
MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, Planning
Services.
I'm here today with Rebecca Andrews, the petitioner, and her
agent, Gary Butler, to request a Special Treatment Development permit
on a property about three and three-quarter acre in size.
On the wall here I have a proposed site plan. The subject
property is located on the northeast corner of Pine Ridge Road and
Airport Pulling Road, just north of the Sports Authority. On the map
here, as you can see, I have YMCA Road indicated on the southernmost
border of the property and Airport Pulling Road on the west side. The
subject property has a special treatment overlay on the northwest
corner and is -- coincides with this black line that I'm running my
finger along, right here. Petitioner is proposing to construct an
eleven building commercial office park.
Impacts, the ST areas will consist solely of a water management
berm, the area I have indicated in pink on the wall. They are
proposing to preserve the rest of the ST area, which is the green, as
well as some additional transitional wetlands, which I have
highlighted in blue.
Basically the area within the ST area consists of a cypress
forest.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the only impact to the ST area is the
water management berm on the perimeter? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the water management berm, by
retaining water, can actually help revive the cypress head?
MR. LENBERGER: That's correct.
The purpose of the ST regulations is to protect unique habitats
and at the same time permit levels of development deemed appropriate
by the Board of County Commissioners. This project being a commercial
project, nonresidential, and also having impact S, the area has to
come to the BCC. It does not meet the exceptions exemption criteria
in the Land Development Code.
The Environmental Advisory Board and the Planning Commission both
recommended approval unanimously of this proposal. Also, there have
been some minor changes in the resolution initiated through the county
attorney's office, just wording in the language. I have copies of
that if you wish to see it, but the intent is the same.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I just have a question. That just looks like
an awfully small area. What kind of buildings are we talking about?
Eleven buildings just seems like a tremendous number of buildings.
MR. LENBERGER: I'll let Gary Butler from -- representing the
petitioner --
MR. BUTLER: Gary Butler representing the owner.
The buildings are kind of designed to, you know, be sold to
individuals like a condominium-type project would be. They are 3,000
square foot buildings or less, 2,600, the perfect size for, you know,
small accountant offices, engineering offices, things like that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair? It doesn't relate to the ST,
but this is visible from Airport Pulling Road, so it would be subject
to commercial architectural standards; is that correct?
MR. BUTLER: Yes. We're in for STP approval right now, and those
have all been reviewed.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So it's kind of like a doctor would
buy it to have his office in it, kind of thing?
MR. BUTLER: There are several doctors looking at purchasing
buildings in this particular development.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Kind of a smaller scale of the Colonial
development on Goodlette Frank, I think.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is it similar to -- I mean --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Architecturally, do you have a theme?
MR. BUTLER: It'll all be single story, tile roof type
structures.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Spanish, kind of theme or something, or is
there one yet; too soon?
MR. BUTLER: It's kind of Spanish. I wouldn't say it is Spanish,
but --
MR. GATES: Very residential.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Very residential, I hear from Mr. Gates.
That sounds wonderful, frankly.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Gates is also going to have his office in one of
the buildings.
If there's any other questions, I would be happy to answer them.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'kie, do you have any more
questions?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: None for me, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. What -- how much of the existing
vegetation is going to be retained?
MR. BUTLER: We're going to meet with the standards for the LDC,
if not exceed them.
MR. LENBERGER: I calculated it out. About seventy percent of
the native habitat on site will be retained.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Seventeen?
MR. LENBERGER: Percent of the native habitat on the entire
property.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. BUTLER: That's excluding additional landscape buffers and
things that we will be planting with native species.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And you don't have a proposed site plan for
us today?
MR. BUTLER: I did not -- I have some with me, actually, if you
would like to see them, but this is really an ST impact review.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand.
MR. BUTLER: Okay. The plan that Steve has on the wall is our
site plan. You're looking for details, landscape plans, things like
that?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
MR. BUTLER: I've got the original copies, if you would like to
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If you hand that in, that's public record
and you can't get it back.
MR. BUTLER: I have other copies.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I wanted you to know that before you
handed it over.
MR. BUTLER: I would have brought five copies if I would have
thought about it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's all right. Save your money.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Anybody else?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now, the ST permit part of this is kind of
a no brainer, but it's always good to have an idea of the impacts on
site because sometimes we want to be making sure that the ST impacts
are not a trade off for additional development elsewhere on the site,
and that doesn't appear to be the case here. And from Airport Pulling
Road, people driving by, three-quarters of the line along Airport Road
is going to be cypress head; is that correct?
MR. BUTLER: There will be a window into the project but a very
small one. It's going to pretty much be buffers.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And there will be a building in that
window?
MR. BUTLER: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have any further questions.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine, questions?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion. Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much.
Item #8A3
PRESENTATION OF THE 1997 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COHMITTEE (DSAC) - ACCEPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on then to Item 8(E), consideration
of county participation and monetary contribution in the Florida
Association of Counties, Floridian for Fairness in Court Funding.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are you skipping that DSAC thing?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, you skipped one.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Did we miss one?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we did. Let's back up.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just wishful thinking.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I know. We're trying to get through this
this morning.
Item 8(A)(3), presentation of the 1997 annual report of the
Development Services Advisory Committee.
Mr. Cautero, how could I have forgotten that?
MR. CAUTERO: I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just one of those things.
MR. CAUTERO: It's quite all right.
Good morning, Commissioners. Vince Cautero, for the record.
The report's very standard. The Development Services Advisory
Committee has engaged on a number of projects which are in your
executive summary packet. I won't go through them. I'll be -- I'll
answer any questions you have.
I would point out for you, though, that there are two major
projects for the year we're working on, Land Development Code
Amendments, including the architectural design standards, as well as
various utility code amendments. We've spent countless hours in the
sub-committee meetings and the report is very standard and it's
required by ordinance.
Mr. Barksdale, the immediate past chairman, could not be here
today, but he indicated that it would be acceptable for the staff to
make the presentation to you.
The committee recently elected Bruce Anderson as their chair for
1998, and J.E. Rautio as their vice chair.
I'll answer any questions, if you have them.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie, any questions?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't have any. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. Not -- no, I don't.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just a recommendation. As we start
looking at these changes for either growth management plan or land
development code amendments regarding development pattern, just ask
that DSAC kind of stay on a parallel course with us so that we don't
add an additional level of review or step review with them. We want
their input but, as we're looking at these density reduction concepts,
and, you know, just overall reduction of long-term population for
Collier County, that DSAC just stay current with us, if you'd help
provide the conduit for that.
MR. CAUTERO: Yes. Absolutely, Commissioner. They have
requested to receive that information. Normally they don't get
involved in growth management issues but they specifically have
requested that they want to be kept abreast of that issue.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think they also requested a workshop,
but my point is not to add extensive periods to whatever it is we may
be moving forward with, so I just ask that we keep them informed. MR. CAUTERO: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. If there's no further questions, do I
have a motion on the acceptance of this report?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So moved.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have a motion and a second for the
acceptance of the 1997 report of the DSAC.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 5-0.
Thank you, Mr. Cautero.
Item #BE1
COUNTY PARTICIPATION AND MONETARY CONTRIBUTION IN THE FLORIDA
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES' "FLORIDIAN FOR FAIRNESS IN COURT FUNDING"
INITIATIVE AS IT RELATES TO ARTICLE V OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITION -
APPROVED AND STAFF DIRECTED TO BRING BACK AN APPROPRIATE ENABLING
ORDINANCE
Now moving on to Item (8)(E)(1), consideration of county
participation in the Floridian for Fairness in Court Funding dealing
with -- relates to Article V.
MR. SAADEH: Good morning, Commissioners. Sam Saadeh, County
Administrator's office.
The objective of this item before you today is to get you to
participate in the Florida Association of Counties, the Floridian for
Fairness in Court Funding initiative, relating to the proposed
amendment to Article V of the Florida constitution.
This amendment to Article V, if adopted, would prohibit the state
from requiring counties to fund state court system expenses and
requires the state to fund these costs effective July 1st, year 2,002.
The FAC's recommendation to the county commissions is to support
this petition initiative to assure a November 1998 Article V ballot
issue to require such an amendment and achieve the following:
initiation of a petition initiative campaign to ensure that the
November ballot includes the Article V issue, regardless of whether or
not the constitution revision commission proposed amendment includes
Article V; approval of ballot language for the initiative which
requires full state funding of Article V; approval of a 3.8 million
dollar budget to implement the public information campaign and the
petition drive; and the approval of a special FAC assessment of all
counties to fund this campaign. The assessment is based on
twenty-seven cents per capita of population. Collier County's per
capita contribution amounts to $52,120, based upon a population
estimate of 193,036.
Legal opinions on this issue have been that counties can spend
public funds to advocate a position on a ballot proposal.
Local governments, boards, must operate within standards and make
appropriate findings.
Recommendation, that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the county's participation and potential monetary contribution and
direct staff to draft, advertise and bring back for adoption an
appropriate enabling ordinance.
I'll answer some questions, if you have, and our legal staff is
here to answer legal questions.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not necessarily a question, but, as a
director on FAC, by way of background, all sixty-seven counties are
being assessed an amount for this campaign. What this campaign means
to the taxpayers of Collier County is, if we can get the state to step
up to the voter's voice and fund Article V, it will mean, in essence,
a windfall to the taxpayer each year of several hundred thousand, many
counties over a million dollars or two million dollars, or, in Dade
County, well beyond that. In this county we look -- we're looking at
somewhere in the area of 360 to $500,000 the first year Article V is
funded by the state as a benefit to the local taxpayer.
I look at $52,000 in an effort to get the information out to the
voters to make an informed choice as a responsibility, and if all or
the majority of the sixty-seven counties step up in a similar fashion,
we should be successful in doing that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume Chairman Manning wouldn't
have done this without communicating with most of the counties. Do you
have any idea, as a member of the board, what you anticipate
participation being? Obviously it accrues to the benefit of the
counties but I assume there will be a few along the way who will opt
out. Any idea at all?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There has been no breaking of ranks on
Article V in any way, shape or form to date. What I would expect is
some of the smaller counties, even though these assessments are based
on population and therefore budget typically, some of the smaller
counties may have difficulty even coming up with ten or $15,000. We
may find that. But I think the major counties -- we know that Hiami
Dade is already going to be a part of this, and counties such as
Hillsborough have led the charge, with Hiami Dade, so I think we'll
see -- I would be surprised at anything less than 75 percent
participation by the counties.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you think it's a sure thing or what
would you say the percentage of likelihood of something like this
actually appearing on the ballot in the fall is?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's far better than 50/50. Anything
beyond that is a guess, for the simple reason, the Constitution
Revision Commission has worked this into language that has been
approved, but it hasn't made the final, final cut, if you will. The
easiest thing that could happen is the Constitution Revision Committee
provides this information as recommended for an amendment to the
constitution. That makes our job a lot easier because we don't have
to form ballot language. If that happens, you know, it's -- I think
it's going to be a perfunctory campaign. If, however, we have to get
it on the ballot, I think that's why we're looking at a $52,000
assessment instead of something less, the planning for that
eventuality.
Funds not utilized, I would assume, and I will verify, would be
returned pro rata share to the counties, but I will make sure that
that's the case.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is that process; if the
Constitutional Revision Commission does not put it on, what's the
process we have to go through at FAC to make sure that it is?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that process is included in this
estimate for total, which is to go through the petition process, which
requires not a majority of the Senate districts but a certain number
of votes from a certain number of districts or number of petitions
signed. The FAC performed a phone survey prior to making this
decision and received a significant amount of support.
Bob, do you remember the numbers, because they're escaping me?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, I sure don't.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. It was in the area of sixty to
seventy percent supporting the Article V amendment, as we expected it
to read in the constitution amendment. So, after that, feeling there
was public support out there for it is when FAC went ahead and put
this together.
It's not an easy decision for us to put $52,000 into a campaign
on this unless we understand that, or hope to understand that our
residents are already paying costs that should be borne by the State
of Florida, and that this is, in essence, a crow bar to pry that
wallet open at the state level so that we can stop taking it from the
people in Collier County in the manner we have. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I see.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner, have they indicated where they
think the state is going to get this money?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There is another constitutional amendment
that would alter the state tax collection pattern in that it would
lower the sales tax rate but broaden the areas in which the sales tax
could be applied. You may remember the death of the service tax that
Bob Martinez brought forward, and it's because he brought it forward
in the wrong way.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There were a lot of reasons.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: He appeared to be targeting industries,
when in fact we all understand there are a lot of those quote,
unquote, services that really are taxable services. So, what this is
doing is, to the average person, it won't have a tremendous impact.
For those who use a lot of services, you would see an increase in
state sales tax paid, but it would lower it to five percent, as I
recall, a five percent state sales tax instead of the current, but
would broaden the areas taxed, but not to the essentials category, not
to food and medicine and that kind of thing.
So that seems to be the counter measure, if you will, for the
state to fund this.
MR. SAADEH: If I may give a couple of figures that Commissioner
Hancock was asked, the poll shows that fifty-three percent are in
favor of the amendment, thirty-two percent are against and fifteen
percent are undecided. And at least -- they expect at least eighty
percent level of confidence for this to be approved. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, sir.
MR. SAADEH: And the amount of signatures required is 620,000
signatures.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. There's also another amendment
right now that would require you to get a certain number of signatures
from a majority of Senate districts in the state but that would not
apply to this petition process because that amendment, again, has not
been floated and voted on.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris, a question?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, I think all my questions have been
answered.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I appreciate Commissioner Constantine
asking all those questions. Mine are addressed too. I just have some
hesitancy about spending money when I question the odds of success, is
my bottom line. I mean, there's no question that -- how this ought to
be, but I'm -- but I guess we don't have much chance of changing it
unless we get in the fight, and so I'm willing to get in the fight.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that's the point. I really do.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree. Nobody wants to spend the money.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I think if we knew that it was such a
no-brainer and everyone would understand it so easily, we wouldn't
have to spend the money. But when you say Article V, people's eyes
glaze over. They don't know what that means. So we have to help show
the people, the voters, what Article V is and what impact it has on
their lives, and unfortunately --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And pocketbooks.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- education is never inexpensive.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, motion to approve.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second for approval of
this particular item regarding Article V.
I too think it's a case of, we've all talked about this numerous
times, and if we expect to do anything about it then I think we have
to put our money where our mouth is and get involved in the fray.
So all in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 5-0.
Thank you very much, Mr. Saadeh.
MR. SAADEH: Thank you.
Item #8E2
FY 1999 BUDGET POLICY AND BUDGET WORKSHOP MEETINGS SET FOR WEDNESDAY,
JUNE 17, THURSDAY, JUNE 18, AND MONDAY, JUNE 22 - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Item (8)(E)(2), discussion and approval of
the Fiscal Year 1999 budget policy. Mr. Smykowski?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Didn't bring the baby back, Mike?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: No.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just checking.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: For the record, Michael Smykowski, OHB Director.
Our purpose today is for the board to reach consensus on the
policies and assumptions upon which the FY99 budget will be based. The
policy document is attached to the executive summary. We've also
included an update of the three year analysis of principal county ad
valorem tax supported funds, inclusive of the general fund, the
unincorporated area general fund and the pollution control fund.
Again, the purpose of that three area analysis is to focus on the
longer term financial conditions within your ad valorem tax supported
funds and for the board to understand the future implications of
funding decisions they would make in FY99.
Also today the board needs to establish workshop -- budget
workshop dates in June.
My presentation today will focus initially on the broad policy
areas, then on the three year ad valorem tax analysis with a special
emphasis on the policy issues that were impacted by the Marco Island
incorporation and how that impacts our upcoming budget year.
On Page 2 I will now move to the broad policy areas. These have
been re-formatted this year to place emphasis on the staff
recommendation within each policy area. Previously I kind of had to
glean that from the text, so I reformatted it this year. Hopefully
that worked a little better for everyone.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It does. Thank you.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The first policy area is constitutional officer
budget submissions. The board had previously adopted a resolution
requiring the sheriff, clerk and supervisor of elections to submit
their budgets by May 1 of each year. The staff recommendation,
obviously, is pursuant to that resolution, that those budget submittal
deadlines again be May 1. That's really just for -- so there's no
miscommunication as to what the intent is.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine had a question, I
believe.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just on one of the other items. You
said one of things we're going to have to do today is set our calendar
for when our budget hearings will be. Are we anticipating three days?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have suggested dates or are we
going to --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know last year we did the middle
week in June and then I think we had the final --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: We can take care of that right now.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the following week. I was just
going to say --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: If that's your pleasure, sure.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 18, 19 and 22nd, a Thursday, Friday
and a Monday?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Typically we've not worked on Friday, just --
certainly can. Last year we worked on a Wednesday, Thursday and a
Monday. So, last year it was the 18th, 19th and 23rd, corresponding
dates in this June would be the 17th, 18th and the 22nd. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fine.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I like having that Friday because a lot of
questions arise in those two days that require, will require meetings
and discussions and research and whatnot, and that Friday gives us and
OMB a budget day -- or a business day to get those things in line. So
I like the Wednesday, Thursday, Monday better.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 17, 18 and 22nd?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And then I think we have the LDC on the 24th,
I believe.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, we get to see you guys all the
time.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's very similar to what we had last year, I
think.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's great. Thank you.
In terms of budget presentation form, and again, we're proposing
summary data at the fund level with full detail available as needed.
Based on input from the board, following last year's budget process,
we proposed the same presentation format as used last year.
In the area of reserves, in the ad valorem tax-supported funds,
obviously, cash flow is important prior to the receipt of ad valorem
tax revenues. We have to fund operations in October and about
three-quarters of the way through November before we really get any ad
valorem revenue from the tax collector.
As a result, we budget a reserve for cash flow in the general
fund. The recommended level is a million five. The MSTD general
fund, the recommended reserve is a quarter of a million dollars.
Within each operating fund we typically budget a five percent
contingency. That is recommended again, with the exception of the
constitutional officer funds. Those we've historically budgeted in
the general fund.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question on that for you.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is one where the Greater Naples Civic
Association, Janet Vassey and others, had a lot of comments last year.
Have we taken any of that into consideration or is this exactly what
we've always done? I don't mean that you've ignored their
recommendations but are there any changes this year as a result of
those recommendations?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. We made changes last year based on some of
their recommendations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And are those reflected in these
percentages?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We actually altered some of those
during the process last year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, we did. We did, which is great.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. And we're following through on those
recommendations once again.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My recollection is last year was markedly
different than the year before and we actually got positive feedback
from GNCA --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, big time.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- on last year's budget process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Big time. I just wanted to be sure that
we were carrying forward those policy changes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I think if there are some that we
didn't attach to or apply in the budget process, we need GNCA to step
up and give us a reminder of that, but I appreciate you're bringing
that up. Yes.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The one exception regarding the constitutional
officer, you have, over the last few years, the supervisor of
elections has opted for a reserve in her fund. That doesn't pose any
great difficulty, it's just out of the norm, and I just point that
out. What we do though is, we adjust the general fund reserve
contingencies accordingly so that we're not in effect double reserving
those funds.
In terms of carryforward --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Smykowski, are we required, with
the constitutional officers, to do that in the general fund, or -- I'm
not suggesting we do it any differently. I'm just asking, from a
legal standpoint, are we required, for any reserves, for that to be in
the general fund or could that be in their own fund and they're
responsible for that, or are there alternatives available?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: There is a provision in the statute, I know, for
the sheriff to have a reserve in his fund. We have never opted to do
that. That is an option.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, if I may, the question is, are we
required, and I think the statute doesn't require that we do so, it
enables us to do so.
Is that correct, Mr. Smykowski?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. Carryforward, we simply budget all revenues
that are -- that we reasonably anticipate to be unexpended or
unencumbered at the end of a fiscal year as fund balance, so there are
no quote hidden reserves. We budget 100 percent of what our estimate
of available cash will be in each fund.
Next item requires a policy decision for the board, under Salary
Administration. As we all know, county government is a
service-oriented business and people are our greatest asset. We need
to protect the investment we have in our people both in terms of
retaining experienced people and the investment in the training that
we have in our staff members. As such, we're recommending the same
four percent that was budgeted last year for salaries. Last year it
was three percent general wage adjustment, one percent merit bonus. We
are proposing this year to budget four percent for salary
administration.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Couldn't we do consistent with what
we've done before and set that aside now but if it happens to come
back -- statistically our government shows us the southeast quadrant,
or whatever one, whichever one we use, is at two percent, then we do
the two percent plus the merit. Couldn't we just -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- remain consistent with what we've
done before, so that way, if it's 3.2 percent instead of 3 percent,
then we mirror that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Our proposal here is in anticipation that those
numbers will be pretty consistently lower than we had last year in
terms of a general wage adjustment. Our hope is to be able to utilize
the same amount of commitment that we had in the current year in order
to make some salary adjustments and other adjustments to our pay
scales in order to address the turnover issues, the longevity issues,
and so forth.
So although we don't expect that there will be another three
percent general wage adjustment, we're hoping to still utilize the
same four percent number that we used in the current year in order to
make the other adjustments that we feel are necessary to maintain a
viable pay plan.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I have -- I support that concept. I
think that we've been watching talented people leave in droves, and a
four percent commitment for raises is appropriate, especially if --
and I've heard a little bit about this on productivity committee, and
that's probably why I'm excited about it -- especially because what
Mr. Fernandez is proposing is a whole new policy.
Instead of that merit bonus, one-time hit, some real
performance-based merit pay and some real incentives for people to be
paid by performance. And he's working with productivity committee,
and that's -- they're making recommendations about how that should be
implemented. But I hope that we'll at least give this policy this
four percent to allow him to move forward with that program. I think
it's an excellent one.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I want to eliminate the concept and
the title, merit bonus.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's a stupid concept.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because two things bother me about the way
we've been doing it. We've really governmentalized our -- the way in
which we pay people. The guy who is doing a slack job, the lady who
is doing a slack job, gets the exact same cost of living increase as
the person they're sitting next to, and maybe that person gets a bonus
of 8 or $900 that doesn't go into their base salary for next year.
two things happen.
You kind of reduce the desire of the employee to excel to some
degree, because there isn't a long term award there, but, more
importantly, we put ourselves in a position with the merit bonuses of
every six or seven years having to do a significant bump in our
salaries across the board. And it was just a couple years ago that we
saw fourteen percent because we had a county employee pay plan
adjustment and a sheriff's pay plan adjustment, and, you know, the in
between years are a lot easier, but those years where we get those pay
plan adjustments, because we haven't been keeping pace, are killers.
And I asked Bob to look at, over the course of ten or twelve
years, if you amortized what we ended up paying anyway, in other
words, you take the years where we had six or eight percent pay plan
bumps because we've lagged behind industry, amortize that out, what's
the annual? I mean, what on average are we spending more per year in
salary so that we could avoid the big hits and the off years or the
pay plan years -- it just makes sense to me to do it that way.
And if Mr. Fernandez believes he has a better way to use the same
amount of money to motivate, reward and even weed -- I'm tired of
people being guaranteed cost of living. If you're not a performer,
then the best way to notify you of that after verbal is through your
paycheck. And I would like -- I'd like the county administrator's
office to have flexibility.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Where is Ty Agoston when I want to draw an
analogy to Communism, that we're paying people without merit, without
comparative value for their contribution, just everybody gets the
same, and that's not -- that's government or even Communism, Ty might
say.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe socialism.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He stretches it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with the policy. I'm sorry
Commissioner Constantine had to step out for a minute because I know
that, you know, I don't want to have this discussion again per se in
the same vein, but I'm supportive of this. But I do want to see that
number. I want to look at a ten or twelve year trend and look at what
our -- if we amortized the increases over that period, what's the
annual increase we have been faced with so we have a benchmark to go
by. And then how you apply these funds through your division
administrators -- yes, I understand it opens the door for favoritism
and all that other stuff, but welcome to the real world. We can't
protect people from that. It's up to you to hire good administrators
that do that job. So --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the productivity committee is going to
work hard on a implementation program to help Human Resources do this
in a really fair way.
Hey, Ty, I was just talking about you.
MR. AGOSTON: You were?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. I'll tell you later.
MR. AGOSTON: Nothing good.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It was good. I was agreeing with you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm in support of that policy.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He too.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. We're also recommending a continuation of
budgeting the four percent attrition.
In terms of Contract Agency Funding, the board policy is not to
fund nonmandated social service agencies.
The Indirect Cost Allocation Plan and Enterprise Fund Payment in
Lieu of Taxes are general fund revenues. We're recommending
continuation of that policy.
The Interim Government Services Fee, the board, based on the
previous policy direction, we continued to pursue that. Mr. Weigel, I
believe, is bringing forth an ordinance, probably at the end of March,
for adoption that would adopt that fee. However, based on board
direction last year, we want to take the conservative route and, at
least until that fee is fully implemented and an ordinance has been
adopted, not to budget any revenue to be anticipated from that source
until such time as we believe that it might reasonably be collected.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Under Financial Management and Budget
Developments, our recommendation is continue to prepare this
three-year projection. I guess I would ask you if you find it
worthwhile. It does, I think, identify down the road, if you have any
big humps to overcome -- a few years ago I know we had a number of
issues that all managed to compound themselves in one year and this,
at least, gave us an idea of what to expect in the future. So from
that standpoint we would recommend a continuation of the practice.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think anything beyond three years begins
to be a little too sketchy, so I think that's good. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's good, a good policy.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I always like to compliment you too. I
remember a couple of years ago your staff and you and Neal took a hit
for the three year projection, and we came in well under that, and the
newspaper criticized you for projecting the worst case scenario.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Doom and gloom, I think it was referred to.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. And, frankly, I thought it was
good because it allowed us to plan to make sure that it never did
happen. So --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sure all of the members of the
editorial board at home underestimate their salaries so they get in
worse shame at the end of the year than -- you know, I mean, that's
just standard protocol for most people, isn't it? Oh no, I'm sorry.
Most people on average actually are conservative at home so they have
money left over. Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point wasn't to beat them up too
bad, just to compliment you on -- we appreciate the work you're doing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ah, you opened the door. I'll walk in.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: On the CIP, obviously we adopt a CIE consistent
with the requirements of the growth management plan on an annual
basis. The first year will include appropriations to budget the
projects identified in the first year of the CIE.
Ad Valorem Capital Funding. On an annual basis the board
appropriates a certain component of the ad valorem dollars to fund
capital projects. In FY98 that amounted to 7.4 million dollars. Staff
is recommending increasing that by four percent, which is an estimate
of the increase in taxable value attributable to new construction
coming on the tax roll, and that's just to offset the impact of
construction inflation, and also recognizing that typically capital
projects well exceed the available dollars. So we're looking at
increasing that. And just, again, to negate the impact of
construction inflation.
On Page 5 there is a chart that just shows the general fund
allocation for capital projects and how that has deviated over time.
Back in '91 we were levying over 12 million dollars for capital
projects. This year, with that four percent increase, it would be 7.7
million.
We're also recommending, obviously, that capital projects
attributable to growth be funded to the extent possible by impact
fees. Capital project budgets are administered on a total project
budget basis as opposed to -- unlike operating budgets which are
administered on an appropriation unit basis, personal service,
operating and capital.
The Law Enforcement and Correctional Facilities Impact Fees, the
board had previously authorized a contract to develop --, develop
these studies. There's been some delays encountered in the data in
attributing the crimes and arrests back to land use categories to make
it legally defensible. Our recommendation is, obviously, to continue
to pursue implementation of those fees, to the extent that they would
offset a portion of any jail expansion as well as any growth-related
capital expenses due to new deputies being added in the sheriff's
office.
Under Self-Insurance, we'd just recommend continuing programs
based on changes that were implemented previously by the board. That
service policy, frankly, is an old policy. Our financial advisor is
reviewing that currently, and also conducting a debt capacity
analysis, not only to look at funding alternatives for the jail but
just available debt capacity of the county.
Interim Financing, our recommendation there, again, is that any
repayment source, that be identified and that which has the lowest
total cost would be the recommended source.
Under Privatization, just as a broad, general policy, the county
explores the most cost effective means of providing a service, and if
an opportunity arose for privatization, that would certainly be
evaluated.
Now we'll get into the three-year budget projection. Increases
or decreases over the roll back rate in the general fund, based on the
assumptions utilized, was 2.1 percent over the roll back rate. HSTD
general fund had a decrease of 20.8 percent. We'll talk about that in
great detail. And the pollution control fund had a 2.8 percent
increase.
Essentially we're assuming four percent new construction. Our
tax levy is that we received 96.6 percent of actual taxes levied, a
seven and a half percent growth in sales tax revenue, a two and a
half percent growth in revenue sharing, all gas taxes being allocated
to road construction.
On the expense side, we assume four percent on an annual basis.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I pause you one quick second --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Sure.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- on the gas taxes all being allocated to
capital construction. You guys and HPO last time, you know, I know it
was way too far out, the projection, but there was this projection of
a hundred million dollars overage in the capital projects budget, and
I just -- I know that's absurd, but I just want to plant the seed for
our being open minded to looking at whether or not all of that gas tax
money has to continue to be allocated to capital projects, if we can't
bring some of it back into maintenance, just to make that comment for
future reference.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or, better yet, looking at getting rid
of part of the gas tax.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, there you go.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: One of the other important expense assumptions,
previously the sheriff's office had included manpower projections,
and, actually, their final budget request has deviated to varying
degrees from the information initially contained in this report. This
year they're evaluating manpower needs as a function of both of those
impact fee studies. They have not included any manpower projection
for the future, but I think, actually, from a true -- from the
standpoint of a model, what we're just trying to show is the impact of
inflation on existing services as well as mandates, which are -- which
we've defined as operating costs associated with capital projects
coming on line, so that there is no true mandate to add law
enforcement deputies, so -- in this case. And if the model reflected,
you know, adding fifteen deputies per year, obviously then the final
recommendation was only seven, perhaps, then the model is overstated
and obviously if you churn that through three years, well, eight
additional deputies per year adds up to quite a sum of money too. So
from that standpoint, that is a deviation.
The other assumption that we'll get to very quickly is that
services provided currently will be funded in FY99, and that may be
impacted by your Marco Island -- the Marco Island discussion we'll
have shortly.
In summary, on Page 10, the general fund, the major areas
impacting do have some mandates, some park projects coming on line. In
addition, general fund support of road and bridge operations
increases, 1.3 million dollar increase in EMS support from the general
fund.
What we've done then is an analysis of each of those individual
funds to show their relative impact on the general fund. For example,
road and bridge again was $650,000. It does reflect 100 percent of
gas taxes being allocated to road construction. As a result, road and
bridge is essentially a quasi general fund department because of the
general fund transfer to that operation. As you see, over time, due
to the re-allocation of gas taxes, it increases quite a bit. In EMS on Page 11, this impacts the general fund.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry but I've just got to get you to
go back and translate for me. This road and bridge graph there, at
the bottom, I don't understand what's happening. By 2001 we're
showing 8 million dollars required sales tax for road and bridge; is
that what that means?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. We're currently about 6 million dollars.
Now, that's three years out, assuming normal inflation on existing
services and also looking at fund balance as well. Road and bridge
last year had a large fund balance requiring less general fund subsidy
in the current year. Obviously, that's a one time revenue. As that's
bled down, the general fund subsidy support of that operation
increases.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess that's where we have to be
careful, Commissioner Constantine, when we make that choice about
whether or not to eliminate some gas tax or re-allocate it.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Our discussion was, I thought, we were
just looking at all the alternatives.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. Absolutely we should look at
them all.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: On Page 11 is the EMS fund. Again, that impacts
significantly on the general fund. In addition to our inflationary
cost increases, based on mandated response times required in the
growth management plan, there's two additional EMS units that may be
required in FY99, in the Golden Gate Estates area and then there's a
couple of areas of the county where there are response time issues,
Port of the Isles and Isle of Capri, that has not been finalized yet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aren't those impact fee funded, though,
since they're growth related?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The capital for the station and the ambulance can
be impact fee funded but the personnel and the operating costs are not
impact fee eligible and that's where you bear the cost --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gotcha.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- within EMS. Obviously, given that we continue
to increase EMS service, the current rate structure has been in place
since FY96 at $302. We're currently in the process of evaluating
options, including increasing the EMS base rate, adding a mileage
component, or a combination thereof. Currently staff is evaluating
those options with the EMS advisory committee and, in conjunction with
the FY99 budget, we would bring forth a recommendation regarding those
fees. But that effort's being funneled through your advisory
committee first for recommendation from them.
In terms of Sales Tax Required for Debt Service, that's
relatively stable during the period in this model. It had increased
markedly in FY97 as a result of changes, based on a refunding of an
old bond issue. But that's relatively stable for the period, as well
as your Revenue Sharing Debt Service is also relatively stable. The
model does project a decrease in available fund balance over time, and
that's something we need to be cautious about and, in fact, in
discussions with Mr. Fernandez we're going to work with our financial
advisor to develop targets for our fund balance that are appropriate.
As the general fund continues to grow, obviously cash flow is a
concern, as I indicated, covering that first seven or eight weeks
before ad valorem dollars are available.
On the subject of Constitutional Officer Turnbacks, that's an
important revenue source to the general fund just because of the
magnitude of the dollars. In addition, the actual turnback revenue
has well exceeded both the budget and the forecast levels. There's a
chart. And that range in the period of Fiscal Year '94 through '97
was 1.2 to 1.6 million dollars. They've turned back more than they
had forecast to.
The chart at the top of Page 14 shows, for each fiscal year, the
budgeted turnback, the forecast turnback and the actual. And, as I
indicated, the actual turnback has well exceeded that. For purposes
of the model, I think that was one item that was noted in last year's
budget process and we continue on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to see higher budget numbers there.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Right. We're just being more aggressive.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: I will also tell you, though, that you may live
or die on that sword. Mr. Carlton has expressed some concern about
his turnback this year budgeted at 2.1 million dollars, that he may
turn back only a million five. He has some concerns, some computer --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess the point being, in the last
couple of years we have ratcheted that up.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Been aggressive.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's a limit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As we go back to the comment Commissioner
Constantine made earlier about being criticized about the original
number seeming high and then coming back later and we actually don't
have to hit people that hard, that is a far preferable scenario, that,
when you get more money back than you expected, that you pass the
savings on to the taxpayer, than having to come back and actually jump
the rate up. So, I want to be careful that we don't ratchet that past
a point that we find ourselves having to make additional cuts in the
areas we can only cut, which are, more or less, our libraries and park
services and whatnot because we overestimated that number. So, I
think we've ratcheted it up to a percentage about all I'm comfortable
with. I don't want to go any higher.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the balance?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: To their credit, they have worked with us very
well in terms of adjusting those numbers and, you know, trying to give
us as clear a picture as possible.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But based on these, the turnbacks in the
chart here, we're still well -- the turnbacks have historically been
well over the budget or the forecast, Commissioner Hancock, so, so
far, you know, this year may be -- last year may be the year that we
found the top. Maybe so.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think so. Remembering that each
constitutional officer doesn't want to come back during the year and
ask for more money. So they're going to build in minimal
contingencies into their budget. I would rather have that and get it
back than the other way around. So, I understand they're going to do
that. I'm comfortable with it the way it is.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Just last year, the variance -- the tax collector
did turn back quite a bit more last year. Miss Morgan turned back
almost $400,000. That is --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much did Guy turn back last year?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: 2 point -- about two and three-quarter million.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we had budgeted for him last year to
turn back --
COMMISSIONER SMYKOWSKI: We had forecast two million.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we've got another 400,000 from him over
what we had forecast?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: 700.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 150.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: So we do pick up the benefit of that, though, in
this year, because that is available fund balance --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For a carryforward. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the bottom line -- this board's real
familiar with it -- but the bottom line is that we tax people this
year for, you know, expenses that don't arise this year for the
purpose of having that and carryforward next year. And that's not the
way we do my budget at my house.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: And the extent to which you're offsetting your
milage rate too with a one-time revenue source is also something we
need to be careful of as well, because, obviously, that saves you this
year, but a year from now, that one time savings is gone, and then you
find you're funding operations with non-recurring revenue, which is a
potential problem.
Now we'll get -- on Page 14, kind of the crux of the general fund
issue this year is the implication of the Marco Island incorporation
on the general fund. Obviously, I think we're all well aware that the
county lost approximately 1.4 million dollars that was attributable
directly to the incorporation of Marco Island. That was due to the
fact that they will share in sales tax receipts. And a portion of the
county's revenue sharing program proceeds were re-allocated to other
Florida counties by virtue of the fact that our unincorporated area
population dropped, which is one of the weighted factors in the
distribution formula. So other Florida counties benefitted at our
expense, due to the fact that our unincorporated area population
dropped by 12,700.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But is the net loss to our bottom line
still 1.4 million? I mean, I need to have that number clear in my
head.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That was the FY98. It increased slightly due to,
obviously, sales taxes growing at seven and a half percent a year, so
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So one and a half, a million and a
half?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Obviously the county had adopted a position
to maintain the current service levels. And this year, based on the
funding mix, that was approved in order for the new city to get on its
feet, but we're getting to the point as we begin preparation of the
FY99 budget, we need to at least discuss options -- policy options
regarding whether or not those services would continue and under what
funding mechanism.
At issue is the general fund services that are provided to Marco
and not provided to other incorporated cities, for example, park
service down on Marco Island. That's kind of a measuring stick that
we're using internally. Are we providing similar service in parks
within the City of Naples? And the answer is no.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I pause you just for a second too?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was comforted by the recommendation at
the top of Page 15, that just -- if the general marching orders here
are as stated in that recommendation, then we're going to be okay, and
that is, any service provided to the City of Marco be -- I'm reading
it to say, be provided through interlocal agreement and include
reimbursement to the county, the full cost for providing the service.
Is that the general theme all the way; am I my reading that right?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. That was designed to be generic, not only
for the parks and the road and bridge --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I wanted to know.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- issue, which is kind of the core of your
general fund discussion. But there are other issues, like code
enforcement, planning, on down --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A lot of stuff that --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- the line. And the only thing --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The only --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- we would provide, we would need to provide --
our recommendation is, they need to pay for it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At cost.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The only model we have, we have two
models. We have Everglades City and the City of Naples. But the more
applicable model is the City of Naples, based on population.
Everglades City, with only a few hundred people, can be covered very
differently through agreements and through partnerships. The City of
Naples is a more similar model for Marco Island. And if they're going
to take advantage of the -- of not paying the unincorporated general
fund, as they have in the past, for us to turn around and provide
services to Marco that we don't provide within the City of Naples,
while they take advantage of not paying the unincorporated general
fund element, makes absolutely no sense.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Certainly nobody thinks that's the way to
go.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So one of two things is going to happen.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nobody on Marco.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, nobody on this board, I'm hoping.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, one of two things is going to
happen. Either they're going to adopt a model similar to the City of
Naples or we're going to have to create a model that they want to
adopt through interlocal agreements, which is fine by me. But the
only thing I have to base it on from a fairness standpoint, is we
can't really provide to the City of Marco services that we don't
provide within the City of Naples when it's -- when they're paying the
exact same base tax rate. And I just wanted to float that because
that, to me, seems fair as a starting point. So, for discussion
purposes, does anyone think that's not logical or doesn't define the
situation?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Very logical.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Of course it's logical, and in my
discussion with Mr. Smykowski and Mr. Fernandez on this subject, I
suggested that the staff point out to the city council and the city
manager on Marco these areas which we think will need attention during
this budget season and get some sort of determination before the
county commission goes into the budget sessions because otherwise we
would be sort of shooting in the dark, not knowing which of these
services they want to provide for themselves or which they may want to
contract with the county, but we need to know these answers in the
next few weeks.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you going to provide police patrols?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes or no. Are you going to provide --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We need to know all that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you need it from us, we need to know,
and I'm sure '-
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Along these lines, I've had a series of meetings
each week with the city manager of Marco Island discussing areas of
services. In our last discussion he asked that we present these items
to Marco Island City Council in order that they can hear them directly
from us and understand the implications of them, and maybe even give
some preliminary direction to us in terms of which direction they
would like to go. So we may be in the process of planning something
in the near future where the staff would go there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Here's a list of things --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Basically, it is --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that you have to figure out how you
want to provide, code enforcement, you know, right on down the line --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to law enforcement patrols, you know,
transportation, road maintenance, da, da, da, da, da, all the things
that, in essence, the City of Naples taxes themselves to provide and
not partake of from the county. Is that the model we're basing it on?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: One other question I have, in regard to, if
we strike agreements with Marco, what's the liability situation to the
county; is it --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a big question. Big question.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: When we write that they assume our
liability.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, but Mr. Weigel --
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm sure I would that that -- of course I would
defer to Mr. Weigel to respond, but I would think that it's based upon
how we would treat the indemnification language in the agreement that
we would have with them. Hopefully the language would be strong and
protect the county's interests.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, one of -- in my view, one of the
costs of providing a service is the risk of liability. And that has
to be factored into what we charge them to provide the service. I
mean, that's one of the ways. It can't be just out of pocket. It has
to also have that factor, so --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, the model is, if a City of Naples
police officer is charged for sexual harassment, we have no exposure
whatsoever. If, however, they are contracting for services and the
officer, in the performance of his duties -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You never know.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- is charged with something on Marco
Island --
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is the county general fund at risk? And
that's the problem.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: See, I've got some real concerns about that.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I do too.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So I think we need to be careful in any
language that we strike with them, that, you know, that certainly is
an issue and an area that's covered.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's got to be financially covered.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's got to be backed in some clear
financial way.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The flip side is, talking about law
enforcement, providing law enforcement services, the sheriff's budget
every year should have provision in it, or a relationship in the
county, for anticipated legal action. If they are paying a pro rata
share for the cost of the sheriff's providing the law enforcement, is
that already built in?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, that's one. But then there's code
enforcement and then there's road and bridge. Road and bridge.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was just separating law enforcement
because that's, I think --
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Potholes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that's, I think, a little unique.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I mean, potholes, for heaven's sake.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sidewalk maintenance, there's a good one.
How many times have we seen lawsuits on that?
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Frivolous or not.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Got to look at it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: A brief statement on indemnification, and that is,
obviously in any agreement relationship with the City of Marco, we can
build into the agreement the fullest coverage indemnification language
that is allowable by law. But there are limitations of
indemnification between governmental entities, which, I think that,
working with Mr. Fernandez, we can provide you the risks or potential
costs that are still underlying any time you're in an agreement with
another governmental entity.
Secondly, in regard to things such as sheriff's services,
analogizing the word "county" as providing services, the county gets
sued nonetheless that it has nothing to do with the operations of the
individual sheriff deputies performing their jobs and it still becomes
a cost to the county, risk management department, our department, to
defend those lawsuits. And, based on federal law -- I should say law
that's been achieved in federal court, the county does not have the
ability to just motion to dismiss its way out, notwithstanding that
the only connection that the county has with the sheriff's budget is
in the budget process alone.
So, with a closer affiliation in the provision of services that
the county may have for a local government, like the City of Marco,
the ability to -- there's a higher probability of being sued, clearly,
but also the ability to remove one's self from the lawsuit is far
less.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have an ignorant but practical question.
Is there such a thing as insurance? I mean, you can insure anything.
Is there an insurance policy that we could require that Marco have in
place for some of this stuff? I mean, just a thought. Hay be
something worth looking at.
MR. WEIGEL: Sure. If you can -- if we can make them contract to
do that, that would be something.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's an interesting idea. It's not
something -- usually there's just indemnification. No one thinks
about it. But separate insurance is one concept. The other is that,
say law enforcement, we may want to pick -- or if it's transportation,
whatever it may be -- we may want to pick an A, B and C list saying,
A, these are the services we think you really ought to provide as a
city on your own, such as, and you mentioned, code enforcement,
planning, you know, and so forth. These are things that -- the
policies of the county commission, when it comes to planning, are
going to be different than the policies of the city council. Putting
our staff in both of those positions is a little awkward for them.
So there may be some services that are reasonable for them to
provide immediately. There may be others that are phase-outs. In
other words, these are some that, within three to five years, you
should expect to take over. And then here's the other list that we
can contract for these indefinitely, without much problem. And I
think the risk of providing those services will help determine which
category they fall into. In other words, it may be okay to, again,
help the City of Marco get up and going, to take a limited risk for
two or three years, but not indefinitely.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And just, also in the for what it's worth
department, the productivity committee, at Mr. Fernandez's request,
has taken this on as a project that they hope to have recommendations
for us in time for, you know, budget policy and I find that --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Perfect group. I can't think of a better
group for that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Very valuable.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Obviously in July you will have to levy a
tentative millage and that would either have to be an increased
millage or reflect contracted revenue from the City of Marco Island or
a millage that doesn't contemplate providing that service any longer
to the City of Marco Island.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: July.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So get that letter out to them ASAP with a
list of services, if you will.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And this shouldn't come as a shock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This should not come as a shock at all. I
don't think that we have, you know, not spoken about this in the past.
I mean, since this all transpired, there has been plenty of direction
given that, you know, guys, get ready, you know. And I believe that's
been said a number of times. So it shouldn't be a shock, but it needs
maybe a reality check here to, you know, make sure that they know that
this is what's going to have to happen.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, what they need, what the city council
needs, is a list of all the governmental services that the county
provides to Marco Island.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And out of that list you'll need to collate
those which the county would probably continue to provide in any case,
if there are any, those that we would expect the Marco city council to
take over. And --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Probably.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- those that we can contract for.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Negotiable items.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Negotiable items. But they need to have
this all laid out -- excuse me -- as soon as possible because they
need to make their determination and get it back to us so we can make
our budget policy, so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. In June.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- the sooner the better.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, you know, we need their response by
June so we can get a -- and you're already working on it, Mr.
Fernandez, we know that, so that's -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The Marco City Council is bound by the same trim
schedule that we are, so they will have to adopt their general fund
millage, so they will need to know for their own purposes as well what
their intent is.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sure that whole thing is going to be a
very enlightening process for them. It ought to be really exciting
when it comes time because it's --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This will be the first time they have to
levy taxes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How much more do you have on this
presentation, Mr. Smykowski?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Perhaps ten minutes. Would you like to take a
break?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we have the court reporter here.
She says go. She says muttle through it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ten more minutes.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Parks and Recreation on Page 15 and 16. That
discussion is a synopsis of the white paper provided to you previously
by Mr. Olliff regarding the services that are provided, estimated cost
though of park service provided to Marco Island, some $800,000 per
year. So, Commissioner Hac'Kie, you know, you're looking at balancing
that 1.5 million, here's 800,000 of that equation.
The Service Options, there's three that are outlined. Obviously
A is contract with the City of Marco to have the county provide the
same level of service as has historically been provided; Option B is
sell the parks located within the city boundaries to the city. That
may have some funding limitations on their end, especially in the
short term. And C, the third option is eliminate the operational
support for the county parks within the City of Marco Island, as a
last ditch, kind of fall-back effort.
The staff recommendation obviously is pursue these in priority
order with A, contracting, being the highest explored, then the
feasibility of selling. As a worst case scenario, we would not
provide park service.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As far as I'm concerned, A or B is at the
city council of Marco Island's option. I don't have a particular
desire to continue to provide park services there, but if they want to
take over their own system, that's great. That's their option.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know we're trying to get through this
quickly, but one thing to remember there is that the -- of all the
parks on Marco Island, something like Tiger Tail is not used just by
Marco. It's used by county residents and whatnot. And this is a
little different in that the city owned its land that the parks were
on. Here, we own the land. So, even if they take over operation of
them or they pay us for operation, because we still own the land,
there can be no exclusion for county residents using those facilities.
I mean, this is a tough hybrid.
So, I think there's going to be a lot of discussion with Mr.
Olliff and members of the city council and whatnot. But this is going
to be a very difficult hybrid. The one thing that, even if they want
to purchase it all, one thing I'm not willing to give up is Tiger Tail
Beach.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Agreed.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Road and bridge has a similar situation,
obviously, with the incorporation. There's 111 miles of local
streets, six miles of arterial roads within the Marco Island city
limits. Effectively, with incorporation, that conveyed traffic
control and maintenance responsibility for the roads to the City of
Marco Island. That's provided currently through our road and bridge.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's the dollar value on this one?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Maintenance departments.
Oh, half a million dollars.
We're currently providing the historical level of service. The
road and bridge department, though, is, as a contingency measure,
holding seven positions vacant. Obviously, if the board opted not to
continue to provide road maintenance service, that would make it
easier than forced layoffs. So they are kind of holding their breath
and holding those positions open until a final policy decision is made
there.
The recommendation there is pursue a transition to the City of
Marco Island for those functions. Alternatively, we can contract with
them for that service. It is not all that different than the park
situation.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Except for that it's such an extreme high
liability risk there, or I would assume that it is. Maybe we ought to
look at what the actual numbers have been.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's an easily assumable one, actually,
by private contractors for maintenance.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Slip and fall cases, are what I'm talking
about, sidewalk cracks.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. I mean assumable duty for the City of
Marco Island.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. Agreed. Good. I hope they do.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: On Page 17 there's a general policy --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Excuse me, Madam Chairman?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. FERNANDEZ: If I could jump in before we go to the next
point. On that liability point, we recognize that, although we are in
the posture this year of continuing to provide some maintenance on
Marco Island, because of the liability issue it's important that we
change the manner in which we do that and request a contract so that
the liability responsibilities are clearly identified. And I'd like
the board to know that I intend to make Marco Island aware of that
issue immediately and request an additional contract for this current
year.
Most of what we've talked about has to do with the coming fiscal
year. We think, with the liability issue, for the maintenance
responsibilities, it's important to change something in this year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good point.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Some of the board members had asked, what if
Marco opts to provide service themselves, what would happen to those
county employees? Would they -- you know, we don't want to see them
automatically just re-allocated to services in the other areas of the
county.
The staff recommendation in that regard is that any positions
re-allocated, or work -- services for which the work goes away if
Marco Island decides to provide a service for themselves, we would --
and we wanted to increase the level of service to the balance of the
county regions, those would be treated the same as expanded service
requests for those existing positions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That way we'll have to look at them.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Right. And it's a policy decision for you, do we
want to increase the code enforcement within the balance of the
incorporated area or not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I gotcha.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In other words, now that there's a new
city -- there will be a new city manager down there, do we have to
re-adjust Mr. Fernandez's pay? Just kidding.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's not one we were thinking about.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: For the record, I did not suggest that, no.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just kidding. You know, fewer people
to take care of.
MR. FERNANDEZ: In reality it really increases our workload
because of all these issues we have to deal with. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good save.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's David's. I had to borrow it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Quick thinking over there.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Man, it got quiet in here quick.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Let's get that ten minutes going.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Page 18 just shows a projection of the budget,
the analysis, where the major increases are. Sheriff is near the top,
along with transfers to other funds, that was EMS and road and bridge
again, your support of those operations. Obviously, some of those --
that's based on projections at this point in time. Our estimates will
be refined much more closely and, actually, the next stage of the
process you'll be seeing actual budgets and mills as opposed to
assuming a three percent increase in operating. Some will probably go
down. Some will stay the same.
That moves us into the unincorporated area general fund. There's
plenty of pictures here. Hopefully I can wind our way through those
fairly quickly. The issue here is primarily a function of the
sheriff's office budget.
On Page 21 it just shows a distribution. The first chart is a
pie chart showing a distribution of the unincorporated area taxable
value. Marco Island represented almost twenty percent of the taxable
value in the unincorporated area. As a consequence, had we levied --
adopted the same budget based on without Marco Island's value being
included, the millage, the chart at the bottom of Page 21 would have
jumped from 0.57 to 0.70. So, that just shows the magnitude of the
change as a result of the Marco Island incorporation.
The funding mechanism for the provision of sheriff's office
service to Marco Island, which was the unincorporated area taxes, will
no longer be available by virtue of the fact that Marco is now a city.
Marco, at this point, has -- the city manager has discussed with Mr.
Fernandez that they have made the policy decision to use the sheriff's
office service next year. So that is a known at this point. But the
policy decision before you on Page 22 is how to fund sheriff's service
to the City of Marco Island, because the incorporation will result in
a change in how those county services are provided in the
unincorporated area and, in fact, how they are funded.
There's two funding options. The first one involves reallocating
the sheriff's office service provided to Marco Island to the general
fund. In our discussions the board did not seem interested in
pursuing that route, and because that results in an increased general
fund millage and requires the balance of the county to pay for a share
of the service provided to Marco Island.
Overall, if we re-allocated the estimated cost of road patrol
service in District 6, which is our estimate at this point, the costs
provided to the City of Marco Island are approximately 1.5 million
dollars. Had that been in the general fund, the general fund millage
would have increased $7.88 per 100,000 of taxable value.
And the chart at the bottom of 22 shows the corresponding
reduction an unincorporated area resident would actually get, a
decrease of $10.48 cents in his millage, if that were re-allocated, so
an unincorporated area resident would actually come out slightly ahead
in that scenario. Obviously, City of Naples residents would be paying
for something they are not currently paying for. So the other option
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And for something they're not getting.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Right. And so the option that we're recommending
is Option 2, is pursue a contractual arrangement between the City of
Marco Island and the sheriff's office for the provision of that
service. Advantages of that option, we could put that contract in
either the general fund or the unincorporated area general fund. It
would be millage neutral because it would be self-balancing and City
of Marco Island residents would be paying directly for the service
they desire and use.
For budgeting purposes, though, that is an item that the
sheriff's office would have to work out as to what is the cost of that
service. And that is an important component of this whole scenario,
is obviously, what is the price tag put on the cost of that service?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The methodology that I discussed with Mr.
Fernandez is simply that the overall budget of the sheriff's office
divided by the number of dwelling units in the county is the per
capita or per dwelling unit cost of the provision of law enforcement
services. It's crude but it seems to be about as straightforward as
possible, and that would be a decent basis from which to start looking
at Marco Island and the cost of the providing law enforcement services
there. That's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Obviously there's lots of ways to do it,
and, you know, I don't know what's the right way.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: We have the Pelican Bay example. They contract
for the equivalent of one deputy around the clock, twenty-four hours a
day, seven days a week.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But they are already paying for the jail
and whatnot.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The cost of that one round the -- equivalent
deputy is $300,000.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? On this one, in our discussions, I
also attempted to use a very simple and straightforward way of
allocating these costs. I think it's the kind of thing that experts
can debate until the cows come home. What's the right number? And I
favored a more simple, more direct way, and, admittedly, probably a
crude estimate of what that actual cost is. The response I got is
that there is more interest in a more complicated formula using a
number of different variables, and I think this is probably an issue
that is going to involve much more discussion before we're finished
with it.
The discussions with the sheriff's office indicate that there's
really no exact way to determine what the cost of that service is.
It's a fluid kind of thing, based upon need, based upon crime rate,
based upon a number of factors. So I think our effort here is
probably, as Commissioner Hancock suggests, best placed with a simple,
admittedly inaccurate, but the best we can come up with, given the
time constraints that we have. If we try to split the hairs here and
make it exact, we'll probably never finish in time.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Frankly, any formula would be subject to great
debate.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, what I think is important here though
today is for us to, as a board, make clear our policy of what we
intend to do ourselves in the -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- budget season, and that should be
directed not only to the sheriff's office but also to the City of
Marco, so that they understand what we will or will not be doing in
the upcoming budget year. What, I assume, that the rest of the
commissioners -- maybe we should go ahead and poll this right now --
is that, it would be my impression that none of us want to fund the
operation out of the general fund.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Correct.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I prefer the direct payment method that
staff recommends.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, yeah, but wherever the payment comes
from, or how the payment is handled, I should say, is another
discussion. But I think it's important that the policy be clearly
laid out today, that, no, we don't intend to fund it out of the
general fund, so let's work on other arrangements.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So of the two options staff provided, A
and B, we're rejecting A and accepting B, and we need to give Marco
Island that notice so that they can --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's always other options, too. They
could opt not to pay the sheriff anything, if that's what they
intended to do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So that's another option. There's several
options that really need to be discussed amongst themselves, and the
sheriff needs to develop -- I think he needs to be highly involved in
the discussion about what it costs to provide that service, but what's
important for everyone to understand today, from our perspective, is
what are we going to do and not do. And I think it's very important
for us to have taken this little poll and say, we are not going to put
that into the general fund.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For the sake of clarity, Commissioner
Norris --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it's my understanding that, much like
the City of Naples, the cost of operating the jail does come out of
the general fund, which everyone pays.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What we're really talking about are
associated patrol costs --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and support costs that the
unincorporated general fund used to, used to pay for. So that much
isolation is done, but the burden is, I agree, on the sheriff. He can
say it's a fluid number, and I understand what he's trying to say
there, but fluid doesn't work when it comes time to write a check.
So, he's got to help us nail down that cost as early as possible, and
to the fairness, not just of Marco Island, but the fairness to the
taxpayer and the balance of the county.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Correct.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Because, again, the budget you will be adopting
and the millage you will levying in the unincorporated area will be
based on twenty percent less taxable value.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Which is a --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Significant.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And what percentage of less people?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Indeed. That is the principal policy decision,
in 111 that faces you.
On Page 25, the last fund, just quickly, Pollution Control Fund
is a county-wide fund. There's a small projected tax increase, 2.8
percent. The dollars in this case is $26,000. Obviously, they have a
number of temporary employees and all. Probably be able to mitigate
that. There's nothing awry here, frankly. Nothing that requires a
policy decision of the board. But we do undertake the analysis and
report back.
That concludes my presentation. I think the key points are the
budgeting, four percent, the -- and the policy decisions related to
Marco Island. Again, relating to the sheriff, we will not be
re-allocating any of those costs to the general fund, and I think that
message was clear from the board, and that clear direction is good
direction. And on the parks and road and bridge, frankly, pursue the
option of contracting and go from there.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I move approval of our budget policy.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and second for
approval of the Fiscal Year 1999 budget policy.
Any further comments or questions? Seeing none. I'll call the
question.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 5-0.
We're going to take about a seven minute break.
(A recess was taken.)
Item #8E3
ESTABLISHMENT OF A SEPARATE FUND FOR COURT SERVICES (20TH JUDICIAL
COURT) WITH ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS; AGREEMENTS TO HAVE LINE ITEM
BUDGETS ATTACHED AND IDENTIFICATION PERSONNEL AND PURCHASING POLICY AS
THE APPROPRIATE POLICIES TO BE USED BY THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND THAT ALL
ITEMS COMPLY WITH STATE STATUTES IN REVIEWING THEM - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me. The next item on the budget is
Item 8(E)2, Establishment of Separate Fund for Court Services, the
20th Judicial Circuit.
Mr. Smykowski.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It would be 8(E)3.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, ma'am.
For the record, Michael Smykowski, H & B Director.
In an effort to expedite closure on the budgetary issues related
to the court services, staff is bringing forth this proposal to
establish a separate fund. This, frankly -- in the negotiations
between the attorneys for the board, the clerk and the 20th Judicial
Circuit, this has been the one issue that has been of a
non-contentious nature.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: There are some clarifications, for the record. A
memo, I believe, was distributed to you-all. We need to be clear.
This separate fund would be within Agency 1, and that designation
simply means that it would be a Board of County Commissioners fund as
opposed to a Clerk of the Circuit Court fund.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which means what?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: It's on your books instead of Dwight's.
MR. FERNANDEZ: On the Board of County Commissioner's budget.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that where it was before we made the
change?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: No. It was on the Clerk's books.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. In the old days, three years ago,
or whenever it was?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Oh, no. In the old days it was in the -- just
part of the general fund. So, yes, it would have been on your books,
as part of the general fund.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Second point of clarification was that -- the
reference in the fourth paragraph of the considerations section to
section VIII of the agreement is deleted. That came up in our
discussions yesterday.
And finally, as a function -- as a follow-up to this executive
summary, staff would bring forth a revised agreement for court
services that incorporates the line item budget detail. That would
be, again, brought forth via separate executive summary, again as a
follow-up to our discussions yesterday between the attorneys for the
three parties involved in the discussion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If the Circuit is in agreement, the Clerk
is in agreement and the County Administrator is in agreement and this
puts it behind us, I see no reason why we shouldn't move ahead on the
item.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We might want to get public input, because
I'm not sure all that's true, just judging from the "hah" face that I
saw out there when you said that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to be curious to see how that
reads on the record, but anyway --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any public speakers on this?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, we do. The first is Lisa
Holton and Janice Halene.
MS. HOLTON: For the record, Lisa Holton and Janice Halene. Good
morning. We're owners of Naples Court Reporting. We took this
contract over October 1st, not knowing the shape that this was all in.
If this is not settled today, what we're requesting is to be paid
weekly, have it put on the agenda every week. If not every week, at
least every two weeks. We have court reporters that -- they just
don't know when they're going to get paid, and once a month is just
not -- it's not cutting it. And that's what we're requesting. So if
we can't have it every week, we'd like to have it on the agenda every
two weeks.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't know why it couldn't be on the
Consent Agenda like it was before, just to '-
MS. HOLTON: That's really what we're asking, just to be on the
Consent Agenda.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think Mr. Fernandez can -- maybe I'm wrong
on this, but doesn't there have to be something come forward to the
Board of County Commissioners before we can do that? MR. FERNANDEZ: Right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: In other words, we are not the ones that --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If the Clerk will give us --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- that pick and choose. The Clerk must
submit to us. It's not a case of the Board of County Commissioners
making that decision.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Please.
MR. FERNANDEZ: For example, I received the most recent list
yesterday at about 2:00. My intent, if this does not resolve the
issue, this action today, if this does not resolve the issue, we'll
have that on the agenda for next Tuesday's meeting, on the Consent
Agenda.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But we would be willing to put it on --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Hopefully that will --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- every two weeks if the Clerk would give
us the information every two weeks.
MS. HOLTON: When does the Clerk have to have it to you in order
to be on the next week? That's what we're not sure about, because,
from what I understand from yesterday, it didn't get there in time and
it had to be there last --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Like the Wednesday -- like to be on next
week's agenda, it has to be on his desk tomorrow.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: We get a list every Friday. We could incorporate
it, prepare the executive summary and have it on each week at that
point. But, hopefully, this issue would help to eliminate the need
for us to have that weekly agenda item. This would establish the
budget. The Clerk would have his pre-audit function and, hopefully,
that would eliminate the need again for these weekly executive
summaries.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I appreciate these ladies coming
up because, while I appreciate his staff being here, I'm sorry the
Clerk isn't here, because this is real life for these people. I mean,
it's an issue for this board or for the Clerk. These people are
paying their bills, trying to anyway.
And rather than let this drag on for another three or four
months, Jim, I hope we're going to settle it today. But, if we don't,
I would appreciate it if you and the Clerk and everyone would come to
a Tuesday meeting and take as long as it takes to fix it, because
there are real lives being impacted here.
It's not just a policy issue that we're trying to settle. We're
trying to help people who are providing a service to the county and to
the citizens and actually live their lives. So, if we do not settle
this today, I'm asking that the Clerk and yourself and whomever
necessary comes and sits here on a Tuesday until we do settle it.
MS. HOLTON: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ditto.
MS. HALENE: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Anthony Pires.
MR. PIRES: Madam Chairman, members of the board, Anthony Pires
with the law firm of Woodward, Pires, Lombardo.
With regards to the executive summary on today's agenda, I
appreciate the efforts by Mr. Fernandez in placing it on the agenda
but I was not aware of this until last Friday when I took my own
agenda. There was no review or submittal to my office or the Clerk's
prior to that time, and when I saw it on the agenda, when I looked
down at my agenda packet last Friday morning, I noticed this item, and
I turned to executive summary and for the first time saw the proposal
that's before you today. And also noted that no one from the County
Attorney's Office or the county's outside retained counsel in this
matter was listed as having reviewed and approved the executive
summary.
Subsequent thereto I met with the Clerk's staff that day. Within
about -- within four hours we had a revised executive summary prepared
and forwarded to your outside retained counsel, which, I believe,
would be the appropriate mechanism for the communications between the
various lawyers for the parties.
We then had a conference call yesterday among the attorneys for
the parties which was joined by Mr. Fernandez and Mr. Smykowski. It
had been previously scheduled, as we've been having these discussions
in an attempt to resolve the issues. In the last couple months we've
had either once every two weeks or once a week telephone conferences
among the lawyers to try to hammer out the issues, recognizing the
issues that affect vendors, such as the two court reporters, and the
function of the court system.
Back in the initial discussions we had outlined three items that
were of critical importance to the Clerk with regards to what had to
be in the budget. It had to be a detailed, line item budget
sufficient to preserve the Clerk's pre-audit function. It had to be
adopted by the board. The Board of County Commissioners needs to
approve all expenditures through some valid process and expenditures
must be reported on the board's financial statements.
This executive summary, if the action is taken in conjunction
with this executive summary, would take care of the expenditures being
reported on the board's financial statements. As far as adopting a
budget, it does adopt a budget but the detail that's there normally
associated with the detailed line item is not part of this package.
Mr. Fernandez, in the revised memorandum, indicates in Paragraph 3
that the staff would bring forth a revised agreement for court
services that incorporates the line item budget detail.
The -- we're taking the position that it has not been adopted by
the board. The Court takes the position in the lawsuit that the
detail has been adopted -- has been approved by the board, and we
don't see any difficulty why the board not adopt a detailed today.
It's been in the budget office since last year. It was inputted by
the budget staff last fall sometime.
Two other items that are not present in this as part of the
budgetary process, the approval process for court costs needs to be
articulated and addressed. There are mechanisms in Florida statutes
revolving (sic) court costs. It says the Board of County
Commissioners are the ones that have to certify and approve certain
court costs. There is a mechanism in place where the County
Attorney's office reviews some, but court interpreters and court
reporters are not currently reviewed by the county. That's certified
by Court Administration. Chapter 939, Section 93908, Florida statutes
does not have language saying the Court Administration approves those,
it says the board.
It says, "In all cases wherein it is claimed the payment of bills
of costs, fees or expenses, other than juror and witness fees, in the
prosecution of any criminal case, which are payable by the county, an
itemized bill or statement thereof shall be submitted to the county
commissioners of the county in which said cases are prosecuted, and
the same shall not be paid until a Board of County Commissioners shall
have approved it and certified thereon that the same is just, correct
and reasonable." That needs to be part of this budget process also.
And, lastly, the purchasing and personnel policy to be utilized
in making payments has not been identified. And we think that is an
important issue.
So while this does address the issue about placing it in the
Agency 1, the board's side of the books, whereas it does also address
the issue about adopting a budget, the detail that's necessary for the
Clerk's pre-audit function is not being adopted. It's in the --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Tony.
MR. PIRES: Yes, ma'am.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we added the detail that the County
Administrator has advised he's willing to add -- MR. FERNANDEZ: To the contract.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, to the contract, add that
detail to the contract, that would at least resolve the question of
checks being cut. Okay. Maybe we have to do two things.
If we add that administrative detail that the administrator has
agreed to add to the contract, and if we designate the County
Administrator as the person to review those costs that are currently
being reviewed by the Clerk's -- I'm sorry, by the court's
administration, I'm -- I think we're going to have to defer the
question about personnel policies and procedures.
So, if we -- if we dealt with the first two, can we get these
people paid and make this -- the budget question go away and then have
just the personnel policies issue to remain?
MR. PIRES: I think if the board adopts a policy as to reviewing
the payment from the standpoint of the county, similar to what's done
now by the County Attorney's office, I believe that could be -- would
be appropriate and solve that function therefor -- because the board
can then ratify --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Correct.
MR. PIRES: -- those actions at a later date or on a board
agenda.
As to the line item budget detail, I don't know why it cannot be
adopted as part of adopting the budget, because that has already been
submitted to the staff. That's what staff's used in their summary to
this board.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I refuse to care who wins this
argument. I refuse to care who wins this argument and want just the
result to be the necessary result. I am not going to pick sides
between the Clerk and the judges. What I'm asking you is, if we add
the budget detail to the agreement, will the Clerk cut checks?
MR. PIRES: If the board approves that budget detail in the
agreement. That would take care of that aspect, yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. That'll do for me.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? Excuse me.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Wait. I see the Clerk's
representative hedging on that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sorry. Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: If I may offer a comment here. This presentation
from Mr. Pires is an excellent example of why I felt the need to move
forward in a unilateral fashion. We had a full discussion of these
points yesterday, and, in fact, that's the reason for the memorandum
that you have before you from Mr. Smykowski, which we felt
incorporated the only outstanding issues that were not incorporated
into the executive summary.
We're really making the attempt to try and address everything
that has been raised. Evidently that's still not sufficient, and there
is still more issues being raised. So, my intent here was to move
forward. This is essentially the -- this same concept I discussed
with you the last time we talked about my intent on how I had hoped to
address this point. I guess my failure in this has been attempting to
get a consensus before I brought it forward. Realizing that that just
wasn't going to happen, I decided to just do it unilaterally, so --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good point.
MR. FERNANDEZ: So it was a combination of that unilateral action
on our part and then trying to incorporate the comments that we heard
in our phone call yesterday from the attorneys that have been involved
in this. I didn't feel it was going to be productive for me to review
this with all the parties and get their sign-off before I presented it
to the board, and that's why it came forward in the manner that it
did.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Bob, thanks for your comments, because
when you and I met with Dwight in his office when I was chairman, last
calendar year, the predominant issue, what it all boiled down to, was
pre-audit function because it was on his books. That's what it all
boiled down to. He had pre-audit requirements because it was on his
books that he didn't feel he had information to meet. This action
takes it off his books, puts it on ours, and now there's a whole new
list of problems.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Still not satisfied.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And what I feel like we're doing is we
continue to address a moving target while these two ladies are perfect
examples of who that moving target is hurting.
Mr. Pires, are there requests for payment regarding court-related
expenses that are false or improper?
MR. PIRES: I've never reviewed them. I can't make any
representations as to those.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Has the Clerk at any time been under an
order or threat of order by the state, or anyone, for failure to meet
Florida statutes?
MR. PIRES: I've not been advised of any.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How much has your firm billed the Clerk's
office, and thus the taxpayer, on this item alone?
MR. PIRES: I don't have the billing statement in front of me.
It's public record. I can provide that. I think we have provided
that to the attorney for the Court. I would be glad to provide that.
But I guess the issues raised have been raised continuously,
Commissioner Hancock, and is not a moving target. The issue about
needing an identified, approved purchasing and personnel policy --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you move on to that, I would
just like to get a ballpark answer to his last question. If you
don't know the exact number, that's okay.
MR. PIRES: I think it's $23,000.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Has any of that been paid?
MR. PIRES: My understanding is yes. And I'm not sure how much
the county is paying Nabors, Giblin, outside counsel, either on this
one.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. We can add that into the total bill
too.
MR. PIRES: Or Mr. Geraghty on behalf of the Court.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's just interesting that you're not
having trouble getting payment while these ladies are.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But rather than vent our frustrations,
because we all have them --
MR. PIRES: Different process, Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- can we focus back on, was there a
change to the answer to the question that, if we add the detail and if
we designate the county attorney as the reviewing agency for those
particular costs that you cited the statute for, if we make those two
changes, can we get checks?
MR. PIRES: And identify which personnel and purchasing policy
will be utilized. The existing agreement says --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. That wasn't my question. My question
Was '-
MR. PIRES: No. The answer is no because the Clerk's office
needs to know, when they're making a payment --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: They don't care.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But Tony --
MR. PIRES: Yes, they do care.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- it was "yes" just a minute ago. What
happened? I'm sorry. I'm a little frustrated.
MR. PIRES: Mr. Mitchell reminded me of the issue about the
personnel and purchasing policy. I think that -- it's always been an
issue.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why is that an issue related to payment
when it's in our budget, not yours?
MR. PIRES: Because the Clerk, in performing his pre-audit
function, needs to know that when an invoice is submitted, that
there's a lawful basis for that invoice.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Give me an example.
MR. PIRES: I think Mr. Mitchell can probably best give an
example.
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioners, good morning.
For the record, Jim Mitchell, the Finance Director for the Clerk
of the Circuit Court.
Part of the process that we do in the pre-audit is we make sure
there's a proper appropriation, we make sure it's properly approved,
and we make sure it's legal. Part of the process of making sure it's
legal is that it is performed in compliance with state laws and local
ordinances or policies. You have adopted a purchasing policy and you
have adopted a personnel policy. If you are to impose that onto Court
Administration, I can cut bills based on everything else that's here.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What if we did purchasing and not
personnel?
MR. MITCHELL: How am I going to reconcile the transaction?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which transactions do you have a problem
with in personnel, for example?
MR. MITCHELL: If I have no policy, how can I even pay them?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But give me an example because I don't
understand.
MR. MITCHELL: Well, let me take purchasing.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I'm saying, what if we said purchasing
policies apply, the county purchasing policies apply? I can see that,
as a valid point, you need to know what purchasing policies apply,
ours or the judiciary's. But the personnel issue is the one that the
County Attorney has gotten us scared about, that if we say the Court
staff is county staff, then we're subject to lawsuits.
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner, in the agreement that's out there, I
think it was a requirement of that particular document for state court
to provide to us a policy, which has never been done. If they were to
provide that policy and this board --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Wait a minute.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's very different from what he's saying.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. That's good. That's good. Let's
pause there and see if we can hear from the Court Administrator.
MR. MITCHELL: Identify the policy that I can apply. I'm not
saying it has to be your policy. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Gotcha.
MR. HITCHELL: It can be a state policy, as long as this board
adopts it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's good. This is -- okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Never heard that one before.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Pause. Let's try to get there.
Can we get there, Hark?
MR. HITCHELL: I'm sorry, ma'am. I was talking to Mr. Smykowski.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before going there, I'd like to find out
from Mr. Fernandez, is this the first time you've heard of this
request?
MR. FERNANDEZ: The request has always been that the board must
adopt the policy, and that's what we've always taken issue with.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So let's just communicate and see if there
is a policy we can adopt.
MR. FERNANDEZ: But I think there's another point here. You have
a contract -- just for example, you have a contract with EDC for
$250,000. They are paying salaries with that contract. Are we --
have we adopted their policies? No. Do they follow our policies? No.
This is a contract.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So how does that work? How does that
work, Mr. Hitchell, for pre-audit?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Why is this different?
MR. HITCHELL: It's a different arrangement. We're not making
the payment to those people. We're providing them the dollars where
they make the payments.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What's the difference?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: For any number of years, that's how it's
been done with the Court Administration office through this county.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For sixty-six counties, that's how it's
done.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Until last fall.
MR. PIRES: I'm only aware of only three counties, Commissioner
Hancock --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
MR. PIRES: -- that are utilizing this policy.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nobody does it the way we're doing it,
guys. Nobody does it the way we're doing it. Everybody does it the
way we used to do it until three years ago.
All the other counties -- am I right or wrong about that, Mr.
Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We -- in Alachua, we had a little variation of
this. I think this contract was better than the one we had last --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's not my question, though. I know
everybody -- the other counties hope that this is successful because
they want to make this change. But do most counties contract for
court services the way we do or the way that we did four years ago?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I think probably most counties do it the way we
did four years ago.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. That's the critical point here.
We're making rules.
MR. PIRES: Where was the Clerk four years ago when --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think the clerk screwed up four years
ago. He should have been here and objected to it. He didn't. But
now he is.
MR. PIRES: One issue on the personnel and purchasing policies.
The county is raising concerns about adopting one. And that's why
we've had the discussion about identifying one to be utilized in the
pre-audit function to try to allay those concerns that are articulated
by the county's attorneys.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we go all the way back to the
policy question?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Meadowbrook, the question that I heard
was, we've reached -- there are several points here: One, that the
clerk wants a detailed budget, that Mr. Fernandez has said that he can
add to the agreement with you. The other one is that he wants the
county attorney, pursuant to a state statute, wants the county
attorney to approve some particular costs, that then the county
attorney will bring that back to us for our ratification.
He also wants personnel policies and purchasing policies adopted
by this board. He doesn't care if they're our policies or your
policies, as long as this board rubber stamps them as accepted and
tells him, "These are the policies that are going to apply to these
purchases and to these payments."
Do you have personnel policies and do you have purchasing
policies that you could give to us to approve for this purpose?
MR. MEADOWBROOK: Ma'am, Mark Meadowbrook, Senior Deputy Court
Administrator.
I believe Mr. Fernandez will be better able to answer any
concerns to this, but we have both personnel policies and we have a
purchasing policy which we have submitted to the county at some point.
I'm not sure exactly when. My recollection is sometime last calendar
year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But again, I'm determined to stay out of
the who did what when debate and to just say, if there are acceptable
policies that we can adopt for the purpose of this contract, and that
that will allow Mr. Mitchell to know by what to measure when he's
deciding whether or not to approve a check, let's just do that, for
this particular contract. All -- because that solves your problem,
since it's focused -- it's all tied to a contract. That's how you get
what you needed. How he gets what he needs is if we put all these
elements in the contract.
Are you happy if all those elements get added in the contract?
MR. MEADOWBROOK: Ma'am, I have to stand silent in this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why?
MR. MEADOWBROOK: Because I have to stand silent in this. This
is something that's being handled by our chief judge's attorney with
Mr. Fernandez and Mr. Brock. I am not able to convey their -- the
attorneys' feelings to you at this point because of yesterday's
meeting. I have not been debriefed yet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. But, Mr. Pires, if we did those
four things, would that get checks cut?
MR. PIRES: Also, one thing is, the word "identify" I think would
be acceptable to the Clerk. It's a different aspect than "adopt". I
think "adopt" would be something that would be -- make your attorneys
very nervous.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can adopt it for the purpose of this
agreement.
MR. PIRES: I'm not your outside counsel.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I think it would make them very
nervous.
MR. PIRES: I think the use of the term "identify .... which
purchasing and personnel --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Better. Thank you.
MR. PIRES: -- policies to utilize --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Better.
MR. PIRES: -- would be appropriate. And the Clerk --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mark, this is going to sound flippant. It's
not intended to be, but if you don't have any authority to speak on
their behalf, why are you here?
MR. MEADOWBROOK: Well, I do have authority, sir. I was asked a
specific question that I cannot answer because I've been here since
9:00 this morning and have not been in contact with the Court
Administrator to find out the answer to that question. I can
certainly have that for you this afternoon after your lunch break.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there anyone here with you
representing the Court Administration?
MR. MEADOWBROOK: I am it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I'm willing to bet that if they get
their checks, I mean, we will at least have done all we can do, and
then the money starts flowing again. And, frankly, that matters a
whole lot more to me than whether or not the Clerk and the judges are
done fussing with each other.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, but what I keep hearing you say, and
maybe you don't realize you're saying it -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- but what you are saying is, you don't
care whether what we do is right or wrong --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, no, no, no, no.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- you just want the checks cut.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And, you know, I'm not going to go along
with that until I hear from our staff, Mr. Fernandez and Mr. Weigel,
that we're doing the right thing from the county commissioners' side.
I am not going to go through any of that just to get the checks cut.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. And the reason that I've been
skipping over that step is because I've come to the determination
myself that, for my vote, it is the right thing to do. But you're
absolutely right. That is -- other information needs to be provided.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? I think the most significant
thing from this discussion that I've heard is the acceptance by Mr.
Pires of the concept of identification of the policies that are going
to be used in the contract rather than any more formal approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Just identification.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Identify them and not adopt them as our
Own.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. That has been a very important point, and
I just heard him agree to that. And if that is the case, then we've
made significant progress today.
MR. PIRES: That issue was discussed yesterday, and I understand
the county's outside counsel's concern was with regards to the use of
the term of "adopt".
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This was discussed yesterday?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So that's great. You've understood their
issue --
MR. PIRES: Yes.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- and now are willing to live with
"identify".
MR. PIRES: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So that's good.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But yesterday was the first you'd heard, or
the first that this issue had been brought up like this?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No. We had had discussions about their interest
in our adopting a policy throughout these discussions, and we
discussed it again yesterday. I'm saying that today --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But they had never come up with --
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- was the first time --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- the word "identify" the policies until --
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- they are willing to accept "identification" as
opposed to "approval" or "adoption". CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I see.
MR. PIRES: Madam Chairman, that's the first time the word came
up, was yesterday, in this discussion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I just find this whole thing absolutely
amazing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The word "asinine" comes to mind. But if
doing this resolves things to a point that we don't have any legal
concerns that we are unduly burdening the County Administrator's
office or our Office of Management & Budget, or this board, then I
want to go ahead as a short term solution and get this part over with.
But, Commissioner Hac'Kie, I disagree. I think how this came
about is key, is --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But first let's solve it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- is problematic and should not be
forgotten --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Agreed.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that all of a sudden this board finds
out people are not getting paid. And you heard Mr. Pires and he said
not to his knowledge, but I know the Clerk was never under threat by
any agency for violation of state statutes, but unilaterally decided
that payment would stop because he felt he was in violation.
You don't treat people that way. You just don't. It's wrong.
And we were here -- I think we were ready to work with him then. And
this just has gone on and on and on. So, you know, I want to get this
resolved. I'm not sticking my heels in the ground and saying I'm not
going to budge on principle, because at this point too many people are
getting hurt for anyone to stand on that alone. But how this came
about is as important and the money that has been wasted from the
taxpayers --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- is as important as any other issue
we're discussing today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to make a motion that we approve
__
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There's a motion on the floor.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There is?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And a second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have other speakers?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hay I offer an amendment to the motion
then?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have one more. Mr. Jay Cross is the
additional speaker.
MR. CROSS: Madam Chairman, I'll waive that right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Before we make a substitute or an amendment
to the motion, this policy and personnel procedure that we are
identifying today, I would like to point out that that has existed all
along. I mean, this is not a new revelation that came up today. This
could have been handled from the outset, immediately.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Who was the motion maker?
Commissioner Hancock, was it you?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I made an initial motion to approve, yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I seconded.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My offer of an amendment --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before I hear an amendment, or entertain
an amendment, Mr. Weigel has had something and we probably may want to
hear from that first.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I' m sorry.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. I would appreciate it if you could
re-state the motion. But additional information is, part of the
discussion that we had with Mr. Pires and Mr. Mitchell was,
particularly Mr. Pires, was a procedure for the review of the Court
Administration costs, the bills, by the Board of County Commissioners
and/or the County Attorney office, on behalf of the Board of County
Commissioners. Ms. Hac'Kie, in speaking, had mentioned the County
Administrator's review, which is something that has never been done,
as far as these bills go.
The process that has been in use has preexisted me by at least
two county attorneys. I think I can identify thirteen to sixteen
years that the current process has been in place for the County
Attorney to review the costs as they are, without any annual or any
other designation to the Board of County Commissioners to do these --
to do this cost review that we do. It takes a lot of time.
I think we have a pretty good system to do it. But the fact is
that that as an issue now is far different and is new to the issue of
something that came up when the contract was entered into three years
ago.
Now, if the board, either in today's motion or in some subsequent
board action, may or may not be part and parcel with an amendment to
the agreement, which is, to go on the record and designate again who
should do the review process on behalf of the county pursuant to
Chapter 129 of the statutes, that's fine, but I want to make sure that
the record is clear that this is something that has been historically
going on far before this agreement ever became an issue.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, do you have a recommendation
as to your office or the County Administrator's office being the
appropriate reviewing agency for these bills?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I could free up staff for other important
duties if it weren't us, but I think it's probably appropriate that we
continue to do so and coordinate with the agencies that we do, which
is Court Administration and the Clerk's office.
One clarification though is that I glean from Mr. Pires'
representation that there were some costs that are currently not
coming to the county attorney office as part of the total court
administration bundle that should. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MR. WEIGEL: And I want to make sure that we have an
understanding as to the why and the necessity for that because, to the
extent that we can review certain services and determine if there's a
legally submitted claim and the forms are correct, we can do that.
I'm wary of getting into the policies and procedures, though, of the
court administration, wherever that may occur, whether it's here or up
in Fort Myers.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: At the request of the county attorney,
Madam Chairman, in addition to re-stating my motion I'm going to alter
my motion to reflect the conversation that has ensued after the motion
was made.
The amended motion is that we approve staff recommendation to
approve the establishment of a separate fund for court services as
described in the staff report, to approve the associated budget
amendments. In addition, that agreement should have attached the
itemized or line item budget that we have had on file in OHB for
months, and will also identify the personnel and purchasing policies
of the Collier County Court Administration as the appropriate policies
for use by the Clerk's office.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll amend my second.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think there was that one other point
that Mr. Weigel was just discussing and that is that the -- all the
statutorily required items for review be reviewed by the County
Attorney's office.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will include it --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You don't have to put that in the motion
because he's already doing that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually, Mr. Pires was pointing out that
there were some that aren't being reviewed and, while we're
correcting, why don't we correct it all? And that's -- that was
included in what I was asking Mr. Pires, if we do all of these things,
can we get checks. So --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, the statute says they must be
reviewed anyway. I --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Fine. So let's just add it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fine. I'll add to the motion that we
comply with state statute on reviewing the appropriate documents.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That makes sense.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Perfect.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second amends.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
No further speakers, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No further speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'll call for the question.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 5-0.
I would assume those checks will be cut immediately?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hay we assume that, Mr. Mitchell?
(Inaudible comments from the audience.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And how long can we expect --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we get him to come to the podium?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Come on up to the podium, Jim.
MR. MITCHELL: It's our intent to have those checks out this
afternoon. We're ready to go, as we had already presented a list to
Mr. Fernandez. We would hope that the budget amendments will flow to
our office so we can get them in immediately and we'll cut checks
today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You'll do that, Mr. Smykowski?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I will go do them right now, myself.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Does this mean that we will not have to go
through this little song and dance routine again and hear any more
about this? Am I assuming this is going to remedy this situation or
are we going to have another fly in the ointment?
MR. PIRES: Madam Chairman, once the detailed line item budget is
approved or adopted by this board by amending the existing agreement,
and once the board, by amending the agreement, identifies the
purchasing and personnel policies, that's when it all can start
flowing again.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what we just did.
MR. PIRES: But it hasn't been amended yet formally.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. We -- the motion was to approve the
agreement with the following changes, to, A, adopt -- add the line
item budget.
MR. PIRES: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: B, identify the policy --
MR. PIRES: So it's not going to come back again at a later date,
because I thought that was --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There is no later date --
MR. PIRES: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- is my understanding.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The effect of the motion was to approve an
amendment to the agreement, as I understand it, and that was to
incorporate the line item budget that already existed in the budget
office.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That is correct.
MR. PIRES: Once it's signed off by -- Court Administration has
to sign that and that's when you have a binding agreement between the
parties. I assume they will sign it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I certainly hope so.
MR. PIRES: I certainly hope so also. Then the checks can be
written.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Or somebody's head may be rolling down 41.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just one?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll see how that will read tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: After that I might want to point out that
whenever we even mention something that deals with the property
appraiser or the tax collector, I get a call from them and we talk
about it and they say, "Hey, I want to let you know, here's my
concern." And, to some extent, I have that with the sheriff's office,
too. I get a letter instead of a call, but, still, I get
correspondence. And I just find it uncanny that there's one office
that doesn't occur with. It's unfortunate because this is what
happens when that communication isn't furthered.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There are continued reports that this whole
thing was sort of initiated by the threats of an audit in the Clerk's
functions, in his offices.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've never heard that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I wonder if there would be any board
support to authorize our outside auditor to perform that audit.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know if the audit has been
performed. Was that the court administration audit that covered a
portion of the clerk's duties in addition to -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Has that already been -- is it
under way or completed or has it not occurred?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm under the impression that the study did go
forward. I don't know that it's been completed. I haven't seen a
document. But my understanding is that it is -- it was initiated.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we get a status report on that? If
you would check into that for next week because, if not, then --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'd like to know more about it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would too.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And, certainly, if there's any document or
anything from that, if it has been completed, I would certainly like
to have that presented to the board of commissioners.
Item #SF1
RECOGNIZE $183,400 IN CARRYFORWARD AND REDUCE RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES
BY $6,600 IN ORDER TO APPROPRIATE $190,000 IN THE IHMOKALEE
MANUFACTURING INCUBATOR CENTER PROJECT - APPROVED
Okay. Hoving along to 8(F)(1) Airport Authority.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second.
Mr. Drury, did you want to make a lengthy presentation and change
our minds?
MR. DRURY: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second for approval.
If there's any questions or any public speakers, Mr. Fernandez -- MR. FERNANDEZ: No public speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No public speakers. I'll call for the
question.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 5-0.
Thank you for your presentation.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 98-60, APPOINTING LEONA HYLAND, KATHRYN GODFREY-IRWIN,
CRYSTAL KINZEL AND STAN WHITTEHORE TO THE RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION
ADVISORY COHMITTEE AND TO READVERTISE FOR OTHER VACANCY - ADOPTED
Item (10)(A), appointment of members to the Radio Road
Beautification Advisory Committee.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ms. Filson, one of these folks has a
no under Elector. Does that mean there are only five people that are
eligible?
MS. FILSON: That means there are only four. One does not reside
within the HSTU district and one is not a registered voter.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve the four
who are qualified and re-advertise for the one vacancy.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hyland, Godfrey, Kinzel and Whittemore?
MS. FILSON: Right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second on the approval
of Miss Highland, Miss Godfrey-Irwin, Miss Kinzel and Mr. Whittemore.
And then you are to re-advertise.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 98-61, APPOINTING ROBERT LOCKHART AND KATHRYN GODFREY IRWIN
SUBJECT TO HER NOT BEING ON MORE THAN TWO COHMITTEES TO THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD - SOUTH AND ADVERTISE FOR OTHER POSITION - ADOPTED
Appointment of members to the Code Enforcement Board South.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We just finished appointing Ms.
Godfrey-Irwin, so I will appoint Robert Lockhart.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have an appointment of Mr.
Lockhart, who is an engineer, to the Code Enforcement South Board.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Doesn't it say to appoint two members?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You need two. Got two.
MS. FILSON: We actually need three. And if you -- excuse me.
Robert Lockhart now serves as an alternate, and he would like to be a
regular member. So if you appoint him as a regular member and Kathy
Godfrey-Irwin as a regular member, then I will advertise for a
replacement alternate.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, would you amend
your motion to include both of them?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Godfrey-Irwin, we just put her on one
committee. Is she on any others?
MS. FILSON: They're allowed to serve on two committees
simultaneously.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand, but is she on any other
committee?
MS. FILSON: I'm not sure. I'll have to check.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, I'll nominate her subject to
her not being on more than two other committees, or one other --
excuse me, more than one other committee, which, we just appointed her
to one.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then will you add Mr. Lockhart to change
from an alternate to regular member?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I appointed him, yes, as a regular member.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And then we need to -- do we have to
advertise for an alternate?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Advertise for an alternate.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #10C
PRESENTATION BY RAYMOND C. PELLETIER REGARDING LANDSCAPE DESIGNERS BILL
HB 3523. (COMHISSIONER BERRY). LETTER OF SUPPORT IN CONCEPT TO BE SENT
TO STATE REPRESENTATIVES
Next item is the presentation by Mr. Pelletier regarding
Landscape Design Bill HB 3523.
MR. PELLETIER: Good morning. My name for the record is Ray
Pelletier. I'm here representing myself, my family and my business.
I'm here to submit for your review and support House Bill 3523, and
the companion bill, Senate Bill 1066. The certifications and
qualifications you were looking for during your LDC review are
included in the bill on Page 5. And if you have any questions, I
would be happy to ask -- answer them.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Pelletier, this is consistent with
a discussion we had when we had the full hearing a month ago, two
months ago, whenever it was.
MR. PELLETIER: Right. We were all looking for some type of
qualification, and this would seem to do exactly what was asked.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think if you look on Page 5, I believe, of
the document, this is the criteria that you're referring to, Mr.
Pelletier?
MR. PELLETIER: Yes, Madam Chairman.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, our decision regarding the
last request Mr. Pelletier made may have been different had this
ordinance been in place. The state has a Department of Professional
Regulations. We do not. They have resources to go to the
universities to determine the education levels that should be
necessary for certification. We do not.
My problem is that I don't object in any way to this legislation,
but I don't feel that I have the personal knowledge to determine
whether this is or is not appropriate as identifying this particular
profession and minimum qualifications. I have no desire to object to
it, but by supporting it, I'm signing on that this is correct and true
and necessary, and I just don't feel prepared to make that. I would
rather leave that decision at the state level where there is a
department that has the resources to assist the lawmakers in that
information. That's my only statement.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Reality is that when this bill floats
around Tallahassee, that's going to happen. And so I'm willing to
support this as a starting point for it. Frankly, I'm comfortable
with even less than this requirement, but if this is our starting
point and someone in Tallahassee wants to tinker with that, I don't
have any problem. But I'm going to make a motion that we approve
sending our -- a letter of support to our state representatives on
this. Because I think if you look at what these items are, completion
of a Bachelor's degree, completion of a one-year certificate specific
to the field, completion of six years full-time practical experience,
certification by a nationally recognized organization in landscape,
you darn well ought to know what you're doing if you've done all those
things or any of those things. So I'm very comfortable with that.
That -- we can recommend that as a starting point.
If somebody in Tallahassee wants to tinker with it and come up
with some nuance that is better or lesser or whatever, I'm comfortable
that they can do that as well, but I'd ask the board go ahead and
support sending a note to our state representatives. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: With the idea -- excuse me.
Commissioner, would the idea of a letter of support in concept --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- might be the way to state it as opposed to
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would amend my motion to reflect
that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: A letter of support in concept.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Of House Bill 3523.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I am not going to support the motion
because, really, the -- in support of this bill would be exactly
contrary to the action we took some months ago when we heard this
issue before.
MR. PELLETIER: Not at all.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you have your opinion, Ray. You're a
broken record. You come up here pimping for yourself all the time.
Now I'm going to give my opinion, if you don't mind. MR. PELLETIER: Go right ahead.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So to do -- to take this action
today to completely reverse ourselves from the time before is
something I'm not going to support. So, if the rest of you want to
send it, that's fine, but it's going to be over my objection.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't see it as contrary because, if
I recall the discussion, we said, "Ray, we're going to do it this
way," which we voted on and approved, but then followed that up by
saying, if you want to change that, the place to do that is at the
state level.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the way I remember it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So that's what he's gone and doing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And so I don't see it as contrary to
what we said at all. He's following the exact direction that this
board suggested he take.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that -- the board may have suggested
that he take the action, and that's fine. And if it becomes state
law, we can live with it. But I don't feel that I should support it
because it still is a way of undoing what we did in our previous
action.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What concerns me, out of all of this, is
that Number 5, certification by a nationally certified organization in
landscape design. That's about as much wiggle room as you can have.
Almost every recognized profession, whether it be engineers,
architects, do have a single national organization, single, not
multiple. One exam is recognized, not multiple. And I don't know
what Number 5 really does.
I can form a nationally recognized organization tomorrow in my
profession, and I can offer an exam. Does it mean that it meets the
litmus test? There has to be more specificity in this, and without
that, again, I don't feel qualified to determine whether that's
acceptable or not, and I would rather -- just rather let them -- you
know, we don't really -- we complain about the state all the time, but
the truth is, there are some things that are larger than Collier
County and that the resources at the state level more appropriately
can be applied. And I think the determination and language of this
bill is most appropriately done at the state level. So, without
getting into the --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's why I changed the motion,
at Commissioner Berry's suggestion, to "concept ....
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's what I support, is the concept.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- so that we don't get specific into
the language.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I think that would be more appropriate
because, noting when you say that you're going to support it in
concept, they're going to reword the language.
And a question I have, Ray, on this whole thing, is this
something that you have -- do you have a state organization that has
submitted this?
MR. PELLETIER: Yes, ma'am. And if you look at the yellow pages
behind the bill itself, you'll see that there's the Florida Designer's
Certification Program, and also there's a difference in, you know, the
scope of work between landscape design and landscape architecture.
And if I may, Mr. Norris, this is not what we discussed during
the LDC. What we were discussing during the LDC was to allow property
owners and nursery men to do it. This is a higher level of
qualifications, so there is a difference.
And if I may address Mr. Hancock, you can sit for the landscape
architecture exam after six years, so --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just saying there is one organization
that administers that test, that's all. It's a single point of
control.
MR. PELLETIER: I think that's the way it is here.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The Florida Landscape Designers, after
today's vote, will tell every legislator they meet that they have
Collier County's support. Period.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: They will if they have a 3 to 2 vote.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: They're going to hold this bill in their
hand and say they have Collier County support. I'm not -- I don't
think that's -- anyway. Okay. I've made my points. It's not that
I'm against the effort, but I just -- I cannot support it.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Let me clarify. One of the main points in
the last time that we were talking about this issue was to simply have
the plans sealed by a landscape architect. No more involvement than
that; is that correct?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That is correct.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Would anybody on this board support doing
that with civil engineers? We can inch that down so anybody could do
it. Anybody could submit plans without being sealed by an engineer.
How about aerospace engineers; how about any other kind of engineer?
So would anybody on this board be supportive of having plans be
submitted that were not sealed and certified by a registered
professional engineer?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, to suggest that
the safety of an aircraft is comparable to plants in my front yard is
absurd.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not suggesting that at all, but the
point is the same. If you're going to take away the authority and
responsibility of the professionals in a field, I was just pointing
out a similar situation that you could do in another field. But the
point is the same. All we are really asking -- Mr. Pelletier can make
up all the plans he wants, if he's willing to have a landscape
architect seal them. Fine.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: This seems to be something personal, that
I wish it wouldn't be. I mean, I wish that we could give a little
more courteous treatment to people who come to this board.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'kie, please don't speak
for me.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I said, I wish we could give --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You said it seems something personal. This
is not personal for me in any way, shape or form.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm not suggesting it's personal for you.
Frankly, it was Commissioner Norris who accused him of pimping for
himself. I think that's offensive and I'm saying I think that's
offensive and that we don't need to treat people that way.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Fine. Don't treat them that way then. What
about interrupting me when I'm speaking, is that offensive to you?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If I call you a pimp that might be
offensive.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Let's --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Things were going too well today.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think one of the concerns I have, I do --
and I recall, Ray, you know, we certainly spoke enough about this and
the statement that this is something that needs to be addressed in
Tallahassee, I don't back off of that. I think that's the appropriate
place for it and I think that's what you've got going here. The
question I have is whether it's appropriate for this Board of County
Commissioners to take any action in this regard. I'm not sure that
this is the way it should be handled.
MR. PELLETIER: How else am I my supposed to handle it? I mean,
I'm following the guidance that was given to me by the board.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think we -- what we said was it needs
to be handled in Tallahassee. MR. PELLETIER: Right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is that correct?
MR. PELLETIER: Because you needed qualifications.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right.
MR. PELLETIER: You needed a scope. And that's what this bill
does.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right. And once it's dealt with in
Tallahassee, that will certainly come back down here. If you have an
organization that is representing this to, and you've already got it
on a house bill, then it's going to be dealt with in Tallahassee,
whether we do anything or not.
MR. PELLETIER: The question is, is, what we're doing is, we're
offering you a tool, a tool that you asked for, and this is the tool.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This isn't a tool for us. This isn't a tool
for us. This is a tool for you. It's something for you to get some
kind of satisfaction from Tallahassee that they're going to recognize
you as being able to do these kinds of things. MR. PELLETIER: Right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And that's fine. I mean, that -- more power
to you. I -- if you can get the House and the Senate to go along and
do this kind of thing, I think that's fine. But I'm not sure that
this has or should have involvement from the Board of County
Commissioners when this was an issue that came before us in a plan
that we were discussing. I'm not sure we're the appropriate body.
MR. PELLETIER: I'm sorry if I misread the board, but it was my
interpretation that you pointed to individuals that fall through the
cracks, so to speak, and that, you know, me being one of those people,
and that you would like to see maybe some type of intermediate
qualification. And that's what I went ahead and tried to do here. So
I'm looking for your support.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm not -- I'm not complaining about what
you've done here. That's not --
MR. PELLETIER: Yes, you are.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, no, no. You're misunderstanding.
MR. PELLETIER: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's not what I'm saying, Ray. What I'm
saying is, I don't know if the Board of County Commissioners should be
yeaing or naying this particular house bill. I don't think it's our
determination whether we approve this or disapprove it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What you're simply saying is, it's your
fight, it's not ours. You do it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You know.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I guess I just disagree because we
all espouse to be good republicans and want less government and less
regulation. This would certainly not be the first time that we had
recommended or approved in concept something to our state
representative. We have done that in five years, dozens of times. And
so I think this is an opportunity for us to express a voice on less
government, less regulations, something that appears to be a common
sense approach.
And I agree wholeheartedly with your initial comment about
limiting it to conceptual, because if they need to tinker with that,
and what Tallahassee does to change it, that's fine. But if the
concept is of less government, less regulation, and putting more
common sense into this particular process, I think we ought to give a
vote of confidence to that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I can go along with the idea of a conceptual
letter, but I do not want this, from my standpoint, the only way I can
support this, I do not want this to go up as that this particular
document has my wholehearted support in the language that's written
here. Conceptual --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'll be happy to correct my motion
to --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Conceptually, you know, to approve that you
get some kind of language, you know, I don't have a problem with that.
But to say that the language as written here is the language, I can't
sign on to that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me just make one last argument and then
I'm done.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I hold several professional licenses.
Nobody can operate in those fields without a license. There is no
difference here, in principle. You're saying, what we want on our
plans that are submitted are sealed by someone who is licensed in that
field. And this is an attempt to be able to do it without having a
license. It would be just like somebody trying to pass a bill saying,
"I want to be able to sell real estate but I don't want to have to be
governed by the Florida Real Estate Commission and I don't want to
have to have a real estate license." There's no difference in
principle.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: May I respond?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go right ahead.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because it's almost like that. It's just
the difference is what we talked about in that long night of a hearing
is, there are accountants and there are CPAs, there are paralegals and
there are lawyers. Ray is suggesting a paralegal level and an
accountant level of certification. You can be a certified paralegal.
That's what he's suggesting for his field.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the individual customer makes the
determination, do I want to go to an accountant, do I want to go to a
CPA?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The difference is, when we had this
discussion, we didn't say, "Ray, if you want to go off and get that
certification, we're right there with you, pal." We said, "If you
have that in hand, then it gives us the ability to craft a portion of
our code that we think that certification applies to."
So I think today what we're being asked to do is not to say,
"Ray, go do what you think is in the best interest of your industry
and then let's apply it in Collier County," today we're saying, "Ray,
we agree that you ought to have a certification for your industry."
And I'm not -- I can't make that decision. I just don't have the
information, and I'm not comfortable with it, quite frankly.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll amend my motion
to reflect your immediate past comments.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second amends.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'll call for the question.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We do have another speaker.
MR. FORD: For the record, my name is Michael Ford. I'm a
landscape contractor here in town.
I agree with what you're saying. The key word is "conceptual".
That's what we're trying to get passed here is the use of
"conceptual" And I agree with what you're proposing there, and
that's all I'm asking. That's all we're asking you to do. It's not
Ray. There's a lot of people involved with this. And what we're
asking you to do is just say conceptually can you -- would you please
support this as far as raising the bar. The whole idea was to raise
the bar here in Collier County, and that's what we're trying to do,
period.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Support raising the bar. Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No other speakers.
All in favor?
Opposed?
COMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Carries 3-2.
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 98-62, REPEAL OF PREEMPTION LANGUAGE IN THE FLORIDA CLEAN
INDOOR AIR ACT, CHAPTER 386, PART II, FLORIDA STATUTES - ADOPTED
Moving on then to Item (10)(D), Resolution for repeal of
preemption language in the Florida Clean Indoor Air Act, Chapter 386,
Part II of the Florida Statutes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Support the right to breathe, motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have Miss Heart here with us.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm a board member of the American Cancer
Society, and when I saw this I stopped in my tracks because I was
preparing a very similar piece myself to bring to the board. MS. TAYLOR: So you approve?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would you identify yourself for the record,
please?
MS. TAYLOR: I'm Ann Taylor from the American Heart Association,
who believes in trying to get clean air anyplace that we can because
smoking's the number one cause of heart disease. And the resolution
before you is really on the agenda, or there's been a bill proposed to
repeal what's called the preemption clause of the Florida Clean Indoor
Act.
The current statute states prohibition of smoking in certain
public places, determined at the state level. The preemption clause
prohibits you local boards from stating, if you would like non-smoking
areas designated in Collier County. If we repeal that preemption
clause, what it gives you is the power, if you so choose, to say no
smoking in this building, or wherever you want to say you don't want
the public smoking.
And so I ask for you to endorse this resolution, that we will get
up to Tallahassee as we speak because Congress is in session and this
is going to be discussed. And I am seeking your approval.
Do you want me to read the resolution? Any questions about it?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, thanks.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think it's necessary. It just
maintains the state standard. That is a minimum, not a maximum, is
what it changes.
MS. TAYLOR: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And basically there's no reason we should
force six and seven year old children to secondhand smoke in a
restaurant simply because there's a line in the air that says smoking
versus nonsmoking. So, this gives us the ability to do that, and I
thank you for bringing it forward.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion for acceptance of
this, I believe.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. I seconded it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, motion by me, seconded by
Commissioner Hac'Kie.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'll call for the question
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries, 4-0.
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 98-63, APPOINTING MICHAEL BRUET, THOMAS BRISCO, JAMES
LENNANE, BILL NEAL, AND ROBERT F. HESSER TO THE BAYSHORE/AVALON
BEAUTIFICATION HSTU ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED
Item 10(E), appointment of members to the Bayshore/Avalon
Beautification HSTU Advisory Committee.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You won't be surprised -- I'm sorry.
MS. FILSON: Is it the board's wish that, after these
appointments are made, that their terms be set at their initial
meeting --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
MS. FILSON: -- as we've done in the past?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
MS. FILSON: Same for Radio Road, then.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thanks for mentioning that.
MS. FILSON: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You want me to express it now?
I have strong feelings about this. I'm just thrilled to see that
we got the number of applicants that we did, and instead of making a
speech, because we're all tired of being here, let me tell you who I
hope that we can appoint and why.
First of all, Bill Neal, who has been the driving force behind
this, he's a resident of Wind Star, he's on our productivity
committee, has very valuable contributions to make.
In an effort to get the commercial interest represented, you know
that we amended the ordinance to be sure that we could do that, Mr.
Jim Lennane and Mr. Michael Bruet. I would recommend both of them for
appointment because of the need to include the commercial interest.
And then, because of the strong need to balance the
representation on this committee, frankly, to offset the concerns that
some people have that this is a Wind Star driven board, with great
thanks to Becky Andrews for all she's done, my request would be that
we would appoint Mr. Brisco, who is a resident of the area and is in
the construction business, and Mr. Hessmet, who is a resident of the
area and an architect, all of whom I think, you know, that could make
up a really strong board. So that's --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are those three residents? I know Mr.
Neal lives in Wind Star.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where does -- where do Mr. Brisco and Mr.
Hessmet live?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The other two live outside of Wind Star on
some of the view streets.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wanted to make sure that we weren't
giving a weight to Wind Star, but I don't have any --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I was trying to be very careful about
that. And, frankly, that's why I'm recommending these instead of Miss
Andrews, even though she's been very active. She does life in Wind
Star.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I know Mr. Bruet's on the Planning
Commission. Is he going to be eligible for this? Is he on any other
commission?
MS. FILSON: No. I checked these.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have five people then that have
been --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was asking if that was a motion, but
nevermind.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to place
Michael Bruet, Thomas Brisco, James Lennane, Bill Neal and Robert
Hessmet on the Bayshore/Avalon Beautification HSTU Advisory Committee.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 4-0.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You will point out to Mr. Lennane next time
you see him that TDC funds can't be used --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, I will. I will.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel, do you have anything for us this
morning?
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS - MR. THOMPSON RE POLLUTION CONTROL
ISSUES
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have public comment.
Hopefully in the future the agenda format will change so that it
will be featured a little more prominently. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We do have one speaker. Kenneth W. Thompson has
asked to speak.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As he's coming up, let me just say that
Item #15B
I'm so familiar, I know Mr. Cautero is so familiar with the serious
problem that he's having in his neighborhood. I know that we've tried
really hard already to provide a solution to the problem. Seems to me
we've just got to try harder. This -- well, you'll hear.
MR. THOMPSON: My name is Kenneth Thompson and I live at 2831
Becca Avenue, and, somehow or another, you people -- I might make it
today because you two are arguing and I kind of like that. But you
need -- I have had Mr. Cautero at my house, and I've had the city
people threatening me. I don't need this. I don't shoot people.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I hope not.
MR. THOMPSON: I don't think I will. I might shoot him with a
Pepsi or a ginger ale or something like that, but that's all. I don't
need people coming in my yard while I'm a mowing. I come to Mr.
Fernandez, who is a nice person, let me tell you. And then he told me
to go see Michelle. I did, and she knew I was coming.
And I get out there, and I talk to her a few minutes, and -- the
man has got to stop. He don't know -- she told me that he could only
have so much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sir, tell them -- we're talking about the
mulch.
MR. THOMPSON: Mulch, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On the lawn. And apparently there's some
question about whether or not you can get a sufficient amount of mulch
to use it for fill to build a house on.
MR. CAUTERO: I've never heard that. Vince Cautero, for the
record.
I haven't heard that. We have investigated the site Mr. Thompson
is talking about numerous times and found no violation each time. But
I'll be glad to send another investigator out again.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Having been out there myself and looked at
it, it seems to me, if it's not a violation, it looks like something
that ought to be a violation. So why isn't it?
MR. CAUTERO: Well, the last time I went out on the property,
there was a permit to clear. The day I went out to investigate the
property personally, they pulled the building permit, and upon a
further investigation, we found everything to be in order. The
initial permit was for the clearing of the property and mulch was
brought in. There was no violation.
If there is a potential fill violation, I would be happy to go
out and look at it. I haven't gone out to the property but once, and
at that time there was no single family or building permit pulled at
that time. It was pulled the day I went out though.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there some limitation on the amount of
fill that can be piled up on a lot?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because there seems to be some serious
health repercussions as a result of the bacteria growing in the fill,
you know, lots of problems.
MR. CAUTERO: Well, that would not be regulated by our land
development code, what is in the fill. I believe he's acquiring fill
-- correct me if I'm wrong -- from the City of Naples, and Mr.
Thompson has contended that that fill is containing some kind of a
contaminant. We are unable to determine that and we have no basis to
determine that.
MR. THOMPSON: I'm going to help you, because -- I can't read
this. Could you read that word for me, right there?
MR. WEIGEL: The word he's pointing to looks like Ganoderma.
MR. THOMPSON: Butt rot.
MR. WEIGEL: Butt rot.
MR. THOMPSON: Butt rot. And there's no end to this. Last March
the man didn't even own the property. Code enforcement practically
lived out there. He didn't even own the property. He's dumping
thirty-eight loads. And I'm a taxpayer here. He hits the mailbox.
My wife don't even believe the mailbox. She pays it.
I'm getting disgusting with it. And he didn't even own the
property. I fought him and fought him to put a pipe in the ditch.
Finally, I give you all kinds of pictures of the man buried in the
ditch. He pulls a permit last Hay. He puts the -- he tears up all
kinds of county property, the city. Then they come out at the last
minute and put a pipe in the ditch, and now the man don't know how to
drive on the pipe. And you had the city send a man out. I don't --
forget his name. I told my wife -- what's his name, the guy that come
out?
He come out there, on the property, and I had this -- Keith Kip,
yeah, he come out there, and he told me there's no violation. Well,
there is a violation, and I'm going to stand by. This is next to my
home. And this stuff here, since last March -- the palm trees are just
fading right out, way up the street. And I've got -- couldn't figure
it out. I've been a landscaper. And I was the third one in Naples.
You had Bud Hall, you had -- my mind ain't too good, it's because of
what you're doing here.
And I was in the sod business. And when they started spraying
for canker, I was handling this sod for so many years. In '84 they
found out what the problem was, that I'm losing -- I'm losing my
nervous system, the bones in my body is deteriorating from this stuff.
And if you put this around these palm trees -- they're growing white
mushrooms with red and milky colors in them. And this is what you
call Ganoderma. And it does cause the palm trees to die.
And if you go look at the street across the street, they are
dying like flies. And people can't understand it. But I'm now going
to have it tested.
MR. CAUTERO: Madam Chairman, I have a potential solution. I
would be happy to have my pollution control staff work with Tom
Olliff's staff at the extension office to go out and investigate this.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great idea.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I would suggest that --
MR. THOMPSON: I have had pollution. I walk in this building,
and every time I turn around, I don't mean any harm, but I'll tell you
what I think. I have talked to so many of you people. I see one show
up, and they say -- I can feel the heat, but it's time somebody feels
the heat. The man just can't keep dumping this stuff. And then I had
the City of Naples woman call me -- I have a bad habit of not getting
the name -- from the city's office, and she tells me if the county --
the city feels like they can drive all over the ditches, cut the
ditches up, drive anywhere they feel like it.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What they're saying that's something new
today is that --
MR. THOMPSON: This is all new here that's happening now.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And here's something. Pollution control,
in addition to -- in Mr. Olliff's department they have the
landscapers, the professional horticulturalist and all that who can
come and work with pollution control to see if we can do something
about it. So we have a new idea of a way to try.
MR. THOMPSON: I'm going to work with myself, because I was
trained by the best. I was -- I worked for Russ Stahlman, this is the
man I couldn't think of. And then along come Bud Hall, and then along
come old Ken. That's me, Ken's Lawn Maintenance and Landscaping. And
I was the best, let me tell you. It's nothing to brag on. If it
wasn't done right, I wouldn't leave your yard.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Sir, are you here to ask for assistance?
MR. THOMPSON: I'm asking you for your help.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Then we're offering everything that
we have right now, which is, through our extension office, we can look
at some of the biological areas you're talking about. That's the next
level, and we're willing to go to it. And Mr. Cautero will coordinate
that with you.
MR. THOMPSON: Here is -- what's this fellow's name, Ursula?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I tell you what, if you'll get with Mr.
Cautero --
MR. THOMPSON: No. It's Mr. -- what's his name. Bruce McNall. I
called him up.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's stormwater management.
MR. THOMPSON: Well, he told me, well, let's send somebody out to
blow the pipes out.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which they did because the mulch had
gotten in there and stopped the stormwater flow.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Thompson? Mr. Thompson? I think at this
point, if Mr. Cautero and you and perhaps, Mr. Olliff, if you could
get with Mr. Thompson and agree to some kind of a time where you could
arrange to meet with him, I think that would be the most appropriate
action at this point. So they'll take care of it.
MR. THOMPSON: All I'm asking is, give him so much mulch --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: They'll take care of it.
MR. THOMPSON: Not twenty feet high.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand. Mr. Thompson, we've got
someone on track now and they will be meeting with you to try and
address your problem. Okay?
MR. THOMPSON: Yes. I'd like to tell you one more thing. I
called this fellow and he says it's not his problem. You got to see
that one. That's his problem. That's his problem. Lord have mercy.
I've walked my shoes -- I went and bought a tape for my wife. I've
walked a hole in my shoes coming back to you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand.
MR. THOMPSON: And I'm really getting sick of the county because
I'm about -- I told her, if she don't get rid of that memory she is
holding onto, my health ain't no more good. I'm going to walk off and
I'm going to leave her.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I don't think I'd do that.
MR. THOMPSON: Well, I think I will. Let me tell you a good
thing that happened to me today. The baby was good a while ago. I
liked that. But then along comes the day I forgot my own anniversary.
I married her thirty-three years ago over a haircut, and that is the
longest haircut I believe I have ever -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is that today?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thirty-three years ago today?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is that thirty-three years ago today?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, you just had your anniversary
celebrated on television, so I think that's --
MR. THOMPSON: I don't care nothing about television. That's
what I hate, is television. All I like is you good people.
And, Mr. Fernandez, thank you for everything. And you people are
helping me.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're trying to address the problem, Mr.
Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: I know you keep saying that but then I'll be back
next week.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I hope not. I hope that we're going to
settle your problems. I know. You've put up with a lot. I think you
and your wife need to go enjoy and celebrate your anniversary and
we'll let our staff take care of your other problem.
MR. THOMPSON: She won't let me give her nothing. I used to give
her pretty flowers, pretty clothes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, hey listen. Don't ask her, just go do
it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do it anyway.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
If there's any -- if there's no further business before the
commission --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait. Communications.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Communications.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I have just -- I have -- I
have two brief things.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right.
Item #15A
DISCUSSION REGARDING UNDERGROUND PIPING DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE EAST
TRAIL
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One is just heads up about, remember, we
were talking about that there are two stormwater pipes, that if we
could put them under the east trail during the widening we could save
a whole lot of money and improve a whole lot of flooding problems.
Just heads up that Mr. Ilschner's staff is still working on that.
And the other one was really for Mr. Agoston's benefit.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You want to report that they're still
working on it?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks for that graphic update.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. No. They're working on it and it's
got a real short fuse, and so we're going to get it back on kind of an
emergency kind of basis and that's why I wanted to sort of mention it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the other one was really for Ty
Agoston's benefit more than anybody else's, is an article where, "Jeb
Bush says the S word, sustainability, by Jeb Bush." Just wanted you
to know.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What in God's name does that have to do
with us?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Every time -- nevermind. You know what it
says.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Our resident left winget is trying to
__
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a moment.
Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two quick items. If you happen to get
a chance to have breakfast at Cracker Barrel this week, if it's
anything like this morning, you won't get your breakfast down. For
those who say the landfill didn't smell -- doesn't smell, today was a
great day.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It did yesterday as well.
Item #15B
DISCUSSION RE PRODUCTIVITY COHMITTEE/SHERIFF'S OFFICE
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good God.
Other thing, I got the memorandum Commissioner Hac'Kie had sent
around about our productivity committee, and their concerns about our
jail. I would like to look at that a little bit more in depth. I
assume everybody would, but --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We met yesterday afternoon and I asked if
they had gotten yet a response from Mr. Ilschner. I know that he's
been meeting with people but there was no response yet to productivity
committee. That's a very important consideration.
Also, just if anybody wants to go, I can't, but the productivity
committee is going to be traveling to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Broward County.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- Broward County to look at the jail
construction methodology that they've used recently, if anybody wants
to tag along. I know Mr. Ilschner can set that up. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was looking for your Vote for Buddy
HcKay sticker on this somewhere. I don't see that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. This is --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, okay. Just checking. Just checking.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This is to let you know that Jeb Bush
supports the concept of sustainability.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just checking, bubba.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what the article says.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And everything in print is true.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Isn't it just amazing that, as we go through
life, there are certain words that pick up and they hold on for a
period of time and then they go away and then there's another set that
replaces them and then they become the buzz words and everybody
incorporates them into everything they do, and then they mean nothing
and we move on.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And today's buzz word is good-bye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Today the buzz word is, the meeting is
adjourned.
***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Mac'Kie
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted:
Item #16A1
SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST REAL PROPERTY FOR
ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE - OWNERS: ZBIGNIEW AND DORILA TOMSZAY
Item #16A2
SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST REAL PROPERTY FOR
ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE - OWNERS: NEW YORK TIMES CO.
Item #16A3
SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST REAL PROPERTY FOR
ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE - OWNERS: OSCAR AND STEVE LAUPERT
Item #16A4
SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST REAL PROPERTY FOR
ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE - OWNERS: DONALD THOMPSON
Item #16A5
SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST REAL PROPERTY FOR
ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE - OWNERS: RICARDO FIDALGO
Item #16A6
EXTENSION OF AGREEHENT FOR NORTH CODE ENFORCEHENT BOARD LEGAL COUNSEL
WITH ROETZEL AND ANDRESS IN THE A_MOUNT OF $8,000 TO BE IN 6 MONTHLY
INSTALLMENTS
Item #16B1
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO UNDERTAKE LIMITED LANDSCAPE
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ENTRANCE MEDIAN ON PALM DRIVE AT THE INTERSECTION
OF U.S. 41 AND PALM DRIVE - IN AN A_MOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $6,000 IN
MATERIALS COSTS
Item #1682
WORK ORDER CDH-FT-2 WITH CAMP, DRESSER & HCKEE FOR PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES AND SURVEILLANCE OF THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT RELATED TO BLASTING ACTIVITIES ON ADJACENT
PROPERTY
Item #1683
REAL ESTATE SALES AGREEMENT FOR LOT 53, LOCATED WITHIN BLUE HERON LAKE
PARK, AN UNRECORDED PLAT WITH JUAN FLORES AND ARHANDINA FLORES
Item #1684
CONTRACT TO E.B. SIHMONDS ELECTRICAL INC. TO INSTALL LIGHTING SYSTEMS
AT THREE COHMUNITY PARKS, BID NO. 97-2766 IN THE A_MOUNT OF $100,200
Item #1685
ACCEPTANCE OF LICENSE AND USE AGREEMENT WITHIN LAKEWOOD COUNTRY CLUB OF
NAPLES TO INSTALL A RECLAIMED WATER MAIN FOR IRRIGATION
Item #16C1
SATISFACTION AND RELEASE OF MORTGAGE FOR DONALD PATTON AND MARY AND
CARL WEBB, JR.
Item #16C2
GRANT OF EASEMENT TO FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY UPON REAL PROPERTY
OWNED BY COLLIER COUNTY LOCATED AT THE EAST NAPLES COHMUNITY PARK
Item #16C3
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NAPLES LANDING PROJECT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $160,000
Item #16C4
AGREEMENT TO VARIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PICNIC SHELTERS
AT COHMUNITY PARKS - WORK ORDER VC-128 IN THE AMOUNT OF $176,389
Item #16D1
AGREEMENTS FOR GENERAL CONTRACTROS SERVICES ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS UNDER
BID 97-2763 - AWARDED TO VANDERBILT BAY CONSTRUCTION; WILLIAM J. VARIAN
CONSTRUCTION; SURETY CONSTRUCTION; AND PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SYSTEMS
Item #16D2
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN STATE OF FLORIDA EHS HATCHING GRANT APPLICATION
Item #16D3 - deleted
Item #16D4
RESOLUTION 98-57 AUTHORIZING A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO PROVIDE THE DISTRICT WITH RADIO ANTENNA AND
EQUIPMENT SPACE AT AN EXSITING COUNTY RADIO COHMUNICATION TOWER SITE
Item #16El
RESOLUTION 98-58 AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE MARCH OF
DIMES "WALKAMERICA" ACTIVITIES IN AN A_MOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,000
Item #16G1
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:
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned at 12:12 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
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 as
presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE BY:
ELIZABETH M. BROOKS, RPR