BCC Minutes 11/14/2000 RNovember 14, 2000
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, November 14, 2000
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 9:00 a.m.
in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F' of the Government
Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
CHAIRMAN:
ALSO PRESENT:
James D. Carter, Ph.D
Barbara B. Berry
David E. Brandt
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
Tom Olliff, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Page1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
Tuesday, November 14, 2000
9:00 a.m.
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER
PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER
PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL,
BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED
TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS
AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY
MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE
HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS".
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY
NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE,
WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE
APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS
PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN
ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO
YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE
COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING
DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION - Reverend Mary Anne Dorner, Church of the Resurrection
1
November 14, 2000
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF AGENDAS
A. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA.
B. APPROVAL OF SUMMARY AGENDA.
C. APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. October 10, 2000 - Regular Meeting
PROCLAMATIONS AND SERVICE AWARDS
A. PROCLAMATIONS
1) Proclamation designating November 2000 as "National Epilepsy
Awareness Month". Proclamation to be mailed to the Committee for
Epilepsy Awareness.
2) Proclamation designating November 19 through November 25, 2000 as
"Farm City Week" to be accepted by Mr. David Santee, Chairman of the
Farm City Week Committee.
3) Proclamation designating November 2000 as "Collier County Adoption
Month". To be accepted by Theresa lamurri, Debbie Allen and Daneille D.
Stewart.
SERVICE AWARDS
Five Year Attendees:
1) Janice Wolfe, Planning Services - 5 Years
2) June Dunfee, Domestic Animal Services - 5 Years
3) Daniel Craig, Parks and Recreation - 5 Years
10 Year Attendees:
1) Joan Young, Utility Finance Operations - 10 Years
2
November 14, 2000
2) Paul Weber, EMS - 10 Years
3) Richard Roll, Planning Services - 10 Years
4)
Teresa Riesen, Solid Waste Collections and Special Assessments - 10
Years
Year Attendee:
1) Jorge Aguilera, EMS - 15 Years
20 Year Attendee:
Gregory Soto, Transportation/Road & Bridge - 20 Years
C. PRESENTATIONS
1)
Recommendation to recognize Al Arcia, Maintenance Worker II, Parks
and Recreation Department, as Employee of the Month for November
2000.
APPROVAL OF CLERK'S REPORT
A. ANALYSIS OF CHANGES TO RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES.
PUBLIC PETITIONS
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Petition ST-99-3 Coastal Engineering representing Keystone Homes
requesting a special treatment permit to allow construction of residential
single family lots, streets and associated infrastructure on a portion of the
property with a Special Treatment (ST) overlay (ST Parcel 23A) located
within the proposed Little Palm Island subdivision in Section 23, Township
48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
2)
Reconsideration pursuant to Ordinance No. 81-54 of a request to submit
alternative road impact fee calculations for Bay Colony, Pelican Marsh
and Tiburon golf courses.
3)
Reconsideration pursuant to Ordinance No. 81-54 of a request to submit
an alternative road impact fee calculation for two nine hole golf courses at
3
November 14, 2000
Grey Oaks.
4)
Reconsideration pursuant to Ordinance No. 81-54 of a request to submit
an alternative road impact fee calculation for The Valencia at Orangetree
Golf Course.
5)
Reconsideration pursuant to Ordinance No. 81-54 of a request to submit
an alternative road impact fee calculation for Vanderbilt Country Club.
6)
Reconsideration pursuant to Ordinance No. 81-54 of a request to submit
an alternative road impact fee calculation for Naples Heritage Golf and
Country Club.
7)
Reconsideration pursuant to Ordinance No. 81-54 of a request to submit
an alternative road impact fee calculation for the golf course at The
Strand.
8)
Reconsideration pursuant to Ordinance No. 81-54 of a request to submit
an alternative road impact fee calculation for Naples Grande Golf Course.
9)
Reconsideration pursuant to Ordinance No. 81-54 of a request to submit
an alternative road impact fee calculation for Golf Club of the Everglades.
10)
Reconsideration pursuant to Ordinance No. 81-54 of a request to submit
an alternative road impact fee calculation for Naples Lakes Country Club.
Reconsideration pursuant to Ordinance No. 81-54 of a request to submit
an alternative road impact fee calculation for Cedar Hammock Country
Club.
12) Reconsideration pursuant to Ordinance No. 81-54 of a request to submit
an alternative road impact fee calculation for Old Collier Golf Club.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
PUBLIC UTILITIES
PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Report to the Board Regarding a Proposed Joint Permit Application for
Construction of a Private Membership Beach Club and Public Beach
Access Facilities at Barefoot Beach Preserve.
SUPPORT SERVICES
4
November 14, 2000
F. EMERGENCY SERVICES
G. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Approval of revised Budget Amendment Policy.
H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Closed Attorney-Client Session for discussion of settlement negotiations
and/or strategy related to litigation expenditures of the pending litigation
case of BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, v. COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., a Florida
corporation, MICHAEL F. STEPHEN, Ph.D., an individual, MICHAEL T.
POFF, P.E., an individual, CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, an
Illinois corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, T.L.
JAMES & CO., a Louisiana corporation authorized to do business in the
State of Florida, HIGHLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY, a Texas
corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Case No.
00-1901-CA-THB, pending in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. Persons in attendance will be the
Board of County Commissioners, County Manager Thomas W. Olliff,
County Attorney David C. Weigel, Assistant County Attorney William E.
Mountford, and outside counsel Steven M. Siegfried of Siegfried, Rivera,
Lener, De La Torre & Sobel, P.A. (Item to be heard at 2:00 p.m. or at
the conclusion of the regular meeting agenda, whichever occurs
later.)
Board direction regarding settlement negotiations and strategy related to
litigation expenditures including budget amendment for outside counsel
expenditures in the Case OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, v. COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS,
INC., a Florida corporation, MICHAEL F. STEPHEN, Ph.D., an individual,
MICHAEL T. POFF, P.E., an individual, CONTINENTAL CASUALTY
COMPANY, an Illinois corporation authorized to do business in the State
of Florida, T.L. JAMES & CO., a Louisiana corporation authorized to do
business in the State of Florida, HIGHLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Texas corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida Case
No. 00-1901-CA-THB, pending in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. (Companion item to
Item 9A, to be heard immediately after Item 9A.)
Report on status and settlement negotiations in Collier County v. Marshall,
et al., Case No. 99-2009-CA-TB, pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit
Court, (prescriptive easement claim for Miller Boulevard Extension) and
5
November 14, 2000
request for Board direction.
D. Report following mediation in Bernstein v Collier County, Case No. 00-
14229GG, now pending in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and
request for Board direction.
E. Notice of closed attorney-client sessions BCC v. Coastal Eningeering.
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Black Affairs Advisory Board.
B. Discussion regarding whether or not the Board of County Commissioners should
revisit the commitment of TDC funds to the Wilkinson House project.
(Commissioner Carter)
C. Appointment of member to the Collier County Planning Commission.
D. Appointment of members to the Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee.
E. Appointment of members to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
F. Appointment of member to the Development Services Advisory Committee.
G. Board consideration for adoption of the County Attorney FY2000 Action Plan and
Employment Agreement evaluation for 1998/99 and 1999/2000.
11. ITEMS OTHER
A. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
C. PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HEARD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING STAFF ITEMS
'12. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - BCC
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
6
November 14, 2000
B. ZONING AMENDMENTS
1)
Petition PUD-00-13, William Hoover of Hoover Planning and
Development, Inc., representing Mr. Warren Raymond, Centrefund
Development Corporation, requesting a rezone from "E" Estates to "PUD"
Planned Unit Development to be known as Wilson Boulevard Center PUD
allowing for 42,000 square feet of commercial retail and office land uses
for property located on the southeast quadrant of the intersection of
Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard, in Section 10, Township
49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 7.15 acres
more or less.
2)
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 24, 2000
MEETING. Petition PUD-99-20, representing Brynwood Preserve, Inc.,
requesting a rezone from "A" Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit
Development to be known as Brynwood Preserve PUD allowing for 160
mixed residential dwelling units for property located on the east side of
Livingston Road (C.R. 881) and approximately one quarter mile south of
Pine Ridge Road (C.R. 896), in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 29.26 acres more or less.
3)
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 24, 2000
MEETING. PUD-97-18(1), Karen K. Bishop of PMS Inc. of Naples,
representing Vanderbilt Partners II, Ltd., requesting a rezone from "PUD"
to "PUD" Planned Unit Development and "RMF-12 ST (3)" and "RMF-6 ST
(3)" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as The Dunes PUD for
the purpose of amending Ordinance No. 98-24 and having the effect of
increasing the acreage from 88.55_+, increasing residential dwelling units
from 531 to a maximum of 704, decreasing gross density from 6 dwelling
units per acre to 3.73 dwelling units per acre, showing a change in
property ownership, increasing building height to 150 feet adding
restaurants and similar uses as accessory uses, increasing open space
from 53 acres to 166 acres, for property located on the Northwest Corner
of Bluebill Avenue (C.R. 846) and Vanderbilt Drive (C.R. 901), in Section
20, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier county, Florida, consisting
of 188.55+ acres.
OTHER
1)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt by
ordinance the Immokalee Urban Infill and Redevelopment Plan for the
purposes of the Urban Infill and Redevelopment Assistance Grant
Program and authorize the Chairman to sign the memorandum of
understanding with the School Board and to sign the Planning Grant
Application.
7
November 14, 2000
13.
14.
15.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. OTHER
STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
16.
CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be
removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 24, 2000
MEETING. Authorize staff to approve Agreement with Lewis and
Associates to provide auditing services of MediaOne and AOL/Time
Warner Cable Television Franchise Fees.
2)
Authorize the creation of one full-time loan processor position in lieu of
two already approved part-time loan processor positions.
3)
Approve a resolution that authorizes the County Manager, or his
designee, to apply for a $750,000 Economic Development Grant that is
offered through the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
4) This item has been deleted.
5)
Approve a Budget Amendment for two expanded positions in Planning
Services Electronic Data Management System.
6)
Lien Resolutions- Code Enforcement Case Numbers:
2000020249/VVisnewski, Leonard; 2000040560/Casteel, Rose;
2000051062/Lake Est., Leon; 2000060107/Ramirez, Alfredo.uyiy
8
November 14, 2000
7)
8)
9)
10)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
Lien Resolutions-Code Enforcement Case
Numbers: 1999101030/Good man, 1999101028/Goodman,
1999080426/Blaanco, 1999080425/Blanco, 1999110687/Bo11.
Lien Resolutions-Code Enforcement Case Numbers: 1999091649/Miralles;
1999090654/Moses; 1999100654/Jimenez & Arreguin;
1999060368/Johnson; 1999120665/VVooten.
Lien Resolutions-Code Enforcement Case Numbers:
1999101039/Goodman; 1999101024/Goodman; 1999101023/Goodman;
1999101019/Goodman; 1999101034/Good man.
Lien Resolutions-Code Enforcement Case Numbers: 1999090955/Hodges
Est. James M., Evelyn L., Boyd; 90125046/EMC Holdings Inc.,
1999071277/Pelc, Edward; 1999061277/Rocco Izzo.
Lien Resolutions-Code Enforcement Case Numbers: LaRue/81201066;
LaRue/1999090714; Mortilus/1999091653; Avial/1999110125; Marant
Homes Inc./1999090554.
Lien Resolutions-Code Enforcement Case Numbers:
1999070957/Goodman; 1999070956/Goodman; 1999070955/Goodman;
1999101014/Good man; 1999101013/Good man.
Lien Resolutions-Code Enforcement Case Numbers: 2000031283/Torres;
2000050551/Port Bougain LTD; 2000040514/Carvajal;
2000040531/Daniels; 1999040944/Asbell TR.
Request to approve for recording the final Plat of "Joe Criss Subdivision".
Request to approve for recording the final Plat of "Ibis Cove, Phase One"
and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and Performance Security.
Request to approve a Termination of Restrictive Covenants between the
Board of County Commissioners and Ridgeport Limited Partnership, and
CRF Airport Pad Limited Partnership, as successor to Ridgeport Limited
Partnership.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Barefoot Bay", and
approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance Agreement
and approval of the amount of the Performance Security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Island Walk Phase One,
9
November 14, 2000
19)
Adopt resolution opposing Florida's Communications Services Tax
Simplification Act and possible amendments thereto, except those that
promote the interests of Collier County.
20)
Authorization to award Bid #00-3162 "Consultant Services for
Consolidated Plan".
Approve a budget amendment to appropriate funds for legal services
related to the Growth Management plan.
22)
Forward a letter to the Census Bureau requesting a post-census local
review and re-opening of Florida's call center.
23)
Request to approve an Encroachment Agreement with WCI Communities,
Inc. for structures within a Pelican Bay Improvement District Drainage
Easement, (now a Collier County drainage easement.)
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Award Construction Engineering Inspection Services Contract to Consul-
Tech Engineering, Inc. for the widening of Airport-Pulling Road, Collier
County, Project No. 62031, CIE No.55, RFP#00-3081.
2)
Approve Amendment to contract 00-3054 with Better Roads, Inc. for the
widening of Pine Ridge Road from Airport-Pulling Road to Logan
Boulevard, Project No.60111, CIE #41 to hold harmless for county
requested time extension relative to the incentive bonus.
3)
Approve amendment to contract 99-2992 with APAC-Florida, Inc. for the
widening of Immokalee Road from 1-75 to Collier Boulevard (CR-951),
Project No. 69101, CIE #8 to hold them harmless for County request time
extension relative to the incentive bonus.
4)
Adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by gift non-exclusive,
perpetual sidewalk, drainage, slope, maintenance and temporary
construction interests by easement for the Immokalee Road sidewalk
project between John Michael Road and C.R. 951, CIE No8.
5)
Approve change order number 3 with Better Roads Inc., for additional
construction services for the widening of Pine Ridge Road from (Airport-
Pulling Road to Logan Blvd.) Project No. 60111, CIE #4.
6)
Approve a developer contribution agreement and accept a grant of
easement from The Ocean Boulevard Partnership and The Ocean
Boulevard Partnership II.
10
November 14, 2000
7)
Approve a developer contribution agreement and accept the plat
dedication from Creekside West, Inc.
8)
"Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the
Extension of the contract for Management Services for the Pelican Bay
Services Division".
9)
Request Board Direction to proceed with the beautification of Livingston
Road from Radio Road to the Lee County Line.
10)
Request for speed limit reduction from 30 miles per hour (30MPH) to
twenty-five miles per hour (25MPH) on 10th Avenue South West from
1,090 feet West on NAPA Boulevard to Logan Boulevard.
11)
Approve a developer contribution agreement and accept a special
warranty deed and temporary driveway restoration easement from the
Halstatt Partnership.
12)
Waive the requirement for competition an approve the purchase of steel
benches and receptacles from Swartz Associates and Increase purchase
from Spencer Fabrications for the Bayshore Municipal services taxing unit
(MSTU) beautification Project.
13)
Adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition of land by gift or purchase of
fee simple title interests and/or perpetual, non-exclusive road right-of-way,
sidewalk, utility, drainage, slope and maintenance interests by easement
for the construction of roadway improvements for the Whippoorwill Land
Project between Pine Ridge Road to a point one mile south, being the
intersection of the future east/west connector road connecting to
Livingston road (Phase 1).
14)
Adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition of land by condemnation of
fee simple title interests and/or perpetual, non-exclusive road right-of-way,
sidewalk, utility, drainage, slope and maintenance interests by easement
for the Whippoorwill Lane Project between Pine Ridge Road to a point
one mile south, being the intersection of the future east/west connector
road connecting to Livingston Road (Phase 1).
15)
A resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
authorizing the execution of that certain joint participation agreement
(JPA) with the Florida Department of Transportation.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
ll
November 14, 2000
1) Certify financial responsibility for North County Regional Water Treatment
Facility deep injection well and dual zone monitoring well.
2) Approve Professional Services Agreement with Camp Dresser & McKee,
Inc. for engineering services related to a Comprehensive Odor and
Corrosion Control Study for the Collier County Sewer System.
PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Reject the bid Received for Bid No. 00-3156 and Authorize
Readvertisement of Bids for the Production of Beach Compatible Sand.
2) Approve the Reappropriation of Funds for the Purchase of Beach
Cleaning Equipment.
3) Approval of a Resolution authorizing Commercial Paper Loan Financing
for construction of the North Regional Library.
SUPPORT SERVICES
1) Award Contract for architectural services for the design of the
Development services building addition and parking garage, RFP #00-
3070.
2) Request Board approval to upgrade the digital component of the 800 MHz
radio system and to approve a Resolution authorizing commercial paper
loan financing.
Approve sale of all surplus computers from the PC Replacement Program
to Board employees.
EMERGENCY SERVICES
'1 ) Approval of Statewide Mutual Aid Agreement between Collier County and
the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
COUNTY MANAGER
1) Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendment #00-513;
#00-514; #01-020; #01-023
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
12
November 14, 2000
J. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1)
Satisfaction of Lien: NEED MOTION authorizing the Chairman to sign
Satisfaction of Lien for Services of the Public Defender for Case Nos.: 96-
8504-MMA, 00-6429-MMA, 94-612-CJA, 99-8388-MMA, 96-10452-MMA,
00-5671-MMA, 00-6427-MMA, 97-1448-CFA, 97-1630-CFA,
97-4199-MMA, 97-6559-MMA, 95-8343-MMA, 97-1667-MMA, 97-1783-
MMA, 97-1331-CFA, 97-5306-MMA, 91-1053-TM, 97-0619-MMA, 97-
2656-MMA, 00-5620-MMA, 00-5711-MMA, 00-5852-MMA, 00-4929-MMA,
00-6255-MMA, 00-5294-MMA, 00-6266-MMA, RECOMMEND
APPROVAL.
17.
2) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
K. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1)
Recommend that the Board endorse the United States Department of
Justice/Department of Treasury Federal Equitable Sharing Annual
Certification Report.
2)
Request the approval of a budget amendment transferring $250,000 from
General Fund Reserves to Capital Improvement Fund 301 for the
purchase of telephone and data quipment for Building J-1.
3)
Request that the Board designate Sandi Chernoff of the Collier County
Sheriff's Office as Collier County's 911 Coordinator.
L. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment pertaining to the eminent domain
lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Pine Ridge Golf Center, Ltd.
2)
Approval of the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the easement
acquisition on parcel 318 in the lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Agnaldo
Delima, et al., (Golden Gate Boulevard Project).
3)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
settlement in McCarron v. Board of County Commissioners, Case No. 99-
555-CA-HDH, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for
Collier County, Florida, pursuant to which the County would pay $22,500
and all claims against the County would be dismissed with prejudice.
SUMMARY AGENDA -THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A RECOMMENDATION FOR
APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL
13
November 14, 2000
18.
BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OF ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR
ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OR THE BOARD,
PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS
ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED
TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM.
An Ordinance amending Collier County Ordinance No. 80-80, as amended, the
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council; by amending Section Three,
Members, to include an additional member to represent Cleveland Clinic.
Petition CU-2000-13, Pastor Verna Nash representing Bethesda Pentecostal
Church requesting a conditional use for a daycare to be located within the
existing church building in the "E" Estates Zoning District for a property located
on the Northwest corner of Collier Boulevard (951) and 5th Avenue SW
approximately one half mile north of Pine Ridge Road. This site consists of 2.73
acres.
Petition V-2000-19, Mark and Jennifer Johnson, requesting an 8.4-foot variance
from both required 30-foot side yard setbacks for accessory structures in order to
establish 21.6-foot side yard setbacks for a tennis court accessory structure for
property located at 95 Myrtle Road, further described as Lot 19, Block P, Pine
Ridge Extension, in Section 3, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida.
A resolution amending the legal description of Ordinance 99-84 for a property in
Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East to correct a scrivener's error in
the legal description.
ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BF
MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
14
November 14, 2000
November 14, 2000
Item #3A, B,&C
CONSENT, SUMMARY AND REGULAR AGENDA
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
-APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good morning. Welcome to -- are we
alive and well in TV land? Yes, we are. Try that again.
Good morning. Welcome to the November 14th, Board of
County Commissioners' meeting.
If you will join me in the invocation led by Mary Anne Dorner,
Church of the Resurrection, and stay standing for the pledge of
allegiance.
REVEREND DORNER: Let us pray.
Dear God, we give you thanks that we live in a nation where
we can gather together in peaceful assembly to share our
concerns and to work together for the common good.
And at this time I would also like us to put before God those
election officials across the country and especially here in
Florida who are still settling our national election.
We also put before God our local projects and communities.
May the decisions made today be for the benefit of all of us who
live and work and visit Collier County.
We ask your blessings on those who will receive special
recognitions and service awards this day, and for all those who
will present their needs and petitions before our county
commissioners.
May our commissioners make wise decisions and right
judgments as they exercise the authority we have given them, so
that they may act on our behalf. And we especially pray for
those newly elected county commissioners who will be joining
this group this month, so that they too may prepare for office and
lead us and guide us in our county.
And thank you, God, during this month that we give thanks
for all our many blessings in this country. Help us to follow our
foremothers and forefathers who have taught us how to protect,
preserve and enrich our land. And especially, let us embrace the
diversity of people who come to Collier County and call it home,
whether for a day, a season or a lifetime. Amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Just as a reminder this morning, as we
Page 2
November 14, 2000
start, any of you that have cell phones, will you make sure that
those are off so that we don't disrupt the meeting? I don't like to
bang the gavel and ask you to take those outside. So if you
would be courteous enough to make sure those are off. Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I have a --
actually an abbreviated change list this morning. We have three
items that we're going to revise from your agenda. The first is
Item 16(A}(20}. It's a staff request that that item be moved to
your regular agenda, making it Item 8(A}(13}. And it is the award
of a bid for consultant services for a consolidated plan, and that
has to do with CDBG funds.
Next item, while it shows on your list to move it, I'm going to
request that we continue that item, which is 16(A)(23), which is
an encroachment agreement with WCI Communities for
structures within a Pelican Bay Improvement District drainage
easement. We are actually in need of taking that back to the
Pelican Bay Advisory Board first, and so we're going to run that
back through the advisory board before we bring it back to you.
The last item this morning on your change list is to move
Item 16(B)(14) from your consent agenda and move it to 8(B)(1),
B as in boy. It is a resolution authorizing acquisition of land for a
Whippoorwill Lane project. And that again is at staff's request.
Mr. Chairman, that's all the changes I have this morning.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Weigel, do you have any changes for us this morning?
MR. WEIGEL: No, none, thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Wouldn't think of it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I'm going to talk about a phone
call I received about 10:00 last night, which has to do with one of
the consent agenda items. And --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What's the item?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: It's 16 --
MR. OLLIFF: (B).
Mr. Chairman, I failed to make a note of that this morning.
That was -- in fact, I talked to both you and one of the other
commissioners about that. It was -- that is an item to authorize
staff to do some landscape engineering work for the Livingston
Page 3
November 14, 2000
Road project.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: 16(B)(9).
MR. OLLIFF: Right.
I do need to make note that we are well aware that the
Naplescape group has been doing some conceptual concept type
plans for the design of that. It is our intention full well to get
with the Naplescape people and use the concepts that they have
with whichever firm that we do hire. So I want to make sure the
board understands it is not going back to -- to ground zero, but
we full well intend to use the work that's been done by
Naplescape. And we frankly expect that to save us some
significant tax money as we go along through that project.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And I'd like to make a comment
about that. I'm not suggesting that we take it off of the consent
agenda, but I do want to make a comment.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But if you're going to talk about it,
we need to move it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have to move it off the agenda --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: We've got to move it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- if you're going to talk about it.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay, let's move it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And that would go to -- what's the
number again, 167
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: 16(B)(9).
MR. OLLIFF: That would be 8(B)(2).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 8(B)(2). Formerly 16(B)(9).
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, any other changes,
Commissioner Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: No.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a note for the record of my
abstention on Item 16(B)(8). It has to do with a company that I
previously had a working relationship with. But to avoid even the
appearance of impropriety, I wanted to abstain on that vote.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, duly noted.
I have no changes.
Could we have a motion to approve the agenda --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: .- consent agenda and summary
Page 4
November 14, 2000
agenda?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- consent, summary and regular
agenda with -- as noted.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, before you take a vote on that, I
have been requested by the WCI Communities, on that item that
we were going to continue, they requested -- and it was an option
for the staff to have that heard on the regular agenda and make
it subject to the review and approval of the advisory board.
Apparently there's a timing issue with that particular item, and it
is a fairly minor drainage easement issue.
So with your indulgence, I would like to go back and move
Item 16(A)(23) to 8(A)(14). I'll let staff make a presentation on
that one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
effect.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
aye.
And I'll amend my motion to that
And same with second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, all in favor, signify by saying
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
Page 5
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEET!NG
NOVEMBER 14~ 2000
MOVE: Item 16(A)20 to 8(A)13: Award Bid fK)0-3162 "Consultant Services for
Consolidated Plan." (Staff's request.)
MOVE 16(A)23 to 8(A)14: Request to approve an Encroachment Agreement
with WCI Communities, Inc. for structures within a Pelican Bay Improvement
District drainage easement (now a Collier County drainage easement). (Staff
request.)
MOVE: Item 16(BH4 to 8(B)1: Resolution authorizing the acquisition of land for
the Whippoorwill Lane Project between Pine Ridge Road to a point one mile
south, being the intersection of the future east/west connector road connecting to
Livingston Road (Phase 1). (Staff request.)
November 14, 2000
Item #4
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2000 -
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Do we have a motion to approve the minutes from the
October 10, 2000 meeting?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So moved.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion approved.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 2000 AS "NATIONAL
EPILEPSY AWARENESS MONTH" - ADOPTED
We move now to proclamation and service awards. Number
one, Commissioner Mac'Kie, for the National Epilepsy Awareness
Month.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess I'll read this into the
record, and I understand it's to be mailed to the recipients,
unless there's someone here?
Actually, instead of reading it into the record, I will move
approval of the proclamation for National Epilepsy Awareness
Month.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 19 THROUGH
NOVEMBER 25g 2000 AS "FARM CITY WEEK" - ADOPTED
Proclamation number two, Commissioner Berry, Farm City
Week.
Page 6
November 14, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You bet you. And anybody here
that's connected with that particular project, please come
forward.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if you haven't been, you
better go.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Come right on up here in front of
the dais so everybody at home can see you. And I know we have
Lisa Priddy here. And sir, I'm not sure of your name.
MS. SANTORO: David Santee.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: David Santee with the Farm
Bureau. I should know David. Okay.
MR. SANTEE: I would also like to call up Mildred Schearer
(phonetic).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. We were hoping this is
why you were here or -- if you'd come up.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sam, you and Maria, come on up
here and stand with these people. You've been very active in
this particular area, so come on up here and stand with them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please. This is the unofficial
historian of the farm era, the founding of Immokalee.
MR. SANTEE: In conjunction with Farm City Week, we would
like to invite each and every one of you out to the Farm City
barbecue on November 22nd. That is the day before
Thanksgiving. Our luncheon will start at 11:30 at the Robert's
Ranch.
And at this time, on behalf of the 4-H, Collier County 4-H, and
the Farm City Committee, I would like to present to Lisa Priddy
for eight years of service on the committee this plaque.
(Applause.)
MR. SANTEE: And I would proudly like to present to Ms.
Mildred Schearer our first Farm City family of the year.
(Applause.)
MR. SANTEE: We hope that you guys can make it out to our
barbecue. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Now, don't leave.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Don't leave. We haven't done the
proclamation yet.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not done with you yet.
MR. SANTEE: All right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It is my privilege to read this
Page 7
November 14, 2000
proclamation. As a former Iowa farm girl, I'm always excited
about this particular time of the year down here. And those of
you that have never attended the Farm City barbecue, it is open
to the public, as David had said, and tickets are available for $12.
Some of you gentlemen, if you happen to be Rotarians,
usually you have those available at Rotary Clubs, or if you know
a Rotary Club member, you can also get the tickets from them.
So please come out. If you've never experienced it, it's a great
thing to go to and it's a lot of fun. And if you've been here a
number of years in Collier County, it's one of those things that
just becomes part of the Thanksgiving holidays. It's something
you do on Wednesday before Thanksgiving, and it's been that
way for a long time.
The proclamation reads as follows:
WHEREAS, November 19th through November 25th is
National Farm City Week, a time set aside to recognize and honor
the contributions of our country's agriculturists, and to
strengthen the bond between urban and rural citizens; and,
WHEREAS, in Collier County, the high point of Farm City
Week is the annual Farm City barbecue, sponsored through the
efforts of Collier County's University Extension Service, Collier
County Farm Bureau, the Barron Collier Companies, and the
Golden Gate, Immokalee and Naples Area Chambers of
Commerce; and,
WHEREAS, agriculture is an important element in Collier
County's economic machine, with total economic activity of over
300 million annually; and,
WHEREAS, 22 percent of Collier County is utilized for
agriculture, providing vital ecological benefits including Habitat
For Wildlife and the recharge area for our aquifer; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners support local
agriculture through programs including cooperation with the
University of Florida's Cooperative Extension Service; and,
WHEREAS, we encourage all citizens to pause, to recognize
the contributions of our local farmers and ranchers to our
economy, our food supply and our society.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that on behalf of the
citizens of Collier County, great appreciation and honor is owed
to all of this county's agriculturists, and that November 19th
Page 8
November 14, 2000
through November 25th be designated as Farm City Week.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 14th day of November, year 2000,
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James
D. Carter, Ph.D., Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.}
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And for all of you that show up at the
Farm City barbecue, I will be one of the servers.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I will be one of them.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, and so will Commissioner
Mac'Kie, so --
MR. SANTEE: I think it's time for a commercial.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, always time for --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sam, go over to the microphone.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Go over to the microphone, though,
Sam.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Go to the mike.
MR. COLDING: My name is Sam Colding, and I work for the
4-H Clubs of Collier County, the best group of children in the
world out there.
The 4-H Club is selling fresh vegetables on Wednesday at
this gathering, and it is $10 a bag for a bag of -- a grocery bag full
of fresh vegetables. We would appreciate it if when you come
there, if you'd bring an extra $10 so you can buy a bag. If you
don't want the vegetables, we'll take the $10. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 2000 AS "COLLIER
COUNTY ADOPTION MONTH" - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Commissioner Brandt, you
have a proclamation for us this morning on Collier County
Adoption Month.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. And it's
Page 9
November 14, 2000
my pleasure to read this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You've got some moms to come
up here?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: We have three people. Theresa --
I'm not going to pronounce this right. MS. IAMURRI: lamurri.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: -- lamurri, Debbie Allen and
Danielle Stewart.
MS. ERICKSON: I'm not listed, but Rosemary Erickson.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Rosemary Erickson. Okay, thank
yOLI,
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sure, come right on up here. He
knows more than anybody else.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: The proclamation reads as
follows:
WHEREAS, every child has the right to grow in a secure
loving family, and adoption is a positive way to build a family;
and,
WHEREAS, the Adoption Task Force of Southwest Florida,
Incorporated is a collaborative effort of community agencies and
individuals to create an increased awareness of adoption; and,
WHEREAS, the Adoption Task Force of Southwest Florida,
Incorporated's purpose is to provide resources and education on
the various aspects of adoption and to promote positive attitudes
toward adoption; and,
WHEREAS, adoption brings untold benefits to Collier County
residents that are affected by the adoption process. This
includes benefits to birth parents, adoptive parents and the
children placed in adoptive homes, as well as their extended
families; and,
WHEREAS, crisis pregnancy is a problem in Collier County,
and adoption is a positive option that is not always considered,
due to the lack of awareness and education.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of
November, 2000, be designated as Collier County Adoption
Month. And in honor of this event, we encourage citizens,
community agencies, religious organizations, businesses and
others to celebrate adoption and honor the families that grow
through adoption.
Page 10
November 14, 2000
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 14th day of November, 2000,
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James
D. Carter, Chairman.
Thank you. And I'd like to move that this be adopted.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're welcome.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Now we get to move to service awards, which is always a
pleasure for me to be able to recognize county employees for the
years of service. And is our kind of new system, the five-year
awards like to come together; they're a little nervous coming up
here individually. So we're going to bring the five-year award
people up together this morning.
It will be -- first of all, we have Ms. June Dunfee, five years in
domestic animal services, and Daniel Craig, five years with parks
and recreation. So if they would come forward this morning, let's
recognize them. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Turn around there and smile at TV
land, make sure they get a shot of you.
And for 10 years this morning, we have three people: Paul
Weber, EMS, 10 years; Richard Roll, 10 years in planning
services; and Teresa Riesen, 10 years in solid waste collections.
If they would come forward this morning, so we can duly
recognize them. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right, now we go to the big
winners. For 15 years, we have Jorge Aguilera, EMS.
(Applause.}
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And for the big winner, 20 years with
Collier County, we have Gregory Soto, transportation/road and
Page 11
November 14, 2000
bridge.
(Applause.)
Item #5C1
AL ARCIA, MAINTENANCE WORKER II, PARKS AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT, RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR
NOVEMBER, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And at this time we also have the
pleasure of awarding to our employee of the month, which is Mr.
Al Arcia, and Mr. Al Arcia is in our parks and recreations
department. So Al, would you step up here this morning.
Hey, he's even got -- you got support out there in the
audience this morning, Al. It's a pleasure to have you up here
this morning, Al. You have done great things for us. You
certainly have been recognized by your co-workers in receiving
this honor. We have a plaque that we'd like to present to you
this morning. It says, in honor of your exceptional performance.
And a little thing to take along, which is not all bad, is a check, if
I can find up here because I didn't abscond with it, it's for $50.
And somewhere we'll find it in the paperwork up here this
morning.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: There's Christmas coming, you
know.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Christmas coming. But anyhow let me
give you a letter, congratulations, a plaque, and we do have a
check for $50. I think David took it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: The check's in the mail.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's my last day up here, so I figure,
well, you've got to keep your eye on them.
(Applause.)
Item #5C2
INTRODUCTION OF GEORGE BRADLEY, HUMAN RESOURCES
DIRECTOR
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, as sort of an off agenda item,
but while we were covering human resources related items, I
Page 12
November 14, 2000
thought it would be a good opportunity if I had Joanne introduced
to you, just for introductions sake, our new human resources
director.
MS. LEAMER: Good morning, commissioners. Joanne
Learner, support services administrator.
And I'd like to introduce George Bradley. He joins our
management team from Flagler County. George brings 23 years
of experience in state and local government. Most recently at
Flagler. Prior to that, he was at Lee County and University of
Florida.
George has a proven track record as a great communicator,
team player, facilitator, change agent, innovative problem solver.
I'm very much looking forward to working with him to identify
and implement the necessary changes to make HR a responsive,
efficient and progressive department.
With that, I'd like to bring up George to say a few words.
MR. BRADLEY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
commissioners. George Bradley, human resources director.
It is a pleasure to be here with you this morning. I want you
to know that I consider it to be a privilege to be a member of
your Collier County team. I look forward to serving you, county
administration, the employees and citizens of Collier County.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Great. Welcome aboard.
Item #5C3
PLAQUE PRESENTED TO COMMISSIONER DAVID BRANDT IN
APPRECIATION FOR HIS SERVICE
I have a special honor this morning, and it's -- it's often -- it's
been one of those honors where you say it's nice to do it but
there's always some sadness associated with it because you
have an opportunity to work with people over a number of years
or a period of time, and you get to know them and understand
how they think and interact with us on this Board of County
Commissioners.
And whereas, the Board of County Commissioners has taken
a little heat in the last few years for some things, I'm here to
Page 13
November 14, 2000
assure you this morning that you all of us standing and sitting in
front of you this morning have tried to do our very, very best to
uphold the public trust and do the right thing for Collier County.
And at this point, we're going to have two members, this will
be their last meeting. The first is David Brandt who was
appointed by the Governor to serve District t. And during his
short period of time here, David has made a lot of very positive
contributions to the Board of County Commissioners and all of
the citizens of Collier County, as well as the district that he
represented.
So David, this morning we would like to present to you a
plaque of our grateful appreciation for what you have done for us
in the period that you have been here. And it's a plaque that has
to -- the great words of Theodore Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt,
one of my favorite people in history. And he makes this great
statement to all of us, and I think it's wise for us to listen to this
one more time as we face everything that's in front of us.
And Roosevelt said this, Teddy Roosevelt said this: It is not
the critic that counts nor the man who points out how the strong
man stumbled or whether the doer of deeds could have done
them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in
the arena, whose face is marred by dust, sweat again and again,
who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and
spends themselves in a worthy cause, who at best knows the
triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails at
least fails with daring greatly so that his place shall never be
with those cold and timid souls who knows neither victory or
defeat.
So David, it has been my pleasure to serve with you.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I thank you. Take this and hang this
along with all your other plaques.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I will do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, David.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thank you very much, Pam.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Why don't you say something right
now, David. This is your time.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay. First of all, it was a great
honor to be appointed. I'll get here on the mike.
Page 14
November 14, 2000
It was a great honor to be appointed to this position, and an
even greater honor to sit here with this collegial body that I've
heard many things about, about them individually and
collectively. And it's been a real pleasure to be a part of this
commission. And among the many opportunities that I've had
over my lifetime, this is one of the very rare ones. And I will
treasure it. It's been a great experience for me.
And I want to make a couple of comments about the staff
and the interaction with the staff and the support I've had, and
wanted to tell you also that from the very first day I came in, I
was never, never, never made to feel like an interloper. And to
me, that was just a terrific feeling and an opportunity to feel that
I could express myself and people would take me as I am. And it
seems like they have, whatever I am.
And so I also want to thank the staff for all of the tours, all
the briefings that I had. It was a steep learning curve for me, as
you know. It was announced on a Friday, my first commission
meeting was the following Tuesday, and I did spend a good long
weekend going through a whole bunch of stuff.
The breadth of things that are done in the county I'm not
sure is fully appreciated by the people in this county. There is a --
this is a big business. Now, I don't mean big in the sense of a lot
of manpower. It's a big business in the scope of work that has to
be done. And I'm not sure that the people of the county
understand that either.
But I also want to tell you that the staff that I have worked
with in all cases have been very professional, they've been very
supportive, they're high quality, and I do appreciate all the
support that I have had since I've been here, and I am going to
miss this. I will miss you.
And I thank you very much for having the courage to stick
with me, because there have been times, I'm sure, where I might
have asked a question or something that might have rankled
somebody. But I appreciate all the good help. I thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #5C4
PLAQUE PRESENTED TO COMMISSIONER BARBARA BERRY IN
RECOGNITION OF HER SERVICE TO COUNTY GOVERNMENT
Page 15
November 14, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Berry, it has been truly
a pleasure for me to be able to associate with you for just two
years. Time flies when you're having fun.
Now, I've known Don Berry many more years than I really
knew Barbara, because we served in the Rotary Club together.
But I know Barbara has served this community long in the -- on
the school board, she has served on the Collier County
Commission. And if anyone has ever doubted where Barbara
stood, you'd better go see your local doctor and have your ears
cleaned out, because you would never ever have to guess where
Barbara Berry stood on an issue. She would always tell you what
she thought. If you wrote a letter about her to the editor, she
would call you and she would talk to you about that.
She's a person that I don't think has probably ever failed to
return a phone call. No matter how much your adversarial
position might be with her, Commissioner Berry has always said I
will listen to you, I will discuss it with you.
She's certainly faced some difficult situations in her own
district, which she has always handled very, very well. And
District 5 is a huge district in term of diversity of people that live
within it. And the opp -- and the challenges that a commissioner
has in dealing with that diversity in trying to represent them, as
well as all of the citizens of Collier County.
So the plaque says the same thing. But again, Barbara, no
one would ever say that you haven't been in the arena. You have
always been there. And whether it was up or down or whatever
happened, you were never one of those timid souls on the
sideline. And I think this community has truly been blessed to
have you serve as a public servant in so many capacities. And I
personally am going to miss you on this commission, and I just
thank you and wish you the best of everything. And God speed
and God bless you. (Applause.)
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And don't tell me you're at a loss for
words now.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Never.
I've had a privilege to serve this county that most people
will never ever have. I got to serve in two different governmental
Page 16
November 14, 2000
functions on a county-wide basis. First 10 years on the Collier
County school board, starting back in 1984. And after I finished
that first four-year term, I thought I'd never do it again. And I
took a couple of year break and came back in 1990 and went
back to the Collier County school board. And then of course in
'96 came to the Board of County Commissioners.
There is no education that you could buy at any university
that would equate to serving on an elected board such as this.
It's the greatest education in the world. It's an education in
dealing with individuals, working with them, and also at the
same time trying to provide and meet the needs of the people
that you are serving.
You are blessed in Collier County. Regardless of what you
read and what you are led to believe, you are truly blessed in
Collier County to have a staff that you have here at the county.
You have some extremely fine people that are here looking after
your needs. You've got the top EMS department in the State of
Florida. And I believe nationally now?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: They've gotten that recognition.
Folks, that's important. It is very important.
We do have some problems. You're going to have problems.
We created problems when we all decided to move here. I came
here earlier than many of you. At the same time, I can't say that
I would want that time frozen in time when I arrived in Collier
County. Because there have been a lot of things that have come
because of your coming and because of my coming that we all
get to enjoy now. Yesterday we just broke ground on the ninth
library facility in Collier County. When I came here, there was
one little building.
You have so much. And as I said before, we are blessed
beyond belief, almost to the point of being spoiled in Collier
County. We are so, so fortunate. And every day you get up, you
look around and you thank your lucky stars and you thank God
that you live in this beautiful area. It's fun to go other places, it's
fun to go see what they have, but it's awfully nice to come back
home.
And I consider this my home. I've lived here longer than the
state in which I was born. I've been here now 37, 38 years. And
I truly believe that this is a great place. It's been very good for
Page17
November 14, 2000
my husband and I. We've raised our family here. I've now got
four beautiful granddaughters and another one is on the way. So
we are contributing to the population of Collier County.
At any rate, it has been my pleasure to serve you, and I
thank all of those people who have been so supportive of me.
And I actually pray for the people who have had the bitterness in
their hearts to say the things that they have said. And I pray for
them every day.
Again, thank you so much for everything you've given to us.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Like I said, this is a bittersweet
situation for me, as I'm sure it is for Commissioner Ma¢'Kie.
And what Commissioner Berry said about Collier County is
so, so true. You can go to other areas and you say boy, this is
great and you enjoy it, and then you look underneath and find out
well, I wonder what kind of county government they have, what
kind of administrative staff they have, how are their
commissioners elected. And let me tell you, it's scary.
I was recently in a place where they elect their county
manager. Now, if you don't think that can't be fraught with all
kinds of problems, believe me. I said, it may be a beautiful place,
but I'm not going to live here ever where you're in a situation like
that.
So I am pleased, as the other commissioners are, to call this
home. This is a beautiful place. We'll continue to do the best
that we possibly can to make this even a better place.
Item #8A1
PETITION ST-99-3 COASTAL ENGINEERING REPRESENTING
KEYSTONE HOMES REQUESTING A SPECIAL TREATMENT
PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS, STREETS AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE
ON A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WITH A SPECIAL TREATMENT
OVERLAY (ST PARCEL 23A) LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED
LITTLE PALM ISLAND SUBDIVISION - CONTINUED FOR 90 DAYS
So let's move on this morning to Item 8(A)(1). And we have
a petition for an ST-99-3. And I believe in this case it's
appropriate that we have everybody sworn in because of this
Page 18
November 14, 2000
situation. So all those who are going to participate in this
discussion, will you stand and be sworn, please. (All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Disclosures on the part of board?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, I've had contact with the
petitioners, representative of Keystone Homes. I've had contact
with individuals who live in the Palm River area who have
concerns regarding this project. I believe that covers the gamut.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And Mr. Chairman, I've had no
contact with the petitioners or their representatives. I do have
in my possession numerous E-Mails and letters from the
community with regard to this effort. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, I met with the petitioner and
their attorney and the builder. And I've also met with the
attorney for an organized group of opposition, that was Mr. Pires.
And I have also received numerous letters and E-Mails.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, likewise, I've met with the
petitioner, the petitioner's representative. I have met with the
homeowners' association of Palm River and their attorney, and
have received numerous letters and E-Mails in regards to this
project. And I think that probably covers all the people that I
knowingly have associated with in terms of this particular item.
Mr Bellows?
MR. REISCHL: Good morning, commissioners. Fred Reischl,
planning services.
This is a request for approval of a special treatment
development permit. The petitioner has also submitted an
application for a preliminary subdivision plat, which may be
approved administratively. However, the parcel that's the
subject of that preliminary plat contains lands with the ST,
special treatment, overlay.
The ST petition was heard by the Environmental Advisory
Council and the Planning Commission. Final approval rests with
the Board of County Commissioners.
The PSP approval by the planning services director is on
hold, pending the outcome of this ST petition before you today.
If the petition -- if this petition and the PSP are both approved,
the final plat will again be heard by the Board of County
Commissioners.
Page 19
November 14, 2000
And as you can see on the visualizer, the subject property is
bordered by Imperial Golf Estates on the north, Palm River
Estates on the south and east, and by Collier's Reserve on the
west.
This property was the subject of two petitions earlier this
year: This ST permit and a conditional use for cluster housing,
which proposed to reduce the RSF-3 lot size to a smaller cluster
sized lot. Both the Environmental Advisory Council and the
Planning Commission recommended denial to the board, and the
petitioner requests that a continuance of those two petitions
prior to them being heard by this board.
Okay, the parcel is zoned RSF-3, residential single family,
with a maximum of three dwelling units per acre. The previously
submitted conditional use for cluster housing had a density of 1.8
dwelling units per acre, 157 lots.
Today's proposed preliminary subdivision plat consists of
141 lots on 66.67 acres for a density of 1.63 dwelling units per
acre. Again, the maximum permitted is three.
The previous petition had a gopher tortoise preserve of
approximately five acres. The current petition includes over
seven acres of gopher tortoise preserve, including some better
habitat.
And for the record, although this is an ST petition, I have
received numerous comments regarding traffic in the area. And
therefore, I'd like to state for the record and for the audience
that my recommendation to the planning services director for the
preliminary plat will be that the roads in Little Palm Island
remain open to the public.
The Environmental Advisory Council voted 4-1 to approve
this petition. However, the EAC needs five votes for an action.
Therefore, there is no official action to bring before you.
However, again, the vote was 4-1 in favor. And to emphasize the
words of Council Member Carlson, he said this is a petition that
is preserving 90 percent of the wetlands, and he expressed his
desire to let you understand that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And he's the tough one to get
past on that one.
MR. REISCHL: In most cases.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward
Petition ST-99-3 to the Board of County Commissioners with a
Page 20
November 14, 2000
recommendation of approval.
And I know the petitioner has a full presentation for you.
But besides myself, Stephen Lenberger of planning services staff
is here to answer any environmental questions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any questions of staff? Yes,
Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a question.
Mr. Reischl, was there -- I had some mixed reviews on -- in
terms of the width of the roads in this particular project. Are
they a standard width for the county, or is there something here
that's a little different than --
MR. REISCHL: No, they're not a standard for a county road.
The county requires a 60-foot right-of-way. We do accept a
50-foot right-of-way for a privately maintained road. That's why I
wanted to state on the record that we support the roads being
open. These will be private roads open to the public. And that
will be reflected on the plat.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay, private roads, which has a
different designation in terms of size, but they are available for
use by the public.
MR. REISCHL: By the public, correct.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Do -- by doing this, do we put
ourselves as a county in any kind of a difficult situation or --
because the road is not the way it should be? I'm just curious. I
don't know. Legally, is that --
MR. REISCHL: I would consider that a legal question. I'm
not sure --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this really unusual, Fred, or is
this something we do?
MR. REISCHL: No, 50-foot right-of-way widths are standard
for private roads.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. Can you cite any other
community that would have that? Offhand can you think of any --
any that would have that?
MR. REISCHL: No, I can't, sorry.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Can we get -- let me see if we
can get that answered legally.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. My understanding is what is
Page 21
November 14, 2000
proposed is a road that is not built to county standards that is a
private road; in essence, an access road to properties to be
developed.
My opinion is that it is not a liability to the county in that
context. Although the county, in its hearing process, such as
right now, can admonish or indicate its concerns, et cetera, it is
not placing itself in liability in that regard.
MR. REISCHL: And again, this is a right-of-way width, not a
paved segment width.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's a right-of-way width. Are -- and
this may be answered by the petitioner. Are there sidewalks
here in this project?
MR. REISCHL: Yes, there are.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any other -- Commissioner Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yeah, I have just a simple
question. It has to do with the 50-foot right-of-way. You
indicated that it's appropriate for a private road. How about a
private road that the general public has access to, is there a
difference there?
MR. REISCHL: In terms of engineering or--
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: In terms of anything.
MR. REISCHL: Not--
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: You indicate that it's a private
road, 50 feet wide right-of-way, and that's appropriate for a
private road. My question is, since it's okay for a private road, is
it okay also for a private road that is used by the public, open to
the public?
MR. REISCHL: The -- Mr. Kant's talking in my ear.
The width of the 60-foot right-of-way is not necessarily
different in the paved segment of it. So it would have to do with
drainage that is used to be collected in the unpaved portion of
the right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Kant, is this unusual in a
subdivision?
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation operations director.
The 60 -- I'll answer your question directly, Commissioner.
But the 60-foot right-of-way requirement that's normal for a
public county road permits us not only to accommodate the
pavement and the sidewalks, but also drainage within the
Page 22
November 14, 2000
right-of-way for conveyance.
If in fact this particular subdivision -- and unfortunately I'm
not intimately familiar with it. But if in fact they are going to
accommodate the drainage, then it's entirely possible that a
50-foot right-of-way would be appropriate.
Going back to Commissioner Mac'Kie's question, we have
roads which have less than 60-foot right-of-way. Some are
private, and frankly, some are public. But under today's
standards, our minimum would be 60 feet for a public roadway.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we'll need to get the drainage
question answered.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's a question that I would -- like
you, Commissioner Mac'Kie, I want to make sure we don't set up
a flooding situation, not only within that community but will it
negatively affect other parts of the community because of that.
MR. KANT: And further it's my understanding that these
roadways will be operated and maintained by the -- some
homeowners' association of some entity other than the county. I
would defer to the county attorney with respect to whatever
potential public liability there may be if we do not have
responsibility for maintenance.
Typically where we have responsibility for maintenance, our
department is reluctant to lower the standards.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Say that again? Where we do
have responsibility for maintenance, we are reluctant?
MR. KANT: I'm reluctant to lower the standards if we are
going to be responsible for operating and maintaining the
system. If, on the other hand, there is some other entity other
than the county-- and again, I can't address the liability issues
that may arise from that. If they're public, but not publicly
maintained, that's a new concept to me.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Counselor?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
Well, I think we need to be very careful with the term public
here. Because obviously when you're talking about an access by
other than the private property owners or their invitees, what we
find is, is there will be service vehicles -- services that will from
time to time need access. That's not the public as the public
generally is considered.
And again, it's a legal issue of that private development to
Page 23
November 14, 2000
provide appropriate access for the people that would be affected
one way or the other by the ability for service providers to get
there, whether it's garbage collection or EMS or fire or police.
And the fact is, is that in all of these agencies, not county -- not
under the Board of County Commissioners, have to concern
themselves with these kinds of considerations in many
developments throughout the county. Many of them, of course,
are older developments.
But the risks are not the Board of County Commissioners,
the liability there. They fall upon the developer and the property
owners who choose to provide for that kind of access.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Counselor, how would that differ from
Pelican Bay, where people drive through that community all the
time? And I see the same thing here, what's going to stop
anyone from driving anywhere they want to in this community?
What's the difference?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, Pelican Bay roads aren't public roads, as
far as that goes, and they're built to county standard. It's not a
gated community or have any type of blockage of the public, as
well as service vehicles going through there.
In this particular case, we're really perhaps to some degree
a little bit preliminary with our discussion here in the sense that
this is a type of hearing that's not concerning with plats or
specific developments, an ST type of hearing. But I don't see
that they're identical there. I think the questions are all
appropriate, but I don't -- but the question of liability of the
county is, I don't see liability of the county at this juncture.
And again, as Mr. Kant indicated, it's very possible that the
water retention situations are being taken care of outside of the
right-of-way by the subdivision. And maybe that could be
developed a little further.
What Mr. Kant has also indicated, though, is that on behalf
of the county, the transportation would be loathe to accept
property to come under county management and responsibility if
it doesn't meet the standard that's commonly recognized.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe if we hear from the
petitioner, we can understand the question about the --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So we can understand that.
Now, Commissioner Brandt, you have a question?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yeah, I have a question with
Page 24
November 14, 2000
regard to the gopher habitat and some concerns I have about
relocating the gophers to the bonus minor quarry and the
success rate and that kind of replacement, if you will.
MR. REISCHL: I'll defer that to Stephen Lenberger of our
environmental staff.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay.
MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. For the record, Stephen
Lenberger, development services.
I don't know the habitat that they're being relocated to. It's
probably best answered by Michael Myers, the petitioner's
environmental consultant, who is here today.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, what about our expertise on the
environment?
MR. LENBERGER: We look at the quality of the habitat
on-site. We'll also look at the relocation plan when it comes in at
the time of final plat, to make sure that the habitat's suitable.
Right now, I don't know--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I'm going to tack on to
Commissioner Brandt's question. I want to know how many
existing burrows are in there and equate that to the number of
existing tortoises, and do we have the appropriate number of
acreage set aside to accommodate that population.
MR. LENBERGER: There are, I believe, 162 active and
inactive gopher tortoise burrows. I looked at the staff report. I
did not review this project, so I don't know how many tortoises
were estimated for the site. I'm sure Mike Myers can answer
that.
But in any case, the relocation would be up to a maximum of
five tortoises per acre of habitat. That's what the county would
allow by code. The rest would have to be located off-site.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask a follow-up to that?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are there -- we recently adopted
a gopher tortoise protection ordinance in Collier County. Is there
anything -- are there any exceptions to that ordinance in what
the petitioner is proposing?
MR. LENBERGER: No. The petitioner is proposing to
relocate tortoises on-site, as well as off-site.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And they're in compliance with
our new regulation?
Page 25
November 14, 2000
MR. LENBERGER: Yes, they are.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I wanted to hear.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm not saying I'm totally comfortable
with that in total, but I will move on and let -- I think it's time to
hear from the petitioner.
MR. PEEPLES: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Perry Peeples. I'm attorney with the Annis-Mitchell law firm,
here on behalf of the petitioner. Also here is Paula Davis,
president of Keystone Custom Homes, the petitioner. We have
Dave Farmer, the project engineer, and Mike Myers, the
environmental consultant on the project.
We will address all the issues that have been raised. I will
let Mr. Farmer address the issues regarding right-of-way,
pavement width, sidewalks and drainage. I will let Mr. Myers
address the issues with regard to gopher tortoises and
compliance with not only the county ordinance but also with
state and the regulatory agencies.
To begin with, I would like to give you a little background on
this project. We've been at this on this particular piece of
property for about a year and a half. As Mr. Reischl indicated, we
initially came in looking for a conditional use. We wanted to try
to place 50-foot lots on a portion of this property in order to gain
a certain density.
The property is zoned RSF-3, has been for some 30 years.
That zoning would permit approximately 250 units on the
property. We came in with a plan for a conditional use that
would have approximately 157 units. However, due to resistance
from the adjoining property owners, as well as concerns from the
EAC and planning commission, we have eliminated the clustering
element and eliminated the 50-foot lots. So we are coming in for
a straight plat here.
And the reason we're here today is because a portion of this
property is subject to the ST overlay.
Mike, if you could pass that out?
Mike's passing out an aerial that shows you the location of
the property. But to get a feel for it, this property is in the back
corner of the Palm River subdivision. To the north of this property
is Imperial Golf Estates. To the west of this property is the
Collier's Reserve subdivision. And to the south and east of the
property is Palm River Estates.
Page 26
November 14, 2000
So as you can see, this is what I would call the hole in the
donut. This is the last piece of residential property in that area.
All of the property surrounding this 87-acre piece has been
developed in single and multi-family projects. To the north in
Imperial there's golf course, as well as condominiums. To the
south and east, there's Palm River, which has both single-family
and multi-family. And then as I said, to the west is Collier's
Reserve, which has strictly single family.
Now, we have worked extensively with staff going from our
prior project to what's before you today. We have received all
the staff approvals. We worked -- since this is an ST permit,
we've worked very extensively with Barbara Burgeson. I'm sorry
she can't be here today. But we worked very extensively with
Ms. Burgeson to make this project something that staff could
recommend approval for.
So, you know, when we appeared before the EAC, we did
receive a favorable vote in a 4-1 vote. We also received a
unanimous vote of approval from the planning commission on our
new plan.
What we're looking at is really just the final phase of Palm
River. We gain access to the property through Palm River, public
roads, at two different points. We did explore the possibility of
gaining access to this piece through some other means. There is
no other means of access. It is a landlocked piece. When those
roads were built in Palm River, they were built for the purpose of
serving this piece, as well as the rest of Palm River. We have the
roads, water and sewer stubbed out to the edge of this property.
And we've looked at site plans that go back 30, :35 years
that show this incorporated as a loop at the back end of Palm
River. We will use the existing roads. And those are the same
roads that have been used for building all of the other houses
that exist today in Palm River.
Since this is residential infill, we feel like this is a very
suitable site for development. I know that each of you have
struggled in the past with questions regarding sprawl in Collier
County, with questions regarding the urban boundary in Collier
County. And we have found a piece of property that, as we say,
is infill, completely surrounded and suitable for this type of
project.
We've had a little hard time working with this particular
Page 27
November 14, 2000
piece because we've got wetlands on this piece of property, and
we have uplands with gopher tortoises on this piece of property.
The wetlands, once upon a time we believe were a larger piece.
There's a 20-acre ST overlay overlaying the property.
If you look at the photo, the black-and-white photo that's
been colored, you see in the top right-hand corner a box. That is
the existing ST overlay zoning. And within that, the wetlands
comprise approximately 10 acres of wetlands within the ST.
So within that ST area, you see the orange shaded area,
that's the wetlands that will -- we propose that will remain. And if
you see the small piece of blue shaded area, that's
approximately one acre of wetlands that we propose to impact.
And that's again why we're here today.
In addition to eliminating the 50-foot lots from our prior plan,
we have reduced the density from the 251 permitted lots to 157
lots in our prior plan to the current plan which is 141 lots.
We also moved the road, in response to homeowners'
complaints. There was a road on our prior plan that ran behind
the existing Palm River lots. Palm River residents objected to
that. They were worried about double frontage. We eliminated
that road, costing us some lots. We added some retained native
vegetation into this new plan, costing us some lots.
There was a recreational center originally in our plan that
came forward last year, and we've eliminated that rec center in
our current plan in order to keep the lots at what we consider the
bare minimum here.
There was an off-site sales center that we had proposed to
place on Immokalee Road at the front of Palm River in efforts to
keep traffic out of Palm River and increase visibility for us. The
homeowners' association has objected to that, so we have
eliminated that sales center at the front of Palm River.
One final thing, we did add access to Cypress Way East. Our
initial plan did not have access to Cypress Way East. So what
we've tried to do is address each and every of the issues raised
by the homeowners. The one issue that each of you are aware of
that we've not been able to address, we still need to go through
Palm River in order to get to this piece of property. There's no
other access to the piece.
Now, I'd like to remind you, this is a straight plat. We're
really here today, we're talking about ST issues, the
Page 28
November 14, 2000
environmental issues dealing with that ST block up in the corner
of the property. It's 20 acres. Jurisdictional wetlands is 10
acres. Those wetlands have been very degraded. Mr. Myers is
going to talk a little bit about the status of those wetlands as
they relate to the ST.
The hydrology has changed over the years. The lakes have
been dredged. There's a canal to the north that has been dug to
drain, and that has effected the hydrology in the area.
In exchange for impacting that one acre of wetlands, we are
proposing to mitigate by creating this four-acre gopher tortoise
preserve shown in green, which is the prime gopher tortoise
habitat. We worked very extensively with Ms. Burgeson on the
location, size and arrangement of that. We initially came in with
a plan that did not have that, and we were caught by the gopher
tortoise ordinance, the county's ordinance.
So we complied with the new ordinance, and have created
on-site, prime habitat preservation, in addition to the wetlands
preservation. And again, we propose to mitigate for that one
acre of wetlands impact by enhanced plantings through the
wetlands, through the gopher tortoise preserves, and by
maintaining the prime habitat on-site.
We do have our federal and state permits to impact that one
acre, and they've also accepted the mitigation -- both Army Corps
and South Florida Water Management District have fully
permitted the impact and accepted the mitigation that we have
proposed.
I would like to read a couple of comments into the record.
These are comments that were in -- I'm going to read from staff's
report to the EAC. I notice in the report to you, they kind of cut it
short and cited other things.
In dealing with the Collier County Growth Management Plan,
specifically the conservation and coastal management element, I
think it's important to note that -- and this is reading from staff
report. Objective 6.2 states: There shall be no unacceptable net
loss of viable naturally functioning marine and fresh water
wetlands, excluding transitional zoned wetlands which are
addressed in Objective 6.3.
We think that what we're talking about is an acceptable net
loss. And in addition to that, we feel that the one acre that's
being impacted is a transitional wetlands. It is a very poor
Page 29
November 14, 2000
quality wetlands.
6.3 goes on to state that a portion of the viable naturally
functioning transitional zoned wetlands shall be preserved in any
new non-agricultural development, unless otherwise mitigated
through the DEP and the Corps of Engineer permitting process
and approved by the county.
Well, we're not lust saving a portion of the viable transitional
wetlands, we're saving nine out of the 10 acres of the wetlands.
And we have received the mitigation acceptance through DEP
and Army Corps.
The Goal 6 of the Growth Management Plan protects gopher
tortoise population by providing appropriate habitat on-site and
off-site to try to ensure the survival of the gopher tortoise
population. We are in fact providing both on-site and off-site. We
are using a mix of the preservation in order to maximize the use
of the property, and at the same time hopefully maximize the
survivability on-site of the gopher tortoises.
The -- with regard to the ST ordinance, county staff has in
here the purpose of the ST ordinance. And it states: The purpose
of the overlay district regulation is to assure the preservation
and maintenance of these environmental and cultural resources
and to encourage the preservation of the intricate ecological
relationships within the systems, and at the same time permit
those types of development which will hold damage to the levels
determined acceptable by the Board of County Commissioners at
the public hearing.
That's what we're proposing to do, to preserve nine out of
the 10 acres of wetland ST, but at the same time permit
development as you deem acceptable.
The gopher tortoise ordinance recently adopted calls for
on-site and off-site preserve. Again, if we could keep all of the
gophers on-site and make this a viable site, I think we would do
that. At one point we had intended to move all of the gopher
tortoises off-site. Unfortunately, or maybe not unfortunately, we
weren't able to do that because of a new ordinance. And again,
we've taken four acres of prime habitat out of the development
mix and keep the gopher tortoises on that.
Mr. Reischl alluded to the comments by Ed Carlson, and I'm
lust going to briefly read what Mr. Carlson said, because I think
it's important. I think all of you know Mr. Carlson. I think you
Page 30
November 14, 2000
know that he's a staunch environmentalist. He has never really
been a friend to development.
I'm reading from the minutes of the September 6th, 2000
Environmental Advisory Council meeting. And Chairman Cornell
asked for a motion on our particular project. Mr. Carlson stated:
"Well, I would like to just say that even though I'm going to incur
the wrath of my colleagues -- he was speaking about the
environmentalists in the audience -- I think I do understand this
project very well. I think it is vastly improved from what came
before us initially with an Incidental Take -- we had come in with
an Incidental Take permit initially -- which would have
guaranteed massive mortality. We now, because of primarily the
initial response of this project, we have a new gopher tortoise
management ordinance in this county. Maybe it's not perfect,
maybe not everybody here agrees with it and I'm sure they don't,
but at least it's progress and we can continue to work on it,
continue to approve it. I like a project that saves 90 percent of
the wetlands on-site. If we could hold that up as a standard for
every project that came before us, I think we'd be doing a great
job in this county. I wish we had a county lands acquisition
program, and I think that this would scale out so high we would
probably have no problem reaching agreement with the owner in
compensating him fairly in buying this for a park. But we don't.
We don't. And I think it's a lesson we can learn from this project.
If we want to save these places, then we need to have some
sort of acquisition program for them, and we need everybody
who wants to save this, including me, needs to work harder for
that."
I feel like we have done on the ST issue everything that we
can do to preserve the gopher tortoises on-site and off-site and
to preserve the wetlands.
I know you have specific questions. If you have questions
for me, I'm going to obviously be available. At this time I would
like to have Mr. Myers, since this is an ST hearing, to discuss
specifically the ST issues, and then we are available to discuss
the --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Before you go to that --
MR. PEEPLES: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- just a couple of things for public
record. How many times have you met with the Palm River
Page 31
November 14, 2000
Homeowners' Association?
MR. PEEPLES: We met with the association, the board of
directors, on September 2nd of last year. We met once.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Once. Have you ever made this
presentation to them that you're making to the Board of County
Commissioners this morning?
MR. PEEPLES: We've made - to the full association, no. We
have made this same presentation, this is the third time now
obviously, on this version of the project, and they have been very
well represented at each of the previous hearings.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But you did not specifically go to their
board or to their homeowners' association and make this
presentation?
MR. PEEPLES: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. MYERS: Good morning. My name's Mike Myers. I'm
vice president of and a senior ecologist with Passarella and
Associates in Fort Myers, Florida.
What I'd like to do is give a brief presentation on the ST
overlay development request, as well as the gopher tortoise plan
for Little Palm Island.
This is the same presentation that has been given before the
EAC and the planning commission. And I have a short outline
that I'd like to pass out so that you can follow along.
Is this on? Can everybody hear?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
MR. MYERS: The ST overlay development request area is a
small area. It's located at the very northern edge of the
proposed wetland preserve area. The ST overlay impact area is
.89 acres, and it does represent less than 10 percent of the
overall wetland area.
The proposed area to be impacted has been reviewed by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as well as the South Florida Water
Management District in the field. Pursuant to that, those on-site
meetings, they have agreed to -- they have approved the
impacting of this area. And by that I mean it has been permitted.
We do have permits in hand.
In part the reason it has been permitted is because the area
is highly degraded. It's degraded for a couple of reasons. First,
it's heavily invaded with exotics that include melaleuca, Old
Page 32
November 14, 2000
World Climbing Fern and a number of others.
Secondly and more important, it's degraded because of
severe lack of hydrology. The area doesn't have water.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What would you attribute that to?
MR. MYERS: Primarily, probably the canal to the north.
In your pamphlet, on Page 2, if you'd take a look at photos
one and three, what you'll see is my Jeep. And what it is, it's
parked in the center of the proposed impact area, about in this
location here. And --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Show the location again. I'm
sorry?
MR. MYERS: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where is this photograph?
MR. MYERS: It's about right here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Within the blue?
MR. MYERS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. MYERS: It's within the area we're proposing to impact.
The photo dates on these pictures are September 2nd and
October 2nd of this year, which are well into the rainy season
here in Southwest Florida. And it's been my experience, with
particularly cypress wetlands, which is what this is, this is
historically a cypress area, by this time of the year, generally
you're ankle deep in water. And so the thing I find striking about
these photographs is, where's the water? The ground was bone
dry when I was out there on those days.
So to get a better idea of where the water table might be, I
dug a soil pit. So in photo two, in the upper right-hand corner,
what you see is the blade of a shovel, and the top of the shovel is
resting even with about the ground elevation of the wetland. And
the blade of the shovel itself is 13 inches long. And at the base
of the blade, you'll see in the bottom of the pit standing water.
So on September 2nd, well into the rainy season, the water
table in this area was over a foot below the ground elevation in
the wetland.
On October 2nd, I went back out, 30 days later, and now the
water table was about 18 inches below or about a foot and a half
below the ground elevation. So to people in our industry, that's a
pretty good indication this area has a serious water problem.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You mean lack of or --
Page 33
November 14, 2000
MR. MYERS: Lack of hydrology, yes.
Nonetheless, compensation is being proposed for impacts to
this area. It includes the creation of this 3.8-acre gopher tortoise
preserve, which I'll talk about a little more in detail in a minute,
creation and enhancement of two additional preserves; one
located north of the canal, another located at the southwest
corner of the preserved wetland. And also, the removal of
exotics from all the retained native vegetation areas.
Now, we understand that is a condition per Collier County
anyway, but this was something that was deemed as acceptable
mitigation by the Corps and the District to clean up the exotics in
these areas, because the quality of this is so poor.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I could just be sure I get this
straight. In order to get a permit from the Army Corps and the
DEP, or the Water Management District, what agencies do you
have permits from?
MR. MYERS: Yeah, we've gotten permits from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management
District.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you won't -- the mitigation
that they required was to improve the -- remove the exotics,
basically, and the 90 percent that you're retaining. MR. MYERS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What about the DEP, they did not have
to be consulted on this?
MR. MYERS: No, this is single-family subdivision. It falls
under the jurisdiction of the Water Management District.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. MYERS: What I'd like to do next is move on and quickly
try to summarize the gopher tortoise plan that we have for Little
Palm Island.
We are in the process of obtaining a Florida Wildlife
Conservation Commission Gopher Tortoise Relocation Permit for
this project. As Perry pointed out, early on we had applied for an
Incidental Take, and after the EA -- the first EAC meeting and
planning commission meeting, it was made abundantly clear that
they didn't like that plan.
So we went back to the drawing board. We withdraw our
application from the commission for the Incidental Take, and we
reapplied for a gopher tortoise relocation permit. And we are in
Page 34
November 14, 2000
that process now. And what that calls for is the on-site
preservation and relocation of gopher tortoises, as well as some
off-site relocation for gopher tortoises.
Now, for the on-site preservation and relocation, we're
establishing a 3.8-acre gopher tortoise preserve, which is
located right here. Now, that preserve is located in the highest
quality scrubby flatwoods habitat on the site. If you take a look
at Page 3 in your handout, that's a photograph that was taken
within the proposed preservation area. And in the center of the
photograph, you'll see a white sandy mound. That is an active
gopher tortoise burrow.
And I apologize, you probably can't see, but there are a
number of red numbers located with -- on this map. And what
those represent are all active and inactive burrows that are
located within this proposed preserve. So if you get a chance
and look at this later, you can see there are quite a number and
so it represents -- this preserve some of the highest quality
habitat on the site.
Second --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Excuse me. What would be your
guesstimate of the number of tortoises that are in this area now,
based on your burrow count and et cetera?
MR. MYERS: You're probably looking at about three or four
gopher tortoises in this area now. That area will be resurveyed
at the time or in the -- on-site to excavate the other burrows. So
we'll have a --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let me ask it another way. Of all the
burrows that are on this property now, how many tortoises would
you guess exist in this habitat?
MR. MYERS: In the preserve area?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The whole area.
MR. MYERS: 61, we've estimated.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And you're setting aside enough land
to accommodate how many?
MR. MYERS: We'd like to accommodate up to 17.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the rest of them will go
where?
MR. MYERS: We've -- what we have done is we've looked at
a number of sites around Collier and Lee County, and we think
we've located two good recipient sites. One is Willough Run
Page 35
November 14, 2000
Quarry, located down off 951 near Rattlesnake Hammock Road.
And the other, if it's needed, is an area called Persimmon Ridge
in Lee County.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry I'm ignorant at this, but
I'd rather end that at this moment by asking my question. Is this
a permanent relocation, or do you move them during
construction and then move them back?
MR. MYERS: It's a combination of the two, okay? What we'd
be looking to do is take up to 17 tortoises and relocate -- there'd
be a total of eight to nine in this area, six in this area, and two
would be relocated into this area for a total of approximately 17.
If you take 61 minus 17, that leaves a balance of about 44
tortoises that are going to be relo -- or located within the
development envelope of the project.
So the petitioner, what they're going to do is they're going to
go out and dig up every active and inactive gopher tortoise
burrow, move the tortoise out of harm's way, and then those
tortoises would be relocated to quality habitat off-site.
And I know you had mentioned your concerns about Willow
Run Quarry, and we all have the same concerns. There's a very
extensive permitting process we've got to go to -- or go through
prior to getting our relocation permit. And one of the things is
the commission naturally is going to look at the recipient sites
where we're proposing to put the tortoises. So it has to have
their blessing, you know, in order for them to issue the
relocation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who is that? What agency is
that?
MR. MYERS: Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is the old Fish and
Wildlife?
MR. MYERS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And what if they say no?
MR. MYERS: Well, then we're back to the drawing board.
We have -- preliminarily, we have submitted our application
to Joe Bozzo, which is the local FWCC agent, and he hasn't seen
any problem with it. We also have a letter from the commission
that Maureen Bonness obtained from Willow Run Quarry that
preliminarily they agreed that they would accept this area as a
recipient site.
Page 36
November 14, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Can you take them out of county?
MR. MYERS: Yes, you can. You can move the tortoises up
to 50 miles north or south in any direction east or west.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Brandt, you had a
question?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yeah. With regard to the 17 that
will be in the 3.8 acres, how do you keep them there? How do
you preserve them? How do you make sure that they're going to
survive in that environment and propagate, if they do?
MR. MYERS: Well, there are no guarantees, unfortunately.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Uh-huh.
MR. MYERS: To keep them in -- well, there are no
guarantees now that they're going to survive. But to keep them
in that area, a fence would be located around this area. Right
now there is some cross traffic from Collier's Reserve, which is
kind of the reason that this was located over on this side of the
site. The county expressed interest in seeing that some of that
cross traffic be maintained so that these tortoises can walk over
to these preserve areas, and vice versa.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: One of my concerns is that if left
undisturbed, the tortoises might survive a good long while.
We -- I am -- I want to do one other thing. I am not an
environmentalist or otherwise activist. I am concerned about
habitat. I am concerned about wildlife. I am not, not an activist.
But I am very concerned about what we do to the wildlife and
the creatures that we have here in Collier County. And that's the
reason I continue to pursue this issue.
And while we can't guarantee mortality or the lack thereof, I
am very concerned that we protect these species to the degree
we can do that. And so I will continue to be concerned about
that issue.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I know Commissioner Mac'Kie has a
question, but partially to maybe answer part of your concern,
Commissioner Brandt, I asked the petitioner yesterday what if
you had to preserve that entire area? And they will tell you, at
the bottom of that pinkish color, there's about 10 lots that have a
value of somewhere of 95,000 each, you're talking a
million-something, if I remember correctly, that it would take to
preserve that total area. So if that gives you some perspective
on the amount of land that could then be set aside, that's where
Page 37
November 14, 2000
they are.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: But my concern is not that. And
the value of those lots is not my concern at all.
MR. MYERS: I appreciate what you're saying, really. One
thing I might add, here in Collier County the density rate that's
allowed for preserves is five tortoises per acre. And I might add,
in our preserve areas, we're going to be maintaining anywhere
from two to not more than three tortoises per acre. So we're
below your very own thresholds that are set here in Collier
County. So each tortoise is going to have more land than --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just to say as succinctly as I
can, I am an environmentalist, and I am anxious to preserve the
habitat that's necessary for the gopher tortoise for a lot of
reasons. However, at the same time, guys, we have to be careful
that we don't take people's property without compensation. And
in this case, they are more than complying with our regulations.
And in fact, our environmental policy advisors, who are the EAC,
and even Ed Carlson, who's the toughest guy in the world to get
by, says we wish we could make every project as good as this
one environmentally.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I heard that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So as an environmentalist, I'm
happy with this project. I plan -- I hope that we do get stricter
with the gopher tortoise ordinance. But at this moment in time
they are more than complying with what we require. And if
they'd been here a year ago, we didn't require anything. So we
are -- this is a project that's going in the right direction
environmentally.
MR. REISCHL: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I think I can
elaborate a little more on Commissioner Brandt's answer-- on
our answer to Commissioner Brandt, excuse me.
Prior to the final plat approval, a gopher tortoise
management plan will have to be submitted and approved, and
that then becomes enforceable by code enforcement
department. So there will be muscle behind. Not just here's the
area they have to live in, but there will be stipulations in that
management plan and enforceable by code enforcement.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to suggest you allow
the petitioner to go ahead and finish his presentation. You do
Page 38
November 14, 2000
have almost a dozen registered speakers on this item.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think we ought to give our court
reporter a break.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah, if he can quickly finish up and
then we'll take a morning break. MR. MYERS: I am finished.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Mr. Peeples, do you have a
quick question, then I'm going to give our court reporter a --
MR. PEEPLES: No question, actually. But you had raised
questions with regard to drainage and the roads. Dave Farmer,
who is the engineer on the project, is here to answer those.
We'll keep it real quick and just answer your questions.
MR. FARMER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is David Farmer. I represent the applicant,
Keystone Custom Homes. I am the engineer for the project.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you could speak up a little, I'm
having trouble hearing you.
MR. FARMER: Okay. The right-of-ways in Little Palm Island
were designed to be 50 feet wide, because of the overwhelming
environmental constraints on the project. However, the roads
within the project are built to full county standards. That is,
12-foot paved lanes with valley gutter on either side.
And as Mr. Kant indicated, there is also drainage subsurface
that is in pipes with catch basins in the right-of-way and in the
back of lots to accommodate all of the on-site drainage.
In addition, just to add to that, we've provided a separate
drainage system to intercept the off-site water that is adjacent
to the project and bypass that and run it to the north and give
Palm River, at least the area around us, a positive outfall which
they do not have at this point in time.
I just offer that. If you have any quick questions, I'm glad to
answer them.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is this -- and I don't want to prolong
this, but you are saying you're going to improve the outfall from
Palm River?
MR. FARMER: Yes, sir, we will.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
All right, let's take 10 minutes and we'll be back at 10:40.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Back in session. Please take your
Page 39
November 14, 2000
seats, ladies and gentlemen. Back in session. Thank you very
much.
Before we go to public speakers, Mr. Reischl, you wanted to
put a diagram up on the visualizer.
MR. REISCHL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the visualizer,
please.
The homeowners have asked me lust to clarify a little bit
about the ST. What you see in yellow are the surveyed lines,
which are the extent of the ST overlay. The gray and pink in the
middle is the extent of the wetland. So as you can see, the ST
includes more than just the wetland. It also includes some
upland. The proposed impacts to the wetlands lust include the
pink.
Just to clarify that for everyone so everyone knows that we
-- the permit is for the entire yellow area, but the wetlands just
include those 10 acres. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, if you're ready for public
speakers?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir, let's go to public speakers.
Each one has five minutes max at the microphone. If you have
someone that represents more than one of you, that's fine also.
MR. OLLIFF: I'm going to go ahead and call two speakers at
a time. So if you're the second speaker, if you could just be
prepared and maybe stand here and wait. The first speaker will
be Anthony Pires, followed by Jean Belt.
MR. PIRES: Members of the board, Anthony Pires, law firm
of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo. If l may, I hope that you don't
mind if I use this part. I represent some of the property owners
in the Palm River Homeowners' Association who have some
concerns with regards to this project.
With regards to the wetlands line and where the gopher
tortoises are referred to -- extensive discussion along those
lines, this is a document that was submitted as part of the
environmental impact statement, I believe, by Mr. Myers with
this application. I've highlighted in yellow what is indicated on
here as being a surveyed wetland line, a wetland line which has
been flagged in the field and verified by South Florida staff.
That wetland line seems to be a bit larger than the wetland
line that was just shown on another graph with the gray. This
seems to intrude into those lots. I believe they're lots 95 through
Page 40
November 14, 2000
98. This was done by Passarella & Associates.
Additionally, what I also think is illustrative by virtue of this
particular document is the location of the gopher tortoise
burrows, whether active or inactive. As I understand, the
preserve area in the southwestern portion of the project is
located generally in this area. This is a drainage ditch located
generally in here.
This conveniently, even though it does abut the area of
Collier's Reserve where there's an existing gopher tortoise
preserve, appears to be the area where there are few gopher
tortoises at the present time. So a larger number of them have
to be relocated into this area from the other numerous burrows
that you can see scattered throughout and concentrated in other
areas of the site.
As indicated, this is a survey that's dated -- it was surveyed
March 25th, 1999. This was submitted as part of the conditional
use application. I don't have a more current one. But it indicates
a wetland line that does intrude into the five lots -- or four lots
that they wish to have ST approval, which is greater than the
area shown in gray by Mr. Reischl lust a moment ago.
What I also find interesting is that I think Mr. Peeples
indicated that with regards to this particular area, that they have
seven acres of prime gopher habitat preserve, but yet Mr. Myers
indicated three acres of the property that's proposed for gopher
tortoise preserve. It is -- there's not a tortoise on it to this day,
as I'm aware of. This is the three acres up in this area that
they're proposing to try to enhance, as the term is utilized; that
is, plant vegetation, hope the vegetation takes, put the gophers
there, hope they take, hope they eat the vegetation, hope they
populate and stay in that area. Lots of hopes. I wish them luck.
But this area, there's not a gopher tortoise indicated or
gopher tortoise burrow, active or inactive, indicated on Mr.
Myers' survey for that particular area. So I wouldn't qualify that.
I'm not an expert, but it does not appear to be prime gopher
tortoise habitat. I think they're trying to make it that way.
In addition, with regards to that particular area, I think that
Mr. Myers -- the EAC indicated that with regards to this area, he
was hoping it would work. At Page 38 of the EAC transcript he
said it is somewhat of an experiment, yes. You know, this isn't a
sure thing that may or may not work.
Page 41
November 14, 2000
So lust to shed a little -- throw a little cold water on that
optimism with regards to that area all being viable gopher
tortoise habitat.
And in this area, I know that the -- there may be issues
raised by the residents with regards to other issues such as
transportation and traffic. And while this is an ST petition, in
essence what they -- they, the petitioners -- are asking for is for
this board to approve a site alteration plan to allow them to go
forward. And I think that the board can give direction to the staff
as to how to handle the PSP and the platting process and any
administrative reviews with regards to ingress, egress, traffic
calming and the like.
This project is unlike others where you may have a
subdivision at the tail end of an existing established residential --
stable residential community. In order to engage in the
improvement activities in this area, massive amounts of heavy
equipment are going to need to be mobilized. It's not like if you
had an existing platted infrastructure, developed 144-acre lot
community, where you would have incremental development,
two, three, four, five houses at a time. Here you have a massive
mobilization and staging of equipment on substandard roads.
They're county roads, but they're still substandard in a lot of
respects with 18-foot paved surfaces in some areas.
So I think that a sense of this board, I think, would be
appropriate, and I think you'll hear that concern from the
community to direct staff to establish the staging requirements,
mobilization requirements, timing requirements for any of the
infrastructure activities that will occur on this -- in this
development.
And with regards to the proposed resolution, there are a
couple paragraphs that we have concern with. Paragraph 6 says
a gopher tortoise relocation/management plan shall be submitted
for review and approval at the time of site development plan SDP
for construction plan submittal. I think the sense of this board is
and I think the board would appropriately require that now, not to
have that later on.
If I can have lust one or two more minutes, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Just finish up, please.
MR. PIRES: Furthermore, the -- paragraph eight provides a
great loophole in the resolution. It says minor revisions to
Page 42
November 14, 2000
special treatment development permit ST-99-3 may be approved
in writing by the planning services director, as long as they do
not cause any greater impacts to the protected redefined
wetlands. So they can come in, have a lot of changes at the staff
level without ever coming back to this board.
We ask that this board not approve the petition as provided.
Also, questioning why the retained native vegetation is less now
than there was under the old plan. And also why the three-acre
gopher tortoise preserve in the southwest area is also
designated on a plan as a drainage easement. I thought gopher
tortoise was supposed to be upland sandy soils. It's designated
on the plan as a drainage easement also, which seems to be
contradictory and in conflict.
We ask that it not be approved. If approved, eliminate the
five lots that they request up in the northern area. And also
require greater quality gopher tortoise habitat and not three
acres to the north of the canal. Thank you very kindly.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Jean Belt, followed by John
Belt.
MRS. BELT: My name is Jean Belt, and I am president of the
Palm River Homeowners' Association.
It sounds like in all the meetings that I have been to, we
have appeared to be fussing about this development. We're
really not fussing about the development. That's fine. Whatever
they want to build there, as long as it is within our area also. In
other words, we did ask and they did decide that they made their
lots wider to conform to our 80-foot lots. And we're very happy
about that.
My concern -- very definitely my concern is traffic and the
size of the roads. We have here on -- if you will notice, there is a
picture of two trucks, and they're -- both of them are going on the
grass on each side. Now, if we have -- and -- and this -- I don't
know whether you can actually see that very well or not. But
now that is -- at that point the street is 17 feet, 10 inches wide.
And that would be the -- one of the entrances into their
development.
Now, on those streets we're going to have concrete trucks,
we're going to have many heavy equipment, and we're having
buses going into the development. We can't -- we don't know
how to widen our streets is what we don't know how to do. They
Page 43
November 14, 2000
are -- they're Collier County streets. But they are not wide
enough for two trucks to pass each other, basically, without
going up on the lawn.
And we have big trucks coming in twice a week because of
the pickup of garbage. We have -- in addition to this, we do not
have sidewalks, but we do have children and seniors and all ages
that are on those streets. And unless we can have a time set
aside so that the kids who are standing on the corner waiting for
the school buses, getting off the buses to have to walk, there
needs to be time, some kind of a time schedule.
I know this doesn't sound like it has anything to do with
Little Palm Island, but it certainly does have a definite, definite
bearing as far as we're concerned. And that is -- I get more calls
about that than anything else, is safety. And that's what we
don't have right now.
I did bring these pictures. I wanted you to see even the
garbage truck goes down the middle of the street. But then at
that point, of course, they can't even go around. They have to
back up and back out of Cypress Way East. So that's not so good
either.
But other than that, I thank you very kindly. I would
certainly hope that these are things that you would consider and
understand what we are trying to accomplish also.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I appreciate your comments, but
just wanted to take the opportunity to say to you that I wish that
on behalf of your neighborhood that you guys would consider
forming an MSTU, which is a special taxing district that would
allow you to require everybody in the area to pay their fair share
of widening your roads and putting in some sidewalks. You have
such a wonderful family neighborhood there, that if it were being
built today would be required to put in, as this one is, sidewalks.
If there's anything that I could do to help facilitate or to urge
you or to, you know, talk about it or I'm sure there are county
staffers who would come and talk to your association about how
you would be able to sort of retrofit that into your existing
neighborhood. I think that's one of the most important things
that could come from that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie, at their last
meeting that was brought forward, and I have already sent a
Page 44
November 14, 2000
memorandum down to Norman Feder to work with the
community on that particular issue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You guys could just beautify and
solve your safety problems.
MRS. BELT: Fine, but in the meantime we have to have
these trucks, these heavy trucks, going down. And they start out
at 6:00 in the morning, 6:30 in the morning, and they're running
all day.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Thank you, Jean.
Now, it was my understanding that this presentation that we
heard this morning was never made to your homeowners'
association?
MRS. BELT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Did you ever request them or did they
come to you and offer to make it?
MRS. BELT: They came to us, I believe it was early in a -- as
Mr. Peeples said, about a year and a half ago. And there were, I
think, four out of the directors that could go to the meeting in his
-- I believe it was his office. And that was when we saw the first
-- first time that we had seen this. And we knew that they were
planning on selling that property. We've known that for some
time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
then?
MRS. BELT: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
MRS. BELT: No, sir.
But there's been no contact since
Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is John Belt, followed by Charles
Healy.
MR. BELT: For the record, I'm John Belt. I'm also treasurer
of Palm River Homeowners. And the lovely lady ahead of me is
my wife of 52 years and I'm proud to have her around.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Congratulations.
MR. BELT: Thank you.
You've heard some talk today about the -- Mr. Carlson
speaking about a 10 percent impact. I think that if you look at
this overlay, the impact is a lot more than 10 percent. And this
was never brought up in all the times they had before the hearing
of the environmentalist commission and the planning board.
They only showed the little -- little revised wetlands and five, six
Page 45
November 14, 2000
lots up there.
If you go back to the first hearing they had before the
environmentalist board, the county staff recommended that
these six lots be eliminated, because it is an impact upon an
area much less than it was.
That same attention and recommendation was made to the
second hearing -- the first hearing of the planning board. That
was when they were having cluster homes.
Now they withdrew their cluster homes, they've came in
with this, and they convinced the staff that because they're
putting in 3.8 acres of good tortoise turtle (sic} area, that that
should be mitigation and they should have the six lots in there on
the wetlands. In my mind, that's mixing apples and oranges,
because the wetlands need be looked at themselves.
They went out and surveyed it during dry time. They got the
other people to go along with it. The county board -- county
staff, as I understand it, agreed with their survey, cutting it down
to 10 point acres. Now they come in and they want to take six
more lots in the area that they've asked you to cut down.
You were authorizing, when you approved what they're
recommending, eliminating 30 -- impacting 30 acres -- 30 lots up
there that you're allowing them to put in the current overlay.
Now, I agree that the current overlay is probably not proper. But
they don't emphasize that. They're talking only about those six
lots. Well, those six lots is over current wetlands that they
reduced down by the survey of the man himself.
I do understand also that they came out, and he showed you
some pictures of the areas out there. This has been a very dry
summer in Collier County, and the water level is (sic} not been
high all the way along. So it emphasis (sic) that he says this is
dry land. This is a peculiar time to do it. And I don't know just
whereabouts in that impact area that he came. It's up on the far
side.
I do think that it's important that the county board -- the
staff originally said that these six lots should not be impacted.
But now they have changed their mind. And I don't think that the
giving up of tortoise turtles habitat is a good trade-off in this
particular area.
The second thing I'd like to mention, and I know my time is
about out, they talk about seven or eight acres for tortoise
Page 46
November 14, 2000
turtles. There's 3.8 acres in the so-called good area. And as Mr.
Pires mentioned, it's not as good as it really is. There's 700 -- or
75 hundredths of an acres in the bottom part of the wetlands,
which is kind of halfway in between. And then they've got 3.5
acres up there in the green. Now that is on the other side of the
ditch that we're talking about. And it has been pointed out in
other hearings that when that ditch is dredged, they do not take
the dredging part and put it on a raft behind them and carry it
away, they just throw it up on the side of the bank. And that is
not going to help protect tortoise turtles at all.
There are no tortoise turtles living in that area at all right
now. They say that they can make a habitat. Mr. Myers, at one of
the testimonies says this is a good experience. He hasn't made
one before, but he thought he could make a good one because
there was some good wet areas up there that are dry now. That
came from the bottom of the river, and I don't think that's good
tortoise turtle habitat.
Actually, at one time they asked if the tortoises would come
back to their area. At one of the environmentalist hearing, Mr.
Myers says well, they can swim across. And they don't swim.
Tortoise turtles do not swim. So you're putting them up there in
an area that they have no facility at all.
In my mind, they should expand this 3.8 acres and make it a
bigger spot in the actual habitat itself. Eliminate some of those
lots they want in there, and make it worthwhile and keep it
livable for everybody. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Charles Healy, followed by
Brad Cornell.
MR. HEALY: I'm Charles Healy. Can you hear me?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir.
MR. HEALY: I'm a 20-year resident of Cypress Way East.
And I had a good preview the other day of what we're
expecting. Because according to a suggestion of the developers,
all the loaded trucks will come in Cypress Way East and the
empty ones will exit on Viking Way.
Now, there were four Mack trucks with fill came roaring by
my house at 45 miles an hour. The house trembled. The dirt
flies. And they were followed a little while later by when the
Page 47
November 14, 2000
house got along a little further -- this is Cypress Way on the last
block. Then the cement block came in. The truck was so big, it
blocked the street entirely, and the people couldn't get by until
they finished unloading the truck.
Now, I'm all for tortoises, but I'm also for kids. Palm River is
changing demographically. We now have a swing to working
people instead of retirees. Now, with that comes children. You
look down the street and you see the kids on rollerblades and
roller skates and bicycles. And now we're getting the inflow of
the snowbirds. And they're all walkers and bicyclers. And I'm
really disturbed that now we're asked that we should set up a
tax deal to widen the streets.
I don't -- you heard her say that the street at the entrance to
Cypress Way is 17 feet, 10 inches wide. Now, I don't know how
in the world all those trucks are going to get in there, because
there's going to be a lot of them.
The other thing, we have a small bridge on Cypress Way
East which was destroyed when they built Quail Circle, whatever
it is back there. And we had a lovely stone bridge, which now we
have one with unpainted boards on it. And that bridge is not
going to withstand the amount of heavy traffic that's going to
come over it.
We are landlocked. We -- the only way we'd ever get out of
there is drive over the golf course, and we don't want to do that
either.
Now, I listened to all these developers and all their fancy
talk. Now, I've worked for the Fort Lauderdale newspaper and
for the Orlando paper, and I've got to tell you, they changed. If
you want to see development, go take a look at them today. Fort
Lauderdale looks like New York or Los Angeles with the flyovers.
And we were selling the market and we wanted people there.
But Ms. Berry said we should preserve our little bit of paradise
here.
And I want to tell you, when that engineer says he dug a
hole over there and it was dry, we've had two of the driest
seasons in history. And I've seen water come down with -- two
years ago, I think, we had 91 inches of rain, and the kids were
water-skiing over by our church.
Now, I've seen the water on a Labor Day came halfway up to
my house, and the fish were in the street from the Palm River
Page 48
November 14, 2000
golf course ponds over there. So we do have -- in that area
where they're talking about gets pretty wet, too. And there are a
number of areas in Palm River where when we get a good heavy
rain, the streets flood.
Now, I don't see -- again, I'm interested in children. I'm the
father of five children. We lost one in an accident and then had
five. And I want to tell you, you'll never get over it when you bury
a child. So think about the safety factor in this whole deal.
Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF.' Next speaker is Brad Cornell, followed by
Ronnie Poplock.
MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Brad Cornell and I'm here on behalf of myself. And I have a
couple of points that I want to bring up very succinctly and
quickly for you that I think has some bearing on this.
One is that mitigation credits should not be given for any of
the exotics clearing. I know that the Army Corps and South
Florida Water Management District do accept that as mitigation,
but this county has wisely decided that is not acceptable
mitigation for wetlands destruction, and it should not be given
any credit. As I read through the staff report, it seems that it is
being given credit by our county staff. So that was my first point.
There should be a coordinated effort to link the tortoise
habitat preserves with off-site habitats such as that at Collier's
Reserve. They are locating it with that in mind, but there is a
fence. And it should be -- some of these issues needs to be
addressed.
There should be more on-site preserve required, as location
is difficult in Collier County. This county is a wet county, as we
all know. The uplands are very rare where they do occur.
There's extreme competition, including with humans. And so I
think that is something that should be taken into account,
because relocation is not going to be very easy.
Code enforcement. Speaking of mitigation, code
enforcement staff is not adequate to monitor such created
habitats as that north parcel. I agree that that north parcel does
not look -- that north preserve on the site does not look very
reasonable. And we do not have adequate staffing in code
enforcement to go out and look at all these things to make sure
that in perpetuity that they function as they're supposed to. So
Page 49
November 14, 2000
that is a problem not only here but throughout the county.
Blood testing should be required of all the animals that are
proposed for relocation. And they need to be screened for upper
respiratory tract disease, which is an epidemic among gopher
tortoises, especially as we move them around. It is -- you can
look at them and perhaps gauge whether they have the disease,
but a blood test is the only sure way. This is a rule that is -- or a
requirement that's being proposed by the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission. It's under consideration right
now. And they're taking comments until the 15th. I believe we
should adhere to that recommendation.
And finally, I would say that when you look at the
photograph, the aerial photograph of this site, it was very plain
to see that such quality habitat and natural preserve surrounded
by development just begs to be purchased for public preserve
parkland.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Buy it.
MR. CORNELL: I believe that's what this county should do.
This county should have --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I mean privately. Get some money
together and buy it.
MR. CORNELL: This county should have a public land
acquisition program. And this is something that you could do
right now, as a matter of fact. And I would highly recommend
this as a site for such a proposal. And work with the land owner.
Because I agree, we do not want to penalize any landowner,
take away any land rights, but we do want to recognize that this
county has almost no park preserves, and this would be an
excellent candidate. And if this is not bought, I think we should
institute a public land acquisition program. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Brad, if I could just make a
comment. There's a lot of merit to what you say, there's no
question. But this is like a lot of other things that are going on in
this state right now. You have a set of rules to play with that we
all have in place right now. And we're dealing with this issue
now, as we speak.
MR. CORNELL: I agree.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay? So we don't do like Palm
Page 50
November 14, 2000
Beach County and make rules as we go along, and if we don't
like the rules as currently stated, change the rules. That's not
acceptable. We have rules in place.
And I agree, I think this is something that, you know, if
people want this land, and they want it preserved, then step up
to the plate and buy it. Don't make this governmental board or
any other governmental board put so many stipulations on it that
you devalue the property, and then somebody else steps in and
grabs it and then nobody ever has any use of it. That's the
problem that's going on. You know it's going on right now.
MR. CORNELL: I agree with you, Commissioner Berry. And I
would say that we should not be doing -- we should be adhering
to the rules, and that's -- I'm a very strong advocate, as you
would know.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, you are.
MR. CORNELL: I think that you, as a sitting board, and the
local government does have it within its power to institute a
public land acquisition program.
We could also ask the people to vote on such a thing, and
we should do that. But I think you do have it in your power, it is
within your rule of authority, to do such a thing.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I understand. But also when you
start talking about using your money and my money and all of
those people that are sitting out there, I want them to agree that
this is how they want their money used. Because when we do it,
your taxes are going to go up. MR. CORNELL: I agree.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's what's going to happen. And if
that's what you want, then that's fine. And, you know, the last
time they tried it, Brad, was probably because it wasn't well
defined, there was no specific areas that they had in mind, and
that probably was what might have killed it.
But I just suggest that if this happens in the future, then put
your money where your mouth is.
MR. CORNELL: I would just point to the referendum that the
city had to buy a very, very small piece of land and spent quite a
bit of money. I think that the public sentiment would very much
support you. And timing is very much an issue. This parcel must
be bought now if we're going to preserve it. And there are other
parcels such as this that are in the same predicament or soon to
Page 51
November 14, 2000
be in this predicament.
So I would say as a local county board, you have it in your
power. And we have no public land acquisition program, and we
would not like to penalize land owners. We would like to buy
things that are in the public interest. And gopher tortoises and
habitat and park preserves, not -- park preserves are definitely in
the public interest.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, there's no question about it.
But I just say, I don't like the idea of government devaluing
property and then more or less giving a token amount of money
to the property owner after government has put so many -- what
do I want to say?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Restrictions.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- restrictions on it that it totally
takes the value away from the property. And then everybody is
supposed to just smile and say well, gee, out of the goodness of
your heart you need to give that property to the county or to the
state or whatever. I think that's wrong.
MR. CORNELL: That's not at all what I'm suggesting.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I know you're not. I know you
aren't. But that's in many cases, Brad, as you well know, that is
what's going on.
MR. CORNELL: I would only advocate that we adhere to the
laws that we have that do project -- and we have a local
ordinance that protects gopher tortoises and look for the public
interest wherever we can.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Brad, I -- you know, I concur with the
idea of a public land acquisition. There's no question in my mind
it's an issue that we, as a county, really need to consider and
deal with.
This particular piece is relatively landlocked and benefits
three communities: Palm River, Collier's Reserve and Imperial
Golf Estates. Now, if, if there would have been a way that all of
these communities through some taxing authority were willing to
acquire this because they benefit from it, and if you look at
traffic considerations, I don't think Palm River would be looking
for a lot of people from other parts of the county to be -- come
trucking in here to use this as a park.
So it really becomes an issue for three ma]or communities
that there's an opportunity to purchase this land from the
Page 52
November 14, 2000
developers. I don't think in this period of time that we can
accomplish that. And we're going to have to make a decision
today based on what exists. But I -- you know, I empathize
where you are, I understand where you are. But I'm going to be
restricted to my decision-making today about what is and what I
can do and can't do. And I've gotten pretty clear direction from
legal counsel on the issues that I can make a decision on today.
Whereas, I can empathize with everything that is said by the
communities.
MR. CORNELL.' Well, thank you, Commissioner Carter. I do
ask that you keep in mind my other points that have to do with
habitat and gopher tortoise relocation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Oh, I hear you loud and clear.
MR. CORNELL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And that's the areas of which I am
struggling at this point in terms of what I can do and can't do.
MR. CORNELL.' Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Carter? Just to
sort a heads up for staff real quick. I'm going to want to hear
response to that 10 percent on whether or not exotic removal in
Collier County can be counted as mitigation. I'm going to want
to hear whether or not we can require that the fence between
the Collier's Reserve tortoise habitat and this one be removed, or
that the entire area -- you know, somehow that they be
aggregated, that -- the two preserve area for tortoises.
And also, I'm going to want to know whether or not there is
any kind of annual reporting on a gopher tortoise management
plan, so that I know whether or not we have to rely completely
on code enforcement to be watching the tortoise habitat. But I
imagine there's some kind of a monitoring program.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. One quick more and then we're
going to need to be --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: In regard to the fence, you can put
a fence up but you can certainly raise it up off the ground. Now,
those turtles -- tortoises aren't six feet tall, so it's not going to
require that much of an adjustment to get that fence up off the
ground. That's easily done. So I would think that that would be
almost a non-issue. But just with that encouragement that when
the fence is put in, raise it up off the ground. They're going to go
where they want to go anyway, and they may not stay where you
Page 53
November 14, 2000
put them, so --
MR. REISCHL: Well, that one's a quick answer. The fence --
there's an existing fence on Collier's Reserve property .- I'm not
sure if that's within the scope of this hearing -- and the tortoises
are going under it right now.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, well.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Clever little guys, aren't they?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They do burrow after all, don't
they?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: They are burrowers.
MR. OLLIFF: Following your next speaker, Ms. Poplock,
would be Kathleen Avalone.
MS. POPLOCK: Good morning. Ronnie Poplock.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's okay. We can hear you.
MS. POPLOCK: Can you hear me?
I am a vice president at the Collier County Audubon Society.
And we request, as Collier County Audubon Society, that you do
not permit the use of this land until at the very least there's a
satisfactory relocation plan for the gopher tortoises. And quite
frankly, I personally haven't heard anything that meets that
requirement up until this point.
I'm thinking of that phrase sometimes good intentions are
not good enough. And I think that probably applies here. I think
that there are a lot of good intentions, but I haven't heard
anything that really, really says to me that this is going to be a
really, really good relocation plan.
And in fact, speaking of the Willow Run Quarry, there's been
some talk about that. The people who work in the wildlife
rehabilitation center over at The Conservancy have told us that
they repeatedly have had animals come in from that area in and
around this quarry that have been stunned, that have been
wounded by the activity going on in that quarry. So I can't
imagine that that's a good area for them.
And as we all know, there's very little tortoise habitat left in
Collier County. And yet Little Palm Island has approximately,
let's say, 70 active burrows. In addition to the active burrows,
there are many inactive burrows that are useful for numerous
other species, because we know that the gopher tortoise is a
Keystone species. So that please think about what you would be
destroying.
Page 54
November 14, 2000
And Collier County Audubon Society urgently requests that
you vote no at this time, at least for the petition. Okay, thank
you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Kathleen Avalone, followed by
Nancy Payton.
MS. AVALONE: I'm Kathleen Avalone, and I'm with the
Citizens for the Protection of Animals In Southwest Florida.
Little Palm Island houses 165 gopher tortoise burrows, of
which 70 to 60 are active. After doing extensive research and
speaking with many gopher tortoise experts and the State's
Attorney's Office, Citizens for the Protection of Animals has
determined that both destruction of gopher tortoise habitat and
the relocation of gopher tortoises by law is cruel and inhumane.
Since gopher tortoises are a Keystone species, plowing over and
bulldozing burrows not only threatens the tortoises directly, but
also destroys a large number of species -- 360, to be exact -- who
use tortoise burrows for homes. Among them the gopher frog,
which is found nowhere else except in the burrows, and the
eastern Indigo snake, both of which are, like the gopher tortoise,
listed species.
Abandoned burrows house fox, squirrel, opossum, raccoon,
bobcats, armadillo and bobwhite quail, all of which have been
seen on this property. Some live all their lives in these burrows
and cannot exist without them. As Joan Berish of the Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission writes, from a
humane standpoint, there would appear to be equal justification
from moving all of the animals likely to be crushed, entombed,
stunned or displaced into hostile habitat to await starvation or
predation.
The gopher tortoise relocation symposium reported, while a
few tortoises may be saved by relocation, the habitat and other
burrow-dwelling species are destroyed.
Harold Wahlquist, from the Symposium On Gopher Tortoise
Conservation, says gopher tortoise relocation is being advocated
by developers, their environmental consultants and by regional
planning councils with little thought to biological impacts as
carrying capacity of relocation habitats, population disruptions,
gene pool mixing, and parasite and disease transmission.
Henry Mushinsky, graduate director and professor for the
Page 55
November 14, 2000
University of South Florida, Department of Biology, did two
studies on relocation. In one study, 116 tortoises had been
relocated. Three years later, only 16 percent were within the
study plots where they were released.
In another study, 83 tortoises were relocated. After two
years, only about 30 percent remained within the released area.
Both studies suggest that 60 to 70 percent of relocated
tortoises tend to move from the point of release shortly after
release and often become disoriented and wander off-site. Many
tortoises are killed every year by automobiles.
Dr. Mary Brown, a University of Florida associate professor
of pathobiology, writes that the decreasing habitat and
increasing contact amongst the tortoises is leading to a greater
chance of spreading upper respiratory tract disease, or URTD,
which destroys the respiratory tract and olfactory senses. She
states this is an ideal situation for the spread of most infectious
diseases. While relocation makes people feel good, it is not very
effective and risks spreading the disease.
According to Dr. Paul Klein, a University of Florida professor
of pathology, immunology and laboratory medicine, URTD is not
treatable in the wild. The subsequent loss of smell makes it
difficult for tortoises to find food, which leads to malnutrition and
starvation. A damaged respiratory tract can lead to secondary
infections. Researchers state URTD decimated the tortoises in
the southwest and on Sanibel Island.
Joan Berish, citing reports from colleagues who had healthy
tortoises die from URTD when relocated, states we are
undoubtedly spreading the disease by relocating tortoises.
And in a recent edition of the Naples Daily News, in an
article about gopher tortoises, Gopher Heinrick (phonetic), a
gopher tortoise expert, states that halting relocation of sick
tortoises is too little to help the tortoises which, he says, are
near enough to extinction to warrant inclusion on the federal
endangered species list.
Over 30,000 have been killed in the past decade. Heinrick
says the question isn't if we should be testing for disease, but if
we should be moving the tortoises at all. According to Heinrick,
and I quote, biologists have showed over and over again that
relocation just does not work. It's ludicrous.
The Growth Management Plan calls for the protection and
Page 56
November 14, 2000
preservation of wildlife. Cruelty to animals, according to the
Florida State Statutes, is defined as a person who intentionally
commits an act to any animal which results in the cruel death or
excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering,
or causes the same to be done.
In addition, a violation of the contagious disease --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll ask to you wrap up, ma'am.
MS. AVALONE: Can I just finish for one second, please?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
MS. AVALONE: I just have very little left.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, please.
MS. AVALONE: In addition, a violation of the contagious
disease statute occurs when whoever having charge of any
animal knowingly the same to have any contagious or infectious
disease or to have been recently exposed thereto disposes of
such animal or knowingly permits such animals to run at large.
According to the state's attorney's office, it is considered a
violation of these statutes if animals known to be in the burrows
are killed or if tortoises are relocated with the contagious
disease or where contagious diseases are present.
Because the destruction of gopher tortoise burrows causes
the indiscriminate killing and loss of life-sustaining habitat to
many animals, and because relocation of gopher tortoise
intentionally inflicts unnecessary pain and suffering through the
spread of diseases and often results in a cruel death from
starvation, entombment, or traffic death, the Citizens for the
Protection of Animals is prepared to take criminal and civil legal
action if the building permit on Little Palm Island is approved.
One more? As an alternative to legal action, we are asking
you today to delay approval of this permit while we were
exploring means of purchase by the state. I have spoken with
the heads of CARL Funds, Greenways and Trails, Estate Land
Acquisition Department, and have contacted the head of the
Florida Community Trust Fund. They have been most
cooperative and sincere about listing this piece of property for
purchase.
While I have no definite answer as of today, I can tell you
that I was told by the state land acquisition department that
Little Palm Island would be an excellent piece of land to
conserve. Mr. Peeples has advised me that his client would be
Page 57
November 14, 2000
more than willing to sell Little Palm Island to the state if the time
frame is reasonable.
Since gopher tortoises are a listed species and relocation --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ma'am, I'm going to have to ask you to
wrap up. I value your information. MS. AVALONE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think we're very much in tune with
what you're trying to tell us, and we do appreciate it. But I have
other speakers I must get to the microphone.
MS. AVALONE: Okay. The bottom line is, can you please
deny approval while we explore funding from the state.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Nancy Payton, followed by
Stacy Barnhill.
MS. PAYTON: Good morning. Nancy Payton, representing
the Florida Wildlife Federation.
I'm going to list Florida wildlife issues on Little Palm Island's
request for a special treatment development permit. This is the
third time we've presented these concerns, and they have not
been addressed to my knowledge yet by the developer. And
there are questions.
We have questions about the linear preserve, the northern
preserve. And we feel it presents several challenges to a
successful relocation of any tortoises. It is not gopher tortoise
habitat. Staff admitted it. We heard that today. It's a spoil pile.
It's a spoil burn. It's leftover land that they have thought well,
that's where we can put these gopher tortoises that are our
problem. It will need at least a year to be planted and for that
vegetation to take and mature to be potentially suitable habitat
for the gopher tortoises. Where will they be in the interim? Who
will be taking care of them?
There's a canal between this linear site and where the
tortoises are currently found. Drowning may be the fate of these
tortoises because experts tell us that tortoises tend to roam and
go back to their homeland, their original sites. There's a canal
between these two preserves, or these two locations.
The linear preserve abuts the Imperial Golf Course, and
there has been no coordination, to my knowledge, to our
knowledge, between Little Palm Island developers and Imperial
to ensure that the tortoises wandering onto the golf course will
Page 58
November 14, 2000
be tolerated and welcomed. In fact, the success of this
relocation may revolve around the tortoise's ability to go on that
golf course for foraging.
And also we question how do Little Palm Island
representatives get across the canal to maintain the preserve
and to monitor the preserve.
Another preserve, as you've heard about earlier abuts Collier
Reserve's gopher tortoise preserve. But there is a fence. And
we feel it's inappropriate that the tortoises have to tunnel
underneath to preserves that abut each other. And there should
be coordination so that the optimum benefits of those two
preserves can exist for the gopher tortoises.
We don't know the various details of the ultimate fate of
these tortoises. We don't know how many will be relocated
on-site, and we don't know how many will be relocated off-site.
Remember, our ordinance allows them to transfer up to not five
but up to five, depending on habitat. We don't know yet the
quality of that habitat, other than it's not good habitat at this
point for the linear preserve.
We don't know how the petitioner will deal with the issue of
diseased tortoises on-site or off-site. Are they diseased on-site?
Are they diseased in Willow Run Quarry, or any other location
they're potentially intending to send them? And are we creating a
problem?
We don't know for sure where the receiving sites are. Willow
Run Quarry may be one. Persimmon Ridge may be another.
These details have not been finalized, to our knowledge.
We don't know for sure if the petitioner will seek a take
permit. Because Page 9 of your documents, the material reads,
"The petitioner proposes to retain an Incidental Take Permit from
the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission."
So based on the backup material, that's still an option. It
may not be, quite frankly, a bad option, if those animals are
humanely extracted and humanely euthanised, humanely killed.
But we don't know. Everything's if, but and or may.
Also, we don't have the opportunity at this point to comment
on the management plan where all these details would be laid
out. That comes further down the line. I did ask staff if there
was an opportunity for the public to comment on that. It's not an
easy process. I basically have to call every day and say is it
Page 59
November 14, 2000
there, can I comment on it? Is it there, can I comment on it? It's
not a document that's easily available for us to have these
concerns addressed.
I want to draw your attention to Page 19 of the backup
material, which talks about what the ST overlay is about.
Remember the gopher tortoise is a Keystone species. There are
360 species that share its habitat. We're not going to be able to
move those ecosystems to that linear ridge or some of those
other areas.
And the purpose, according to the ST code, says that the
purpose of this overlay district regulation is to assure the
preservation and maintenance of these environmental and
cultural resources, and to encourage the preservation of the
intricate ecological relationships within the systems, and at the
same time permit those types of development which will hold
changes to levels determined acceptable by the Board of County
Commissioners after public hearings.
What we're asking is, please continue this till our questions
can be answered, till those of us who have concerns about those
gopher tortoises can work with the developer to resolve them.
We've asked -- we've presented these three times and we ask
you again that you continue this so that these issues can be
addressed, because this is not a satisfactory response to an ST
overlay permit development request.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Nancy.
MS. PAYTON'- Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please.
MR. OLLIFF: Stacy Barnhill, followed by Kevin Barnhill.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nancy, just nod yes or no and I'll
put it on the record. Did you make this presentation to the EAC?
MS. PAYTON: This presentation almost word for word has
gone to the EAC and to the Planning Commission. I just use the
same notes every time to say it again.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MS. BARNHILL: Hi, I'm Stacy Barnhill. I live on Cypress Way
East.
And I'm looking at this picture here and you can see Little
Palm Island. And I live on that lake that they're using as part of
their open space. And legally I guess they can use five acres of
that as their open space. But as you can see, it's not even closer
Page 60
November 14, 2000
to their development.
I also am concerned about the linear area that they're trying
to use in the gopher area. I don't see how that can be an area
that can be livable to the gopher turtles. For one reason is when
they do dredge it, the sand is going to go high enough on them. I
don't think that's adequate.
But my most concern is I do have a two-year old daughter,
and I am concerned about the traffic. And I know you mentioned
that we could get with the MSTU board. When it comes to taxing
us, how would the Little Palm Island -- those homes aren't built
yet, how would they be taxed? I mean, I think they should be
somewhat responsible, you know, for that. And if the homes
aren't built yet, I don't think the whole burden should be on Palm
River.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: They're putting in their sidewalks.
And that's what the MS -- the MSBU or the MSTU, it's a taxing
authority that you set up within your area. They are going ahead,
they're putting that infrastructure in. When they build this
community, they're going to be putting in sidewalks.
It's funny that apparently three of us made the same
suggestion to some of the Palm River people. Because I know
when I met with Jean and Robert, I believe -- MR. WEIGEL: John.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Anyway, we talked about that very
thing, that I thought that that was a great idea suggested to
them. Because this is an older community, one that was
established some 30 -- what did we say, 30 some years ago?
Things were different in Collier County then. They didn't talk too
much about sidewalks. In fact, a lot of areas didn't want
sidewalks. But this is becoming something now with people
being more mobile again, which we should have been all along,
but to get out and walk in your communities.
And as you heard -- maybe you heard me mention earlier,
I've got four grandchildren. And I'll tell you, it behooves their
mommy and daddy to look after those little kids. And playing in
the street is not an option.
MS. BARNHILL: Not on this street.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's not an option. Sidewalks, I
think, definitely are a safer way to go. I know there has been
some people who are dead set against kids riding a bicycle on a
Page 61
November 14, 2000
sidewalk. I'll tell you, put a child, a small child on a bicycle in a
neighborhood, I'm talking about, at least they've got a fighting
chance. And that's -- I'd rather have them there than out in the
middle of the street. When they get older and they learn the
rules and what they're supposed to do, that's a little bit different
situation.
But what we were talking about with this community was
that this is something that they ought to go back now. It's like
updating your house. You live in a house for a number of years
and you have to go back and refurbish every so often. I think
that Palm River is a case in point where it's time to come back
in, take a look and see what they can do to update their
community. And particularly with the fact that they're getting
some younger families moving in there, I think this is a prime
time to do it. Establish yourself to do these kinds of things.
MS. BARNHILL: No, I do think that's needed. Since they are
putting sidewalks in their community, even though they're using
our street to get into their community, they can't be part of the
taxes; is that what you're saying?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't know that they should be in
this particular situation, because they are going ahead and
putting in their infrastructure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that would be --
MS. BARNHILL: But they're using our street, they didn't
have to --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That would have to be determined
through -- when you establish one of these, you go and you do a --
you draw a footprint and you go and you solicit and you find out.
That's a whole process that we can't really address here this
morning. And that could be resolved.
And I understand your point and Commissioner Berry's point,
but it needs to be addressed for the total Palm River community.
MS. BARNHILL: Okay. The reason I thought, because they
don't have to build a road into their development. They're using
this road. And I feel that they should be part of the taxes to put
sidewalks in our development.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, but they do have a right to
ingress and egress on their property.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And they will be paying impact fees
when they build their homes.
Page 62
November 14, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: They sure will.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Which part of that will be a road
impact fee.
MS. BARNHILL: Okay. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Kevin Barnhill, and followed by
one last speaker who submitted her form late. And Mr.
Chairman, it's up to you whether you want to hear that or not.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I will accept it.
MR. OLLIFF: Okay. Kevin Barnhill will be followed by Carol
Hemming.
MR. BARNHILL-' Good morning. I'm Kevin Barnhill. I live on
Cypress Way East. I'd like to thank you in advance for your time
here today.
Keystone Homes is attempting to build as dense as possible
without respect to the community, the county or nature.
Keystone should not be allowed to build a congested community
inside the existing non zero lot residential community, because it
would threaten Florida wildlife, public health and safety.
Here's the density issue. Keystone Custom Homes, Trune
(phonetic) Lakes, 50-foot wide lots. Keystone Custom Homes,
Rookery Point, 40, 50 and 60-wide lots, with direct access to
arterial roads. One of their salesmen informs me that I can build
up to a 3,000 square foot home on the 40-foot lot. Don't worry,
this isn't in Collier County.
December 30th, 1999, we received a letter from Keystone
Homes and Paula Davis stating that under RSF-3 she could build
260 homes. With this letter. That's not true, because that failed
to take into account that the homes could not be built on the
lake, which was included in the acreage. 60 percent of the open
space is required. The gopher turtles and the special treatment
area.
ST-99-2, denied January 20th, requested 157 homes. During
this hearing, the CCPC strongly recommends that Keystone not
use the five lots on the north side of the canal -- excuse me, that
Keystone not use the north side of the canal for a tortoise
preserve and eliminate the five houses in the north side of
ST23-A wetland boundary. Both of these are ignored in the ST-99
petition.
Gopher --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Excuse me. Just a minute here.
Page 63
November 14, 2000
MR. BARNHILL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Where are you getting your
numbers? For what -- you made the statement that they are --
they're building as dense --
MR. BARNHILL: In the letter here --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, I'm talking about what is. I
don't care what she wrote. I'm talking about what we're dealing
with today.
MR. BARNHILL: Right. 141 homes, I'm not there yet. I'm
talking about ST-99-2 that was denied. What I'm doing is setting
a precedence that they are trying to build as densely as possible.
And then I'll show you why that's relevant to the community, the
county and the wildlife. That's what I'm trying to establish.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's let him go forward.
MR. BARNHILL: Yeah, I'm not an attorney, but I'm doing --
I'm just a resident. I'm doing the best I can here. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Just go forward, please.
MR. BARNHILL: The gopher turtles. The gopher graveyard
north of the canal has a golf course on one side and a slope into
the canal on the other. This area has no gopher population now
and none of the plants that they eat.
I know this area very well. I've walked around it a lot. It's a
very enjoyable place. I can tell you, just -- this is kind of a
humorous note, and I'm sure people are curious, that the gate --
or the fence between Collier County has a bunch of fly-unders
that have gopher tortoise tracks.
I'm going to have to speed up now.
On a side note, the CCPC approval for ST-99-3 was without
consideration of public safety. We were informed that we were
allowed to speak to that point but it's not pertinent to the
environmental aspect of ST-99-3. I found -- or I was brought to
the attention in the Land Development Code, Division 2-3,
Environmental Impact Statements 8322 states, "Further, it is the
purpose of this division to attain the widest range of beneficial
uses of the environment without degradation of environmental
advantages and risk to public safety, health, welfare and other
desirable consequences."
I feel that we should have been allowed to speak about
public safety in the prior hearing.
Please verify that the ElS provided by Keystone Homes
Page 64
November 14, 2000
addresses 8322. My sources inform me that this is lack -- that is
lacking in this area.
Back to the density issue. ST-99-3 only reduces 16 homes
for 11 percent difference.
I'm about to run out of time, and I'd like to speak on behalf
of Frances Hoy. May I continue?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't think so. You speak for
yourself.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You have to speak for yourself, sir. If
she hasn't signed up, she cannot speak. MR. BARNHILL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Why don't you just give us your key
points in summary that you want to make.
MR. BARNHILL: Okay, that's -- okay, great. Thank you. No
more than one more minute.
Okay, are we talking about five homes or 20 homes? My
map shows that Keystone wants to build 20 lots. They're with --
at least 50 percent within the ST23-A.
What are some of the problems with density? The
destruction of the percolation wetlands includes cypress. The
viable cypress stone is an integral part of the Cocohatchee Basin
that feeds Wiggins Pass, Wiggins State Park and Barefoot Beach.
This area is full of cypress trees. The melaleuca was brought in
by the developer and there aren't that many there. Every house
within the original ST23 required the cypress trees to be cut
down.
Also, Palm River contains the -- Palm River contains
condominiums and communities, but they're on the outside of the
subdivision, not enclosed within.
The additional -- 141 additional households equates to 1,410
trips per day. Palm River's 80 working families. We have over
100 school-age kids and more toddlers and babies. We already
have traffic issues. There were two girls that were hit. Gory
details I'll leave out.
Conclusion: Custom Homes is attempting to build as
densely as possible. Keystone Custom Homes has not attempted
to build a neighborhood that will be part of and complementary
to the 30-year-old Palm River. Keystone Homes is planning
without regard to public safety, CPCC (sic) or nature. They
ignored CPCC's strong request.
Page 65
November 14, 2000
The children: Some of the future leaders of Collier County
are now growing up in Palm River. Let's do what we can to allow
them to grow up safely. Keystone Homes has stated on record
to CPCC that they don't need to go through this approval to build
Little Palm Island. I say we grant them that and deny Petition
ST-99-3.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, thank you. Last speaker, Mr.
Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: Last speaker is Carol Hemming.
MS. HEMMING: I guess I don't have too much to say other
than ditto to the gopher tortoises.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Name, please, for the record?
MS. HEMMING: The road issue --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Can we have your name, please, for
the record?
MS. HEMMING: Carol Hemming.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MS. HEMMING: The road issue is a major concern. What
were the standards for the width of roads back there when Palm
River was built? I would like to know that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have no idea, ma'am.
MS. HEMMING: Well, it is a public road. We do not meet
public road standards. We do not have sidewalks.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But that was a decision --
MS. HEMMING: We're being used as a public road. We do
not meet public road standards. We do not have sidewalks. I
rest my case.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, at the time that your community
was developed, you met the standards.
MS. HEMMING: Did I? Can you tell me what the standards
were? Nobody can tell me. What were the standards?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well--
MS. HEMMING: I would like to know if we met the standards
at the time. Can anybody answer that?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Reischl, can you help me with that
question?
MR. REISCHL: No, I'm sorry. I don't know what the
standards were at the time.
MS. HEMMING: Perhaps they were the same.
MR. REISCHL: I can do the research and report back to Ms.
Page 66
November 14, 2000
Hemming.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, we'll be happy to give you that
information. But I would tell you that my experience with most
areas that were developed years and years ago, there was
always some standard, and whatever it was, it was met. That it
has changed, I will grant you, over time because of a lot of
different variables. Yes, it has changed.
MS. HEMMING: Okay, my other ques -- I have several other
questions. We do -- what is our plan here? Do we have a
five-year plan here? What is our -- when is our plan reviewed,
okay?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What plan are you talking about?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Which plan?
MS. HEMMING: Our county plan, our growth plan. Is it every
five years, like it is in most of the country?.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Every six months.
MS. HEMMING: Every six months?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, ma'am.
MS. HEMMING: Well, I think you need to do some major
reviewing. I would also like to know, how long does it take to
establish an MSTU?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: About six months.
MS. HEMMING: About six months. Well, we have to deal
with this issue now, just as you do. So we have six months. And
six months -- so we have to put up with six months of these
traffic issues, maybe, before we can even establish an MSTU. So
I think the process is backwards.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I can sense your frustration and
anger, ma'am, but please keep this in mind that even if you
establish an MSTU, it is not going to affect --
MS. HEMMING: And it's not going to happen in six months,
either.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
MS. HEMMING: That's just getting it done. And then it has
to get done.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But it has nothing --
MS. HEMMING: So excuse me, but I don't think you're
answering our concerns as surrounding property owners.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: For two years I've tried and I've
worked with Palm River Association, and these ideas have
Page 67
November 14, 2000
evolved. But two years ago this might have been an option, but
there was not a sense of urgency at that time perhaps to do that
and communities at different points establish a sense of urgency
to do something. But the due process to get you where you want
to be can't be done like this. It's not the private sector. You
cannot do it that way.
MS. HEMMING: So your suggestion of an MSTU is basically
of no use to us at this point.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It is of great use to you, if your
community decides to do it.
MS. HEMMING: But we can't get it done before the
construction will start.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And even if-- even if you had one, it is
not going to diminish the fact that if this is developed, that you
will have truck traffic in that area. Could there be restrictions
put around the times? Could there be issues worked out with the
community during that period? I'm not saying that they couldn't
be.
MS. HEMMING: We definitely need --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But n MSTU would be one way to stop
it.
MS. HEMMING: -- one way in, one way out traffic. And that's
all I have to say. I would like to see the trucks go in one way and
out the other say so that they don't have to pass each other.
They're going to have enough of other vehicles to pass.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. And I can understand your
frustration on that, and I'm sure that's issues that if it's approved
could be worked out. I mean, none of that is impossible to do.
Does that conclude our speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
We can close the public hearing, unless there are questions
back to the presenters -- petitioners that this board needs to
have answered. Because once I close the public hearing, I can't
let them come back up to the microphone. So does anyone have
any questions?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have staff questions, but --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have some staff questions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Staff questions. Then we
can close the public hearing before we go to staff questions.
Page 68
November 14, 2000
Therefore, I close the public hearing, and we'll go back to
staff.
MR. REISCHL: In answer to Commissioner Mac'Kie's
questions, exotic removal is accepted by the county with South
Florida Water Management District permit. However, the county
does require additional mitigation because we have our LDC
required exotic removal.
For this project in particular, the upland preservation
exceeds the wetland impact mitigation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. REISCHL: Okay. The gopher--
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Would you say that again, Fred? In
other words, they're preserving more uplands?
MR. REISCHL: Than the mitigation component would require
for the amount of impacts to the wetlands. And that's
notwithstanding the exotic removal.
Your gopher tortoise management plan question, we will
require them to have an annual monitoring component within the
gopher tortoise management plan.
And just as an overview again, maybe I should have done
this at the beginning of the hearing, but an ST overlay was
implemented in 1974. It was done basically from aerial
photographs. You'll notice that the lines are geometric. It was
done by surveyors. It did not include limits of wetland. The
provisions of the code specifically allow for public hearings
before you to allow impacts to them to non-wetland and to
limited wetland areas.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have a question of Mr. Weigel
and his staff.
With regard to mitigation so that gopher tortoises could be
relocated off-site, is there any reason we cannot place a prior
requirement that such a relocation plan be in place before we
approve this?
MR. REISCHL: If I could interrupt and answer that from a
status -- or a procedural standpoint. The gopher tortoise
management plan is required prior to approval of the plat. The
plat will again be coming before you, plat and construction plans.
So not necessarily at this step, but before they can put in any
roads or build any houses, yes, you will see the gopher tortoise
Page 69
November 14, 2000
management plan as part of a plat.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does Commissioner Brandt --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: The concern I have there about
the plat is that oftentimes we find the plat is in the consent
agenda.
MR. REISCHL: We -- we --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Now, how do you deal with that
one, so it isn't --
MR. REISCHL: Our staff is aware that this is going on the
regular agenda. We've made it clear to our engineering staff.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because in addition to that
important consideration, that's also the place where we will have
the opportunity to impose a construction traffic management
plan. I want to be sure that that is also a part of any plat that
comes before us, so that construction traffic is scheduled for
times when there aren't school buses on the street, to state it
bluntly.
But that's something that will have to -- I would like to put in
a motion to be sure that it comes back as a part of the plat.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: The other question I have along
the legal line has to do with the ST portion and the five or six lots
that are up in the north end that are in blue. And it's my
understanding that we could deny those within our legal right; is
that correct, Mr. Weigel?
MS. STUDENT: Excuse me. Marjorie Student, for the record.
Fred, could you give a little more -- lust refresh about what
the blue --
MR. REISCHL: Blue is wetland to which they plan impacts.
They're going to fill the blue area; wetland that they plan to fill.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: They are going to develop those that
are in blue or not develop those in blue? MR. REISCHL: Develop.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're requesting permission to
develop the blue lots, which are part of the wetlands. It's the
only part of the wetlands within the ST overlay that they intend --
that they are requesting permission to fill.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And they're going to save 90
percent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They've got 10 acres, they're
saving nine. They'd like to impact one. They're giving us four
Page 70
November 14, 2000
acres of tortoise habitat in addition to the off-site relocation.
Frankly, I'm not real excited about that northern strip of gopher
tortoise habitat either. But in addition to the mitigation for that
one acre, there is -- as to the other agencies, there's the
removals of exotics, but as to Collier County, there's four acres
of, you know, upland habitat that we aren't preserving very much
of, that this is a real good opportunity for us to preserve. I wish
we could preserve the whole darn thing. I wish we could buy it.
I wish we had an acquisition program. I wish this were going to
be a neighborhood park and a nature trail that --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I was going to say neighborhood
park. Because if you're looking at another park, that's not going
to be real desirable, again, for the community because you're --
that means you're going to have more traffic coming in there to
go to that park. So you're not solving -- you're solving some of it,
but you're not solving all of it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, I think you're right. This is truly a
site that is a neighborhood park, and a neighborhood could be
defined, as I said, as a community. Earlier it could be Collier's
Reserve, Imperial Golf Estates and Palm River, but the other two
are gated communities; therefore, they'll probably never use it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Mr. Chairman, there's no way I
can support building on those blue lots up there, and so I can't
vote for approval of the petition as requested.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to take a shot at
making a motion to approve with stipulations. The stipulations
would be that we do require an annual gopher tortoise
management report; that we require a construction traffic
management plan as a precedent to the plat approval. This may
sound tiny, but that we -- to the extent we have the authority in
the gopher tortoise management, we require that the fence
between the Collier's Reserve and this gopher tortoise
management area, that the fence be removed, or somehow
facilitate ease of movement of the tortoises.
Were there other conditions that we've discussed in addition
to whatever the staff has proposed? I think that if anybody has
something else to suggest, I'm open.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I'm not crazy about this northern
part. I think that is a piece of land that is very -- of course, the
Page 71
November 14, 2000
gopher tortoise management plan may disqualify that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What I have heard today, that is not a
very viable alternative here. I think it's a -- it's on -- you can't
build on it, you can't do anything with it. It looks to me like we
throw sand up out of there when we dredge the ditch or canals.
So I don't think it's really a very viable part of this, in my humble
opinion.
If there's some trade-off to expand the gopher tortoise
preserve down by Collier's Reserve, which is a possibility, if you
let them have the four, five blue lots up there and trade off some
lots down there to expand that preserve, that may be a
possibility in this discussion. I am not comfortable with the
environmental aspects of this project. Commissioner Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Nor am I. And I am particularly
concerned, as you've heard me express, issues with regard to
the relocation of the tortoises. I'm concerned about even though
these pictures show dry environments, we've heard other issues
with regard to this year being a rather dry wet season. And we've
had other dry wet seasons. And so I'm still hung up on those four
or -- those five or six lots that are up there in blue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just ask, Commissioner
Brandt, do you have a concern about whether or not the -- what
direction are we in there -- the south preserve is in fact upland
habitat, or if it just happens to be dry because it's been a dry
season? As I understand, the elevation of that property is such
that it's prime upland habitat. No question that that is good
gopher tortoise property.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Which area are you --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The round --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: The Collier's Reserve?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The part that abuts Collier's
Reserve.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Oh, no, you're talking about the
eastern -- or western part.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. That's prime uplands that
will be good gopher tortoise habitat.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes, no question about that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't have any problem with that. I
Page 72
November 14, 2000
just don't think it's big enough.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yeah, I don't either.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, so I've got a motion out
there, if anybody wants to second it or if there are other
conditions.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it, Commissioner.
MR. REISCHL: Commissioner, did you want to add the
stipulation that this be on the regular agenda when the plat --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good idea.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I'll amend my second to
include that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Further discussions or questions on
the part of the board?
It's my understanding that the petitioner needs three votes
in order to have this approved. Well, I'm not going to support it
as it currently is, so that will give the commissioners some
opportunity -- or the petitioner some idea to know where I am.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Nor am I.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So you have an opportunity to
continue, or if we deny it, it's a six-month period.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that right, Mr. Weigel? If we
deny it, it can't come back for six months?
MR. WEIGEL.' No, that's to distinguish -- on a rezone there
would be a six-month limitation. Not on this.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: When could they come back?
MR. WEIGEL: This isn't even a regular advertised type thing,
so they get back when they can get back, when they're in a
position to do so.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' No limitation, just they'd have to
reapply, pay the new fee, go through the process again.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. Do note that since this has gone
throughout the EAC and the CCPC, that if they have changes,
substantive changes, it would be going through those again,
which would kind of be a time frame roadblock to get
immediately back.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Then I will suggest if it is continued,
that people who have been here that want to explore other
opportunities of purchasing this thing from the developer, that
you would then have a time line and an aggressively-- aggressive
Page 73
November 14, 2000
time line to work cooperatively with the developer to see if this
can be purchased.
So I want that clearly understood, that you -- I'm giving you
this window of opportunity because of my concerns about where
this is and what's going on. Because what they're presenting, if
that was the only option I had to deal with today, that would be
different. But I see some other options. So that's where I am and
that's why I'm not supporting this.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And I find myself in the same
position.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'm going to withdraw my
motion.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, then I don't have anything to
second.
MR. PEEPLES: Commissioners, if I may, and I know the
public hearing is closed, based upon the current disposition of
the board, we would like to continue this matter, and we would
like to look into dealing with the gopher tortoise preserve and
the ST area, and coming back to you at a later date.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I could make a motion to
continue it for a time certain, if you have a time in mind, and that
might give the community an opportunity to know how much
time is out there.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think 60 days.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Three months? Two months?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, you're going to come up with
the holidays here, and I'm not so sure that this -- I mean, it
impacts the community that's directly affected. They've got
things going on in their lives. You guys are going to be -- it's
tough to do things around the holidays. So maybe 90 days is a
fair --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'd say 90, 120 days.
MR. PEEPLES: It's up to the board's discretion. We can be
prepared to return within 60 days, so it's up to your discretion as
to what you're comfortable with.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll make a motion to continue it
for 90 days.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: 90 days?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Page 74
November 14, 2000
Opposed?
Motion carries 3-1.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who opposed the --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I opposed it. I would have given him a
longer time line, because if we're going to deal with these other
entities, they're going to need to do. But it doesn't make any
difference.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, they said they could do it, so
that's why I went with them.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, then I will withdraw that and I
will make it 4-0, unanimous.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right, moving on, ladies and
gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is it lunchtime, Jim?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, it's pretty close, but I think we've
got some items here we may be able to --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Dispose of?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- dispose of.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ever the optimist.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Can we move to the next item on our
agenda?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Starting the impact fees, right?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, we cannot do that easily. I will
say that we will recess for one hour. We'll -- Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Sounds good to me.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
MR. WEIGEL: No.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
(Lunch recess.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Any questions?
Okay, resume at 1:15.
We're back in session.
Item #8A6
STAFF DIRECTED TO ASSESS THE FULL IMPACT FEE BASED ON
CALCULATION OF NET ACREAGE WITH LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO
BE DETERMINED BY THE EARLIER DECISION ON NAPLES
HERITAGE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB - APPROVED
Moving to Item No. 8(2) -- 8(A)(2), reconsideration of golf
Page 75
November 14, 2000
course impact fees.
I would like, before we start this deliberation, to have some
opening comments by our legal counsel, Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thought it appropriate as we approach agenda Items
8(A)(2) through (12) to mention for the record, for the public, for
all of us, why we have the reconsideration items before us today
and some of the legal advice that we're giving you, both before
and will provide of course during the course of the hearing of
these items.
As you're aware, on September 12th and September 26th at
regularly advertised public board meetings, these very items,
8(A)(2) through 8(A)(12) on today's agenda were heard by the
board and the board made determinations based on the petitions,
the comment, the speakers and staff recommendation. For
several of the items, the board denied petitioners' requests to
have the opportunity to submit alternative impact fee
calculations and have an alternative impact fee hearing.
The staff and the county attorney and the clerk of courts
had advised the board that based upon the fact situations for
many, if not all, of the items that were before the board on
September 12th and September 26th, that Ordinance 92.22 did
not provide a legal means for the board to offer an alternative
impact fee hearing, based upon facts that had occurred in the
course of the administrative proceedings prior to this board --
those board meetings.
The board's discussion at those two agenda dates for these
items included the hearing and discussion of past county
practices, some misinformation from staff to petitioners or their
agents, and the actions of petitioners or inactions of petitioners
pursuant to the ordinance.
With the acquisition of building permits, in some cases
payments were made under protest, in some cases payments
were not made, in some cases payments were made that were
less than appropriate under the Ordinance 92-22.
In other cases, alternative fee calculation studies weren't
timely provided. And these were the considerations the board
had before it when it made its decisions on September 12th and
September 26th for these various items before you today again.
Subsequent to the meetings of September 12th and
Page 76
November 14, 2000
September 26th, the board, upon advice of the county attorney,
with concurrence of the clerk, and in a timely fashion, utilized its
reconsideration ordinance, and with an affirmative vote of those
voting in the majority in the first place brought all these items
back for today for reconsideration of the decisions made by the
board initially on September 12th and September 26th.
Today the staff will review for the board and prior to board
action on each of these golf course items under reconsideration
today and provide a recommendation.
I advise the board, for clarity, to act by motion and vote for
each golf course property or petition that is before you today.
You will note in the agenda that I think there are three golf
courses included under 8(A)(2). Again, you may wish to vote
individually for clarity on each of those golf courses whether or
not the action you may take is the same for all.
I want to note for the board that the board previously
directed the county attorney, in conjunction with the clerk, to
ask the court for a declaratory judgment, filing a lawsuit to
obtain same, for certain aspects of Ordinance 92-22. Looking to
what the requirements are under the ordinance, particularly in
regard to alternate impact fees, the hearings and calculations,
and to learn from the court a determination as to what were the,
call it, the flexibilities of the board to administer this ordinance
where there are certain language provisions that say shall,
others say may, and others leave no space or comment, taking
into account, quote, equitable, closed quote, considerations.
Mr. Robin Doyle, on behalf of -- an attorney on behalf of
several, if not all, of the petitioners, asked the Board of County
Commissioners to meet with the county attorney and the county
staff before a lawsuit will be filed by the county attorney and the
clerk. The board agreed, and with perseverance a meeting was
ultimately held this last week.
Present on behalf of the petitioners, and I hope I leave no
one out, were the following attorneys: Mr. George Varnadoe,
Bruce Anderson, Leo Salvatori, Rich Yovanovich, and Robin
Doyle.
Staff was there, as well as representatives from the county
attorney's office, and Dwight Brock, the clerk.
In a moment, I'm going to turn this over to Ramiro to give a
brief comment in regard to what occurred or came from that
Page 77
November 14, 2000
meeting. I will also state, however, that the clerk and the county
attorney have had numerous discussions about what flexibility or
interpretive authority the board has in regard to golf course
acreage. Golf course acreage is of course the element under
consideration in dispute today, as well as in September.
We are of the unified opinion that it is in fact the legislative
body, this Board of County Commissioners, that has the
prerogative to clarify and declare what golf course acreage
means under the ordinance. It doesn't require a request to the
court for this board to make its own determination.
And we do know that one of the items for reconsideration
today, I believe it was Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club,
the board did in fact apply -- practically apply an interpretation of
golf course acreage, which was this, if I state it correctly: That
the golf course, that is, golf course acreage, shall be without
consideration of those preserve areas and non-playable water
areas.
Now, what are non-playable water areas? My understanding
is, and I stand for correction, if necessary, for those water areas
that act as borders on the golf course, are non-playable and in
fact water holes on the playable golf course that are surrounded
by playable course of that very hole fairway would in fact not be
those water areas accepted from the definition. I'll restate that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
MR. WEIGEL: We're not talking about all water areas on a
golf course not being golf course acreage. We are saying that
those significant bodies of water, retention areas that serve as
buffers to residential areas that serve as frames or borders of the
golf course and are separate and distinct from a water hole in
the fairway, surrounded by fairway on all sides, approaching a
green, for instance, that is the water area that we're talking
about that practically may, if adopted or declared by the board,
not be considered part of the golf course acreage.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question for the attorney. Are
you asking is that the determination of this board? Because if
you are, my answer is that's for engineers and planners, and I'm
not going to be the person who decides what lake gets counted
Page 78
November 14, 2000
and what doesn't. I mean, I'm willing to say you guys go charge
them what is due, but I'm not going to say what lake counts and
what lake doesn't.
MR. WEIGEI.: No, and I'm not putting you in that position to
do so. I'm saying that as a legislative body, you can declare
what was the intention of the legislation enacted. Obviously by a
prior board, but enacted by the board. Then it could be up to
staff to apply that to the golf courses that are before it,
stemming from today's hearings.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I can tell you, I mean, I
don't know how you want that determined, but I can speak for
myself that it's my intent that whatever is standard practice in
the industry to be considered a part of a golf course should be
taxed for impact fees -- sorry, wrong word, impact fees are not
taxed -- should be assessed. And whatever is not standard in the
industry should not be. But I -- I'm not in the position to make
that determination.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, if you aren't, who, I guess? But the fact
is that we're talking here -- it's just as our similar discussion that
we had regarding building permit. We have definitions within this
ordinance which are not the same as definitions or standards in
other ordinances. So you have the ability to make the
determination, if you wish to do so, or you can frame it as you
wish to do. This is what I'm telling you.
But the practical application of what you did for Naples
Heritage Golf and Country Club was as I have stated to you. And
if you, again as part of your reconsideration process today, wish
to continue with that thought and apply it elsewhere, as well as
reapply it to Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club, you may do
so. But it's your prerogative, and it doesn't have to remain in the
court, as far as that goes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So Mr. Chairman, one other
thought then is if it would be useful for this board to take a vote
to instruct staff to determine what is appropriately to be
considered as golf course acreage as what's standard in the
industry or what engineers determine is appropriately to be
included, I would be happy to do that and see -- and let staff go
and handle that. But I don't -- I don't even want to look at these
one on one and see maps of golf courses and say that lake's out
and that lake's in.
Page 79
November 14, 2000
MR. WEIGEL: No, no, I'm telling you that you don't have to
do that. If you adopt the concept, whatever that concept may
be, the staff can apply that concept.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So how would we adopt that,
David? Should I make a motion?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's up to the Chair to determine the
order of things, obviously. But yes, I would suggest that the
board may wish to, if it would -- at any point in time, and it can be
before or it can be during the course of hearing these individual
items, that the board can set in course a motion and a vote, if it
wishes to. And if it wants to do that after it's heard an item and
then continue with that thereafter, it may do so. But yes, it will
take an act of the board.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I want to make two comments
then. One, I think I understand where Commissioners Mac'Kie's
going and perhaps the other commissioners. We can deal with
the concept of net acreage, including preserves and whatever in
net acreage would eliminate or include water. But we are not of
the technical expertise to make those decisions. But I see our
county manager nodding his head that staff has the -- using the
industry standard or whatever it is, we can end up with what we
call net acreage; you charge a full impact fee on that net
acreage.
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If that's where we're going with this,
that's one piece of this.
The other is that perhaps we ought to hear the first
petitioner who represents three of these golf courses, and then
within that framework we could come back and apply whatever
that means. And that may set the process in motion for us to
deal with it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, you know,
respectfully, that's my concern. I don't want to even -- I don't
want to know how it would apply to a particular golf course. I
don't want to do the math. I don't want to know which courses it
applies to and which one it doesn't. I mean, I'm happy to say
that -- and I think I will, if you'll entertain it, make a motion that
the board direct staff to determine what is standard industry
practice for golf course acreage to be included or excluded --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: In this situation.
Page 80
November 14, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- in the assessment of impact
fees.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I'm okay with that, if we can
entertain a motion and have discussion of the board and then we
can establish that up front, then we can hear the particular
cases.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, my concern is I don't
want to know how that applies to a particular case. I just want
to say here's what the legislative intent is, is that you charge
impact fees for golf course acreage, period.
MR. WEIGEL: That's all I'm asking or telling you you need to
do. I'm not telling you to get involved with the individual items in
regard to a conceptual declaration of what the interpretation of
golf course acreage is. And if you make that pronouncement,
that's fine, whatever that pronouncement may be. Then the staff
can apply it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Before we do that, do we need to hear
from Ramiro of the results of his meeting to --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I would like to --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think so.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- before we move to that?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes.
MR. MANALICH: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
commissioners. For the record, Ramiro Manalich, chief assistant
county attorney.
I think we've covered a lot of ground. I'll make it very brief,
try to simplify or condense things as much as possible.
We had the meeting with the legal representatives of the
golf courses, per your direction. I was impressed with what they
presented in terms of, you know, they -- I thought they presented
researched, substantial, creative arguments.
And what that led to is the following as far as the county
attorney's office and the clerk: On the matter of acreages, we
think that the board can conceptually declare, if it wishes, the
policy that is to be applied by staff as to acreage.
With regard, however, we disagree as to their rights to an
alternative fee hearing request before this board. For the
reasons we've already gone over before, both the clerk and
county attorney office feel that the ordinance does not allow
that.
Page 81
November 14, 2000
Now, as I said, to the credit of the legal representatives of
the golf courses, you know, they presented some interesting,
substantial arguments. However, they were not to a point that
they convinced us that we were safe in telling you or the clerk in
issuing any refunds or other payments based on those
arguments. We still feel that only a court could adequately tell
us that. Until that occurs, if it does, our position is that the
ordinance is constitutional and they do not have a right to
alternative fee hearing calculation.
Now, I will also add for your information that we have been
told that there is a potential that there could be litigation over
the constitutionality of the underpinning of our ordinance. But
that, if it were to transpire, is there regardless of whether they're
given their alternative fee hearing request or not.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And that could have happened at any
time on any golf course, now or in the future. MR. MANALICH: Correct.
Now, the only other thing that I would add is that I think that
one of the cases before you, perhaps the first one, Vanderbilt,
which is represented by Mr. Yovanovich, I believe has some
unique aspects that already involve prior board action but do not
fall into the category of alternative fee hearing request, which
you will probably need to hear. But I think that condenses where
we have come and where we are.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have two concerns here, and
one has to do with the acreage issue. And I think that some golf
courses are different from other golf courses. There are some
public golf courses that could impact the road system differently
than a private golf course that has limited membership. And I
don't know how we would deal with that if we focus on acreage
alone.
The other concern I have is to do with the ordinance itself,
and a determination whether we can even hear a request for an
alternative fee calculation. My preference would be to establish
that and the legality of whether we can or cannot offer the
alternative fee calculation. And I think the things are two
separate issues.
And so I'm in favor personally of having the courts decide
Page 82
November 14, 2000
whether we can do these alternative fee calculation hearings or
not.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's what I understood Ramiro to
tell us. Am I correct?
MR. MANALICH.' Correct. Our advice is that this board does
not under the ordinance have the power to entertain the
alternative fee hearing request, so --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: So we don't even have to go to
court to find that out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we can always --
MR. MANALICH.' Well, we had offered what is known as a
declaratory relief action, where we could have joined with the
representatives of the golf courses to have a court, through our
mutual efforts declare whether or not you could offer that, but --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: There's my preference.
MR. MANALICH: But I don't think -- and obviously they will
have to indicate their position on this, but I don't believe that
they're inclined to accept that proposal. And if that is the case,
then our advice is that you do not grant the alternative fee
hearing request.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. So we've really got two pieces
here; one that says we can define, through staff, what is net
acreage and apply the full impact fee of $1,066. We can do that.
Your other recommendation to us is don't allow an alternative
impact fee hearing, send that for a declaratory judgment, if
necessary, to resolve those other issues.
So if I'm distilling this to two -- two pieces in front of us,
that's where we are as we listen to these presentations, or don't
listen to them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, because my wish is that
we could frame a motion that said we accept that
recommendation, that we gave our interpretation of acreage, or
as much guidance as we could give on the Naples Heritage, if
that's the one that Mr. Varnadoe had that we brought up. We
looked at it then. We gave our intent. If you have specific
questions, I guess, ask them, but they need to be professionally
answered.
So it seems to me we could get rid of all of this with a
two-part motion that we accept staff's recommendation by
instructing them to determine the appropriate acreage and
Page 83
November 14, 2000
assess the full fee, and advising the developers that if they want
to seek an alternate calculation, we'll have to see them in court.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Once again, are we changing the
rules in the middle of the game here?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we are enforcing them.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Are we?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, the only thing that bothers
me is the ordinance apparently allows for an alternative fee
calculation, correct?
MR. MANALICH: It does allow for one, but it's our position,
both the county attorney and the clerk, that the requirements for
invoking that right have not been met by the golf courses. So
they essentially have given up that right, or do not have it under
the ordinance, because they did not timely follow the
requirements to have the alternative fee hearing calculation
hearing.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Does it distinctly state in the
ordinance under the alternative fee calculation anything in
regard to this particular hearing and so forth?
MR. MANAI. ICH: Yes, there are. And obviously, as in most
legal matters, there is some degree of interpretation involved.
We think the clerk and the county attorney's office made it clear
that one must make that request and pay the impact fees prior to
the issuance of its first building permit.
As I mentioned earlier, represent -- the legal representatives
of the golf courses have advanced alternative interpretations of
how that applies, which we at this point do not agree with.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. One of my fears of court is --
and maybe if we're just going for a clarification, that's one thing.
But to send these cases to court, I don't -- I hope we're not
thinking -- we're not planning to do that; is that my
understanding?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, what I'm saying is we --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I'll tell you why I'm opposed to
it. Because I think then it's all or nothing. And at that point, we
may lose. I mean it's 50/50, I guess, maybe. I don't know,
depends on who you talk to, I suppose.
MR. MANALICH: Practically speaking, as far as how things
Page 84
November 14, 2000
might unfold, and obviously the representatives of the golf
courses may have additional comments, but from the way I see
it, I'm informed by staff and it's my understanding that with the
exception of two golf courses, the fees have in fact been paid
and collected.
So it would appear that unless by joint agreement we went
in for a declaratory action by the court, if that does not happen,
then the likelihood would be that we in turn would be sued by
those who are not in agreement with our approach. And then I
understand that it's very likely that the issue of constitutionality
would be raised and then we'd have to defend that, of course.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Here's another thing. If we decide
now, and probably the net acreage is probably not a bad thing. I
wish we'd talked about this a long time ago back when the
ordinance was enacted, it may have saved everybody a whole lot
of grief. But if we do this now, what if some of the golf courses
come in owing less money than what they paid? Because most
of them have paid, correct?
MR. MANALICH: That's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is the clerk then going to write a
check for the difference?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, I think I can respond. And that is, the
clerk is perfectly sanguine, perfectly accepting, agreeing with
the fact that if the net acreage definition is clearly enunciated by
the board here -- and the reason that I'm mentioning that it ought
to be enunciated by the board here, if it endorses that, is
because remember, the previous item that it was implemented
in, one item alone, Naples Heritage, is up for reconsideration
today. So it's in limbo in the meantime.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, see, and there's where I have
a problem, David. We accepted a check, which in my mind when
we accepted that check, we took it in good faith that this was
payment of the impact fee.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, that --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I mean, that was my understanding
the day that we did it. Now, how do we come back and say
sorry, that wasn't enough, because we've changed the rules now
and we're going to go back and reassess? How do we do that
and sound equitable?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I'm here to free you, not cage you. And
Page 85
November 14, 2000
the fact is, is that everyone operates, including this board, under
the reconsideration ordinance. And so the board has the legal
prerogative to question acts that's it's done, as long as it does it
in a due process, timely manner, which it has done here upon the
advice of the county attorney.
So everything you're doing here today is legal and
appropriate and properly noticed and within the framework of the
reconsideration ordinance. And the fact that a check was paid
or a check was cashed is an interesting point, but it's not
determinative of the ability of this board to continue to operate
and make governance decisions pursuant to the laws that govern
the body. And so you're there.
MR. MANALICH: Commissioner, I would just add, I mean I
would agree with what David has just said, but for the board's
full information, I will let you know that my contact with the legal
representatives of the golf courses indicates that they feel they
do have a binding settlement on that matter because of the
cashing of the check.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
MR. MANALICH: You will recall that in the Lely guardhouse
matter, we have a matter over in the other building having to do
with a litigation about an agreement or a vote that was later
undone through reconsideration. We're still defending that and I
believe we will prevail, but my point is that, you know, your point
has been raised as a potential legal issue for the litigation also.
That may be something we will be dealing with also, just for your
information.
MR. WEIGEL: One other thing I wanted to mention here,
though, is that if in fact the board were to restate what appears
to be the interpretation for golf course acreage that it
implemented with Naples Heritage, it is conceivable. And then
based upon our, call it anecdotal discussions with counsel and
petitioners here, is conceivable that significant of the number
before you today of these agenda items, these golf courses, may
in fact fall out and no longer be contentious, so to speak, in
regard to pursuing legal issues before the court.
Now, I can't promise you that that's the case, but I think
that in fact as we look toward fairness and find measures where
the board can implement fairness and equities and things of that
nature, where in much of the ordinance there is no ability there,
Page 86
November 14, 2000
this is one place where the clerk and the county attorney, as
well as other things, but here's one place we clearly agree. And
so you have the ability and the prerogative upon you to approach
it and define yourself today.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: In the meetings that we had on
September 12th and 26th, one of the issues that we kept talking
about had to do with fairness and equity. MR. WEIGEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And that's one of the reasons we
did what we did at that time, only to find out that we couldn't do
it in the way the ordinance is structured and limits our ability to
do things. If I'm hearing correctly, fairness and equity can be
brought into play if we deal with the acreage issue; is that
correct?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, what I'm saying is, is that to a large
measure, I suppose those issues or questions go away, because
there is a standard which many people on both sides of the aisle
agree upon. And you have the ability to clarify that standard.
Heretofore, we've been operating under a gross acreage
standard. And the clerk and I believe that you can state for the
record once and for all what that standard is.
And incidentally, as you know, the ordinance has been
amended so it no longer exists like this now. And the universe of
golf courses is pretty small. And we have captured nearly all of
these between 1992 and now with these 11 that are before you
right now.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: So with the --
MR. MANALICH: Commissioner Brandt --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: So with the issue that has to do
with golf course acreage, we could legally then focus on that
aspect of it and disregard the other part and not get a
declaratory judgment on whether we do or do not have the
prerogative of offering the hearings that we've talked about?
Does all of that go away?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, here's a thought. And part of your
direction to the county attorney and staff, we'll need to address
whether you want us to pursue the lawsuit at this time or see
what settles out after the hearings today. We can pursue
questioning and asking for authority from the court, whether
Page 87
November 14, 2000
we're a party plaintiff or a party defendant. And we don't know if
we're going to be a party defendant for sure at this point in time.
It will obviously, I think, depend on what the board does on an
individual basis, how it applies individually to the items before it
now,
But we think that it -- there's a possibility that the prior
direction of the board, which was include everybody in a lawsuit,
again, this universe of golf courses, may not be necessary.
The question is the same whether we have all of them as
defendants or just a few of them as defendants. The question
can be the same whether we are the defendant or not. Although,
we have been informed that if a petitioner should sue us, they're
not merely going to sue for clarification of the flexibility of the
ordinance, but they'll sue under the constitutional underpinnings
of the ordinance, too.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So I think what I'm hearing is that we
clarify the net acreage and we're going to have a motion on that
to go forward; we could see how many of these are resolved
under that issue, and at the end of the day we might find out that
we have maybe only a few situations to deal with and those may
be able to be sorted out without a declaratory judgment. Or they
may require one, but we don't know until we get there. So if it
would be the pleasure of the board to entertain a motion to do
that, the Chair would accept it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to make a motion. I have
a question that's probably for Mr. Mulhere. I don't know who
otherwise.
Is it normal to compute impact fees on net acreage?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: On golf courses?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On anything.
MR. MULHERE.' Well, in particular, folks on the golf course
decide. I think the staff does feel that computing the impact
fees on the playable area, including the water -- portions of the
water areas that are also playable is an appropriate methodology
to calculate those impact fees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that something that's done in
other jurisdictions?
MR. MULHERE: I can't answer that question.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie, that's a
question I asked before. Are we the only county in the State of
Page 88
November 14, 2000
Florida that has impact fees on golf courses?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Can't be.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, who does and what do they
do? Because we sure aren't figuring it out.
MR. TINDALE: Phil Tindale, impact fee coordinator.
We haven't checked with every other county that assesses
impact fees on golf courses. We have checked with Indian River
County and with Lee County, and what they do is something
similar to what's been described to you today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To this net acreage?
MR. TINDALE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I'm going to make a motion
that the board instruct the staff that we confirm our earlier
determination of net acreage as described in the Heritage
Greens (sic), that we give discretion to the staff to answer other
questions that may not have been specifically addressed in the
Heritage Greens case.
MR. WEIGEL: Naples Heritage case.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Naples Heritage, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Not Heritage Greens.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry, Naples Heritage.
And that we instruct the staff to defend any lawsuit that's
brought against the county where a developer is seeking an
alternate impact fee calculation. That way we don't have to file
a lawsuit, we just have to defend one if they do. Is that a bad idea, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: No. We defend them if they're filed, whether
you direct us to or not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, that's the good news.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Commissioner, I might be able to
support this, but I'll tell you where I'm still hung up. I don't think
it's been addressed and maybe -- and I'm not even sure in the
new changes if it's been addressed.
We're talking about a road impact fee, okay? We're not
talking about anything else, we're talking about road impact fees
on golf courses. And all things are not equal in all golf courses. I
think David alluded to that before. You have golf courses that
are strictly golf courses that have no facilities for mamma and
the kids to go have lunch and go swim and play tennis and do all
Page 89
November 14, 2000
those kinds of things. Certainly has a different impact than a
golf course where you go out, play golf, you may be able to get
something to drink and maybe a sandwich there, and when
you're finished you leave and go home.
The difference -- those are basically very private golf
courses, much to the chagrin of many people in Collier County.
But nevertheless, they are private and they don't generate the
traffic that your full-blown, quote, country club generates.
We still have not distinguished, and we're talking -- now,
don't forget, don't lose sight of road impact fees. The road that
goes to these golf courses is not impacted as much as the road
that goes to some of the country clubs, or some of the public golf
courses, or the ones that are open to everybody.
Now, I don't understand how this whole thing is fair and
equitable with what we're doing. I still -- I understand what
Ramiro has said, I understood what David has said, but I don't
understand the fairness in assessment of a, quote, road impact
fee on these different kinds of golf courses. Tell me what I'm
missing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, Commissioner Berry, I
swore I was going to sit here and be quiet today instead of try to
come up with a solution.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I agree, I did too. I thought
this was the best thing I could do is just to keep my mouth shut
and just swing out of here at the end of the day. I'll tell you what,
this thing has absolutely -- it is something that is just like it just
won't go away. It's just tenacious. It just hangs on us.
And we try to be fair, and we found out we can't be fair. We
can't be equitable. We thought we were doing the right thing.
Gee, let's hear everybody, let's hear the problems, let's try and
distinguish it, let's get it sorted out. Can't do it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, let me bring it this way just for a
moment. Just for a moment. If you use a universal $1,066
against both categories, what you're going to find, if you want to
play this, the private course may be saying, you know, we're
paying a little more than the person that has a full club. But on
the aggregate, if you put it on an average, we probably got
everything is there.
And I don't think the golf course communities are going to
fight this and say well, gee, you know, we have a little less
Page 90
November 14, 2000
traffic and you have a little more traffic over here. If they're
going to do that, we're going to go nuts. COMMISSIONER BERRY: We are.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I think that maybe we're already
there.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, we're there.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Hello, David Lawrence Center, here we
go.
I just think that if we can go to what Commissioner Mac'Kie
has proposed as a motion and we can get a second to that, will
we be operating within our arena that will be equitable and fair?
MR. WEIGEL: You are, and -- I think yes. The answer is yes.
And another comment I'd make is, I don't think it's
altogether inappropriate to compare this to, for instance, ad
valorem property taxes that pay for services, governmental
services. And that's what the road impact fees do, too, is to pay
for services. You may have the house with a lot of value, one
person living in it and they pay a big tax. They're demanding far
less service than another house that's demanding far more
services in the Iow income, you know, type of valuation. And so
there is some averaging that occurs in the formulation of tax
laws and then in fees and assessments.
And as Mr. Carter indicated, there is a methodology here.
And the methodology in fact shows an aggregate, a study done
on many different kinds of golf courses to come up with the use
of acreage as our analytical point here in our ordinance. So you
have an opportunity to fine tune the definition, and that's really
all that is here.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: David, I rarely disagreed with you
since I've sat here for four years, but I've got to tell you, you just
lost me on that last bit of logic. Because the bigger does create
more of a burden than the smaller. And the smaller being the
private golf course. And there -- it is an inequitable, in my
opinion. There is no equity there.
MR. WEIGEL: No, I'm saying that there's inequity in both
areas.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But Commissioner Berry, what
they're telling us is we don't have the authority to figure it out.
You know, we have to operate within the scope, within the
boundaries that they give us. They've given us these boundaries.
Page 91
November 14, 2000
I don't know why when this all came up they didn't suggest net
acreage, if net acreage was a reasonable alternative from the
beginning, but here we are.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: We are where we are.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In the infamous words of our
former county attorney.
But, you know, I just -- I don't -- it sure would be easier just
to say let the court decide. And I think there's a little bit of -- a
little risk whenever you go into a courtroom, which is why if net
acreage is normal, I'm willing to go there.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Brandt, and then let's
make a decision.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: An observation. If we go by
acreage, it may very well be that some of these gated
communities might change the size of their golf courses and use
less water and maybe conserve some of the water that we have
here in the community. So -- and the reason I say that, and I see
some questioning nods of heads, but in some of the very large
developments, we have large golf courses that cover many acres
of land. And so I just wonder if that would be an impact or not.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, but look at what we've got
here. I mean, if you're -- I don't know what you're thinking of,
David, but you take a look at the golf courses that are on here --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I'm thinking of future ones.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, future is one thing, but we
aren't dealing with the future, we're dealing with these 10 or 12
or whatever they are here.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I understand what you're saying,
but, David, those days are gone. It's the same -- you know, they
are -- they are where they are.
MR. MANALICH: One other comment here --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: We'll be making a decision, and
that decision can affect the future. And we need to look at the
future.
MR. MANALICH: Commissioner, in regard to the future, it's
my understanding that the ordinance amendment was such that
that will be based on holes played. The impact fee will be based
on the holes that the golf course has, not on the acreage.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We'll never have this discussion
Page 92
November 14, 2000
again.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, want to bet?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm going to second Commissioner
Mac'Kie's motion. So it's now on the table. Is there any further
discussion? I'd like to call the question.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Opposed?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do those who are opposing have
anything they could amend it with that would allow us to move
forward?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I'm not that creative.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is it that you guys want to
do? Because I'm so open to know what's the right thing to do, I
can't tell you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I agree. And it's not -- I just am not
there, because I don't understand the equitableness in doing
what that motion said. Okay? It's -- to me it's not fair and it's
not equitable.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not.
MR. OLLIFF: Let me try and help. And I swore to myself I'd
sit here and shut up, too, but --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, don't do that now.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: We need your help.
MR. WEIGEL: It seems to me that there are three decisions
in front of the board today. And while you may not think it is
equitable, I will tell you that the ordinance that has established
the rules of the game with which we're playing today is one
based on acreage. So the only question is the impact fee under
this ordinance is based on an acreage definition. The definition
that has been used is one that we've considered in general
terms, gross acreage, that regardless of the number of acres, if
it's shown on a site development plan to be 300 acres and yet
the only portion of that 300 acres that is playable is a 100-acre
golf course, we have assessed or showed the fee that is due
based on the full 300 acres.
Page 93
November 14, 2000
So what the board has seemed to say in its decision with
Naples Heritage is that doesn't seem to be the fairest way to
assess an acreage fee, and perhaps you ought to go look at what
is the actual playable acres on that out of the total gross
acreage and assess the fee to that.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I agree with that.
MR. OLLIFF: Assess the full fee, but assess the full fee to
the acres that are only assigned towards the golf course. The
board needs to make that decision today. You need to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was part one of my motion.
MR. OLLIFF: That was part one of your motion.
The second two decisions that need to be made, one of
them is not for us to make. And perhaps there are some
representatives here who can make that, but the attorneys have
told you that one of the options is for us to go hand-in-hand to the
courts and try to get a judge to provide for us a declaratory
judgment, because there seems to be a question of law. The
question is whether or not this board can now hear at this point
in time alternative impact fee hearings or not. That is a decision
where it seems as if the board is willing to offer that as an
option, then we need to hear from the other side.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the reason I'm not on that
one is if they want to sue us, if they don't like acreage --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Let them do it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- sue us.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That was the second part of your
motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the second part of my
motion.
MR. OLLIFF: Okay. And if the board -- if the board does not
want to offer that declaratory judgment option, then the third
decision really isn't a decision, because you've already made it
then. If -- for those courses who are not satisfied by a decision
from gross acreage down to a net acreage, they will have the
option then of whether or not they are going to take to us to
court to determine whether or not the board should have heard
the alternative impact fee hearings or not. And then that will
again be decided by a judge at that point.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: So we really only need one -- a
motion that covers one thing, and that's whether we determine it
Page 94
November 14, 2000
on acreage or not. That's all we really need. MR. WEIGEL-' That would do it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have one more question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I mean, I'll make that. But
Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: If someone has already paid their
impact fees, and maybe they even paid under protest, but they
have paid whatever amount of money that at the time they were
told they had to pay --
MR. OLLIFF: Right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- and I haven't had time to go back
and look at this. But if you were to go back and check the list, if
any of those people have paid and the new calculation under the
acreage would be more, would they be expected to pay the
difference from what they paid originally to the new acreage
calculation? In other words, if they paid under protest --
MR. OLLIFF: They cannot --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- they went ahead and paid
everything in full, they paid exactly what the county told them to
pay, and now we come up here and they -- because they were
going for an alternative fee calculation, which they were allowed
to do under the ordinance. So the Board of County
Commissioners did not say we're going to let you all off the hook
and you can do this. The ordinance provided for this. Okay, now,
if they come back --
MR. OLLIFF: Let me stop you there. Because your
attorney's office is telling you the ordinance does not provide for
that after a certain period of time. And for all of these golf
courses that are on your agenda today, with the exception of
one, the attorney's office and the clerk's consistent opinion is
that they have all relinquished that right to have that hearing
because the ordinance isn't timed right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And many of them are saying that
they still have that right.
MR. OLLIFF.' Correct. And that's the question at --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So the only way that's probably
going to be determined is for them to take us to court. MR. OLLIFF.' Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But that's going to be their
decision to make.
Page 95
November 14, 2000
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am.
MR. MANALICH: Commissioner Berry, the only thing I would
add to that is I believe they will also -- their legal representatives
will also tell you in addition to asserting that they have the right
to alternative hearing contrary to our position, that they also
believe there may be constitutional deficiencies with the
underpinning of the ordinance as a whole. But of course, you
know, we disagree on that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So they'd sue us on trying to pay
zero. They try to pay zero and say it's unconstitutional, or in the
alternative they'd say they should get an alternative calculation,
or maybe they'll accept net acreage and go away. But, you know,
that's probably too much to hope for.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: If you'll go back to your motion
and take that second part out, then I can support it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Then I'll make my motion,
absent its second part.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What was it in the first part?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: She can read it back for you, if you
want her to.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I think I can do it.
Is that we direct staff to assess the full impact fee for golf
courses, based on a calculation of net acreage, with the
legislative intent to be determined by our -- that's bad. David's
stopping me.
MR. WEIGEL: You're determining the legislative intent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I'm saying, by the
legislative intent to be determined by our earlier decision on --
what was it?
MR. WEIGEL: Naples Heritage--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Naples Heritage.
MR. WEIGEL: -. Golf and Country Club.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And with staff discretion to work
out any nuances that may be necessary.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I can support that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So second it, somebody.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, the second's there. I'm just
looking at the attorney to say now we've got what we need in
Page 96
November 14, 2000
there so that we're not going to get ourselves boxed.
MR. WEIGEL: No, you've got what you need there.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I swore I wasn't going to make a
motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I call the motion.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed by same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries. All right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So now what?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now, I understand we have to hear the
cases, if they want to present them. MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is that my understanding?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it may be brief in the sense that you
have -- you as a board have an obligation to vote on the
reconsideration or not. And the staff can tell you, as well as the
matrix as they call it, that tells you what your determination was
the last time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we have to vote on each one,
but it ought to be quick.
MR. WEIGEL: It could be very brief, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because the policy is set.
MR. WEIGEL: And you may have some assistance from
petitioners' representatives to assist you there, to make it brief.
Item #8A2
STAFF DIRECTED TO ASSESS THE FULL IMPACT FEE BASED ON
CALCULATION OF NET ACREAGE WITH LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO
BE DETERMINED BY THE EARLIER DECISION ON NAPLES
HERITAGE REGARDING BAY COLONY, PELICAN MARSH AND
TIBURON GOLF COURSES- APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Then we move to Item
8(A)(1) -- (2}? I'm sorry, we did that. We were there long enough.
Thank you. 8(A)(2),
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I make a motion that we
Page 97
November 14, 2000
reconsider these in accordance with my previous motion.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.}
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does that work, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Does for me.
Mr. Petitioner -- let's get petitioner on the record so he
doesn't file a suit later.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If the motion was to apply the net
acreage standard to the WCI golf courses, then WCI can accept
that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. That would take care of 8(A)(2).
MR. OLLIFF: You're withdrawing your request for
alternative?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, they're withdrawing their request
for an alternative fee calculation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're not going to sue us?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: On this issue.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's not push it, folks. He's shaking
his head no. Let's go to (3).
Item #8A3
STAFF DIRECTED TO ASSESS THE FULL IMPACT FEE BASED ON
CALCULATION OF NET ACREAGE WITH LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO
BE DETERMINED BY THE EARLIER DECISION ON NAPLES
HERITAGE RE GREY OAKS - APPROVED
All right, 8(A)(3).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who's on Grey Oaks?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Grey Oaks. Can we make a similar
motion?
MR. DOYLE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. You can
certainly make -- I don't want to interrupt the making of the
motion. I would like to speak to it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Well, why don't you speak.
MR. DOYLE: I actually--
Page 98
November 14, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: For the record, you are?
MR. DOYLE: I'm sorry. I'm Robert E. Doyle of Quarles and
Brady. I am here to speak on behalf actually of six of the golf
courses, and to keep me -- or to keep you from having to listen to
me say the same thing six times, perhaps I should just identify
the agenda item numbers.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: It would be helpful.
MR. DOYLE: Item 8(A}(3), Gray Oaks. (6), Naples Heritage.
(7), The Strand. (9), Golf Club of the Everglades. (11}, Cedar
Hammock. And (12}, Old Collier.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: That's (3), (6), (7), (9), (11) and
(12), right?
MR. DOYLE: Yes, sir.
Now, actually I think you have probably taken care of Naples
Heritage. I'm assuming that given your definition today, it will
not be necessary to reconsider your action with regard to them.
You've already done that and they have paid the fee, based on
your current definition of acreage.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we can call that item, I'll make
a motion not to reconsider Item 8(A)(6). Is that appropriate, Mr.
Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would think so.
Legal counsel, tell me if we're -- to me it makes sense.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We will now reconsider 8 --
MR. WEIGEL: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Call the question.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second. Call the question.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
MR. DOYLE: Thank you. Looking at the others, as you will
recall when we were last here, we encouraged a dialogue to
avoid the reconsideration vote on the subsequent litigation that
you have been discussing at some length today. I think your
action in adopting a declar -- a definition of acreage is a move in
the right direction.
The problem that we are faced with in your reconsideration
Page 99
November 14, 2000
of these other matters is that county staff and county attorney
and the clerk have indicated to you that you can do no more than
that. They have recommended that you not allow -- I think Mr.
Manalich has recommended that you not allow the golf course
owners to have an alternative fee hearing, as you had previously
approved.
The effect of that is that the golf course owners must pay
the full amount under the statute, an amount that you have
already determined by passing a new ordinance is not fair or
reasonable, or certainly not for every golf course.
And I would hasten to point out that it's not like the ad
valorem tax situation that was described earlier, because that is
in fact a tax which you've passed according to your rules
regarding taxes. This is an impact fee. And it has to bear that
reasonable relationship to the actual impacts that the golf
course makes on the transportation network.
So the golf course owners are being placed in a position
where they have no choice but to pay hundreds of thousands of
dollars more than they believe to be fair and reasonable, or
attack the ordinance in its entirety, saying that this ordinance is
unfair in its application to their golf course and should not be
enforced by the courts.
If we cannot present to this commission for determination
an alternative, we are going to be forced to ask the court to hear
that the commission has been misguided in adopting an
ordinance that was unconstitutional -- we realize that happened
quite some time ago -- and also misguided in not allowing us to
present our alternative calculation.
The result of that could be that the courts could invalidate
the entire ordinance, void those bills that have been presented to
our clients, and I suspect open the county to demands for some
substantial refunds.
So having said that, my purpose in standing before you here
today is to say that you previously said we want to do what's fair
and equitable. I happen to disagree with your county attorney's
decision that you are not allowed to do that.
And so I'm asking you, not suffering under any illusion that
you'll take my advice rather than the county attorney's advice,
but I'm asking you not to reconsider your prior vote, to allow the
golf courses to go forward with the alternative fee hearing,
Page t00
November 14, 2000
which would allow them to pay what is fair and reasonable in
terms of the impact, and would not force them to attack your
entire ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are there any of the golf courses
that you represent on whose behalf you can say today they
would be satisfied with the net acreage and not sue?
MR. DOYLE: The Naples Heritage that you've already
passed on certainly has already accepted that and has paid it.
The others, it is my understanding that they believe they're in a
different situation and could not accept that.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, if I may add a comment.
Where I disagree with Mr. Doyle has to do with his view that this
is an all or nothing proposition. What the clerk and the county
attorney's office have said is if you believe that we are
misinterpreting the alternative fee hearing right, then join us in a
mutually shared lawsuit to the court for declaratory relief, let the
court authoritatively guide the clerk and the board on that issue,
and we will respect that ruling. And that protects both the board
and the clerk in its actions. I don't believe it has to escalate to
an issue of is the whole ordinance unconstitutional or not. I
think we can lust go in on that limited question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would your clients be willing to
do that if we made a motion to allow them either in the
alternative to pay under the net acreage concept or to jointly
seek declaratory relief from the courts?
MR. DOYLE: Commissioner, what you would be asking us to
do is to go forward without knowing whether we would even be
accorded an alternative fee hearing. If the county attorney's
interpretation of the ordinance is correct, then we would not be
accorded such a hearing, and we would have to pay the full
amount. Since we are absolutely convinced that that is not fair,
we certainly would not give up the right to attack the ordinance
as a whole.
So while counsel is correct, that our clients could give up
some of their rights before they ever got to the courthouse, we
simply are not willing to do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I make a motion that we
reconsider Items 8(A) -- let's see, (3), (7), (9), (11) and (12) in
Page 101
November 14, 2000
accordance with my earlier motion regarding net acreage.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Which ones again, Pam? (3), (7) --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: (3), (7), (9), (11) and (12). All of
Mr. Doyle's clients except for the Heritage.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Except for (6).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Which is okay, because they've
already accepted.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay. You'll have to help me
understand your motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What it basically means is I'm
saying that the county's position is we will treat you like we're
treating everybody else. We will assess your fees based on
acreage, net acreage. And we understand if you have to sue us,
you have to sue us.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes. I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a first, I have a second. Any --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I made motions on items that
hadn't been called. Is that going to be part of your problem?
MR. OLLIFF: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then we'll probably have to call
each item then.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Then we need to go to Item No. (3),
which is Grey Oaks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So my motion stands as to Item
No. (3).
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And my second stands on Item
(3).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We need to hear on Item (A)(3).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what we lust did. So we
could vote on that one.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, all in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 3-1.
Item #8A7
Page 102
November 14, 2000
STAFF DIRECTED TO ASSESS THE FULL IMPACT FEE BASED ON
CALCULATION OF NET ACREAGE WITH LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO
BE DETERMINED BY THE EARLIER DECISION ON NAPLES
HERITAGE REGARDING THE STRAND - APPROVED
We go to Item -- we have to go with the (7), (8), because
that's the people he represents, right?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, can we go to (7)?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's go to Item No. (7), (A)(7). I'd
entertain a motion for that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is The Strand. I make the
same motion.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 3-1.
Item #8A9
STAFF DIRECTED TO ASSESS THE FULL IMPACT FEE BASED ON
CALCULATION OF NET ACREAGE WITH LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO
BE DETERMINED BY THE EARLIER DECISION ON NAPLES
HERITAGE REGARDING THE GOLF CLUB OF THE EVERGLADES -
APPROVED
Item No. (A)(9). This would be the Golf Club of the
Everglades.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same motion.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Same second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries -- opposed?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Same sign.
Page103
November 14, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 3-1.
Item #8A11
STAFF DIRECTED TO ASSESS THE FULL IMPACT FEE BASED ON
CALCULATION OF NET ACREAGE WITH LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO
BE DETERMINED BY THE EARLIER DECISION ON NAPLES
HERITAGE REGARDING CEDAR HAMMOCK COUNTRY CLUB -
APPROVED
Item No. A -- I'm sorry, No. (A)(8)-- no (A)(11).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Same motion. Same second?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Same second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
Motion carries 4-0 or 3-17
COMMISSIONER BERRY: 3-1.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 3-1. Okay.
Item #8A12
STAFF DIRECTED TO ASSESS THE FULL IMPACT FEE BASED ON
CALCULATION OF NET ACREAGE WITH LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO
BE DETERMINED BY THE EARLIER DECISION ON NAPLES
HERITAGE REGARDING OLD COLLIER GOLF CLUB - APPROVED
Item No. (12).
MR. OLLIFF: You have one registered speaker on that item.
MR. BRUET: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mike Bruet, on
behalf of Collier Development Corporation. And I'll be very quick.
I don't want to belabor the issue. All the points have been made
very well. There's just one related issue that involves the Old
Collier Golf Club, which I'd like to make everyone aware of once
again.
Back in November of 1998, I'm sure this board will
remember, we entered into a developer contribution agreement.
Again, this is in November of 1998. At that time we had come to
an agreement to provide two acres of land to accelerate the
widening and the six-laning of U.S. 41, and also require -- did not
Page 104
November 14, 2000
require the FDOT to purchase additional right-of-way for
drainage. This board was involved in that, they worked with us,
we worked with Norm Feder at the time to get this done. It took
a year and a half to do.
We gained impact fee credits, of course, based on that
agreement. When that agreement was executed back in
November of '98, the amount of $130,000, which was the
appraised value of the land that we made available, was put into
a fund and the fund is identified as Fund 331. That's a fund of
impact fee credits. It is still there today.
Now, I -- we take the position that we have paid our impact
fee credits back in November. And really, I don't think we belong
in this group. You know, we had these in place back in '98, and
they're still there today. And I'd like to make that point before
you vote.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I could ask Mr. Tindale a
question. What was the amount of money in that fund?
MR. BRUET: $130,000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: $130,000.
Mr. Tindale, under a net acreage -- well, under a gross
acreage calculation, does that cover their fee?
MR. TINDALE: Old Collier has paid their fee under protest in
the full amount, based upon a net acreage calculation, using
impact fee credit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if we -- if we treat them
exactly the same as we've treated everybody else Mr. Doyle
represents, they would get a credit to their impact fee credits? I
mean, they don't actually get a check. Is that what you're
asking?
MR. BRUET: No, ma'am. If you'd base us on acreage --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On net acreage.
MR. BRUET: -- we're using up virtually all of our $130,000.
And we feel that is very unfair. We are a very -- if you recall, a
very small club, small membership, and we don't think that's
appropriate at all.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're basically back to the
issue that Commissioner Berry has said -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely.
MR. BRUET: Commissioner Berry said it all. I'm not here to
belabor it again, but it's certainly our point of view.
Page 105
November 14, 2000
And again, I just need to make the point, we had a developer
agreement in place back in '98. Our money was there. We're a
little bit different than the other folks here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, are they any different
for the purposes of today's discussion?
MR. WEIGEL: Go ahead, Phil.
MR. TINDALE: If I --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Somebody?
MR. TINDALE-' -- may, a similar point was made by WCI on
September 12th that there were impact fee credits that they had,
but what they were told by the County Commission was you still
have to go through the administrative process of applying to use
those. And that's what was not done back at the period of time
he's referring to.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So WCI just accepted our position.
MR. TINDALE: Yes, sir.
MR. BRUET.' But we went through the process.
MR. DOYL.E: May I speak just a moment for Mr. Bruet? I
think his point ,s that despite the fact that the county attorney
and the clerk has told you that these various golf clubs did not
meet the requirements of the statute to be allowed to present
their alternative calculation to you, it's a little disingenuous for
the county to say well, you were a little bit late, Collier, in paying
your money when in fact this money has been in the account
since 1998.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' But the process isn't just to have
the money credited to an account. As they go through each
development permit, it's determined how much of that money
gets credited for that particular project's impact fee. And that
didn't happen.
MR. BRUET: Again, not going through all the dates and
belaboring all the issues and the history, we really did go through
the process. If you recall, we met with staff. We wrote letters to
staff and got a very poor response. And that's why we're here.
We decided to move forward and pull our building permit for a
maintenance building. We started -- we started conversations
with staff, as I pointed out, on the 26th before a PUD was
approved, because we had these funds there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I remember that one.
MR. BRUET: Honestly, I just don't think we're in the same
Page106
November 14, 2000
position. I hope the board sees it that way, in the spirit of
fairness that we're talking about here. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: I think the point that Commissioner Mac'Kie
made is correct. I think the fact that there is a balance of
impact fee credits there is not -- and I guess it's up to the board
to determine whether or not that constitutes payment. But
because there is a balance, a credit balance there, it could have
been used later in that project for other permits that were pulled.
And I guess that's the issue at hand.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Bruet, my bottom line is I've
stepped all over my own feet the last time we had this
discussion by trying to listen to the arguments you made,
because like I said at the time, if the county staff had behaved
perfectly, then I would be willing to be strict and not listen to a
word you had to say. But since the county staff didn't behave
perfectly, I was willing to listen. I am told by the clerk that I can
listen and think you're right all I want, but he's not going to cut
the check.
So I make the same motion as to your project as I've made
to the previous.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Same second?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Same second.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Same opposition.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, goes 3-1.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, just before we move beyond
Mr. Doyle's items, just one additional comment, which is I think
it's important to understand that when we offer the declaratory
relief action and the right under the ordinance and our
interpretation of it to the alternative fee hearing, that we were
not saying that they had to give up their constitutional
arguments.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a good point.
MR. MANALICH: We're merely saying join us to have a judge
fairly and adequately tell us if we are interpreting the ordinance
correctly or not. And if the judge says we are, you still have your
constitutional arguments left after that. And I have not had this
specific exact conversation with the clerk, so I can't speak on
behalf of the clerk on this very fine point.
But David, I tend to think you would agree with our position
Page 107
November 14, 2000
on this.
MR. WEIGEL: I would hope so, and I think so.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And so, Mr. Doyle, the only
remaining question, and it may not be something you answer in
this forum, but it's a request that to the extent a declaratory
judgment is sought, that we file that portion of any action jointly,
without your waiving any other constitutional or other claims.
MR. DOYLE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I can't speak for all of
my clients without having spoken to them directly. So I'm not in
a position.
But I would just as an aside say I never heard of a joint
declaratory judgment action. There is a plaintiff and a defendant
in every declaratory judgment action. So somebody's going to
have to be the plaintiff here.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So it's not like everybody holds
hands and walks together to the water?
MR. DOYLE: I generally don't -- my clients don't like me
holding the adverse party's hand when we go to the courthouse.
But if I'm with Ramiro, I might do that.
MR. MANALICH: Well, my only point being simply that
whether there's a defendant, a plaintiff or whatever, we go in, we
present the competing views and get a ruling on this issue. At
that point then the parties determine, particularly his clients,
whether they still want to pursue the constitutionality argument.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, so your question is would
they go forward with the declaratory judgment action and hold
other claims, pending its determination?
MR. MANALICH: Yes, I'm just saying that we're not trying to
put them in an impossible position of saying that you have to
give up your constitutional claims to go with us to get the
question answered on the interpretation of the alternative fee
hearing request. You still have that. You always had that.
MR. DOYLE: I understand the county would like to have its
cake and eat it too. But I don't think that's going to happen.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I think that maybe the
developers would like to have their cake and eat it, too. But, you
know, that's how it all works here, so we've just got to go see
what happens.
Item #8A4
Page 108
November 14, 2000
STAFF DIRECTED TO ASSESS THE FULL IMPACT FEE BASED ON
CALCULATION OF NET ACREAGE WITH LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO
BE DETERMINED BY THE EARLIER DECISION ON NAPLES
HERITAGE AND TO INCLUDE PENALTIES AND INTEREST
REGARDING THE VALENCIA AT ORANGETREE - APPROVED
So let's go to Item (A)(4), which is the Valencia at
Orangetree. Is there a representative here for them?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I make the same motion for
reconsideration in accordance with the earlier --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll tell you what, I'm going to take
a little different view on this one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: On this particular golf course there
has not been anything offered that I have seen in these minutes
to the county. They've not paid anything under protest or offered
anything in terms of what they should have paid. And I --
somewhere along the line, I feel like there's a differentiation
here, because many of the other ones offered something up front,
they went ahead and they paid in most cases, with the idea that
according to the ordinance that there would be an alternative fee
calculation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And they have never --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: In this particular situation, Jim,
there has been nothing offered to Collier County. There has been
nothing paid, if I have read everything correctly here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And they have never shown up for any
one of the meetings --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Not that I recall.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- to my recollection.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I really take a dim view on the
fact that there has not been anything paid. And in this particular
golf course, this is a more or less public golf course. It has, in
my opinion, quite an impact on roads out in that area. This is out
off of Immokalee Road and Randall. There is a great impact out
in that area.
And I'm sorry, but whatever the full boat is here, I really
believe that they need to come up with the dollars.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Would you like to entertain a motion
Page 109
November 14, 2000
that that's not reconsidered?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, I've got a motion on the
floor.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What are you going to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My motion would be to treat
them the same with net acreage, although we would certainly
collect interest and penalties, if appropriate. You know, people
who have paid under protest don't owe us interest, but these
people would. But I can't see how we can have one standard for
one and one standard for another.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I agree, but --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So the second to the motion is that it
will be the same net acreage, including interest and penalties.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous votes of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4-0.
Item #8A5
RECONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO ORDNANCE NO. 81-54 OF A
REQUEST TO SUBMIT AN ALTERNATIVE ROAD IMPACT FEE
CALCULATION FOR VANDERBILT COUNTRY CLUB - NOT TO BE
RECONSIDERED
Item No. 8 (A)(5), Vanderbilt Country Club.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, this one's the one that
the county attorney's office and your staff advised that it's
different. For Vanderbilt Country Club, we did in fact provide you
with an alternative calculation that the board did review and
approve in August of 1999. The question was, did that study
address golf courses?
I think we -- we've met with your staff and we've shown
them how the impact of the golf course was included in the study
that you've already approved. And I think to save us all a bunch
of time, I think your staff would agree that our full impact fee
was paid and no additional impact fees are due for Vanderbilt
Country Club.
MR. DUNNUCK: For the record, John Dunnuck, interim
Page 110
November t4, 2000
community development and environmental services
administrator.
Yes, we concur that that alternative -- or that fee calculation
did wrap in golf course impact fees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So they should never have been
on this list, because they actually paid what they owed?
MR. DUNNUCK: Well, with the one stipulation is that they
didn't -- when they brought it forward, they brought it under
residential and they didn't bring it forward as golf course. But
we have looked at their actual analysis and it does state that
there are golf course impacts.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Are you asking for an alternative
fee calculation?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, that's already been approved. We
wanted just to show you that the study you already approved did
in fact include the golf course back in '99.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So Mr. Weigel, the action we
previously took would stand and we don't -- MR. WEIGEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- do anything on this one? Why
do I feel nervous about that?
MR. WEIGEL: No, don't feel nervous. I feel nervous, but
don't you feel nervous.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: His review is up next.
MR. WEIGEL: But your previous action was correct, so you
are not reconsidering. You are voting to not reconsider, to not
change your previous deliberation, your previous action you took.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's because they went
through the process, they timely applied for and were granted an
alternate impact fee calculation. There was a question about
whether or not it included the fee for golf course.
But now, Mr. Dunnuck, you've reviewed it and determined
that it did include the golf course fee. MR. WEIGEL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right. Motion not to
reconsider.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous votes of ayes.}
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4-0. Thank you.
Page 111
November 14, 2000
Item #8A8
STAFF DIRECTED TO ASSESS THE FULL IMPACT FEE BASED ON
CALCULATION OF NET ACREAGE WITH LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO
BE DETERMINED BY THE EARLIER DECISION ON NAPLES
HERITAGE REGARDING NAPLES GRANDE GOLF COURSE -
APPROVED
this.
Takes us to Item 8(A)(10), Naples Lakes Country Club.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 8(A)(8}.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm sorry, I'm trying to get through
Item 8(A)(8), Naples Grande Golf Course.
MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, my name is Jeff Perry, with
Wilson-Miller, representing Naples Grande Golf Course.
This, like the last case, is different from the rest. As you'll
recall on September 26th, the board did hold a hearing to
consider our alternate fee calculation. I believe with the
exception of Commissioner Berry, who was absent that day, we
received unanimous approval of the board for that calculation.
My understanding that the purpose of this hearing today is
really to determine whether or not you even have the right to
hear that particular approval. We believe you did. I was not
privy to the conversations that the attorneys have had up to this
point concerning what merits have to be met or what conditions
have to be met. But the provisions in your ordinance do allow for
alternative fee calculations. We believe that you have the
authority to hear it.
I can tell you which sections of the ordinance and we can
argue those particular points. I think Section 307, which does
allow for alternate fee calculations, is operative here. And, you
know, our position is that we had a valid hearing, and we would
ask that you not reconsider it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this a matter that you would
advise us we inappropriately considered?
MR. WEIGEL: I advised you then and I advise you again now,
in the motion that you may entertain, you may in fact entertain
Page 112
November 14, 2000
possibly of course the net acreage concept that you're applying
today. And you would also go on record as disapproving under
reconsideration that which you approved earlier.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, so what you're telling me
is that we heard -- we actually heard his alternate calculation. I
remember hearing it. And what you're -- as you advised us then,
but our ears were full of cotton, or I'll speak for myself --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We were lust worn out, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I was right there with you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you advised us then they did
not meet the conditions precedent to permit the hearing to go
forward.
MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Therefore, I move for
reconsideration of this item in accordance with the earlier
motion regarding--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Net acreage.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- net acreage.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, fine. I think you've wrapped it up, that
you are reconsidering that which you previously approved, and
you're also putting on the floor the net acreage calculation to be
imposed here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion and I have a second.
Any discussion?
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It goes 3-1.
Item #8A10
STAFF DIRECTED TO ASSESS THE FULL IMPACT FEE BASED ON
CALCULATION OF NET ACREAGE WITH LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO
BE DETERMINED BY THE EARLIER DECISION ON NAPLES
Page113
November 14, 2000
HERITAGE REGARDING NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB -
APPROVED
Now we're at Item 8(A)(10), Naples Lakes Country Club.
MR. McCORMICK: Good afternoon. For the record, I'm Rich
McCormick with Heidt & Associates, representing Toll Brothers,
Inc. and the Naples Lake Country Club. I've got a pretty good
idea what your motion is going to be.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But yours is different because?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Here we go.
MR. McCORMICK: We are pleased that you're going to
establish --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: They have endangered species in their
lake.
MR. McCORMICK: -- you are going to establish the net
acreage definition.
I came prepared to actually also withdraw our request for
the alternative fee calculation, but there was one question that
was raised earlier that either wasn't answered or I wasn't -- I
don't understand the answer, and that was the possibility that
the new net acreage definition would increase the acreage.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, it would have to decrease it, if you
have preserves and lakes that border or not -- what we call water
hazards on the golf course.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my motion was that in
accordance with the Naples Heritage -- is that the one, guys?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right, Naples Heritage.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In according with Naples
Heritage, that be our legislative determination, and staff go
forward and determine the alternate -- dad gum it, I'm tired. The
-- what's the word, Jim?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Acreage, net acreage.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I had a senior trip somewhere.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me write it down.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Net acreage. Net acreage. Sorry, I
was looking ahead.
Does that answer your question?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
Page 114
November 14, 2000
MR. McCORMICK: That does answer the question. We're
interested in exploring the new net acreage amounts, and we'll
also withdraw our previous request for the alternate road impact
fee calculation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's good news.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's good news. So we're okay
there.
Same motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Same second?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Same second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous votes of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4-0.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did it?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think we did a wrap, folks. And now
my court recorder is looking at me like --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, we've got two more. Cedar --
oh, no, we did that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, we did all those.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Things are going a little crazy, so --
MR. WEIGEL.' -- may I make a couple of housekeeping things
for the record here, as we finish 11 items.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Make it quick or I'm --
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- going to have to use a Port-A-Potty.
MR. WEIGEL: So that the record reflect that I would like the
board to announce and enunciate for the record that in regard to
8(A)(7), The Strand; 8(A)(9), Golf Club of the Everglades; 8(A)(11),
Cedar Hammock; and 8(A)(12), Old Collier Golf Club, all of those
you previously had approved the request for new alternative fee
calculation.
And I would like you to go on the record of indicating that
along with the motion you've already approved for net acreage,
you also have reconsidered and denied your previous approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes, second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So moved and a second. All in favor,
signify by saying aye.
Page 115
November 14, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I guess me. Because I don't think I
gave any preliminary okay on those, so I can't take away
something that I haven't given.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. 3-1.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right, we need to take 10 for our
court recorder. Thank you.
(Recess.)
Item #8A13
BID #00-3162 CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR CONSOLIDATED
PLAN - AWARDED TO FLORIDA PLANNING GROUP, INC.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right, we're back in session. We
are on Item No. 8 --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: (13).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're on Item No. 8(A)(13), staff. This
was moved off the consent agenda this morning. That was
16(A)(20), it's now (13)(A). Mr. Dunnuck.
MR. DUNNUCK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, John Dunnuck, interim community development and
environmental services administrator.
The reason we pulled this item off is strictly housekeeping,
from the standpoint of we had missed an executive summary
including Corradino as one of the consulting firms that was
reviewed during this RFP process. They were selected third out
of the four items, but we wanted to include that in the executive
summary, lust for purchasing purposes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I lust had a question, actually, I
was going to ask before this got pulled off. I couldn't tell, in
fiscal impact it says whatever it cost us will come out of the
grant money. I understand that. But what's it going to cost us?
What is this consultant going to cost? How much of the $2
million that's coming into the community will go to the
consultant? Have I got that wrong?
Page 116
November 14, 2000
MR. DUNNUCK: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe I'm reading it wrong.
MR. DUNNUCK: No. What we're doing right here is -- you're
correct. From my understanding, it's about 40 to $50,000 that
we're going to be paying for this. At that point in time, you know,
that will be out of the grant funding, but it is costing us about
$40,000 a week every time we don't have this submitted and we
don't have these goals from the potential grant funding.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But out of the grant money, we're
not overspending on administration. No,
MAC'KIE: We're spending 40 grand out of
MR. DUNNUCK:
COMMISSIONER
million?
MR. DUNNUCK:
COMMISSIONER
two
Correct.
MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous votes of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4-0. Thank you, Mr.
Dunnuck.
Item #8A14
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT WITH WCI COMMUNITIES, INC.
FOR STRUCTURES WITHIN A PELICAN BAY IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT DRAINAGE EASEMENT- APPROVED, CONTINGENT
UPON PELICAN BAY APPROVAL
We move to 8(A)(14), which was item on the consent agenda
16(A)(23), encroachment agreement with WCI Communities, Inc.
MR. DUNNUCK: Yes, this is another item where I wanted to
bring to the board's attention -- it was on consent, but I wanted
to bring to the board's attention that the Pelican Bay Advisory
Board typically reviews these as a -- as a letter of no objection
type issue. We wanted to bring to the board's attention that they
had not reviewed this one in particular, and our recommendation
is modified from what you see there. And that's an approval
contingent upon the Pelican Bay Advisory Board getting a
chance to review this. If they have any issues with it, we'll bring
it back to the board.
Page 117
November 14, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' So moved.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous votes of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4-0. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was worth waiting all
morning for, wasn't it, Stan?
Item #8B1
RESOLUTION 2000-422 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF
LAND BY CONDEMNATION OF FEE SIMPLE TITLE INTERESTS
AND/OR PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY,
SIDEWALK, UTILITY, DRAINAGE, SLOPE AND MAINTENANCE
INTERESTS BY EASEMENT FOR THE WHIPPOORWILL LANE
PROJECT BETWEEN PINE RIDGE ROAD TO A POINT ONE MILE
SOUTH, BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE FUTURE EAST/WEST
CONNECTOR ROAD CONNECTING TO LIVINGSTON ROAD -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now, we move to Item 8(B)(1), as in
boy, (t). This was a consent agenda item that was 16(B)(14) that
was moved to regular agenda at the request of staff.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Norman Feder,
transportation administrator.
I think you've got it pretty much in front of you. In the
consent agenda was the authorization to proceed for donations
and acquisition caused by the requirements as a companion in
case we need to go to condemnation for these parcels, beyond
those that we'll be getting out of the process for the
development to develop at least the north/south section of
Whippoorwill.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why did it have to come off of
consent?
MR. FEDER-' Because on condemnation it has to be on the
general agenda.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Page 118
November 14, 2000
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4-0.
Thank you.
Item #8B2
REQUEST BOARD DIRECTION TO PROCEED WITH THE
BEAUTIFICATION OF LIVINGSTON ROAD FROM RADIO ROAD TO
THE LEE COUNTY LINE - STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVED
Item 16(B)(2) (sic), which was 16(B)(9), in regards to
landscaping.
MR. FEDER: I'll defer it to the Commissioner and then
respond to any questions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 8(B)(2).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, 8(B)(2), sorry.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Last evening about 10:00 I
received a call from George Botner, who is one of the landscape
developers or contractors in the area, and he was talking to me
about an effort that several of the organizations along Livingston
Road have put into doing some landscape concepts and some
design work. And a number of organizations have participated in
that. And he wanted me to be aware that this was all being done
for free, and why would we, the county, want to spend $60,000 to
have somebody else do it?
Well, obviously, we're all concerned about how taxpayer
money is utilized, and we want it utilized as most effectively as
we can do it. So I felt that I had to at least bring that information
forward, get some information from staff.
But also, I want to make another point. And my point is I
think it's great that the community is interested in how
Livingston Road is going to look. And I think it's great that they
spend the time and effort and volunteer the amount of resources
that it takes for them to come forward with something like this.
But in the ultimate, the county makes the decision.
And so while I want to know more about this, I want
everyone to be assured that the ma]or reason I wanted to bring
this forward is because of that phone call and not knowing some
of the details until that phone call came, and to reiterate, that
Mr. Olliff is responsible for how this is going to look, not -- and
Page 119
November 14, 2000
this is not meant in a negative manner, not a volunteer group
doing something as good neighbors and bringing good thoughts
to it.
So I'm sure it will, when Mr. Olliff and his staff, Norm and
others, get involved in this, it will turn out to be a real asset for
the whole of the county. But -- so, may we hear from you?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah, Norm, I'll let you comment on
that. I'm very familiar with the situation, but I'm going to let you
talk first.
MR. FEDER: Okay, I appreciate that, Commissioner, Mr.
Chairman.
We received a copy of the letter yesterday as well. It was
sent to Chairman Carter, that made sure that we recognized that
the groups are out there, that they are developing some
concepts for the overall Livingston corridor. There's another
group with support out of some of the major properties, Grey
Oaks, Kensington, Wyndemere, that has also hired a different
group besides Collier Naplescape, and they are looking at
concepts as well.
What you have in front of you is to take from that
information and from that recommendation that comes out of
that group, as well as the previous study, and what it said we
should look at in a major arterial and in a gateway, which
Livingston will represent the north end as well, and to go in and
not only go from concept but also into actual construction
drawings, the plans themselves, such that we can go out.
We do need to weigh obviously a great desire to make this a
gateway, as well as a major landscape corridor in this county
with the overall ultimate maintenance cost. And that's what
we're going to try to do in taking the concepts and going to
actual engineering and --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: The county is responsible for
that, no one else.
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Although, I'd just like to add, Mr.
Brandt, I found that the Naplescape conceptual plans are often --
I mean, that's the good news. And if I understand -- I don't
question that the county's in charge, Mr. Olliff's in charge and
we're ultimately in charge, but the concept plan being developed
by Naplescape, Mr. Olliff, is going to be used and implemented in
Page 120
November 14, 2000
the design -- what you're about to do now, if I understood it, was
take the concept plan, turn it into a construction plan and go
forward?
MR. OLLIFF: Generally in all of these processes you have
what is a conceptual plan. The conceptual plan then gets
reviewed by a staff to make sure, especially from a maintenance
standpoint, that all of those considerations have been taken into
account, safety considerations from an engineering perspective.
Then we take that and we go to final design and finally
construction plans.
What Mr. Feder is telling you is we really appreciate the
work, we're going to take that concept plan, and we will then,
when we select our own landscape architect, take those
concepts and put it right into our process so that we can then
hopefully skip as many steps early in terms of conceptual design
as their design will allow us to do. And then we'll go ahead and
be able to turn that into final design plans and construction
drawings.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And some of this is public/private
partnership agreements on the capital expenditure side, I
believe.
MR. OLLIFF: So far it has been very independent of us. And
they have, through their own landscape architect, done the
conceptual designs, of which we're always appreciative of
anyone who's going to be able to at least look at what are the
median widths, what types of plantings would they recommend
and then we can take those recommendations and then turn
them into final plans.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Because you've really got two
different groups here. One, I think, is from Golden Gate Parkway
through to --
MR. FEDER: Pine Ridge.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- Pine Ridge, and then you've got the
work working from Pine Ridge up to the county line.
MR. FEDER: Or technically throughout, minus that area, yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So we're -- all we're doing is really
coordinating -- you're right. Absolutely the county is in charge of
it. We're looking for the combination of creativity plans and
dollars to make it happen.
MR. FEDER: Exactly, Commissioner. And the only other
Page 121
November 14, 2000
thing I'd add is that obviously as well as those concept plans
coming out of them and guarded by the streetscape master plan,
approved by this board a few years back, we're also looking, as
we develop these plans, that if there's a desire to go above and
beyond what reasonably the county can move forward on, these
groups will be given the opportunity through an MSTD to try to
establish a more expanded effort as well.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Very good.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll entertain a motion to approve Item
16(B)(14).
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: So moved.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous votes of ayes.)
THE REPORTER: Was there a second?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I seconded it. I don't know if that was
my prerogative or not, but I did it. Anyhow, it carries 4-0.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, that was Item 16(B)(9), I believe,
not 16--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're correct, 16(B)(9). I stand
corrected.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thank you.
Item #8D1
REPORT TO THE BOARD REGARDING A PROPOSED JOINT
PERMIT APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PRIVATE
MEMBERSHIP BEACH CLUB AND PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS
FACILITIES AT BAREFOOT BEACH PRESERVE - APPROVED IN
CONCEPT WITH CONDITIONS
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right, we move to Item 8(D)(1), a
report to the board regarding a proposed joint permit application
for the construction of a private membership club and public
beach access, Barefoot Beach Preserve.
Do we have to swear people on this, or not?
MR. OLLIFF: No.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Any staff presentation?
MR. OCHS: Yes. Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
Page 122
November 14, 2000
record, Leo Ochs, public services administrator.
The item before you is a staff report that is submitted in
response to a previous public petition presented to the board by
Mr. Donald Pickworth on behalf of his client, Mr. Paul Harvey.
The petition that was previously submitted had asked the board
to participate as the co-applicant with the petitioner in pursuit of
some federal and state permits that would be required to
construct certain beach access improvements on or abutting
private property in the Barefoot Beach Preserve.
The site proposed for the project -- let me move that a little
bit, Maria -- is in fact the only remaining privately owned parcel
of land in the Barefoot Beach Preserve. The State of Florida
owns all of the surrounding property on all sides of the private
property. That property is currently designated as state
preserve, and it is managed by your parks and recreation
department under the terms of a formal land management plan
that was entered into between the state and the board back in
1990.
The petitioner has submitted some conceptual plans to
construct a three-level private beach club facility on the private
property. Within the footprint of that property, the petitioner has
also offered and proposed to provide food and beverage
concession area and public restrooms and an outdoor deck that
would be accessible to members of the general public. Both the
private and the public access would occur through the back bay
via shuttle boats.
The subject site is zoned conservation district, and our
planning staff advises me that the facility that's been proposed
by the petitioner may be considered a permitted use. And in
addition, I'm also advised by our planning staff that a
single-family residence is a permitted use in that zoning district.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It is my understanding that this is the
only remaining privately owned parcel in the Lely Barefoot
Preserve.
MR. OCHS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that either we jointly
develop this with this petitioner or he can -- well, he can of right
have a single-family home there, he can seek the private club if
he wanted to. But if we jointly do this, we'll eliminate a
single-family home and provide access to a beach there that is
Page 123
November 14, 2000
how long?
MR. OCHS: The entire beach is about a mile and a half, mile
and three-quarters.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the nearest access point to
this beach is how far?
MR. OCHS.' Ms. Ramsey has an aerial that will show you
where our current facilities are. And of course that beach park is
accessed only by the vehicles through the Bonita Beach Road
entrance to the Barefoot Beach Preserve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the only way to get to this
beach where the red arrow is, is through the Lely Barefoot
guardhouse --
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and then through that whole
area park, which is not a very utilized park, if I understand the
stats.
And I'm only interested in this, Leo, if it's going to provide
some public access to the beach and if it's going to be cheaper
for us to do it with this gentleman than for us to do it on our own
through some other means.
MR. OCHS: Yes, and the staff has outlined what we consider
to be four options that you could consider individually or jointly.
The first one would be obviously to move forward in concept,
approve the project and participate as requested by the
applicant.
Each one of the options, as I've indicated in my executive
summary, have a series of specific considerations that would
need to be attended to.
The second option would also provide potentially some
additional beach access, but it would be directed and performed
by the county staff. The board may recall this past summer,
during our budget deliberations, we had talked about a similar
project for beach access a little bit further north in the Barefoot
Beach complex that staff had intended to build in 2004, which
would again be a boardwalk through the back bay, and attach at
a point where it would then be accessed by the existing
restroom facility and the existing concession buildings that
already exist in the park. So that's your -- that's a second option
for you to consider.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, let me ask this question,
Page 124
November 14, 2000
because it really gets down to be Options I and 2. My questions
will be, what is the travel time by shuttle to each one of these
sites? And what I'm talking about is shuttle time from our
existing Co¢ohatchee park. Co¢ohatchee, I guess.
MR. OCHS: Well, if we're assuming that we would launch
shuttles from the Cocohatchee marina, we would estimate about
a 30-minute shuttle into the project that was in the board's -- or
the staff's plans, and that would be probably an additional 15
minutes or 15 minutes longer then to reach the site proposed
here by the petitioner. But I'll let the petitioner make that
estimate for his own --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: In your time, your proposed site would
be?
MR. OCHS: About 30 minutes. And we had planned it as
part of an interpretive tour on the way towards access to the
beach.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In addition, because what I wish
would happen here is that you would give us your best pitch for
what was the staff's plan, and then we hear their best pitch for
why theirs is better. I need to know, is yours cheaper? And if so,
how much? And does your provide better or less access?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And I don't like Options I or 2.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh.
MR. OCHS: Well, you have Options 3 and 4 that we would --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes, I do.
MR. OCHS: -- like you to consider, and that would be to
attempt to acquire the property from the owner. And failing a
successful negotiation, then perhaps considering an eminent
domain action to take --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I don't know why we would
try to take the property or buy it from him if he's going to jointly
cooperatively let -- if we're going to get to use it for public
access without paying for it.
MR. OCHS: I think some members of the public may tell you
that the potential downside is that basically you would change
the preserve characteristics of that area of the beach, not only
on the private property, but on the adjoining state lands. And
that's why if you move forward with Option I or 2, you should
know that the staff would be required to submit a proposed
amendment to the land management plan to the state, and we'll
Page 125
November 14, 2000
have to go through a hearing process with them in any event.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And on the proposal that the
staff had, which you're calling the more modest proposal, would
that be required?
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So here's what I'm asking for.
And if you don't -- if I can't have it, I can't have it. I wish I could
have A and B side by side with a comparison. I'm interested in
doing one or two. I'd like to provide some access to this beach,
but I don't know which is cheaper, which is faster or which is
better. Which--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, yeah, I concur with you,
Commissioner Mac'Kie. I want to get from Point A to Point B in
the shortest possible time to the center of the beach, with the
least amount of environmental impacts.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And the most thing -- the thing that
could impact it the most is a single-family home, which then has
to have a road down through from Lely Barefoot Beach and is the
most destructive part of this whole thing.
I further understand that the owner refuses to sell to the
State of Florida and -- whatever that is. And does that mean they
would refuse to sell to us? Does that mean that you have to go
to a condemnation process? And now we'll deal with that later
after we've heard both sides of this.
But that's where I am. I want to get there, I want to do it
with the least amount of environmental impacts, and I would like
to do it at the most cost effective manner to do it to begin to
utilize an underutilized beach area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if we -- where is what you
propose -- I need a site map for your location versus his location.
And I'm sorry, I'm not smart enough to be able to understand
from these aerial photographs.
MS. RAMSEY: Well, I apologize -- Maria Ramsey, parks and
recreation director. I apologize for the glare on this particular
site, but--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' Is that the staff site?
MS. RAMSEY: No, actually this is the private property site.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So you can see my problem. I
don't know where your site is versus his site.
Page 126
November 14, 2000
MR. PICKWORTH: He's passing something out that may
help.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hot dog.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, Commissioner Brandt, you had a
question of staff?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have a comment. My comment
is that I too want access to the beach. I want it to have the
least impact on the community and the environment. I want it to
be cost effective. But I don't think we should compromise
ourselves in such a way that we -- that we in the ultimate don't
have the opportunity to preserve and utilize this property for
future county needs. And talking about green space and we
don't do much about green space, we've had some discussions
about that. And that's the reason I'm not going to support either
one or two.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, now, I have a different take.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's your position, Commissioner.
But I would hope you'd listen to the petitioner before you make
that decision.
Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have had discussion with the
petitioner, and I think this is an opportunity. I think we need to
look -- I think there's some really positive things that could
happen here. If you recall, we had a discussion at the last
meeting, I believe. Where's Mr. Lydon, is he still here?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Oh, he'll be here.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I made the comment at that time,
Dick, when we talked about the parking garage at Vanderbilt
Beach, that this was the first. And it was -- I know a lot of people
from Vanderbilt Beach area left here and they were angry
because of the -- what they saw as to be imposed traffic in the
Vanderbilt Beach area.
I looked at that as the first of many. They happened to be
first. I don't know if that's in their favor or not, but at least they
are the first. And I look at this as another opportunity for Collier
County to gain some beach access. And just because people
access the area doesn't mean that they're going to destroy it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Walking across it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Walk across it, build a boardwalk,
do something. It doesn't mean that you're going to destroy it.
Page127
November 14, 2000
But wouldn't it be a new concept if people could be able to see
and get out and enjoy the land.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: They can see it. It doesn't mean
that we're going to take away anything. But they would have an
opportunity, if it's a boat ride from wherever they're going to
start the whole process over to where they do something else. I
haven't -- don't recall the whole plan. But I think there was a
boardwalk or something involved in it and there was boat
transportation.
And I believe across the road, before we start all this, there
is a piece of property that is available. I think I'm correct on
that, Mr. Ochs, at Wiggins Pass?
MR. OCHS: Yes, we're in discussion right now with the
owner of that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. I'm telling you, guys, I think
Collier County is wrong if we don't grab that property for a beach
type parking lot.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: If it doesn't happen, I think we all
ought to be spanked up here, because it is something that needs
to happen.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: That's the reason I'm interested
in 3 and 4.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And Mr. Lydon, that would be No.
2.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioners, please, I hear you all
on that. Tom and I have been working with the people who own
that. And I guess we can't really say that we have it at this
point.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, don't, but --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But, you know, it's really being worked
for on for us to get that.
Tom, you might want to comment on that.
MR. OLLIFF: I'm going to skip the spanking part. If I can
lust urge you to maybe move along to the petitioner, perhaps you
can get some of your questions answered through the petitioner
and you do have half a dozen speakers registered on this item.
So lust -- some of this will get answered as some of the speakers
Page 128
November t4, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I stand corrected. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner Mac'Kie -- Mr. Chairman, if I just
might answer Commissioner Mac'Kie's question.
On the aerial here, obviously where the arrow is is the
proposed site. The proposed site for the county facility and the
beach access is right around this area, which is about a half a
mile, roughly, to the north.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the reason you have that
site identified is because it's property we own?
MR. OCHS: Well, primarily because that site -- the
boardwalk would then enter into the beach right there where we
have existing restroom and concession facilities. So we
wouldn't be impacting the preserve area up here in the southern
end of the beach.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But we'd have a much longer travel
time to get there.
MR. OCHS: We would have a longer travel time, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On the boat to get to the access.
MR. OCHS: Well, we'd have to obviously go that additional
half-mile by boat through the back waters to get to that site.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what about the cost of
developing this site versus the cost of joint venturing this
property?
MR. OCHS: Right. I can tell you that our preliminary budget
estimate for the county project that was originally scheduled for
2004 was about $500,000. We do not know what the county's
cost of this particular proposal will be, because it's still
conceptual in nature.
The petitioner, as I indicated in the fiscal impact section of
the executive summary, has committed to apply and pay for the
permitting, of course, and the construction of the boat dock
facility that would be shared by the public and the private
members of the club.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what might we have to pay
for? What else is there?
MR. OCHS: Well, again, the -- we've got to construct a drain
field that is going to be shared, okay, so there may be some
shared cost there. And we don't know what else on the county
or the public access side of the project we may have to pay for
at this point.
Page 129
November 14, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So I want to hear that
from the petitioner. Are you going to pay for everything?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, let's hear from the petitioner and
see if he can answer some of the questions for us.
THE REPORTER: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I need to
change reporters here. It will just take about 30 seconds.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sure.
(Brief recess.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Mr. Pickworth?
MR. PICKWORTH: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
I'm Don Pickworth, and I'm representing Paul Harvey. I'm
just going to have a couple of comments, and then I'm going to
get Paul up here, who's going to tell you in some detail why our
proposal is cheaper, faster, and better, and, and any other
questions you have.
I think, you know, just contextually, you understand the
issue here, sure, that it is in a preserve, but this is private
property that, you know, neither the State nor the County has
seen fit for 30-some-odd years to purchase.
With regard to Commissioner Mac'Kie's question, the answer
is simply this: We are going to permit at our expense and build
at our expense all of the facilities you see there. The only thing
we have asked is that if the County determines -- and I
understand they may be going to run a sewer line down to a more
southernmost point in the County park up north of us, that they
split the cost with us of running a sewer line the rest of the way
down to this facility.
Other than that, it's our intention to permit and build these
facilities.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the County -- so the public
gets this beach access facility for free. MR. PICKWORTH: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: They maybe can buy some soft
drinks and some chips or something like that to enjoy at this
area?
MR. PICKWORTH: We're building -- the, the public
concession will be built on the private property, as will the
restrooms, but they will be for the public.
And this deck here which we will build will be on public
property. Members of the public who utilize this facility can go
Page 130
November 14, 2000
up and buy a Coke or whatever at this facility.
The private facilities will be on the two levels above.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yeah. Help me understand how
the general public will be able to access that from anyplace.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KI E.'
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
will be a boat, but I'm --
MR. PICKWORTH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: But I need to know more about
that.
MR. PICKWORTH: Yeah. The shuttle dock -- and let me
emphasize, this dock is only going to be for shuttles. This is not
a marina. This is not something where someone's going to be
able to lease boat slips out here. This is only a shuttle landing.
And the way we would propose it is, essentially, off of the
dock would run two boardwalks~ one boardwalk which would go
to the private club, the second boardwalk which would go over
here onto the public property.
And this is, this is the preserve here, so there would be a
path through the preserve, and then there would be a dune
walk-over constructed that you need to do in accordance with
DEP. There would be a deck here with some chickee huts and
things.
So the public would access it like this, and obviously there's
already an existing easement if members of the public want to
walk down to this part of the beach down towards the pass,
again, this, this easement exists both for us and for you. That
was an easement that was part of the old subdivision that this
was part of, so -- and that obviously is there and available.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: How many shuttles? How often
do they run? How many do they carry?
MR. PICKWORTH: Don't know the answer to that. Paul may
have some ideas.
We obviously will insure that there is adequate shuttle
service for the members of the private club. I would assume
there also would be a public shuttle. I don't know, I don't know
the details of the schedule and, you know, how often they run.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, Commissioner, I think that would
be up to us as part of our recommendation to establish that in
the contract, that they have their own shuttle coming across
There'll be a boat concession.
From someplace. I understand it
Page 131
November 14, 2000
there.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: That's what I'm trying to
understand.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. They're going to provide all of
the facility, as I understood it, and I have no problem disclosing, I
have met with the petitioner and the County staff on two or three
occasions on this as they tried to work through it so that the
public would be served snacks, burgers, chicken sandwiches,
that kind of stuff, really almost out of the same kitchen, if you
please, only to the, to the public side, and then the private side
can do whatever they need to do.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And Mr. Ochs, what would you do
about shuttles, and how are you going to buy them, build them,
or rent them, and how often will they run?
MR. OCHS: I don't have all the answers to those questions
at this point, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think at this time we're dealing
conceptually.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is this -- I mean, that's my
understanding of, yes, this is a good idea; no, it's not a good idea.
If we say, yes, it's a good idea, you start pursuing this. I'm
certain at some point you would certainly be back before the
Board with more details of what's happening and how the
acquisition of the property along with the private partnership
deal or whatever it happens to be, how this all works out.
At that time, then the details come through and the Board,
the Board will then have to deal with it.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And I agree with that; however,
you have to also look forward and say, how much investment
does it take on the part of the County to provide this shuttle
service and whatever dock it has to leave from and how often
you're going to run it. What is the County's stake in this as far as
cost is concerned? And I think that's the kind of question that
Commissioner Mac'Kie requested a little bit earlier.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I think the only way that question is
going to be answered, frankly, Commissioners, is, this is to go
forward with joint applications.
If they're approved, if they're approved, we can work that
out; because regardless of where you do this, whether you went
Page 132
November 14, 2000
to the County's area that they looked at further north, whether
you did this one, you would have to get into it and figure those
costs out.
But we're not at that point. We have to wait and see what
we have, and then, if we're making a commitment to provide
more access to the beach and this is what it's going to take to
do it, then we'll have to address that issue when it comes up,
because I don't think anyone can answer it at this point. No one
knows, other than we want to make a commitment to do it.
MR. PICKWORTH: I think from our standpoint, what we need
at this point -- and we know obviously there's always going to be
questions out there that have to be determined, but I think the
things that we, that we need to know today so that we can move
forward is, A, that the staff be directed -- and I understand it's a
very short time frame -- to put in the necessary paperwork to
make the next meeting of the State agency with regard to the
land management plan that Mr. Ochs spoke about.
Secondly, that the staff be directed to move forward with --
the permit applications are obviously going to be prepared by us,
but with, with you-all as a joint effort.
And those are the things -- and the third thing is that staff be
directed to move forward and bring back to you within the next
couple, three meetings an amendment to Mr. Harvey's
concession agreement at Cocohatchee Park to permit the use of
space there for the shuttle boat to go off from. We need those to get going forward.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Somebody tell me if I'm missing
this, 'cause I'm, I'm having a sugar crash here, but are we --
we're going to have a beach access. Either they're going to build
it, and it's going to be 2004 and we're going to pay the full freight
and we're going to access it via boats and it's going to be a
longer trip, or we're go to JV an access with this gentleman; he's
going to pay for it, and we get it sooner for less money. What am I missing?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Nothing, but it sure sounds good to
me,
MR. OLLIFF: We're still going to have some capital costs. I
mean, that --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: That's my concern. How much?
MR. OLLIFF: There is going to be some for restroom
Page 133
November t4, 2000
facilities that we're going to have to build when you bring the
public into a place where the closest restroom is a half a mile
away down the beach.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's not building restrooms?
MR. OLLIFF: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're going to have a private
club without a bathroom?
MR. HARVEY: There's restrooms on it for the public.
MR. PICKWORTH: Yes, we're building public restrooms,
yeah.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It shows it right here on the plan.
If you look at this diagram that they just handed out, he's got the
whole thing laid out, ground floor, second floor, and third floor.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So there won't be any cost for
restrooms for us, but there will be a cost for shuttles.
Other than that, the petitioner, as I understand it, is making
the investment for the other.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And you know the American way.
If he does this and contributes that part of it, if somehow he
makes a little money along the way --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER BERRY: --
mean, that's kind of what we're
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
COMMISSIONER BERRY: --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
God bless him.
you know, that's not all bad. I
all --
I'm not concerned about that.
in this for, so --
I'm not concerned about that.
MR. PICKWORTH: Yeah, we've looked at this from the
get-go. I mean, obviously we can build a house there, and, as
you know, there's some, there's some distinct disadvantages to
the use of this property as a home. We have almost the
anomalous situation here of where a private, single-family home
use would actually be more impactive in the area than the
facility that we're proposing, because we would propose to --
other than obviously you're going to have to use that road
easement to move in heavy construction stuff when you build it,
but other than that, our commitment is, employees, supplies,
everything moves by water. The road, you know, just stays as a
dirt road.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So why isn't staff just jumping up
and down --
Page 134
November 14, 2000
MR. PICKWORTH: And obviously a house has got to be --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and thrilled with this great
idea? What's missing?
MS. RAMSEY: Can I, can I expound upon that just a little
bit?
THE REPORTER: May I have your name?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, Maria Ramsey, Director of Parks and
Recreation.
I think part of what staff is concerned on on a couple of
issues is that this is an agreement with a private entity, and if at
any point in time that there is a sale of this particular item to
another owner, what's the relationship going to be with the
concession and the restroom facilities that are built on the
private lands rather than on the public --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We'd have to record some kind of
restrictive covenant that would run with the land.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Now, now, now you're talking.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, that's all right. We're going
to keep Paul alive for 100 years, so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MS. RAMSEY: So that we have a -- the staff would feel more
comfortable if we were going to go for a management plan
amendment, which I have here in front of me, we'd feel more
comfortable if the drain field was on the private property and
that the public bathrooms and the concession were on the, on
the State lands.
And then the other side of that is that whether you put in a
private home or whether you put in this -- the, the private club,
you're still going to have a shell road running through the back
side of the preserve which will impact the preserve as far as
that's concerned. There will be a road down -- going down the
entire length of the back side of that preserve, so we have a
concern about that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What if he put a house in, Maria?
What would the impact be?
MS. RAMSEY: Still would be a road going down the back
side, so either way, there's a road going down the back side, so
there's an impact there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But this will be a road that we
Page135
November 14, 2000
can put in the restrictive covenants that we're talking about
recording, that its access, its purpose, is limited; and, I mean, we
could be, we could be restrictive in that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I would think so.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What -- why is this not a great
idea?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And its, and its, and its ultimate
use, we could restrict.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If Mr. Harvey agrees.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: The point that she just made, the
point that Maria just made, we could restrict as far as a private --
a sale of a private property at a future time. How, how do we do that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Well, you do it by recording a
restrictive covenant if Mr. Harvey would agree to that.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay.
MR. HARVEY: My name is Paul Harvey. I'm your
concessionaire at Cocohatchee River Park. I'm also the owner of
Vanderbilt Beach Marina.
For number 1, the reason that the, that the public bathrooms
and the concession area for the general public is on private land,
because it was at the request of the public administrator in --
when we were negotiating this.
I originally came in with a much smaller version saying, I
will leave the road alone; I'm not going to bring people in on it;
I'm not going to allow the pilot people to drive on it.
If we build a house, which I think I have the right pretty
much to do, and we do have a road easement all the way in,
obviously, whoever lives there is going to require access 24-7,
365 days a year.
I -- I'm -- I believe that building a road or doing anything to
the road would impact the preserve. That's why I felt that, that a
beach access issue this way works out much better.
There is no -- we don't, we don't have any intentions -- I think
that was one of the questions that was asked in the
questionnaire provided to me by Parks and Recreation. I
answered it. I believe I gave you copies of it.
We are willing to stipulate, however you wish that, number
1, the road will not be used for the private use of the club
members or the public use of, of the general public to drive on it.
Page 136
November 14, 2000
We would need it to move equipment. That's it.
Number 2, I think that on the dock part of it, we would be
more than happy to sign off however we would need to sign off,
that no matter what happens, that that public access would
always remain a public access.
I was asked to design this this way, and, believe me, it's, it's
a much greater expense to me.
My original intent was to put a dock access in and then -- for
the general public, and then build on my property, which I think I
have a right to do; and then anything else that, that the County
wanted to do with their land or the State land was entirely up to
them.
Through the process, we ended up agreeing to build a
restroom, to build a concession room; and if you look further on
the plans, we've also agreed to build a park ranger's apartment,
which is -- I noticed was in their management plan.
All these things were agreed to in meetings with staff, so
I'm kind of bewildered that they want to reverse the situation
now. I don't see the benefit.
As far as times, as far as shuttle times, I've been operating
shuttles for 17 years from Vanderbilt Beach to this area.
The shuttle time from Cocohatchee River Marina to the
backwater here is seven minutes. The shuttle time to where
you're going to the parking lot that already exists -- this is at the
other end of the park, and I think there's a little bit, bit bigger
distance there than what we're talking about, but the shuttle
time there is between 35 and 40 minutes to get to a boardwalk
that -- it's my understanding, is going to be fairly long; I believe
it's around 500 feet -- that you would then get to a parking lot
that you're going to cross, that you would then get to a dune
walkover that you're going to cross, I just don't see it as feasible.
We would -- as the concessionaire at Cocohatchee, one of
the things we're asking for is to amend my concession
agreement to allow for the use -- that we can eliminate our rental
boats, which is part of our concession contract, we would take
the long dock that we've got the rental boats on now, we would
allow that to be rented out for shuttle boats.
I would assume that the County would not want to be in the
shuttle business. I would assume that it would probably be put
out for bid through an RFP.
Page 137
November 14, 2000
Our use of Cocohatchee would not impact any parking as
our employee parking lot. I've already got a lot being -- on, on
hold on Vanderbilt Drive, and all of the people that we will move
there will be coming from either gated communities or two
locations which would be by dropoff at Cocohatchee or at my
other marina at Vanderbilt Beach.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's your private use.
MR. HARVEY: That's the private use.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the private use.
MR. HARVEY: The general public use, it was my
recommendation that they look at a piece of property that I had
described to Commissioner Carter, and I think it's a -- it's
purchasable; it's the most viable -- it's probably viable for --
because at the park right now, we are out of room. We've been
over capacity and the parking for the boats or trailers are along
all the roads. I think that, you know, we need more parking there
anyway.
But the other thing is, I think if we're looking at this today,
maybe in the next couple years or whatever, that's one thing, but
if you're looking at a build-out of 90,000 people in North Naples
within the next 10 to 15 years, which I took those figures from
the County, where are we going to put -- where are these people
going to get access? I mean, Vanderbilt, with the new parking
garage, with all of the other-- LaPlaya turning private into a club.
I think there's a piece of property there that's been purchased or
in the process of being purchased for another gated community
to use, and Delnor Wiggins State Park and the little parking that
we're putting onto Bluebill, we're going to be at capacity if we're
not already there.
I went down to the beach the other day with the Channel 2
News, not that this makes a big amount of difference, but it kind
of irritates me in the sense that when we went down there, we
counted 97 cars in the parking lot at Barefoot Beach.
This is after I took the long drive. I've only been there
twice. I took the long drive in. I went through all the big homes.
I finally got to the lot. We went through all the cars. There was
one car from Collier County. All the other cars were either Lee
County license plates or out of state license plates.
So I can understand the point of view if you're from Bonita or
Lee County, you probably may be against this, because you've
Page 138
November 14, 2000
got a really great deal. You've got Collier County citizens paying
taxes for a beach that we can't use.
And it's my premise that if the State wishes to remain totally
a preserve area -- and this is the wish of Parks and Recreation of
the County -- then in that case, I'd like to know why my tax
dollars are being used. Why don't we take the preserve, give it
back to the State, and let them maintain it?
The preserve is the upland side of this property.
The beach from the high water mark down belongs to the
public. What we're suggesting is a pathway to get through there.
Either way, I think I've got a right to build a house. I don't
think the house -- I've talked to most of you, the ones I could -- I
don't think the house and using the easement to get in with the
gatehouse issues and all the other things that are, are concerned
up there are not in the best interests.
And to be quite honest with you, financially, I can get a lot
more money for a house on the beach that has no neighbors.
This is one and three-quarter acres. It goes from gulf to bay, and
I don't need to go through all the hoops that I'm jumping through
now and get beat up the way I'm getting beat up.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely.
MR. HARVEY: So the cost -- the one thing that there is a
cost to the County, I think that we agreed that we would take
care of the drain field. We would take care of everything else.
The only thing I asked was, is that they cover half the cost of
running the electrical and water utilities down, and I think in
their own management plan, when they build the proposed
ranger station and the second parking lot that's in their proposal,
at least in the 1994 proposal that I have, that they would have to
do that anyway.
So all I'm asking you is to share the cost with me. I'm
bringing the water and the electric down.
As far as security, I've talked to the fire department. We
would provide the inside -- this is the only other boat that would
be allowed to dock there other than shuttle boats that would be
coming in and out where we would allow the fire boat, which is
currently Cocohatchee, to be there, which I think is a -- it's -- it
makes sense in the sense that that boat cannot go out into the
gulf and get onto the beach in case of an emergency when the
gulf is rough. But if they had their little 3-wheel or 4-wheeled
Page 139
November 14, 2000
thing like they have in Vanderbilt, they would, they would have
their emergency boat there.
I realize you can bring in a helicopter, but I think at certain
times it's probably a little bit more cost prohibitive to have this
access.
The plan did get bigger as I went along, but it was because
the part for the public got bigger, and it was put on private plan,
SO --
You know, as far as the cost, I think they're zero. As far as
the time span on the -- and if you have questions about the
shuttle, I can tell you that the average shuttle boat, a
40-passenger shuttle boat, costs about 48- to $58,000.
Times we had planned on running this was every 30
minutes. We planned on having two shuttle boats so you would
have one in transit each way; because our concern would be, in
the summertime, if we had a thunderstorm or something, number
1, it would be a place -- and which is why I built the deck on
there with the chickees, was to have a place for the general
public, and they would -- if, if there was a thunderstorm or major
storm, obviously, we're not going to leave them out in the rain.
We would bring them in to wherever we had to get them,
probably into the -- if you look at the three-story drawing, there's
a big area that would just hold our chairs.
And all of the amenities or most of the amenities of the club
that are rented, the beach chairs, the concession items -- we've
eliminated jet skis because this is a preserve, but all of those
items will also be available through that same little concession
building to the general public, so --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: If you can get the restrictive
covenants, I don't have a problem.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, this is such a good deal.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Would you like to make that a motion?
COMMISSION MAC'KIE: Well, I think there's speakers.
MR. HARVEY: Is there any other questions, or --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, that's right, but you can make a
motion and we can get it on the table, and we don't need to vote
until after we hear from the speakers, whatever you want.
Well, let's go to speakers.
Page t40
November t4, 2000
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, the first speaker is Marianne
Sander, followed by Tom Crowe.
MS. SANDER: Good afternoon.
My name is Marianne Sander. I live in Commissioner
Carter's district. I'm a permanent, full-time resident.
I'm representing the 400 members of the Friends of Barefoot
Beach Preserve.
I've heard the old expression, 'Don't look a gift horse in the
mouth." This gift horse is a Trojan horse, and you're missing a
lot of the facts.
The Friends have worked in the preserve for 10 years,
preserving the preserve and serving the public. We built the
nature trail; we built the learning center; we established the
library; we built the butterfly garden and the cactus garden, and
we provide educational lectures 16 Saturdays a year. All of this is done at no cost to the County.
During the past fiscal year, the Friends spent over $11,000
on physical improvements to Barefoot Beach, 1300 on speakers,
500 on gardens. Our volunteers contributed over 2500 hours and
greeted over 7500 visitors.
Clearly, we treasure this beautiful, minimally improved land,
and want to maintain the only beach preserve in Collier County.
The official Land Management Plan of 1993 and the
Department of Environmental Protection review of 1997 contain
many significant statements about this preserve. Let me quote a
few to you.
Barefoot Beach Preserve County Park is one of the few
remaining stretches of an undeveloped portion of a barrier island
on the southwest coast of Florida.
A Collier County preserve is an area designed to perpetuate
certain exceptional objects or conditions which provide a type of
recreational experience which would not be possible otherwise.
Organized recreational program activity is concerned with
the interpretation of the attributes of the preserve for public
enjoyment.
Proposed physical development in Barefoot Beach Preserve
should be limited to within 5 percent of the property that is part
of the Land Management Agreement.
The preserve is also part of the outstanding Florida waters
by the Department of Environmental Regulation.
Page 141
November 14, 2000
The plan states that the carrying capacity of the preserve
beach is 587 people. There is a different standard for preserves
than there is for public parks, and I think that's a very important
consideration. The preserve has 254 parking spaces, plus
overflow in street parking.
In all our years of working in the park, we have never seen it
closed, seen it closed to visitors due to lack of space.
In the review done by DEP in 1997, they had stated, there is
one privately owned parcel inside the State-owned portion of the
preserve that presents both short- and long-term problems.
The short-term problems were due to exotics, but their
statement is as follows: Probably the largest concern is what
the owners of the out parcel want to do with the property and
how its private utilization will impact the preserve.
I think that their recommendation is that the State owns the
adjoining land and the State ought to buy it, but they definitely
recommend an acquisition.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the DEP?
MS. SANDER: The DEP review.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MS. SANDER: They have people from Tallahassee, local
people, a major number of people.
The importance of this magnificent resource protection in
this section means just that: protection of the vegetation and
wildlife, protection of the barrier island itself, protection of the
park visitors, education and interpretation to promote awareness
and thus build respect for each other and for our natural
resources.
You have a very full agenda today, and we respect the
business you have to transact, so we will not attempt to provide
a lot of speakers or a point-by-point critique of the joint permit
application.
We will take just one example and hope it illustrates our
broad concern for the preserve.
The private road access, easement, whatever label you give
it, is a prime example of the nature of the preserve. It is called
the back trail by most of us who work there.
The Friends have envisioned extending the nature trail into
a loop down to Wiggins Pass in back -- on the back bay side.
I wish you could walk this trail with me and see a glimpse of
Page142
November 14, 2000
what early beach goers found. For the most part, there is a
wonderful quiet broken only by bird calls of every variety.
MS. SANDERS: Our second speaker had to leave. I would
like to use his time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's not possible under our rules,
ma'am.
MS. SANDER: Well, I have an important message I, I would
like to --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm sorry. If you can say it in 30
seconds, I'11, I'll entertain that, but I cannot allow you to continue
other than to wrap up, please. MS. SANDER: All right.
If a private road easement exists and a restaurant were
constructed, we believe the preserve would be harmed
immeasurably.
While least use of the road is best and there is an agreement
to transport all supplies, passengers, employees, et cetera, by
shuttle boats, there is a caveat, quote, whenever possible.
If we wish to examine the probable impact of such an
operation, we might look at a private beach club comparable in
size on, on Barefoot Beach.
We went to the management and asked them to tell us
about their truck deliveries in an average week.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where is this? Miramar maybe or
MS. SANDER: Miramar.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Miramar.
MS. SANDER: The truck deliveries to Miramar which would
serve a comparable number of persons: beverage trucks, 12;
food, linen and supplies, 26; garbage, 2; miscellaneous, 6.
We don't think these services are feasible by shuttle. If you
ever saw a Cysco semi that comes every day, I can't imagine
putting that on a barge.
The tranquility of the park preserve is gone. Forty-six trucks
going in and out every week has a severe impact on the preserve
and the public comfort in that area.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're going to have to ask you to wrap
up, ma'am.
MS. SANDER: We have several other questions: Will the
club be open when the park is closed? Would alcohol be served?
Page 143
November 14, 2000
What final density would be the result of several hundred private
memberships? Why not use the proposal of the County?
We do not think the public would benefit from a questionable
trade of some restrooms, some concessions, and a drain field for
a precious, irreplaceable portion of land which cannot be
replaced.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Carter, if I could just ask a
question.
Ma'am -- the speaker is behind you, but I'm actually up here.
It's me. Sorry. That's -- the speaker from these microphones is
behind you.
MS. SANDER: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Everything you said, I, I so agree
with, but our choices aren't the status quo; the status quo is not
on the table.
They're either going to build a house or they're going to
build this, or the State's going to buy it, and the State hasn't
bought it yet.
MS. SANDER: Well, I would prefer the State buy it --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me too.
MS. SANDER: -- but I don't think a house would have 46
trucks making deliveries to serve hundreds of people, for one
example.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- that -- that's one point of
yours that spoke to me, I wrote down. I mean, that -- I'm
interested in hearing about that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, we need to move on to the other
speakers, Commissioner, and then we can come back and
address that question.
MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is Tom Crowe followed by
Harold Saylor.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Tom is not able to be here.
MR. OLLIFF: Harold Saylor then will be followed then by
Nancy Payton.
MR. SAYLOR: My name is Harold Saylor, and I live at Bonita
Shores.
And for the last 28 years, I've walked the, the Barefoot
Beach, and I've put in thousands of hours of volunteer work at
the park and also with the sea turtle program. I work as a
Page t44
November 14, 2000
volunteer for the natural resources department monitoring the
sea turtles, and this is one thing I'm concerned about.
This beach is one of the primary, elite, prime sea turtle
nests in the areas and all of Collier County, or as far as that
goes, all over the whole gulf, and I've got questions concerning
it.
This is going to be a club-restaurant three stories high. How
late are they going to be staying open at nights during the turtle
season? What are they going to do about the lights?
Another question I have is, what about the booze? Are they
going to be staying open late at night serving booze? This is
going to be a club plus a restaurant. How do you keep the
drinkers off of the beach at night with their alcohol? Forgot to mention this stuff.
And another thing, the fees. You've got a free lunch here.
This gentleman is going to bring all of these people in from
Cocohatchee, going to separate them, going to have two things:
You're going to have the freebies, the peons, going one way on a
boardwalk. They're going to have all your members and the elite
people from your gated communities going on the other
boardwalk. Okay?
Does the -- they're, they're going to come there. They're not
going to stay there. They're going to fan out, and they're going to
go onto the beach.
Who collects the fees? Remember the gatehouse there, the
toll booth is up a half a mile up the beach. If everybody gets into
the park free, what are you going to do with the toll booth up
there?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, well, wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: We don't have a toll booth.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Isn't the toll booth for the parking?
I mean, I thought the toll booth was for parking. Is that -- am I
wrong about that?
MR. SAYLOR: I'm wrong.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: No.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, if you're not going to park
your car, then you don't need a toll booth, sir. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. SAYLOR: Well, you'll get the use of all the facilities they
Page t45
November 14, 2000
can walk up to.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sure, but they would walk. That's
the point.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But it's a public beach, sir.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's a public beach.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Anyone can use that, regardless if
they're a billionaire or they're --
MR. SAYLOR: What about all over Lee County that are
supporting the beach? Are they going to drive all the way down
to Cocohatchee?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Who knows?
MR. SAYLOR: Come across?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sir, you have the freedom to go
where you want to go in this country.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't know, sir. I can't answer that.
MR. SAYLOR: We're getting too many -- you're not getting a
free lunch here by no means.
And what about when they build this place? Is it going to be
on pilings? Is it going to be on pilings? You've got concrete
pilings that you're going to have to transport over somehow to
put in. You've got to bring all the heavy equipment to pound in
the pilings; you've got to bring your cement trucks down to pour
your slabs and all of this.
Do you think that's not going to have an impact on this park,
on the preserve? It certainly is.
A septic system. They were talking about a septic system.
I don't think that a perc test will be passed there. You've got a
145-seat restaurant plus all your bathrooms. You've got all of the
-- from the bathrooms from the private club, the restaurant,
you've got all your kitchen waste that comes in. What's it going
to be doing? It's going to be going into the garbage disposals.
Goes into the septic tanks, goes into the drain fields, and then it
goes into the back bay.
Septic tanks are not permissible for that area, I'm pretty
sure. If it was, Lely would have built houses there years ago.
That's the reason they sold it to the County, because they were
not allowed to build houses there because there was no septic
system.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sorry, your time is up, and I'm going to
have to move to the next speaker.
Page 146
November 14, 2000
MR. SAYLOR.' Thank you very much.
MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is Nancy Payton followed by
Dick Lydon.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton representing the Florida
Wildlife Federation.
I want to remind everyone that it's the Barefoot Beach
Preserve. This is a preserve; it's the only County preserve we
have.
And a preserve, according to the management plan, is there
for its ecological values first, and I think all decisions that are
made need to be made and colored by the fact that this is there
because of its environmental significance. It's a preserve.
The current proposal is not consistent with the current
management plan approved by the State. I received a great deal
of information from County staff, from Mr. Harvey -- he's been
very responsive to answering questions and concerns that
Florida Wildlife has had, and I appreciate that.
Also, yesterday, I went to the preserve, and I walked down
the road, which really isn't a road, from my perspective. There
were fallen trees. It's very close to mangroves in some areas;
other areas are very wet. It's a trail, I think, is a better
description, at least at this time. And I walked around the
parcel, and I viewed it from the back and from the side and from
the front.
These are Florida Wildlife's immediate concerns, and maybe
they can be addressed and maybe they can't, maybe easily or not
so easily.
The road, we've heard a lot about the road, on how it will be
used. For instance, is the Roto Rooter going to go down there for
the septic tank? Are propane tanks going to get there via that or
by transport on the ferry? Construction equipment. We do have
concerns about the impact of the road and how lightly that road
should be used.
Concerned about dredging to get the ferry in through that
back bay, and dredging is possible to no FW if it's for public
access. I think that's an important component of this proposal,
that it doesn't work without us.
There's concerns Florida Wildlife has because this a
preserve of the scenic vistas, that one of the reasons that people
like to go there is because this is the way it used to be. There
Page 147
November 14, 2000
are not many places you can go to see what a barrier island used
to be and wander around and look and learn through the nature
trails that are there and the various other support programs that
are there.
Having a three-story building, I think, is going to have an
impact on that scenic, natural vista in a preserve. Again, I want
to stress, this is a preserve; it's not a park.
We have concerns about how the public is going to get
there. Florida Wildlife has long supported public access to public
lands, but we have questions: How much access are we really
going to get through this proposal? Will our access be free?
What are we going to have to pay for that ferry? Are we going to
pay a dollar to get on the ferry? Are we going to have to pay a
dollar to park? We haven't heard whether there are going to be
surcharges for the public to use the public way of getting there.
How many members of the public are you able to get there?
Will the ferry run twice a day, three times a day, and how many,
and how many people will be on the ferry?
I understand Mr. Harvey's not running the ferry; the County
will be running the ferry, or that's one of the questions, is, who's
running our ferry?
Where will the public park? We hear there's this potential
location for a parking lot, but we don't have that. And what
about the Cocohatchee parking lots? Will they go for the private
property -- private club folks, or are they whoever gets there first
gets to use them? Don't know that answer.
And what's going to be there on the Cocohatchee part of
this staging area for the ferries? Does it turn into a staging area
and become less of a park? What are the impacts -- and we
haven't talked about that much at all -- of this other County park
to provide this public access through this proposal?
Are the trade-offs between the public access and the
negative impacts to the preserve and now the Cocohatchee Park
worth it?
Ideally, I agree, we should be buying it, the County and the
State. I don't know if that can happen, but that's our first choice.
There are a lot of encumbrances with a 40-year lease and
first right of refusal, which I don't know the answer to, but I wish
we could be more aggressive about addressing that.
I keep coming back, as I think about this, to the fact that
Page t48
November t4, 2000
this is a preserve. And because ultimately this is a private club
with public access to make it doable, in other words, you need
that public access to get that dredging, you need that public
access to get that drain field, so we're really -- we're what make
it possible, but do we really get the good end of the deal?
MS. PAYTON.' Because there are too many variables and
unanswered questions, Florida Wildlife can't endorse the joint
project. Doesn't mean ultimately that we don't think it's bad, but
there's still too many unanswered questions, too many variables
for us to embrace it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Mr. Lydon?
MR. OLLIFF: Following Mr. Lydon will be your last speaker,
will be Nicole Ryan.
MR. LYDON: For the record, I'm Dick Lydon representing
nobody except me.
First of all, sounds like, Paul, you may have come up with a
winner. There's a lot of if's, and's, and but's about it, but I would
suggest to Maria, is there any reason why we can't do both?
I mean, the whole tone of the meeting the last time we were
here was, build that garage at Barefoot -- or at Vanderbilt, and
Mr. Brandt would have us put 800 cars in instead of 400 if we
need them.
I appreciate these people are giving up some of the things
that they've had in the past. We've given up some things we've
had since I started walking that beach in the early '70s, so I
think it's certainly worth continuing to look at.
The Friends, I understand their position, but the other thing
they might look at, it will give them more opportunities for
people to educate as they continue to do their great work that
they are doing.
I would only ask one question: How much of this do you
figure you're going to get from TDC? You know what my
thoughts are about where the TDC money should be going.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not going to cost us anything,
Dick. It's a free lunch, remember?
MR. LYDON: I said build both, Pam.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, there you go.
MS. RYAN: For the record, Nicole Ryan representing the
Page 149
November 14, 2000
Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
At this point, the Conservancy cannot support this project in
its proposed form. For the project to be acceptable, there are
numerous questions that really need to be addressed.
First and foremost, as has been mentioned before, the
option of purchasing the property really should be investigated
either by the County or by the State of Florida. Though the
market price may be high, this is the best way to keep this
preserve intact, and I don't know how much this has really been
investigated.
If, however, purchase of the property is not possible, there
are several concerns with this project that we would like to be
addressed.
First of all, this project is large. It's grown quite a bit since
it initially came before you this summer. It's a very intensive
design for an area that is a preserve, surrounded by a preserve,
at least.
It proposes a three-story building with restaurant, locker
rooms, barbecue pits, living quarters for a park ranger,
horseshoes, boccie courts.
Like I said, this area is surrounded by a preserve, and this is
awfully intensive. If it could be scaled back to not have such an
intensive development in the preserve area, and along with the
drain fields being placed on the State property, that's one big
concern.
The second is the road easement to this parcel. It's been
discussed before, and it is a private property right to have an
easement through the State lands to get to this parcel; however,
the Conservancy is very concerned about any road improvement
that would have a negative impact to the area.
How large will the road be? There's going to have to be
some clearing in order to get construction equipment to this
area. Will fill need to be brought in? There is the option of
having a fire boat and rescue boat at the Cocohatchee marina,
but are there State laws, County laws, that say you have to have
a passable road to get a fire truck or an ambulance in? I'm not
sure that we have the answer to that, and that would be a large
roadway that would have to be maintained.
I guess the biggest question is, will a conservation
easement be given to the State or to the County to insure that
Page150
November 14, 2000
this road is unimproved and stays in a natural state and isn't
used for general beach access?
We'd suggest a restrictive covenant on the road easement
to maintain Iow use.
Third is the septic system. The Conservancy feels that the
use of a septic system in this area is unacceptable. Potential
groundwater and estuarine surface water contamination poses a
very serious threat. Septic leachate is a particular concern
because this is within the Wiggins Pass-Cocohatchee River
Outstanding Florida Waterway.
Within areas designated as an OFW, activities that will lower
the existing water quality standards are not allowed. Will there
be written assurances that the proposed project will not lower
the water quality in the OFW?
Now, I know that these plans are still preliminary and we
haven't seen a final proposal, and these are some of our
preliminary concerns; but if the purchase of this land isn't an
option, the Conservancy hopes that concerns such as these will
be addressed and that the most environmentally compatible
project can be designed. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: There's been several questions raised
here, and number 1, I'm going to ask a question: Wiggins State
Park, are they on a septic system? Is the park up at Lely
Barefoot Beach, are they on a septic system for their restrooms?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. They're sewers.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: They're all sewers. Okay.
Other questions that were raised was in regards to dredging,
time of operation on the private club side, serving of alcohol,
some question about 5 percent of land use, use of the road -- do
you have to bring heavy equipment to establish this, et cetera, et
cetera.
There's a number of questions. I saw, Paul, you were taking
notes. I think we all need some answers to that.
MR. PICKWORTH: Let me, let me address the dredging
question, and some of the more detailed operational questions,
I'll let Paul work with.
But there's been some suggestions that, that this -- that
somehow we want this joint application 'cause we need you
because of some scheme or idea that we're going to have to
Page t51
November t4, 2000
dredge it or we're going to want to dredge it.
That is simply not true. We have no intention of dredging.
We do not need to dredge. We do not intend to dredge.
We know that the access route for the shuttle goes through
some pretty shallow water. Mr. Harvey has been a captain in
that area for many, many years and is intimately familiar with the
water.
There is no doubt that there will be a few times during neap
tides when shuttle access will be restricted because of the
shallow water. You simply plan for that. People do that in
maritime situations all over the world. That's not new, different,
or unusual.
We do not intend to dredge. We do not need the dredging as
part of this project. We have no intention, and we're not even
going to get involved in any dredging, because that would raise
both the time and the cost of the permitting to the point where it
would be prohibitive and a useless exercise, so I don't know how
to say that with enough emphasis. We are not interested in
dredging of any kind, and if someone else proposes to us that we
ought to get involved in a dredging operation, this is over, 'cause
we're not going to do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I make a motion, it's going to
be conditioned on there being no dredging, so -- MR. PICKWORTH: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was curious about the 46
trucks.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Me too.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I, I really seriously want to
understand what kind of truck traffic versus -- explain the way
that's going to work. If 46 trucks are necessary a week to do
Miramar, why is yours going to be different?
MR. HARVEY: Well, I don't -- we, we operate, or in our
marina at Vanderbilt Beach we operate a very large restaurant
called The Sea Witch. We don't -- I don't own it, but it is on our
property.
We have two to three delivery trucks a day. Sometimes, I
think on a really busy day, we might have five if you include the
laundry and things like that; but most of the items that, that they
bring in, they bring in say a box maybe this big of fish; they bring
in a box of meat; they bring in, you know, whatever, whatever we
Page 152
November 14, 2000
need.
These are not things that cannot be shuttled. There's
operations in existence.
Little Palm Island in the Keys is probably the example that I
would use, because that's the architect I would like to use to
develop this project. I feel that it blends in better with the
preserve.
I don't know if you're familiar with Little Palm. It's probably
one of the most pristine uses of an island that I've ever seen.
There is -- it's a -- it has a very large restaurant there. Everything
is brought to Little Palm.
There is -- there are numerous restaurants on islands
throughout the world. I've done a lot of traveling. I just got back
from Africa. I took some of the ideas from there, some from
different places.
I've met with Joe Roth, who developed Little Palm, to find
out, you know, how do all these things work?
So I think that -- and, and as far as the use of Cocohatchee,
if there is a problem or I run into a problem with too much going
on there -- which we don't plan on using any of Cocohatchee's
parking whatsoever for anything other than the trucks that would
pull up. They would stop in front of the -- of where this dock is,
which is not part of the parking anyway. They would unload the
stuff; we would put it onto the boats, and off it goes.
As far as bringing things back, as far as the garbage, I think
that you run a program down at Clam Pass -- if you'll notice on
my design here, my boardwalk on the private side is developed
for a tram, the object being that we would try to use everything
we can, including the grease traps, things like that.
I think there could be a drain field some day at some point in
time. The drain field would have to have some kind of pump-out.
I mean, I was, in the beginning, going to put the drain field on my
own property. This was something that was negotiated out with
staff to move it onto preserve land. It wasn't my idea. It wasn't
my idea to do a lot of the building that's on this, and it wasn't my
idea to go quite this big, but to -- for me to accomplish what was
requested of me, obviously, there's a pretty big financial cost
involved in this.
As far as equipment moving onto the road, I have a granted,
deeded road easement coming from Barefoot Beach all the way
Page153
November 14, 2000
through to the property. I also have a letter from the State of
Florida from DEP requesting parks and recreation -- and I'd be
more than happy to present it to you -- that says they should
keep the road trimmed back so we have access to our property.
When we start discussing nature trails, this property was
fenced by Mrs. Stouffer. The property had holes cut through the
fence to accommodate a nature trail that is part of the park
program. This is a private piece of property that runs from the
bay to the gulf high water mark. The fence permit runs from the
bay to the gulf high water mark.
We think that if we can work with the parks and recreation
department to accommodate them and the friends of the
preserve -- because I walk this preserve a lot. I live right in that
area.
I thought that -- when I brought -- started this idea three
years ago -- that my main concern was beach access.
In Vanderbilt we're getting buried. I mean, I, I understand
your -- that we need more beach access; I understand the
parking garage. I understand all of these things, but I think that
15 or 20 years from now -- now is the time to be purchasing
property and to gain access.
I don't think, if you wait much longer -- the way the North
Naples area is growing, there is going to be no property to gain,
to buy, at any price.
As far as purchasing this land, I know for a fact -- I've known
Ricki Stouffer for 25-plus years -- she will not sell the land. If she
would have sold it, I would have bought it. It took a long time to
get her to consider even the lease part that I do have.
I cannot tell you that -- I can tell you that I don't think she
would sell it. I think you'd have to go through condemnation. I
can tell you that I have offered before that if this problem, if this
is perceived by everybody in this room that this is such a
tremendous impact to this preserve, my little 100-foot strip that's
private, then I would take the lowest value that I have been
offered, and if you guys want to cut a check, I'll take it and walk.
I mean--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How much?
MR. HARVEY: -- you know? It was $2 million, and you'd owe
5,000 a month in rent for the next 40 years, and you have the
right to purchase it on the first right of refusal.
Page 154
November t4, 2000
I put this on the table a long time ago.
We brought this up here in June requesting a simple, joint
application for a dock. None of this other stuff was on that initial
agenda.
I have gone through six months of continuing to pay
attorneys, to pay the rent, to, to try to come down here from
North Naples for numerous meetings to try to appease
everybody.
I went to the Conservancy. I took Nicole, who -- her and I sit
on another board together -- and a biologist out there to the
property.
I contacted the State of Florida. I contacted Nancy Payton.
I mean, I've, I've provided them with information that wasn't
available to them through staff.
I think I've done about everything that I can possibly do. I
think there is a number of issues that were brought up that I was
taking notes on. I think that the -- pretty much the main thing is,
is I'm asking to joint with -- for you to joint apply.
There can be things that come up through this application
process. I've still got to go through your whole building program,
the EPA -- I don't know -- he -- Don knows more than I do, but I
guess it's PAB, EAB. We got to go through the State. We got to
go through the Army Corps of Engineers.
This could get denied at any point in time, and, and I'm, I'm
back to square 1, which is, build a house.
If I build the house, I have to build it to County standards. If
I build this, I have to build it within the zoning and County
standards.
I have the right to bring the equipment in to build the house,
so the impact to build this and the impact to build a house, I can
tell you that I believe that 1.69 acres boils down, in my very
rough math, to about 73,000 square feet.
I think when Mr. Pickworth was asked by County staff, what
is the maximum amount of space, air-conditioned, that we would
use, we put in writing, 4800 square feet.
This building -- the, the footprint of this building is 4800
square feet. As you go up in building size, the building gets
smaller. If you take out the first floor, 4800 square feet, which is
the ground floor which you can't really use for anything because
of the DEP and the water; second floor is 3900 square feet; third
Page 155
November t4, 2000
floor is 2200 square feet, but if you -- that comes out to 10,900
square feet.
I believe that I can build a house there that is the equivalent
of that, if not much larger.
If you take out what I'm building for the County, if you take
out the thousand square feet for the ranger station -- if we want
to downsize this, I'd be more than happy to eliminate that -- and
you pull out the 450-square-foot concession stand, the restrooms
of another 450 square feet, I believe that comes to 4200 square
feet, so I'm actually 600 square feet of air-conditioned space less
than what we agreed to do.
I'm willing to work as far as the sea turtles are concerned. I
sit on an environmental board in northern Collier County. I was
instrumental in negotiations with the Southwest Florida
Conservancy and my board to bring Florida Outstanding Waters
to allow that. Our concerns were that we still be allowed to
dredge Wiggins Pass.
There is provisions in there for dredging. We all know that
the backwater-- and Don might have gone a little bit too far, but I
think right now the property is accessible. I've run boats in there
at all different times. I've taken 40-foot shuttle boats.
If -- and point in time -- if we had a hurricane or if something
came up where we had shoaling in this area and if we had to
apply for a dredge-and-fill permit or if the State -- and this came
up from Pumiston & Moore (phonetic) -- that there is a possibility
that the State might want to -- about the metric study for us to do
this, and they might say, well, this is too shallow in this one area;
we want you to remove this, I still have to go through this whole
process.
So the County is really at risk, zero. You have, you have no
risk whatsoever. The risk is mine, and it's up to all the
permitting agencies. I still have to go through permitting just
like any other person building any other thing.
The impact to the road, it's going to be the same.
The one thing I can tell you is, I do not have to go through a
bunch of hoops to build a house. I can go down to Horseshoe
Drive; I can submit my building plan, which I've already got, and I
would prefer not to do this.
If the County -- if it's the County's flavor to buy my lease
'cause I can't sell you the property, but if you would like to buy
Page 156
November 14, 2000
my lease and take over my lease payments, I'm out of here. You
know, I'll take your check. I'll go home.
I won't be as happy. I think we're making a big mistake,
because I think that down the road we have a chance to provide
beach access, and I don't think that you're going to find any
other way to do it. I've lived up there for 25 years. I just don't
see it happening.
And I feel for the Friends of the preserve; I feel for the
people in Bonita and Lee County, but right now, they've got a
great deal. We don't.
I think if you, if you took an opinion poll maybe out in Golden
Gate or people that drive around Vanderbilt and can't find
access, I think they might have a different opinion.
I think that when I sit in my Vanderbilt Beach office and
watch my 198 parking spaces fill up constantly with beach goers
and I have to go out there and call tow trucks and really ruin
these people's day -- I mean, we have people that we employ to
go out and try to catch them before they leave. I mean --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Paul, yeah, we all --
MR. HARVEY: -- we're going to need it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We all understand your passion for it,
and I think you made your points well.
I think it's time -- we heard all the speakers and we need to
poll the Board and entertain a motion on what we're going to do?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to move that we go
forward with Option I in the staff report, which is to approve the
project in concept, agree to participate with the petitioner as a
co-applicant for the permits, and that we add some conditions:
that there be a restrictive covenant or conservation easement
recorded on the property that would maintain the minimal road
usage and that would provide perpetual public access to the
public facilities on the property, and whatever else needs to be --
you know, I can't, I can't think of everything right here on the
spot, but basically, this, I guess, is the way to do it.
Let's go back through the record, and every commitment
that's been made today for how the property would be operated
would be recorded to run with the land. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One other piece though.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Oh.
Page t57
November 14, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One other piece has to do with
the acquisition of the parking lot, 'cause there's no point in our
going forward with this if we can't get that parking lot.
Now, I understand that you guys are talking about this with
the property owner.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Make it contingent upon it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I guess it would have to be
contingent on it; wouldn't it, Tom? I mean, does it make any
sense to go forward with this if we don't have parking?
MR. OLLIFF: Not if you don't have parking somewhere.
That's not to say that is the only parcel that could ever be used
for parking for this, but that is certainly, from our estimation, the
best, and I think direction to staff to continue to pursue not only
that and maybe bring something back within 30 days in terms of
a response so that we can track these two simultaneously.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because at the same time, I'd
like to, I'd like to read the restrictive covenants, and so maybe
you have to bring this back in 30 days, that we give the direction,
but that in 30 days you bring us back the restrictive covenants
and let us see if there's more to be added, not that we re-review
this, but that the restrictive covenants and the parking
acquisition be brought back to the Board, that the direction be
set.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Are we okay, Counselor? Are we okay,
Manager? Are we okay --
MR. PICKWORTH: No.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: They need to respond.
MR. PICKWORTH: You know, certain -- one thing we have
maintained from day one -- I mean, obviously, the parking issue is
beyond our control. We're in no position to control that.
There's a year or more worth of permitting work to do.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So restrictive covenants review is not
a problem for you?
MR. PICKWORTH: No.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's just the parking issue.
MR. PICKWORTH: Right, because if it hinges on the parking,
you're not going to be any further done in 30 days.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Can we look at parking separately so
Page 158
November t4, 2000
that we have a time line, let's say, within 30 to 60 days to come
back to the Board? It is going to address parking in the area, as
our County Manager has told us that we're looking at options and
we should have that within that period to present to the Board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I'm sure that I'm going to
regret asking this question, but I'm going to ask it anyway: Isn't
the owner of that piece of property that we seek about to come
before us for a development approval in the area? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't there some way we could
tie those things together?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't know. We'll have to wait until
they get here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You mean -- is there some reason
we cannot do that? I mean, it is providing access for people in
that area. I mean, can't we solve this -- both these problems
today?
MR. OLLIFF: Well, we'll deal with that when that item
comes, but I will tell you that that particular piece of property is
not part of the application that you're going to review.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know.
MR. PICKWORTH: One other thing, Ms. Mac'Kie, that is very
important to us is a direction that the necessary things be done
to get on the next agenda for the State for this Land
Management Plan, because if we don't make the December
meeting, we're off into January or February, and we're just really
hard against it. I think that could be done.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' So I'll add that to my motion and
retract the business about the parking from my motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is everybody okay?
MR. OLLIFF: So you're willing to proceed prior to us coming
back to you with the covenants -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah.
MR. OLLIFF: -- the restrictive covenants?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Or we can meet the December
deadline with the State, we also would like to review the
restrictive covenants.
MR. OLLIFF: And I just need to understand, because the
petitioner here is a lessee, the way I understand the
arrangement.
Page 159
November 14, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm curious about that too.
MR. OLLIFF: Okay? So I need to understand exactly how
the -- property owner has got to agree to covenants that run with
that land, so there is a third party involved, and I just want to
make the Board aware of that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I assume they have that
authority, 'cause they're here making that promise.
Is that right, Mr. Pickworth?
MR. PICKWORTH: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you have the authority of the
lessor?
MR. PICKWORTH: Yes. Yes, we will have -- we have the
authority, we believe, under the lease, to provide these
covenants.
We obviously will deal with the owner and her attorney to be
sure, and if there's a -- and obviously if a glitch develops, it could
change things and maybe we can't do it, but we believe under
the lease we have the right to make the kind of restrictive
covenants that you're looking for.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And on the 30-day review of the
restrictive covenants, I'm not suggesting it come back to the
County Commission.
I'm just saying, could the attorney please make them
available for us, and if one of us wants to put it on an agenda, we
can, but I don't want to -- as fun as this is, I don't want to do it
again.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Could you repeat your motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My motion is to approve the
project in concept and to agree to participate with the petitioner
as a co-applicant for the required permits, to do that in such a
manner that we are on the State's agenda in December, and that
our participation is contingent on the recording of restrictive
covenants or conservation easement, however it's deemed
appropriate, that will maintain the minimal road usage, maintain
perpetual public access, and we'll go through the record and
record as restrictive covenants to run with the land all of the
operational commitments that were made on the record today.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay. I can second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.}
Page t60
November 14, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
Motion carries 4-0.
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 2000-71 RE THE IMMOKALEE URBAN INFILL AND
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE URBAN
INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM -
ADOPTED. CHAIRMAN AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD
AND TO SIGN THE PLANNING GRANT APPLICATION
Thank you. I need to -- because we have a time-sensitive
area, John Dunnuck has asked that we move to Item 12-C-1
because it is time-sensitive, and give him an opportunity to
present that and deal with that item agenda.
MS. PRESTON: Thank you, Commissioner.
(Chairman Carter left the panel temporarily.}
For the record, Deborah Preston with the planning
department.
The item before you today requires three actions. Those
actions will allow us to proceed with submitting a grant
application for the implementation for the Immokalee Urban Infill
and Redevelopment Program.
Those actions today is, 1, to adopt an ordinance to adopt
the Immokalee Urban Infill and Development Plan; 2, to authorize
the chairman to sign the memorandum of understanding with the
school board; and, 3, to authorize the chairman to sign the grant
application.
If you have questions at this time, I'd be happy address
them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we pass that with three
votes, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I would prefer that you take three motions
separately.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
commissioners handle this?
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
I mean, can three
Is there a motion?
Yes. I'11, I'll move to approve.
And that will be for the ordinance
Page 161
November 14, 2000
for infill plan?
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
BRANDT: Yes.
MAC'KIE: Is there a second?
BERRY: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All in favor please say aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Opposed?
(Chairman Carter returned to the panel.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then a memo on the school --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: -- to sign the memorandum of
understanding with the school board.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
That passes unanimously.
Second.
All in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
And then a memo --
MS. FILSON: An authorization to authorize the chairman to
sign the grant application.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll make a motion to do that.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All in favor please say aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Opposed?
That passes 4-0.
MS. PRESTON: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel has a comment.
MR. WEIGEL: Make sure the record is clear if it passes 4-0,
particularly the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry?
MR. WEIGEL: You said, passes 4-0.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 'Cause Mr. Carter came in about
yOU,
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I heard everything that was going on.
MR. WEIGEL: That's great. The record looks good. Thank
Item #8G1
Page 162
November 14, 2000
REVISED BUDGET AMENDMENT POLICY - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I'll move us on to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Budget policy.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: .. budget policy amendment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've been briefed on this, think
it's all lust efficiency and good ideas, and willing to move
approval unless somebody has questions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I like it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Best presentation of the day,
Mike.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It is approaching about 20 minutes
to five. Do you foresee this meeting concluding before six o'clock
tonight, at which time I have a commitment?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Then I think we need to move to deal
with the public hearing things that will require --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- the necessity for all of us being here,
plus we've got --
Item #9D
REPORT FOLLOWING MEDIATION IN BERNSTEIN V. COLLIER
COUNTY, CASE NO. 00-14229GG, PENDING IN THE ELEVENTH
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS - $35,000 OFFER REJECTED AND
$30,000 TO BE OFFERED
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, pardon me. We have one item
that's also time sensitive. It's the 9-D regarding Bernstein
mediation. I can tell you that a mediation was held, and we have
a report to you on that, but a follow-up mediation is actually
scheduled at 4:30. We've got them in abeyance till 10 till five
right now.
Page 163
November 14, 2000
If you could hear the report from our Assistant County
Attorney, it will be very brief and will allow us to go into the next
phase of mediation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Can we make those
alterations in the order?
MR. WEIGEL: You can do that right now. You can just --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's do that. Let's deal with that time
sensitive. Let's deal with the, deal with the public hearings
because of Commissioner's Berry's situation, and then perhaps
the others will only require what we have to do.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Pettit.
MR. PETTIT: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
Mike Pettit, for the record, from the County Attorney's
Office.
As you recall, you've acted on the Bernstein matter
previously two weeks ago and rejected an approximately
$83,000 offer to settle that case from the plaintiff.
You directed us to attend mediation. We did that. After
several hours of mediation, we were advised by -- we received
basically an offer of $35,000. It was relayed as a final offer.
There was some further discussion. The mediation was
continued until today. I think it was continued to 4:30 in the
thought that we might get to this item before then.
And I'm here to relay the $35,000 offer to you, not as a
recommendation, but as a proposal from the plaintiff obviously
coming down from the $83,000 offer that was previously
rejected.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is your recommendation?
MR. PETTIT: At this time Mr. Manalich and I had -- would --
had recommended $25,000 as a maximum, so we have a $10,000
discrepancy.
And I think Ms. Bernstein and her counsel and the mediator
are waiting to hear what the Board's pleasure is.
Obviously, we've got several options: accept the 35, reject
the 35, or make some sort of counterproposal.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I, I have a question with regard
to that.
If we reject the 35, what is your projected guess as to what
might happen?
Page t64
November 14, 2000
MR. PETTIT: It was relayed as a, as a final or bottom-line
offer, but I would not be surprised if there were some additional
discussion this afternoon.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to move that we reject
the 35,000 and offer a $30,000 settlement.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Discussion?
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4-0.
MR. PETTIT: Thank you.
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 2000-72 RE PETITION PUD-00-13, WILLIAM HOOVER
OF HOOVER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
REPRESENTING MR. WARREN RAYMOND, CENTREFUND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REQUESTING A REZONE FORM
'E" ESTATES TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE
KNOWN AS WILSON BOULEVARD CENTER PUD ALLOWING FOR
42,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL AND OFFICE
LAND USES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST
QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD AND WILSON BOULEVARD - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now, I believe on the time line, if we
could go to the public hearings and then come back to the B --
Board of County Commissioners that that would probably meet
everybody's time deadline.
So we're going to the afternoon part of our session, public
hearings. All those who are going to participate, would you
stand and be sworn?
(The speakers were sworn.)
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, my name's Ray Bellows with
the current planning staff.
This is Petition PUD-0013, Petitioner is William Hoover, and
he's requesting a rezone from Estates to planned unit
development to be known as the Wilson Boulevard Center PUD.
You can see on the location map the subject site is located
on the southeast corner of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate
Page 165
November 14, 2000
Boulevard. It's approximately 7.15 acres in size. The subject
site's also located within a neighborhood center as designated
on the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Element.
This petition follows a PUD or a comprehensive plan
amendment which was adoPted by the Board of County
Commissioners last May which allows for commercial uses at
this location.
It -- basically the neighborhood center allows for C-3 uses
and Iow intensity transitional commercial uses. The uses
proposed in this PUD is consistent with the neighborhood center.
I have a master plan here that shows the project is
consistent with the criteria of the neighborhood center.
Basically, those are -- the access points are limited to one
access per 180 feet commencing from the right-of-way of major
intersecting streets, so therefore the access point here off
Golden Gate Boulevard and the one here off of Wilson Boulevard
meets that criteria.
There's another criteria that driveways on the opposite side
of the street shall be in direct alignment.
In this situation, we have access points that service
commercial to the north. While we're under the four-lane design
plans on the boulevard, the alignment is not applicable since the
median there will prohibit that.
Also, the access management plan requires the access to
be at the access point shown, so therefore staff has deemed that
this petition is consistent.
COMMISSION MAC'KIE.' Mr. Bellows, you recommended
approval; the planning commission recommended approval.
Environment Advisory Council didn't have to hear this
because there were not environmental issues? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But there supposedly are letters
of objection, and that's why it's not on the summary agenda?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. There was, as you can see,
the type C buffer requirement along the roadway. Type C
requires a 6-foot-tall hedge or berm or wall or a combination
thereof, and many residents felt that that could create some
safety-concern problems with not being able to see, and by
sheriffs passing by, and they--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Imagine that.
Page 166
November 14, 2000
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' How do you -- what's your
recommendation on it? Do you think that's good?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, the Golden Gate master plan for the
neighborhood center requires a type C, so staff is restrained from
recommending something else, but the applicant has some ideas
on how to address that.
I think there could be a Land Development Code amendment
that allows for a type C buffer in that neighborhood center that
allows for a 3-foot-tall fence or berm, and staff would be
supporting of that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, maybe we could
hear on that issue, if everybody's happy about everything else.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a letter here. I don't know if
any of you received this letter. This came from the Golden Gate
Estates Area Civic Association signed by Pat Humphries. Pat is
here today. They held their monthly meeting on October 18,
2000, made a motion to support the Center Fund Walgreen
Shopping Center as presented at that time with an amendment
that a declaration of covenant be filed with the clerk of courts
stipulating the disallowance of certain types of businesses in the
subject shopping center.
The motion was carried.
Further, the association made a motion to oppose a 6-foot
wall around the shopping center because it will compromise
security.
We would like to modify the type C buffer -- lust as Mr.
Bellows said -- for the shopping center to a type D buffer in a
permanent manner and amend the master plan, if necessary.
We do also request to be granted an interim waiver upon
this until this is done.
The motion was carried.
I think too that both Center Fund and the Golden Gate
Estates Civic Association ought to be commended, because they
have continually worked on this. It has been kind of difficult at
times, to say the least, but I think they have worked on it and
worked on it, and apparently have come to some kind of an
agreement where this is something that can work if we can do
something with this buffer to work out this -- their concern
regarding the security issue, I would like to see this done, and I
Page 167
November 14, 2000
believe this is the will of the people out there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Hoover, do you agree to that
type D buffer?.
MR. HOOVER: Correct. We've talked to Marjorie Student --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that yes or no? Yes, you
agree, or, no, you don't?
MR. HOOVER: Well, I don't think we can agree to that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh.
MR. HOOVER: Okay?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. HOOVER: What we -- the strategy is, talk to Marjorie
Student and Tony Pires, Bob Mulhere, a few other people.
I'm going to come before the planning commission tomorrow
to add a sentence to the Land Development Code amendment,
and that would come before the Board, I think, in the middle of
December.
What we would add is that a 25-foot-wide type C buffer in
the neighborhood center where it fronts on a roadway, the
screening would be a 3-foot-high hedge. That's so --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So all you're trying to do, Bill, is
amend the LDC.
MR. HOOVER: Right. If we amend the LDC, we don't have to
amend the comprehensive plan, which would take a year--
COMMISSIONER BERRY: All right. Well, then, that would
take care of the problem.
I would probably rather do that than to amend the master
plan.
MR. HOOVER: Until it comes up, next time it comes up,
maybe that could be.
MR. BELLOWS: Just one point: We would like the language
to say, may be reduced. There are some instances where we
would --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. All right.
MR. HOOVER: And you could base this approval subject to
the Land Development Code amendment then.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Are there other speakers?
MR. HOOVER: We need to clarify one more legal issue,
according to Marjorie Student.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We'll get the legal issues clarified and
then go to speakers.
Page 168
November 14, 2000
MR. HOOVER: The legal access is, our driveways are not
lining up across with G's partially because we do not meet safety
requirements for intersect -- our access drives from the
intersection.
Usually it's like 330 feet to get a right in-right out, and you
can see G's is maybe 150 feet from the intersection. We initially
turned the site plan -- the master plan in that way.
Transportation was having a heart attack, to say the least.
Anyway, so we moved the driveway over to the right.
Marjorie Student advises me that the Board would need to
make a finding that we're doing this for safety reasons that
would override the comprehensive plan.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What do we need to do? In the
form of what, a motion?
MS. STUDENT: It would -- Margie Student, for the record -- it
would be a motion with that finding in it and directing that this
be done, that it's not quite consistent with plan, together with
direction to staff to amend the comp plan to deal with this issue
in the next cycle.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, why don't we hear from the
speakers, and then you can advise us on what he needs?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah, maybe you can craft that while
the speakers are speaking so that we can get that on the table?
MR. OLLIFF: This first speaker is John Reynolds, followed
by Karen Acquard.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Do you guys want to talk us out of
this?
MR. REYNOLDS: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Do you want to talk us out of this?
MR. REYNOLDS: I guess my butt's kicked already, but I
want to at least put in my five minutes for me.
My name is John Reynolds. I live in Golden Gate Estates.
I'm 39; I was born and raised in Hialeah.
I've seen the horrific possibilities of rezoning to commercial
and residential areas. It always started out attractive and
small-scale and in time became huge and unattractive. As long
as the rezoning got started in an area, it wasn't long before it
expanded.
There's a possibility this will happen here. This is an area
with residential homes. In fact, this proposed site has a, has a
Page 169
November 14, 2000
residential home next to it.
We all would like to live close to stores, but how many of us
want to live right next to one?
So what does that mean? Buffer or no buffer, these, these
houses or residential lots next to it are going to be undesirable
for residential living.
And what does that mean? Yeah, I think we all know that
too-- soon to be rezoned. And then next to it and next to it and so
on and so on. That's, that's what happens.
There's commercial zone property for sale right next to the
Estates north in the area of Randall and Immokalee, that area
there. Why don't they build there? Let's see. 'Cause it costs
more dollars.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, they probably will.
MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah. The main reason Estates residents
might consider letting this land get rezoned commercial and
have these stores here is to keep from having to go into town to
shop.
That big dilemma has been solved. Presently there is a
large Publix shopping center being built at 951 and Immokalee
Road right now.
Golden Gate Estates is a wonderful place and wonderful
area to live and raise children in its rural setting, and it's rare
and unique. Let's not ruin its uniqueness.
That's all I have to say.
Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Karen Acquard will be followed by Patricia
Humphries.
MS. ACQUARD: I think it's still afternoon. Good afternoon.
For the record, my name is Karen Acquard. I'm the
president of the Estates Civic Association.
While there are still people like John who don't want any
commercial development out in the Estates, there are many
people who do, and compromises have to be made.
This area was indicated as being a future activity center, so
this is a good spot to make a compromise, I think.
I appreciate the fact that Center Fund has set a precedent
by coming to the civic association and has worked with the
residents through our association to bring in the businesses that
they have said they wanted.
Page 170
November 14, 2000
Granted, the first choice was a grocery store, and that
wasn't able to happen, but a Walgreen's pharmacy is a big move.
They've worked with the residents to come up with the style
that is going to be harmonious with the area, and I am very
appreciative of their patience. It's been a two-year process to
reach this point, and I appreciate the patience of the County with
the planning board and the commissioners in working along with
both groups so that everyone could reach a happy conclusion. I thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next is Patricia Humphries. That's your last
speaker.
MS. HUMPHRIES: Hello. My name is Patricia Humphries,
and I'm representing the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association.
This will be a little repetitive, but please bear with me.
On October 18, 2000, the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic
Association carried a motion to support the Walgreen Center
Fund Shopping Center as presented with an amendment to
record with the clerk of courts a declaration of covenants
stipulating the disallowance of certain types of business.
It has come to my attention that this declaration of
covenants cannot be recorded with the clerk of courts until the
property is in the hands of the Center Fund Corporation.
My feeling is that Center Fund will live up to the request. In
the meantime, both Warren Raymond of Center Fund and Bill
Hoover, the planner for Center Fund, said that the exclusion of
certain types of businesses can be included in the PUD.
I would like them to address that. I'm not positive that can
happen.
At the same time, the association also carried a motion to
oppose the 6-foot barriers surrounding the shopping center
because it will compromise security.
We would like to modify the type C buffer for the shopping
center to a type D buffer in a permanent manner and amend the
master plan, if necessary.
We do also request to be granted an interim waiver until this
is done.
I would like to make a note at this time that a
representative from the sheriff's department was at the meeting
and agreed with the security problem. In my opinion, a C wall
would allow for the use of native vegetation that abounds on this
Page 171
November 14, 2000
lot. Any way that the existing pine trees and cabbage palms can
be integrated in the buffer along Golden Gate Boulevard and
Wilson Boulevard would fit in with the rural atmosphere, provide
a natural wall that would do more to enhance the shopping
center than hide it, and would cut down on maintenance such as
fertilizing and watering.
I have copies of the declaration of covenants for your
perusal.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Legal counsel, have we
crafted something to address the issue of the buffer amendment?
MR. PIRES: If it may, Mr. Chairman, Anthony Pires
representing the petitioner also.
With regards to the declaration of covenants, the petitioner
-- well, it possibly cannot be part of the PUD document because
the Board is not in a position to enforce private deed restrictions.
The developer agrees that -- to record the attached
declaration of covenants prior to the time of issuance of the first
building permit for the first habitable building on the site.
Make that part of the record, and we have a copy for part of
the record, so if anyone in the future wants to know what the
assurance, the promise, the representation was, these are the
declaration and that's the assurance.
MS. STUDENT: Again, Margie Student, for the record.
The motion lust would need to have the finding that the
requirement of the comp plan for the access being directly in line
with the access across the street causes a public safety
problem, and that finding would be part of the motion, along with
direction to staff to amend the comp plan in the next available
amendment cycle.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Do you want a motion made to that
effect?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll make a motion to go along with
the movement of the driveway due to safety concerns, and also --
and it cannot line up with the opposite one -- and also to amend
the comp plan.
Is that all I need?
MR. PIRES: Amend the comp plan for the access issues and
Page 172
November 14, 2000
the Land Development Code amendment for a type C buffer.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, and the type -- I'm sorry. Yes,
amend the comp -- well, it would be the comp plan for the --
MR. PIRES: Golden Gate Area Master Plan.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, so -- well, do you want master
plan or -- okay -- the Golden Gate --
MR. PIRES: -- Master Plan dealing with a type --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- right, with a type C buffer.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Have a motion and a second.
Any discussion?
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4-0.
Thank you.
Item #12B2
ORDINANCE 2000-73 RE PETITION PUD-99-20, REPRESENTING
BRYNWOOD PRESERVE, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A"
AGRICULTURAL TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE
KNOWN AS BRYNWOOD PRESERVE PUD ALLOWING FOR 160
MIEXED RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD, ONE
QUARTER MILE SOUTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD - ADOPTED WITH
STIPULATIONS
Now we move to the next issue, which is item 12-B-2, which
is PUD 99-20, Brynwood Preserve.
MR. OLLIFF: I'm assuming the Board's had an opportunity to
read the staff report on this, and unless there's any questions,
maybe we could just go straight to the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would like that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think that's a great idea.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I -- I've been through it. I'd be more
than willing to go straight to the petitioner.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I guess the petitioner is ready to go.
Rich Yovanovich representing the petitioner in this PUD
petition.
Essentially, the staff report sets forth the issues related to
Page 173
November 14, 2000
the property. The only, the only issue that needs to be
addressed is the side setback requirement that the --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, we need to swear everybody.
MR. OLLIFF: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Everyone needs to be
sworn in.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Oh, whoa, whoa, whoa. Gee, I'm sorry.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we all got sworn in on the last
one. Seriously, I think there was like a collective swearing.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, let's do it one more time.
(The speakers were sworn.)
MR. OLLIFF: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
Disclosures on the part of the Board?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't think I've had anyone talk
to me about this, at least not recently; and if you talked to me six
months ago, I probably wouldn't remember it anyway, so --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have had no contact with any of
the principals.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have met with the petitioner in -- on
two occasions to listen to their presentation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I've met with the petitioner
once.
MR. YOVANOVICH-' And just last week, Commissioner Berry,
you and I did discuss this.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is this the one we discussed on
the phone?
MR. YOVANOVICH: This is the one we discussed on the
phone.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. So I talked to Mr.
Yovanovich about that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Last day on the job. You know how it
is.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Tomorrow, who are you?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Anyway, as I said, the staff report
basically outlines what we want to do. It's a, basically, it's a
30-acre site with 5.47 units per acre.
The planning commission recommended approval; staff has
recommended approval of our density.
The issue came up during the planning commission hearing
regarding the side yard setbacks. The projects in that area,
Page 174
November 14, 2000
Whippoorwill Lakes -- I'm sorry -- Whippoorwill Pond,
Whippoorwill Woods, and most recently Arlington all have 5-foot
side setbacks for the projects.
This project actually got into the process a little over a year
ago, and recently the planning commission has adopted a policy
where they will prefer 6-foot setbacks versus 5-foot setbacks.
I've shared with Commissioner Carter how far along in the
process we are. We basically are ready to go to platting, so to
now impose a 6-foot setback on the petitioner would basically
eliminate 10 lots from the project, and we would request that,
since there's no policy to have a 6-foot setback that if you want
to adopt such a policy, please do it prospectively and not
retroactively to --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: This is really required to go through
the LDC amendment process to take it to that 6-foot situation, as
I understand it, concurrently, that is not there; so if I was a
hearing officer, I would have to stay with the existing LDC codes
as they exist today, and I could not arbitrarily tell you to do 6 or
7 or 7-3/4 or whatever came in mind that moment. Am I right on that?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I would agree with that.
MR. PIRES: Well, this is also a PUD where we allow for
certain leeway and setbacks anyway, so staff has approved, as
Mr. Yovanovich has previously mentioned, 5-foot setbacks, so it's
not uncommon.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But in a PUD, we can make up
what we want within reason, so, you know, we could say 10 feet
if we wanted to, because it's a PUD.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, and the benefits of the reduced
setbacks is, you allow us to pool our common areas into bigger
areas, bigger green space areas, you know, better community
facilities; so the trade-off is, is green space in an aggregated
area versus green space between, between yards.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I, if I could --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Had more to do with the
problems that the EAC had, that you get 26 acres of jurisdictional
wetlands and 23 acres are going to be permanently impacted, so
you're compensating with 150 acres you're buying -- donating to
CREW? Is that what that is?
Page t 75
November 14, 2000
MR. YOVANOVICH.' That is correct, and I have the
environmental list here, if you want to get into the details of the
quality of the wetlands on our site; but the area is severely
degragated, and we're developed with, you know, Livingston
Road, that's going to be coming along, so the quality of the
wetlands on our site candidly are not good quality. What you're
getting is 150 acres.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Has the district, the Board,
whoever else has authority, have they approved the permit yet?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think we've got to file -- where's
my -- we don't have the permit yet, but we're close to being
finalized with that, but they have accepted, if I'm correct --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The district has no longer--
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sorry about that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's okay.
And who are you, please?
MR. OWEN: For the record, my name is Paul Owen. I work
for Dex Bender & Associates (phonetic).
THE REPORTER: May I have your last name?
MR. OWEN: Owen, O-w-e-n.
THE REPORTER: Thank you.
MR. OWEN: Yes, we are working with South Florida Water
Management and the Army Corps of Engineers right now for the
permits.
We have no more environmental issues with the district at
this time. We have --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So they've signed off on the
mitigation plan.
MR. OWEN: Yes, and I have letters from the district I'd like
to distribute that indicates that there are no more environmental
issues with this project.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' That would be good to see.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So essentially you're getting 150 acres
of pristine wetlands in place of 26 acres of not very good
wetlands.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And who's going to manage the
150 acres? Are you donating it to CREW? MR. OWEN: Crew.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I think that was the issue that the
EAC had, and unless you need more detailed explanation on that,
Page 176
November 14, 2000
I think your environment staff has agreed with, with approving
the project.
Our environmentalist is here to answer any detail questions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That covers it for me.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have a question with regard to
the Environmental Advisory Council denial -- recommending
denial again at 4 to 1, and could staff help me more than what I
lust heard about why they did this?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It was basically concern that they may
be able to provide more preserve area on site. Our
environmental staff person, Steve Lymburner, recommended
approval based on the mitigation plan, however, and it wasn't a
formal vote for denial of the project since they did not have the
required five votes.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I understand that, but it says,
vote of 4 to I recommending denial -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: .- did not receive --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Basically they thought there could be
more wetland preserve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I watched part of the hearing,
and what I understood was, it's a fundamental difference of
opinion about whether or not off-site mitigation ought to be
allowed if you haven't mitigated to the fullest extent on-site.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And as best I can tell here, lust
judging from where this property is, this can't be a particularly
valuable, functioning wetland, considering it's in the middle of
everything.
And if I can trade 23 acres of impacts on what has to be a
degraded wetland for 150 acres in CREW, that's a deal, to me.
And, and -- but on EAC, there are people who just think
off-site mitigation is a bad idea.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
picked up from the meeting.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
off-site mitigation --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
Okay.
Isn't that -- I mean, that's what I
But they were aware of the
I think so.
-- is that correct?
Page 177
November 14, 2000
MR. YOVANOVICH.' You're -- I would say that's an accurate
summation; it's just a fundamental difference.
MR. OWEN: That's accurate.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Unless you have any specific questions
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No. I'll lust quickly comment.
I wanted to see more than what was here, and they did
present me with a site plan as to where they're going to go in
terms of how they're going to develop this for single-family
housing, which answered a lot of my questions on this.
They do have a right to go to multi-family if they can't first
sell out a single-family, but the people who are doing this PUD,
are going to develop this PUD, it's always important to me, and
so they are going to move forward on a timely basis.
I did ask that when they do finalize the site plan that I would
like to see it again. I guess that comes back on the consent
agenda.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No?
MR. YOVANOVICH: The plat will. The plat will come back.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The plat will come back.
I'd lust like to see it at some point. I don't know how you
want to do this, but I personally would like to see it again.
Doesn't mean I can change anything, but I'd like to know what
it's going to look like.
MR. YOVANOVICH.' I mean, we'll be happy to send you
informational -- you know, we can send you information on the
type of structures, you know, outside of a -- outside of another
hearing if you'd like that, lust a --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm not asking for another hearing, but
I'd like to see what it looks like.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we'll be happy to provide you --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The plat will be approved --
MR. OLLIFF: Plats will be approved by the Board, and we'll
make a note to have staff send you a copy of the submitted site
development plan even though that is a staff-approved item.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And it might be a good idea for new
commissioners to see that to understand where we went on this
one.
Page 178
November 14, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are they being asked to -- for a
project that's single-family?
MR. MULHERE: That's -- I'm sorry. For the record, Bob
Mulhere. There isn't a site development plan necessarily though.
There could be for a recreational facility, but not for the
single-family homes, only a plat, unless they have a typical
rendition of the type of single-family home that they're going to
construct, they will provide that to us and we'll provide that to
you.
But you will get a chance to look at the plat, which really is,
I think, what you want to look at in this case.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right, and you don't know what your
style homes are going to be?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We haven't finalized the architecture yet
on the, on the homes, but they'll be, you know, your single-family
homes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Are you ready for a motion?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yeah, I'd like to see that also,
and, yes, I'm ready for a motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I close.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Motion to approve.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You've got to close the public
hearing.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Got to close the public hearing? Okay.
Now I can have a motion.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's with the 5-foot setbacks?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Next time, Rich, we'll get you for
more setbacks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I would have gone for the
six.
Item #12B3
ORDINANCE 2000-74 RE PUD-97-18(1) KAREN K. BISHOP OF PMS,
Page 179
November 14, 2000
INC. OF NAPLES REPRESENTING VANDERBILT PARTNERS II,
LTD., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND 'RMF-t2 ST (3)" AND 'RMF-6 ST (3) TO
"PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS THE DUNES
PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
BLUEBILL AVENUE AND VANDERBILT DRIVE - ADOPTED WITH
STIPULATIONS
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. That moves us to item --
MR. OLLIFF: 12-B-3. Mr. Nino?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And we need to have everybody
participating stand and be sworn. (The witnesses were sworn.)
MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record.
The PUD that's before you --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Mr. Nino, for disclosure.
Well, I've had several general discussions over a period of
months with the petitioner's representative, nothing in quite a
long time, and I'm not very current on the project, but I do need
to make that disclosure.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I believe I have had contact with
the petitioner's representative at some time, not anything recent
that I can recall.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I've had, I've had no contact with
the petitioner; however, I do -- I have received some e-mails and
letters.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I should add that to my
disclosure.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: As I should. This would be from
opponents of this particular-- MR. NINO: Yes, correct.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have had a lot of contact from this
project, with the petitioner, with the petitioner's representatives,
we had a meeting in North Naples. It was a public meeting
where the representatives of staff were present, where I was
present, and also the representatives of the homeowners groups
heard as a panel and listened to the presentation on the part of
the developer not only for the Dunes but the overall plan for the
North Naples area, and had a chance to query him on not only
Page 180
November 14, 2000
the Dunes but other activities.
Out of that we have also formed -- there's been formed a
corridor study committee involving a number of people that are
to look at Vanderbilt Drive for future traffic considerations. They
are participating with the developer on this process.
That's been the good news out of all those, that if anyone
has not had an opportunity to hear about this, I don't know where
they were; because we had really tried to communicate through
newsletters to the various associations, and everyone exactly
what's taking place in the whole area as it regards to this project
and other possible developments that are going to take place.
I have received e-mails, I have received letters, I have
received phone calls both pro and con on this. I may have met
the representatives at the Chamber of Commerce, the Rotary
Club, President's Forum, EDC, and in the grocery store, I don't
know; but I'm going to tell you, I've probably seen them
everywhere.
You may present.
Mr. Nino?
MR. NINO: Thank you.
Let me begin by advising you of some changes that have
occurred for this petition since we conveyed our executive
summary agenda to you.
One, and perhaps the most important change, is that the
number of units that this developer proposes is no longer 704,
but it has been reduced to 640.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Six-o-four?
MR. NINO: Six-forty.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Six-four-o.
MR. NINO: So we're now dealing with a difference of 109
units over and above what this petition currently enjoys and
which is vested. I mean, the 531 units that they're now allowed
is really not on the table. It's vested units, and we're really
talking about 109 additional units on 100 acres of additional land
that is being added.
And I want to bring to your attention some changes to page
3.3 and 4.1 of the PUD document dealing with development
standards.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' As you come back to the
microphone, can I just ask Commissioner Carter, is this all -- all
Page 181
November 14, 2000
of this is a community consensus? I mean, is all of this a
package that has been worked out with the community, or is
there still a lot of controversy around this project?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think you need to hear both from the
staff and you need to hear from the petitioners. Is everybody in
concert on this? No. Are many of the people in concert on this?
Yes.
Some of the issues that are being raised in terms of traffic,
if we never put another unit up here because traffic issues would
still be there, that's why the corridor study is going on.
In fact, I have requested Norman Feder to come back to this
Board with a proposal on that. He's working with this group to
try to bring that to us to develop with those issues.
So there are issues here that, regardless of whether this
project was here or not, there would still be people raising issues
about anything that happens in the area.
So I think you need to hear from, from, from staff, and you
need to hear from the petitioner, and I'm going to tell you the
basis on which I will reach this decision, is it environmentally
sensitive, does it address liveability, is it economically feasible?
Three-legged stool to me, and that's the basis on which I'll reach
my decision.
MR. NINO: What additional information is being handed out
to you is, since, again, since we conveyed our executive
summary to you which had at that time all of the letters of
objection included in your agenda package, we received a couple
of more letters of objection. You're receiving those.
You received a particular letter that challenged the ability of
the petitioner to use submerged lands, and you have in your
packet I just handed out to you a letter from an attorney
representing the applicant that I think pretty clearly
acknowledges that indeed these people do own the submerged
land; they have legal title to it; it's recognized by the property
appraiser's office, and, of course, therefore our system of dealing
with determination of density being as it's based on gross
density, they're entitled to use the entirety of their lands
including the submerged lands.
However, with the reduction in the number of units, that
question really becomes academic, because they will likewise be
entitled to 109 units if they only use 33 acres of the 100 acres,
Page 182
November 14, 2000
so that issue has really gone away; it's rather academic.
The key issue on the, on the -- the key issue here is the
desire to increase building heights on four buildings, from 12
stories to 15 stories.
I would have you appreciate that in the original approval,
there was a -- there is a tract R-3 here which was approved for
four-story condominiums. In this revised PUD, that building
height will be reduced to two stories, and I think staff would
suggest to you that the offset there is well worth the additional
height.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Ron, where do they want to put the
15 stories?
MR. NINO: The 15 stories will be on tract R-l; this is the
tall-story tract.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And what -- that borders Vanderbilt
Drive?
MR. NINO: That borders Vanderbilt Drive, and it's
surrounded by, by the most part, for preserves -- by preserves.
The closest housing area would be in Vanderbilt, villas here
here and North Shore Lakes. That is about the line of the
15-story buildings. The closest building, given our setback
requirement in the PUD, will be 6 -- about 600 feet from a
single-family residence and thereafter will increase as those
condos go further west of Vanderbilt Drive.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: While you're there, where are the
three 12-story buildings?
MR. NINO: In about that area there.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ron, is there any-- there's not
anything on the proposed height-change buildings. Is there
anything directly across from them on Vanderbilt, or is that all --
oh, that's the cemetery and golf course; isn't it?
MR. NINO: The cemetery and golf course is across -- no, the
cemetery, no golf course.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: The cemetery is.
MR. NINO: The cemetery is across from the Iow-rise
section.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We didn't get any objections
there.
MR. NINO: No.
Page t83
November 14, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. So it's lust late in the day.
We've got to have a little -- lighten up a little bit. Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We almost didn't get it; we're too
tired.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah, I know.
Okay. So we don't have anything that's affected directly
north of it either.
MR. NINO.' That is correct.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do we have anything that's affected
directly west of it?
MR. NINO: That is correct, although we have had objections
from people who live on -- in the -- on the --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: On the barrier island.
MR. NINO: I think we've had, we've had objections from,
from people representing condominiums in the Vanderbilt Surf
Colony. Actually, most of the objections come from Naples
Park, surprisingly. There are very few objections that actually
come -- I believe there's only one or two that come out of the two
PUDs that are most affected by this. Most of the letters of
objection that you have in your packet really come from Naples
Park.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's correct.
MR. NINO: With respect to consistency issues, we're
dealing with consistency based on the 109 additional units. The
109 additional units does not breach any threshold in the
comprehensive plan that would justify an inconsistency
conclusion, and that deals with all of the elements that this --
that is -- that are applicable to this proposal.
The EAC -- this is a terribly environmentally sensitive piece
of land -- the EAC unanimously endorsed it; the CCPC
unanimously endorsed it, and we recommend approval to you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Nino, and I think the reason the
EAC did endorse this is because they're setting aside 99 plus or
minus, acres to the north which is water, Turkey Bay, and all of
those environmentally sensitive wetlands, and that is set aside in
perpetuity; is that correct?
MR. NINO.' Over 77 percent of this land remains in open
Page 184
November 14, 2000
space irrespective of the open space that's created with these
projects, and I suggest to you that when that is factored in,
probably 85 percent of the land in this area is in some form of
open space.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good. Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: This, this is a question that will
not have any bearing on my voting on this particular project, but I
need to have an understanding -- and it's one that I talked with
you about, Mr. Olliff, the other day, and it has a, for me, a thought
process that I will have to come to grips with in the future
somewhere probably.
The staff is of the opinion that to allow the four remaining
planned high-rise residential structures to exceed the current
12-story limitation, has no basis for denial based solely on the
perception that higher buildings negatively impact a property.
I need to have a better understanding of that. Can you help
me?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't understand the question.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, the question -- and perhaps -- and
I'll try; if I'm wrong, Commissioner Brandt, tell me.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Uh-huh, uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: There is a perception that higher
buildings negatively impact a piece of property.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The adjacent properties or
something?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Adjacent properties -- this is a blanket
statement.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's kind of hard looking at Park
Shore Beach to --
MR. NINO: The staff, the staff report did go to some extent
to address this issue, Commissioner.
MR. NINO: I could tell you that in the literature of urban
design, there is nothing that says higher is "badder."
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And developers like it higher
because they get more for the higher.
MR. NINO: Well, they might get more, but we -- appreciate,
we're not talking about density here.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I understand.
Page 185
November 14, 2000
MR. NINO: The fact that you go up, you're not necessarily
getting --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I understand.
MR. NINO: -- a project that is more dense.
The issue becomes one of compatibility, and compatibility is
in the eye of the beholder --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Uh-huh, uh-huh.
MR. NINO: -- to a large extent. But if you take compatibility
based on its technical merits, it is not a compatibility measure,
because it's residential next to residential; and in the legal
context of compatibility, you're really talking about a house next
to the glue factory, to use the extreme example.
However, even if you did want to stretch that, compatibility
would obviously become a measure of how close Iow-rise
buildings are to high-rise buildings.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Mr. Olliff, in my discussion with
him the other day, very clearly pointed out that some of the very
high-rise buildings that we have in this County and within the
City of Naples, have long setbacks --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: So as a result, they don't have
the impact that one might have if it didn't have the long setback,
and so I, I, I just wanted to have a little more discussion on that.
MR. NINO: I think we built that into the PUD, the space
between buildings.
If you want to use an example, it's comparable to Pelican
Bay. If you drive through Pelican Bay and you're visually pleased
with that, I can tell you that those same standards are here, so
that we, we -- we're confident that the standards take care of
that issue.
However, before I close I did want to bring to your attention,
there are some other things that this petition does for us that are
important.
This petitioner has agreed to convey by easement 15 feet of
additional property along Vanderbilt Drive to make it possible for
us to eventually get a -- acquire a right-of-way of 130 feet. That
15 feet is primarily required for the type of landscaping
improvements that the County would make within its
right-of-way.
In addition, this petitioner is offering to preserve 20 feet of
Page 186
November 14, 2000
landscaping in addition to the 15 feet, and that 35 feet of
eventual landscaping in this PUD, they have agreed to assume
total costs of making that improvement, including building the
sidewalk within that right-of-way. And that is, that is beyond
what we normally get out of the PUDs, out of petitioners.
They have also agreed on the record to landscape 15 feet of
the property on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive and to
participate in the Vanderbilt Drive beautification theme that you
have identified.
Those are important considerations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're going to landscape the
cemetery.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: That's the cemetery.
MR. NINO: Right, right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Fifteen feet.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: But -- that's right. We're going to
have to acquire 15 feet of land by easement before they could do
that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where is Mr. Pickworth? I think
he's their lawyer. And so we should put Ron in charge of trying
to get the parking lot? Because apparently he's able to get the
other stuff that we want.
MR. OLLIFF: Anything else, Mr. Nino?
MR. NINO: That's it.
MR. OLLIFF.' Okay.
MS. BISHOP: For the record, Karen Bishop, I'm agent for the
petitioner.
A couple things I wanted to bring out. One is that
landscaping specifically.
Obviously we want to landscape on County property, so
when that easement has been granted or within the right-of-way
we can do that. We can't actually landscape on somebody else's
land without their permission. Go figure. So that I want to make
clear that we want to do that.
And the intent, of course, just so you guys know, this was
the parks department who kind of had this idea in their head to
see a unified landscaping plan in this whole area starting with
Bluebill and our side and then Vanderbilt to make this corner a
really nice corner here, so that's what we're really trying to do is
create this signature intersection, this, this connection for the
Page 187
November 14, 2000
neighborhood that says that, you know, this is all a nice, big
landscaped area.
MR. OLLIFF: She doesn't, she doesn't really mean a
Signature intersection --
MS. BISHOP: No, right. Actually, you know, they're calling
Vanderbilt -- they want that a signature roadway, and we kept
thinking, hmm, what does that mean?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, it practically is now.
MS. BISHOP: Literally. Also, I want to make a comment
about the heights.
And when you look at heights on property like this, as a
person who likes to see as much green space as possible, it's a
good thing to go higher so that you can save this ground,
because, you know, to have less -- the heights less and then you
spread out over the ground more, you're not really ending up with
what -- the kind of project you can end up with if you get
everybody working in the same direction.
Our setbacks off the roadway and our setbacks between
buildings should give the neighborhoods what they're looking for,
plus, the amount of landscaping we're putting there, I can't
imagine that at some point when the landscaping is complete
and in place and mature that you're really going to even see
these buildings when it's done, because it is 35 feet wide, that
landscaping buffer, and that would be pretty tremendous, kind of
like how it is on Vanderbilt down by Bay Colony, very full. You
can't really see those buildings along next to that park because
the landscaping is so nice there, and that's only 20 feet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you're going to have 35.
MS. BISHOP: Thirty-five.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not 20.
MS. BISHOP: And we're going to meander that sidewalk
through there so that when they come in to do those
improvements to Vanderbilt, they're not trashing the sidewalk, so
that pedestrian pass -- paths will be in place at all times.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's more like a linear park than a
landscape buffer.
MS. BISHOP: I think that's the way the County is going now
with a lot of their roadway sections to try to bring the public
access to be a more enjoyable experience than what happens
when you're on Airport Road when you're on that sidewalk.
Page188
November 14, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's not a good thing.
I have a question for the petitioner: On the map up there, all
that green, you own, I assume, what's inside the white boundary?
MS. BISHOP: Yes, correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And so everything green in there
is going to be preserved forever.
MS. BISHOP: Correct, including, we have a 9-acre tour
preserve in the center that we saved in the center of that that's
all scrub, so it connects directly with the wetlands, gives us a
nice wildlife corridor that connects all through there too.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And who owns to the west of
your property, or do you know? Do they own, own up --
MS. BISHOP: And then the State owns that piece, up.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. That was my question.
The State owns the remaining mangrove trees?
MS. BISHOP: Correct, on the west side, that line continues
up, splits that canal. The State owns the west side and Ms.
Daugherty owns the east side, and of course we own the 100
acres on our side.
And the waters of Turkey Bay will be in conservation
forever.
Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-uh.
MR. OLLIFF: You have two registered speakers, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Go to speakers.
MR. OLLIFF: First is Dick Lydon followed by Camilla
Gleason.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good evening, Mr. Lydon.
MR. LYDON: Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen.
Dick Lydon, this time I'm representing the board of directors
and the members of the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners
Association representing some 500 families in Vanderbilt Beach
as well as the property owners of north Collier County, which
represents the homeowners associations of most of the County.
So we've got a good bunch of folk that we're talking for today.
I'd like to first of all commend Signature -- and don't have a
heart attack, Don -- for a long period of work on this thing to get
it to where it is today.
I was quite concerned after the meeting at the planning
Page 189
November 14, 2000
commission. I saw we were still at 704 instead of 640 and all
those good things.
There are a few things that I think we missed, but let me
start out by telling you that we in that area, the whole area, are
very concerned and asking you-all to do something soon relative
to the roads and the traffic situation.
The developer in this is paying something like a million-three
on this project in impact road fees. Now we'd just as soon that
didn't wind up on Livingston Road, if you don't mind. We'd like to
keep that in Vanderbilt Drive. And let's do that, do it right, and,
for God's sake, do it soon.
Secondarily, we have one serious concern with the PUD as it
stands. We went this route on the original PUD; we're going to
go it again. We do not like the fact that boathouses and docks
are included as a part of the PUD. Mr. Nino very eloquently
explained to us that we had to live with that because everybody
has a right to have a dock.
Well, down at the Regatta, which these same people built,
217 units, that's -- they put in 50 docks, and up right here now,
we're looking at 640 units. If you develop that, it's 150 docks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Dick, I don't think there's docks
in here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: They're not asking for it, Dick --
MR. LYDON: Yes, they are. If you will look --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I guess I need somebody to help me
with that. I don't--
MR. NINO: I didn't see it.
MR. LYDON: Yes. It's in the, it's in the PUD as an accessory
use, and, and my response to the planning commission is the
same question. That entitlement applies to all residential, all
residential property that has frontage on a waterway.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's a State of Florida
entitlement. If you have a house with waterfront, you're entitled
to dock your boat. Is that what you're talking about?
MR. LYDON: No. You're, you're entitled, you're entitled to
build a dock consistent with the dock regulations in the Land
Development Code, which says you can't have a dock that
protrudes any more than 20 feet into the waterway on a
waterway of this size.
Now, under--
Page 190
November 14, 2000
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
waterway?
MR. LYDON: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
waterway?
Where, where will they be on the
Where will they be on the
MR. LYDON: They own all of Turkey Bay. They have
considerable frontage.
Now, in the Land Development Code, we also have a
provision that says for every 100 feet of lineal, of lineal
waterway, you're entitled to so many docks within a
multiple-family project, however, still consistent with the
provisions of the Land Development Code in that no dock, no
dock configuration may protrude more than 20 feet into the
waterway.
Now that is an entitlement that every residential property
owner has, and it would seem, it would seem that it would be
unfair to deny to a landowner in a PUD a right that they have
under standard zoning regulations.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And if I'm correct, Mr. Nino, they
would have to make application to the DEP in order to proceed
with that, and they are not doing that at this time. It is not a part
of what we're discussing today. Even if this wasn't here today,
they still would have had that right under the existing PUD. MR. NINO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if we take it away --
MR. LYDON: Mr. Commissioner, may I -- Mr. Chairman, may I
take exception to that?
In the original PUD, there was a boardwalk some 8 feet wide
that ran outside the mangroves. That was advertized as a
boardwalk. You read that, "dock," because you could tie up
along side of it.
The previous PUD, that was taken out of the PUD, and the
petitioner was asked to return to the Board of County
Commissioners, not to the planning commission, but to the Board
of County Commissioners, because here --
(The timer signified five minutes.)
MR. LYDON: Since I'm here representing two people and
you've already used seven minutes of my five --
-- so what we would like to ask is the ability -- we
understand that they were entitled to some docks. We'd like to
Page 191
November 14, 2000
see how many, where they are going to be.
And we've had an experience recently at the planning
commission where 20 feet means nothing. They never saw a big
dock down there they didn't like.
So we're -- we just kind of would like to do that.
I have a couple of other quick questions.
In the planning commission meeting, I thought that it was
agreed that that maximum number of high rises would be seven.
I'd like to see that as a part of the record of this particular
meeting.
The other one, the last footprint of the seventh condo, in our
feeling, is too close to Vanderbilt Drive. And I don't know enough
about the engineering and the architecture of it, but we would
love to see that back another couple hundred feet, which would
again take some of the aesthetic factor.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you know it's going to have
that 35-foot buffer.
MR. LYDON.' Thirty-five-foot buffer plus whatever they have
back to that still does not give you nearly as much buffer, as
much green space, between the road and the other three that
they are planning to build.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, okay. I see your point.
MR. LYDON: The point being, you know, make it look -- and
we can work with them on this. We're not being hardnosed about
any of this.
We feel that -- the preserve factor bothers us a little. They
are going to turn it over to the homeowners.
I was president of a homeowners association one time.
That scares the hell out of me. I wish -- I'm sure glad I'm not
going to get on any boards in that -- and I don't know what the
answer to that is.
Nobody wants a preserve. The State doesn't want it, the
County doesn't want it. But we do know and we do want to be
sure that that is preserved in perpetuity.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I agree, Dick, and that's my
understanding in my, in my direction here all along, is, that's in
perpetuity.
I see a nodding of heads there.
I don't know who is going to maintain it --
MR. LYDON: In the PUD, it specifically says, the
Page 192
November 14, 2000
homeowners association will maintain the preserve, so -- and
we'd just like to make sure they have enough money to do it.
Again, I'd like to commend Karen for working with us on
this. It's been a long, hard battle.
We don't think that this dock problem is a major one, but we
certainly feel that we'd like to have some input on how many,
how big, and where.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So what you're really asking is, when
that piece comes back, that you have an opportunity to
participate with the petitioner in a discussion of that before it
comes back to the Board of County Commissioners and to the
DEP process.
MR. LYDON: Sir, under the existing rules, it would never
come back to the County commissioners; it would go only to the
planning commission.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think he's asking for it to be a
conditional use so that it would have to come back to the county
commission.
MR. LYDON: Right, rather than only to the planning
commission.
Thank you.
Any other questions that I might answer on behalf of the
homeowners, I'd be delighted to.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have to take one more public
speaker, and then I can come and ask the petitioner and I can
ask Mr. Nino to clarify.
MR. OLLIFF: The last speaker is Camilla Gleason.
MS. GLEASON: Good evening.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good evening.
MS. GLEASON: This is my first Collier County public hearing,
and I've been here since 9:30, and I stayed to speak to you
because I am just playing catch-up with this particular
application. I recently learned of it, and I spoke to Mr. Nino on
the phone about it.
I am a resident at North Shore Lake Villas, and when we
purchased our little house, there was no building across the
street from us, but we were informed that there would be three
high rises and that the buildings along the street on the corner
from Vanderbilt Drive around the corner onto Bluebill would be
three-story Iow-rises or something of that term.
Page 193
November 14, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're correct. Now they're saying
they're going to take that down to, I believe, two, as I
understand.
MS. GLEASON: Right. So that project we were aware of
when we purchased our property.
As the buildings have begun to be constructed~ we are
feeling the impacts of the high rises that are farthest away from
us, the 12-story high rises. They're blocking the light; they're
blocking the view. We can live with that, as well.
Now we understand there's going to be four 15-story
buildings directly across the street from us that are going to
block our light and view even to a greater extent.
You ask, what is 15 stories? Fifteen stories is more money,
from what I understand, for the higher residences to the
developer. You get more money for the 12th story unit than you
do for the third-story unit, so I would imagine you would get a
great deal more money for the 15th-story unit.
So it's -- that, to me, is the impact of 15 stories. Plus it's
going to take away my sunset, but that's, that's me speaking as
the neighbor.
I just wanted to respond to --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If this building is still where it is today,
it probably would have still taken away your sunset in some
respect.
MS. GLEASON: Being 12 stories.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Being 12 stories.
MS. GLEASON: Well, I have to agree with the gentleman
who spoke before me. I think as far as back from the street as
those high rises can be moved, because everything on the other
side of the street is single-family residences of no more than two
stories, any of them -- in North Shore Lake Villas or the Roma
Court development next to that or the little rentals on the north
side of Roma Court, Vanderbilt Lakes, I think it's called or --
At any rate, if one of the standards for your approval of this
application is to maintain the character of the neighborhood, I
would like you to consider the character of the neighborhood
directly across the street from this project, the height of it, the
layout, the preexistence of it and so forth and so on.
I don't understand what the standards are for approval, but
for the entire community, I think the visual corridor along
Page194
November 14, 2000
Vanderbilt Drive is extremely important to protect, and you can
do that by taking the buildings as far as possible back from the
street.
And I applaud the applicants for their screening efforts.
I appreciate your time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MS. GLEASON: Thank you.
MR. NINO.' Chairman, may I speak to certain issues?
One, in case you hadn't noted, the setback that we provided
from Vanderbilt Drive for the nearest building would be 125 feet,
to give you some perspective on the, on the --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's on the proposed three
15-stories.
MR. NINO-- Correct.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 125 feet back.
MR. NINO: Correct. Also, with respect to the issue of
docks, I might have you appreciate again, it's interesting that in
its original condition, this property was zoned RMF-12, so it was
zoned for multiple-family housing, historically.
Under our current regulations in the Land Develoment Code,
provision is made for building docks. Under the dock
regulations, they would not have to come to the planning
commission or the board unless they were seeking to build a
dock longer than 20 feet into the waterway.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the aggregate number of
docks that they have?
MR. NINO: Unfortunately, I, I don't have a copy of the Land
Development Code with me, but it's based on the number of
lineal feet of waterway that they have. I believe it's -- Are you aware of this?
MR. MULHERE: I can't give you an -- sorry. Bob Mulhere, for
the record.
I can't give you an exact number, but I can tell you, in my
experience, it's far less than the number of units they can build.
MR. NINO: Yeah. Oh, yes, definitely.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So since Mr. Lydon's interested
in knowing how many docks and how big, we could tell him, no
docks bigger than 20 feet without special approval.
But we can't tell him the maximum number. Give me a
ballpark.
Page 195
November 14, 2000
MS. BISHOP: Karen Bishop.
We truly have not done any plans for this dock facility yet.
I'm going to remind everyone here that I would have to go
back to two environmental agencies that are public-notice
agencies, the Corps and the district, to get these docks
approved, so there is more public notice in place.
I can tell you that we will not build docks in water of Turkey
Bay or anywhere north of there, that our dock facilities will stay
within the canal area of what's already existing of the man-made
canal.
We have agreed to put water of -- waters of Tucker bay into
conservation, which means we will not build anything there, no
docks, no nothing, so right now we have no plan.
I can tell you that the number that we've been discussing is
somewhere in the 60 range. Now, whether or not I can get that
permitted, we haven't even begun that process, so we don't
know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many units will you have?
MS. BISHOP: I think about 640 units.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So --
MS. BISHOP: We may have -- 10 percent of the units would
have docks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I could see Mr. Lydon being
worried if you were going to have hundreds of docks.
MS. BISHOP: And if I was going to go into water of Turkey
Bay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That, I would die.
MS. BISHOP: Right, but we are not doing that. We have
agreed to that, we are going to put that under conservation
forever, that no one ever will ever do that.
MR. NINO: Got it -- 10 slips for every 100 feet of shoreline.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And how many feet do they
have?
MS. BISHOP: Oh, a couple miles.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, this -- the canal.
MS. BISHOP: Well, actually, it's all your shoreline, so it
starts in the canal and goes around, but we can -- this canal is
probably about -- I want to say about half a mile maybe, is it, a
quarter of a mile? One inch equals 120, so it's about 1200 feet,
2,000, somewhere between 1200 and 2000 feet.
Page 196
November 14, 2000
MR. NINO: And we think it's rather academic, because, as
Bob says, we don't think the DEP would ever tolerate that kind of
development.
MS. BISHOP: And you've got to physically fit them in there.
I mean, this is a math thing too. You can't lust throw 100 docks
in there if you can't actually get a boat in between them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I know how hard it is to get
those permits from the DEP and the Army Corps, so --
MS. BISHOP: Right, and they're building docks across the
way, too, at the Landings, so -- we'd be glad to limit ourself to 60
docks if that's what you would like.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You have to go through a public
hearing process.
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And based on your record of working
with the community, in my experience, with this project, I would
have an expectation that you would make sure that they were all
duly notified so they could participate with you, and perhaps
even before you go to a public hearing, you may sit down with
the community leadership that's most affected and discuss with
them what your anticipation is and let them make an input.
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir, I would anticipate that would be the
direction that we have taken already, that we would do that
again.
Also, all the property owners that would be surrounding this
property would be notified, and based on the networking I've
seen happen in that neighborhood, if one knows, everybody
knows.
So I would imagine that there's no possible way I could do
anything without the neighborhood being aware of that at this
point.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I guess I would like the principal
lust to step to the microphone and make that commitment that
you would do that, and it will be a part of public record so that
there's never any confusion.
MR. GRIFFIN: Jerry Griffin, Signature Communities.
Yes, we'll do that, and we will limit it, if we ever do get
them, to 60, and we will put covenants that we'll never go into
the Turkey Bay lagoon --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a good --
Page 197
November 14, 2000
MR. GRIFFIN: -- in perpetuity.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's a real positive
trade-off, nothing in Turkey Bay.
MS. BISHOP: Okay. Now, the last thing I wanted to address
is the preserves.
When you permit these preserves at the agencies, there has
to be, even though we as the developer start the permitting
process, there has to be an entity that's going to be there
forever; and theoretically, the homeowners association is one of
those "forever" kind of things. It's obviously dynamic and
changes people, but as a part of condominium law, you have to
put under -- in reserves the amount of money necessary to handle
things like maintenance and all those things.
So once you clean these wetlands out -- and they are in
pristine area, they really don't need that much maintenance in
the big scheme. It's the areas that have been impacted before,
where you've had Australian pines and those kinds of things
where you're revegetating. Those are the areas that really need
more maintenance, because they're not -- they haven't taken root
like some of the other mangrove areas.
So actually as the property -- as those areas become
mature, the amount of maintenance becomes less, mostly on the
fringes of those areas.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
perpetual conditions?
MS. BISHOP: Forever.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Karen, won't your permits have
And those will be monitored and
enforced by the DEP and the Army Corps?
MS. BISHOP: The Corps of Engineers as well as South
Florida Water Management. So I have no choice. There is no
opportunity to let these things fall by the wayside.
And we would love to give them to some entity that would
love to have them, like a little conservancy group in this area,
we'd love for them to have those, so if you guys know anyone,
call us.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion from the Board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll make a motion to approve
subject to all of the conditions that have been put on the record
Page 198
November 14, 2000
today.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Seconded by Commissioner Brandt.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
Opposed by the same sign?
Motion carries 4-0.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, on all of
these where we keep saying, "all the conditions," I'm going to
have the staff again prepare memos that list those conditions for
you so that if there's something that you think was included that
wasn't, then you'll have an opportunity to bring that back.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you.
And that will happen within the
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
reconsideration time.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Good.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. This concludes the public
hearings.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hey, we let them out of here
without getting a parking lot. Hey!
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I will make this statement now,
because to my knowledge, none of the Board members know
this: They are willing to actively work in this corridor study,
Signature is, and they are -- also will be people who I think would
be willing to participate in the cost of that corridor study.
So I didn't want anybody's vote influenced by some
knowledge that I think will take place on that, so I think that's
just another positive thing for a community effort in North
Naples.
And I'm a big advocate of the public and the private working
together to make these things happen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just because our agenda
hasn't been long enough, I'm going to take a second to say, I
think you've done a really wonderful thing up here, Commissioner
Carter, of getting this community together on some terribly
contentious issues, and it's really hard -- I know you haven't
gotten 100 percent approval.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you've had the guts to get
Page t99
November 14, 2000
the community together and let them yell at each other if that's
what they needed to do and would work it as far as you could,
and that's lust a real positive step.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, thank you, Commissioner. I
appreciate it.
Yes, there has been, and there's been a lot of discussion,
but I will tell you that out of it you've gotten more willingness for
people to stand up and to be counted and to take a position and
work collectively on my three-legged triangle, feasibility,
liveable, and environmentally sensitive.
So if we can keep going in that direction, we're going to be
okay.
All right. Now, we can go back to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2000-423 APPOINTING JAMES ROATH TO THE
BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've got one application for the
Black Affairs Advisory Board, and I would like to move approval
of James -- is it Roth?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll second that.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.}
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion approved.
Moving to the next item, which is --
Item #1 OB
DISCUSSION REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT THE BCC SHOULD
REVISIT THE COMMITMENT OF TDC FUNDS TO THE WILKINSON
HOUSE PROJECT - TDC DOLLARS TO BE WITHDRAWN -
APPROVED
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the Wilkinson House, but I'm
hoping that there's nothing to discuss here 'cause of the actions
the city council took recently at the City of Naples. They've
taken title to the property. They're going to be working to see
Page 200
November 14, 2000
where it goes from here.
I know we need to stay in touch, but I'm not sure exactly
what action we should take today.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Do we still have a financial
obligation there?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, that, that -- Commissioner Berry,
I think that's a great question.
I originally took this to our County attorney, and you saw the
thorough job they did of going through and doing this, and
Commissioner Mac'Kie went to the city council meeting and
certainly made an excellent presentation on behalf of where we
stood as the County dealing with this.
I really believe -- and first of all, I'm going to say I've always
been for the preservation of historical properties so we can pass
it on from generation to generation.
However, in this case, now that the City of Naples has it,
has options to deal with it, I would like to see this Board
withdraw the TDC dollars of 800,000 at this point and put it back
and deal with that at a future point when the City of Naples
makes a determination of who will be the entity, it has this, so
we could revisit that issue and see if it's appropriate.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: If you need a motion to that
effect, I will do it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, well, I would second it, as
well, but I have one other concern too.
I have -- and this is some information that came to me, and I
don't know how reliable it is, but I do have a concern that there
have been some improvements made down to the Wilkinson
House, which one would assume would happen. But they are not
staying in being compliant with the historical kind of, of--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The widow's walk was a
question.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I understood this had to do
with some flooring, and that's very important if they're going to
retain the historical type of designation.
They were very specific in Everglades City for the little old
wash house down there. When they did some of the foundation
work, the concrete had to be mixed with shell in order to be
reminiscent of the same kind of work that was done many, many
Page 201
November 14, 2000
years ago.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm concerned that they're going
to, quote, modernize this house to the point where they can
entertain people, which is all, again, wonderful to have different
groups come in and use it; but at the same time, I think it's
incredibly important through the modernization that they retain
the period of the house itself.
And so I -- before I would spend one dollar in that house, I
would want to make sure that they have retained the historical
integrity.
If they have not, they've compromised it, and I'm out of the
game.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I, can I ask --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And, and that's the reason I want
to make sure that they don't get the $800,000.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
grips with it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Can I ask though that we, we --
Let the City of Naples come to
Yeah. Let -- that, that we
postpone a decision on whether or not we're going to jerk that
money, because what's -- because of the limbo status that the
house in presently in.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think you-all need to monitor
that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: The only thing I would say is that
at this point in time, we don't expend any funds. I would make --
I would say further and give direction that, do not expend any
funds, monitor this for the next year, and certainly before
anything is ever done that you get a full disclosure and report
before the first dollar is ever gone --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me give you just a --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- or pointed in that direction.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I absolutely agree that a little bit
of assurance there is -- in talking to our wonderful clerk who
would have to cut the check --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This matter, as I understand it,
Page 202
November 14, 2000
would have to come back to the Board for clarification, because
the motion said, I make a motion we approve it on three
conditions.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then they described a couple
of conditions, and it wasn't very clear, so this has got to come
back for clarification on what the conditions are of funding.
The only one we're positive of is that if we spend a penny, it
will be the last nickel ever raised.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It will be -- everything else is
paid for.
But we also need to add conditions about it being
perpetually in the -- as a public museum and -- COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and some other conditions, so I
wish we'd just give direction to staff to monitor it and keep us
apprised over the next three or four months.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Would we though be better to
withdraw that and come back and revisit in the future meeting
that we could free up the $800,000 now?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes. Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And it may have applicability to other
projects in the County. I will certainly never-- I'm not against it
if it stays in a public venue and the public has access, I would
certainly support it as I did the first time.
But I think we need to let the City and whoever purchases
that sort it out and then come back and start the process again
with this.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I agree.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I would be an advocate of
supporting it.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I agree.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I disagree. I'm afraid that if
we take a precipitous action today, it might negatively affect the
possibility that a new group is going to fund raise -- I mean, it's
my -- my hope for this is that some Phoenix from the ashes as a
new group will come up with the money, buy the house from the
City, do what we always wanted to have happen with the
Wilkinson house; and I'd like to leave the message out there that
Page 203
November 14, 2000
if you can do what was originally intended, subject to the those
conditions, the 800,000 is still out there as your last 800,000.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: My concern about that is, any
new group can come along, and we'll run into -- we could run into
the same kind of a problem that I perceive now; and I think if the
new group comes along, they then make the case, and then we
can determine whether we give them the 800,000 or not.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I certainly wouldn't want to send
a negative message. I'm saying here today to you, to the City of
Naples, to anyone --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yeah, right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- that's involved in this process, you
come back to one --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- that show us that it is public access
and that truly the preservation of the property meets all the
criteria, does everything it's -- Commissioner Berry has talked
about, you have my vote, and I'll be with you on this.
But in the meantime, I think there are other needs, and I
would like to see the moneys withdrawn at this point and then
have them reapply.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And if I were here at the time
that came forward, I would support them, but I won't be here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I'm making a motion that we
withdraw at this time and reconsider in the future.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yeah, I, I --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Are you seconding me on this?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Actually, I think I made the
motion, you seconded it.
aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, whatever we did here.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Whatever we did.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. All in favor signify by saying
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 3-1.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to take
leave of this meeting at this point in time.
Page 204
November 14, 2000
I want to thank everyone, and certainly there's one person
who I forgot to thank who has been extremely -- who has put up
with me for a numbers of years, would be Sue Filson. MS. FILSON: My pleasure.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And she has done an absolute
yeoman's job of keeping me out of trouble.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To the extent that's possible.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Which is --yeah. I mean, she can't
control my mouth, so -- but she does an excellent job of providing
all the information, making sure I get messages and so forth.
And to Sue, I say, thank you ever so much; it's been great to
work with you.
And to Tom Olliff and David, thank you guys all so much.
John Dunnick, Ramiro, Mike Pettit, it's all you guys that are still
here and sticking this whole thing out.
Anyway, thank you all so much. It's been a real experience.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the staff, I think we,
we wanted to give Commissioner Berry something on her way.
As 14 years of public service, we got her a subscription to Travel
and Leisure magazine.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Oh, that's wonderful. It's got a
picture of a girl on the beach.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: My favorite. Hopefully my next
travel will take me to Alaska, so that's the next plan.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, come back and see us at
Christmas, Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, I'll come back for all social
events.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: It was good to work with you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Nice to work with you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not leaving the area.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm going to be around.
Take care. Good luck to all you guys. You've got a huge job
in front of you.
(Commissioner Berry left the meeting.)
Item #10C
Page 205
November 14, 2000
RESOLUTION 2000-424 APPOINTING DWIGHT RICHARDSON TO
THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Although we're having more fun here,
let's see if we can get out of here before breakfast. I've got a
plane to Tallahassee at 6:30 in the morning.
Let's see. Now we can -- let's go forward with -- under the
items for Board of County Commissioners, the next one is
appointing one member to a four-year term for the planning
commission.
Four submissions from District 2. I'm going to recommend
Dwight Richardson.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 2000-425 APPOINTING DORCAS F. HOWARD,
CHERRYLE THOMAS, RITA AVALOS, AND SHARON K. TIMS TO
THE IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
Next item is to appoint three members to serve four years
on the Immokalee Beautification Committee.
Commissioner Berry has left. I was looking for her input.
MS. FILSON: Actually, actually this is --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: This is a reappointment; isn't it?
MS. FILSON: Yeah, this is to reappoint three people and to
appoint one person to fulfill the remainder of the vacancy.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the applicants.
MS. FILSON: And you'll need to waive Section 7-B-1
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and to waive that section.
MS. FILSON: -- for those three members.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll second --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- for those three.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.}
Page 206
November 14, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 2000-426 APPOINTING SOFIA PAGAN AND ROBERT
J. PINA TO THE HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD -
ADOPTED
Appoint two members to fulfill the remainder of the vacant
terms on the Hispanic Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I met the two applicants.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion -- second.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
Item #1 OF
RESOLUTION 2000-427 APPOINTING PETER VAN ARSDALE TO
THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE -
ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For the Development Services
Advisory Committee, I'd like to move Peter van Arsdale. I think
he's going to have a real --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I really feel good about this,
because I called him and asked him, why do you want to do this?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And questioned him significantly,
and I liked his answers.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
Item #10G
Page 207
November t4, 2000
BOARD CONSIDERATION FOR ADOPTION OF THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY FY2000 ACTION PLAN AND EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT EVALUATION FOR 1998/99 AND 1999/2000 -
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO RECEIVE AN INCREASE OF 2%
RETROACTIVE FOR FY 98-99 AND 4% RETROACTIVE FOR FY 99-
00 AND A MARKET ADJUSTMENT THE SAME AS THE CHIEF
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY. GENERAL WAGE ADJUSTMENTS SHALL
BE INTERPRETED TO INCLUDE MARKET WAGE ADJUSTMENTS.
Which takes us to the Board consideration for the adoption
of the County Attorney's FY 2000 action plan and employment
agreement evaluation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the form. I
think it's wonderful.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: David did an excellent job on this, I
will tell you. Since we had our discussion about performance in
June, he has sat down and he has worked through this, and I
commend him for the job that he has done.
We have a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
COMMISSIONER BERRY: We have another aspect of it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Oh, we have another aspect, and
that's in terms of how we do a change in salary based on two
years.
It's my understanding that he had not been reviewed in two
years, and now we have to take a look at the compensation, that
adjustment for that period if it is the privilege of the Board.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I think we needed to do that, and
I want to address a couple of items.
In the time that I have been here, David and his staff have
just been very, very forthcoming with information as I would ask
for it, have given me advice and counsel as I need it, anticipated
some, as well.
And I feel that with David now having worked with
Commissioner Carter on setting up an action plan, this is kind of
like a beginning, and we have to have a starting point for a new
beginning; and I think in order to have a starting point for a new
beginning, we need to take care of the issues that have kind of
Page 208
November 14, 2000
laid for a while, and so I feel that a salary action is absolutely
necessary and in order to get this new plan off to a good start.
And I, I personally don't know what an appropriate one
would be. The maximum is 4 percent?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Under exempt employees in the
County, that's true.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And he missed that for the first
year and he missed it for the second year, and not having been
here during that first year, I don't have a way of making any kind
of judgments about his performance at that point in time.
The only criteria that I can use is the performance as I have
seen it over the last five months or thereabouts, and I would like
to see him get, at least for the period that I'm aware of, that
which he is due, and I think that's the 4 percent certainly in this
time period.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So we're looking at 4 percent for one
year, we've -- the maximum -- well, you can do what you want,
but you could look at 8 percent, something between 4 and 8
percent.
Does anyone have any other --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I would, I would suggest that in
order to get this new plan that you're going to have him
measured against, start it off on the right foot and give him the 8
percent?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm, I'm always uncomfortable
with this discussion, frankly. I didn't understand that this was
what was on today's agenda. I thought we were going to use
this forum to make an evaluation that would be brought back for
the purpose of having this particular discussion on what amount
of raise. I'm not really prepared today to do that.
I, I can only report to you that I have had nothing but
positive feedback since our last evaluation of the County
attorney, that in checking with the people with whom he
interacts, I've heard very strong, positive statements of
improvement.
I can't say though that that means I think 8 percent.
I think it would be 4 percent, because the year before, one
year of not so great and one year of things are looking wonderful
sounds like he -- I mean, but I -- I'm making this up as I go along.
Page 209
November 14, 2000
Don't we usually get some kind of recommendation from HR
people or something --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Instead of lust shooting from the
hip on this?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- HR has told me that it's 4 percent for
nonexempt. There was also a study done by Kraft, you know, of
what county attorneys are paid, but I'm looking on a performance
basis. I would guess based on not so good and improvement that
I'm probably looking at the area of 6 percent increase in the
adjustment for two years, and then it starts on a fresh foot where
the new Board can look at all of this and determine what the
increase could be.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd support that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's, that's kind of where I am at
this point.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Well, it only takes three votes;
doesn't it?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT'- Well, let me do one other-- okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Sounded like David -- looked like
David wanted to make a statement.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, for clarification, since we're talking
about two years, you will need to determine a percentage for the
first year and then a percentage for the second year, and I would
suggest under the contract that therefore each percentage that
you choose is retroactive back to those corresponding years.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So two --
MR. WEIGEL: So if you say 6 percent, we need -- you need to
break it out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I would say 2 percent for the
first year, 4 percent for the second, because I think that's
reflective of the significant improvement in the second year. So that's a motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll second it.
Well, wait a minute. We had -- did you make a motion on the
other?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: No.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I will second that, which would
give us 2 percent for the year whatever it was, '98-99, and 4
Page 210
November 14, 2000
percent for where we are today?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that right, David, on years?
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And that would adjust his salary from
where he is upward to what? Now this is all retroactive, right?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: For the 24-month period.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's not all retroactive for the 24-month
period.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: The 2 percent --
MR. WEIGEL: The 2 percent would be retroactive to the
24-month period; the 4 percent would be for about a 12-month
period.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Run your numbers. I don't
know where, where that takes you --
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, what the total is?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- but it gets you to above the highest
paid person in your office. MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this the right --
David, are you comfortable with this being the way that we
have this discussion at six o'clock on the --
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I didn't choose the six o'clock.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I know you didn't.
I'm just not sure if this is the best --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, the only option is, is that he goes
to a new Board who -- where are they. What do they know?.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yeah, that's it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I mean, they just have had no
experience to deal with it, so I don't, I don't know what to tell
you. There's a --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: This is what was brought --
MR. WEIGEL: All right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- to me on the agenda.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, Mr. Carter had a question, and the fact
is, for instance, as, as I've indicated, the chief Assistant County
Page 211
November 14, 2000
Attorney under the current pay scale is paid more than I am right
now,
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' No. That's not --
MR. WEIGEL: So I think you've got --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So that's, what, $1200 more a year?
MR. WEIGEL: -- to think about that.
I beg your pardon?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: How much more a year?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, right now about 1500, $2000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if we did the increase, the 2
percent and the 4 percent, would that correct that problem?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it takes it above that.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yeah, yeah.
MR. WEIGEL: I don't know that it corrects the problem in
the sense that the positions are even described differently, the
responsibilities are different, the, the risks are different, but, you
know, a lot of that's in your own concept too, I guess. All
depends how you apply it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure.
MR. WEIGEL: There was a work force evaluation that was
done that showed that the County attorneys, assistant County
attorneys were far out of marketplace, and when those
adjustments were made, obviously it reflected very positive for
them.
It's only half way implemented right now based upon your
budget implementation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That didn't affect you at all,
David?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, this is where -- in talking --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I think that's part of the question.
MR. WEIGEL: In talking with Dwight Brock, he suggested
that for clarification that it might be appropriate for this Board to
address that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because -- 'cause I see the 2 and
the 4 as merit, and if there is a market adjustment that has been
made across the board, I think that should have applied to you.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I agree.
MR. OLLIFF: That -- that's this question. Both David and I's
contract says that for general wage adjustments that we should
participate with the balance of the employees.
Page 212
November 14, 2000
What the Board has implemented in the last year and will
implement in the upcoming year is not a general wage
adjustment or what's generally known as a cost of living
adjustment.
What the Board has done is made a market adjustment by
moving the salary ranges within the entire pay plan up in order to
be competitive with the market, which is not the same thing as a
cost-of-living adjustment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I'd like to know is, is, what
would be the numbers in a market -- if David -- if the market
adjustment were applied to the County attorney's position, as it
should have been, and if we added the 2 percent or 4 percent, I'd
like to know what the numbers are before I approve that, but that
sounds like, conceptually, appropriate.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I think maybe this is an
opportunity that with we could deal with the merit at this point,
we can continue the other aspect till a new Board is seated,
because it's only a decision about an adjustment based on -- it's
not performance; it's just an adjustment.
MR. OLLIFF: It's a market adjustment.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Market adjustment.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: But that market adjustment
decision was made just within the last year or so, so I think this
Board is better equipped to make that decision. I think.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But I don't know what the market
adjustment is.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: David, what percentage is the
ballpark?
MR. WEIGEL: 15-1/2 percent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 15-1/2 percent? So we're talking
real money when we do that, when we give you a 20 percent
raise.
MR. WEIGEL.' The market adjustment affected all employees
for the County.
CHAIRMAN BRANDT: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL-- It talked real money for all the employees --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course it did.
MR. WEIGEL.' -- except for --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But did it give them 15 percent?
MR. WEIGEL.' No, but the -- see, they looked at the various
Page 213
November 14, 2000
work positions and checked those out with the other market
positions in the public sector. We actually --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me ask you this question.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
the percentage for market adjustment?
MR. WEIGEL: 15-1/2 percent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fifteen? Yes?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it was 26 percent which you adopted
over a two-year period with 5 percent adjustments to be made
over that two-year period also, so it came out, for the County
attorney's office, for 15-1/2 percent for all attorneys, assistant
county attorneys.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: For each of two years.
MR. WEIGEL: It's going to be for each of two years. It will
happen again next year if you stick with your budget policy, as
you've indicated you will do, for all the employees in the County.
MR. OLLIFF: And I need to point out, in the market survey
the County attorney's office probably came out the most out of
whack in terms of the market versus the balance of your
employees.
The balance of your employees, on average, were the
numbers that you were provided by HR, were 10 percent for blue
collar generally, and 4 percent for your exempt employees, so,
you know, in general it was 10 and 8 percent total out of whack.
We spread that out over two years. In the County attorney's
case, they were far outside of the market.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that we have to -- and I
feel like we owe David an apology, frankly, that it has gone this
long without there being a market adjustment.
I understood that you were being patient on the, on the
merit issues, but I hadn't understood that we had made a 15
percent market adjustment for everybody else in your office and
it didn't apply to the county attorney. I think that we should do
that.
And that's my motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I agree.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And I second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. So what do we -- I think we've
got two motions here.
For the chief assistant, what was
Page 214
November 14, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'm amending my motion to
say that we, for merit, we give 2 percent for the first year, 4
percent for the second year, and that the market adjustments be
made for the County attorney in a concomitant way as was made
to the chief assistant.
MR. BRANDT: And I second that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I don't know what that
means, a budget amendment, 'cause that's, like you said, real
money.
I didn't realize we hadn't done that. I honestly just did not
know, and it makes me wonder, Tom, are you --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Did we do the same thing --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- in the same boat?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: .- in your area, Tom?
MR. OLLIFF: No. I, I was the same as David, and the
interpretation is that, did our contract say general wage
adjustment, which, frankly, the County hasn't given a general
wage adjustment in probably the last eight years, so if -- the
easier, cleanest way is probably simply to either, by
interpretation, or maybe David can give you some advice as to
whether the actual language needs to be amended.
But in our contracts where it talks about that we are subject
to the same either general wage adjustment, we could include,
or market adjustment, general wage or market adjustment, in our
agreements, and then we would be subject to any market
adjustments that the balance of the employees would --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I thought, general
wage adjustment, meant.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah, I thought that you-all were in
that, and since I'm applying it to the attorney, I therefore think I
need to apply it to the County Manager-- COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- so that his contract reads the same
and could be adjusted accordingly, because I certainly don't
want to slight the three people who report to us. I mean --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Could this be sufficient for
legislative intent, David, or should we do an amendment?
MR. WEIGEL: No. In regard to my contract, Dwight
indicated that if there was a clarification by the Board that that
would, that would assist him there; that's all he needed to know.
Page 215
November 14, 2000
And this isn't the County Manager's item, but by virtue of
your discussion and endorsement, that may be all that Mr. Brock
needs. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' If he needs more than that,
would you guys bring it back, 'cause that's a technical issue as
far as I'm concerned.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So we're dealing with the County
Attorney, but I don't want to leave out the County Manager on
this --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- so we've got to include that.
Do we need to make a separate motion for the County
Manager's --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I, I think --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah, we probably need to do that, so
let's, let's deal with the first one.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor of the --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: .- market adjustment --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER. Aye. Aye. It carries 3-0.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And, and, and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then my motion would be --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT.' Not only market adjustment, but
also the merit increase.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The merit.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The merit increase.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was the first motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah, okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' The second motion is that the
phrase, general wage increase, be interpreted to include, market
increases.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Market adjustment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Market adjustments.
MR. WEIGEL: General wage adjustment is the way --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: General wage adjustment. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: General wage adjustment shall
Page 216
November 14, 2000
be interpreted to include market wage adjustment. Is that --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
MR. WEIGEL: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.}
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 3-0.
Now, County Manager?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that second motion
covered it for anybody.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Fine.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I think so.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We got that clear.
Item #9D
MEDIATION IN BERNSTEIN V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 00-
14229GG - ITEM TO BE RECONSIDERED. $35,000 OFFER
ACCEPTED
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, you're very close to the end of
the agenda. There are two items left under County Attorney.
One -- Mr. Pettit is still here -- one is the 9-C, and I can tell
you that under 9-D, which you've heard earlier, which is the
Bernstein mediation, they -- attorneys went to the mediation and
have a report that may -- that conceivably you could act upon to
do so. I know the hour is late, and you have your choice of
waiting and letting the new Board have this -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, let's do it.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. What you would do to bring back 9-D is,
by vote of your -- of you who voted affirmatively to act -- ask to
reconsider the matter you previously heard, 9-D.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.}
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
MR. WEIGEL: And this is the easiest reconsideration you'll
ever have. You may now hear the item from Mike Pettit again.
MR. PETTIT: We went back to the mediation. The mediation
Page 217
November 14, 2000
has been continued again. The Plaintiff is firm on $35,000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is what? Is firm?
MR. PETTIT: She is firm on 35,000, and the only rationale
really we got from that was that she's -- the economic hardships
that have occurred over the years of litigation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And the mediation is still continued.
MR. PETTIT: The mediation is continued because I assumed
that either we would reach this again this evening or in two
weeks, because I felt like I'd want to bring it back given the
factors that we know that militate pro and con, so --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Looks to me like we continue with the
mediation.
MR. PETTIT: I think the purpose of the mediation -- when I
say the mediation is continued, I -- we left the door open to go
back, and I think the Board has some choices: They can accept
the 35,000; they can stand firm with the 30,000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to move the 35,000 for
the reasons that I articulated in our closed session that will
become public when this item is finally settled.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll second that.
Discussion?
All in favor signify by saying aye?
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much. We hope not to be back
before you again.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That ought to do it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It, it -- go ahead.
MR. PETTIT: I don't know whether, David, you wanted me to
reach the next item?
Item #9C
REPORT ON STATUS AND SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS IN
COLLIER COUNTY V. MARSHALL, ET AL., CASE NO.
99-2009-CA-TB, (PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT CLAIM FOR MILLER
BOULEVARD EXTENSION - CONTINUED
MR. WEIGEL: Well, just -- it's, it's the Chair doing it.
9-C is the Miller Boulevard Extension item.
Page 218
November 14, 2000
Upon the conclusion of 9-C, which I think will be brief, then
we will go into our closed session on the rocks on the beach
case, coming out of the closed session to have a very brief
regular agenda item, which is 9-B.
So if you'd like to take 9-C now, it's -- we're offering that --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Well, let's deal with 9-C, Miller
Boulevard.
MR. PETTIT: Yeah, and I, I guess I'll go ahead and throw
this out for the Board's consideration. It was an item that
Commissioner Berry was interested in. She has left. And it
affects that district. It is not time sensitive in the sense that it
has to be decided this evening, but I'm prepared to go forward.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Then I would move for a continuance.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes. Second.
MR. PETTIT: I understand.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor--
MR. PETTIT: And I just raise that because of the fact that it
does affect that district.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay.
MR. PETTIT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. All in favor signify by saying
aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
Item #9A&E
CLOSED ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF
SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND/OR STRATEGY RELATED TO
LITIGATION EXPENDITURES OF THE PENDING LITIGATION CASE
OF BCC V. COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS~ INC. ET AL
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now, going to the next items, are
these time -- these are time sensitive, I understand? That's why
these -- the three of us need to go in the shade to have that
discussion?
MR. WEIGEL: That's right. They are, and we have some
communication to make to you, which we, under 9-A will of
course talk to you in closed session, but we'll talk about those in
Page 2t 9
November 14, 2000
9-B also.
For the benefit of the court reporter, who I don't believe has
been with us in closed session before, under the Sunshine Law at
Section 286.011, we are using the privilege we have of
attorney-client session, and we will -- the Chairman will recess
the meeting here in the open Board room and readjourn it --
reconvene it in the conference room with the Board of County
Commissioners.
The court reporter will set up there and will maintain a total
transcript of everything that is discussed at that meeting, any
papers that are provided will be kept and made part of that
transcript and will be kept confidential with the clerk until this
litigation is finished.
So at this -- it's your call, Mr. Chairman, to recess this
meeting to go into closed session on 9-A.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I could, just for the record, we
didn't have any public speakers on general topics for whatever --
MR. WEIGEL: No.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We can do this, and then I think
I have a section in the agenda to come back for public comment,
but I don't think anybody --
MR. WEIGEL: If you want to do that first, this is supposedly
at the end of the agenda, so you can actually reconvene --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, no, no. I mean general public
comment. I mean, we'll do this and then come back. There's an
item if anybody waited around to talk to us. MR. WEIGEL: Very good. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay? We, we adjourn to closed
session.
Page 220
COLLIER COUNTY
DAVID C. WEIGEL
COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY
3301 TamiamJ Trail Eas!
Naples, Florida 34112-4902
Telephone: (941) 774-8400
FAX: (941) 774-0225
Clerk of Courts/Minutes & Records
Attn: Maureen Kenyon, Supv.
September 25, 2001
Heidi F. Ashton
Jennifer A. Belpedio
Ellen T. Chadwell
Ramiro Mafialich
William E. MountFord
Thomas C. Palmer
Michael W. Pettit
Jacqueline Hubbard Robinson
Marjorie M. Student
Patrick G. White
Robert N. Zachary
(VIA Hand Delivery)
Re:
Board of County Commissioners vs. Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Case No. 00-1901-CA-THB
Dear Ms. Kenyon:
Please be advised that the above-styled litigation has now been terminated. A
Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice has been filed with the Clerk of Court and the
settlement sums have been deposited. Therefore, the transcript of the Closed Attorney-
Client Session of November 14, 2001 may be placed on the record.
Very truly yours,
William E. Mountford
Assistant County Attorney
WEM:mr
cc: David C. Weigel, County Attorney
H:h°ublic\Litigation\Open Cases\CC v. Coastal Engineering~Ltr to Minutes & Records 9-25-01 .doc
November t4, 2000
Item #9A&E
CLOSED ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF
SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND/OR STRATEGY RELATED TO
LITIGATION EXPENDITURES OF THE PENDING LITIGATION CASE
AC Ol'm"#'~' ~.1. d'~hA(2:TAI F'Idd~_IM"'CDIAJ/~_ ~AMelll TAMT~ ~T ~L
(Closed session: Beginning at 6:30 p.m. Present:
Commissioner Mac'Kie, Chairman Carter, Commissioner Brandt,
Mr. Weigel, Tom Olliff, William E. Mountford, Steven M. Siegfried.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. We're all gathered,
Counsellor.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Okay. Well, let me say that there's a -- my
name is Steve Siegfried, for the record. I'm with the firm of
Siegfried, Rivera, Lener, De La Torre & Sobel, Coral Gables, and I
represent the County in the case of Collier County versus
Coastal, T.L. James, and others.
And the purpose of this meeting is to discuss possibly going
to mediation and answer any questions you may have regarding
what may happen at mediation, what the chances of settling are,
how much you want to -- may want to settle for if that's
something you want to discuss today. We don't really need to do
that.
I had thought that an issue of termination was going to be
on the agenda, because that was something that we had talked
about. Quite frankly, I'm glad it's not on the agenda because
when I spoke to -- individually I had conversations with you. We
had talked about it, and I was going to recommend that we may
put that off until the next meeting, any pending mediation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Uh-huh.
MR. SIEGFRIED: But that's a consideration, because
working with someone you're suing is really not, you know, not
that great.
I can imagine -- I mean, if I was the attorney representing Dr.
Stevens, I would ask the commissioners the question, well,
you're still working with Dr. Stevens; aren't you?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On the same project.
MR. SIEGFRIED: On the same project and on other, you
know, projects, so -- and the County Attorney's office has done
an investigation regarding all the current contractors. There's
Page 221
November 14, 2000
not a lot that are currently pending, but there are some. County
staff feels that, I think, they need him on some of them, there's a
need. I'm not sure. I don't know whether they've written -- you
know, given any opinions regarding it, but that's not really
something for us to discuss now.
I don't know the kind of in depth discussion you need. I've
spoken to you individually regarding my feelings about the case.
In summary fashion, we've filed a complaint against both the
engineering firm that you hired to do the investigation of the
barrow areas and the contractor that was to dredge those
barrow areas and place good quality sand on the beaches.
During the course of the project, the contractor made a
claim for differing sand condition based upon the fact that rock
was appearing on the beaches.
I don't know exactly what happened, and I can only surmise
going back into the records, reviewing them, speaking to some of
the people that were involved, including Dr. Stephen and Mr. Poff,
who have been fairly candid with me. But I've spoken to John
Steiger; I've spoken to FDEP, Brantley; I've spoken to a number
of -- I've interviewed all the staff involved, Harry Huber, and
former staff, Tom Ricardo and other individuals who were
involved.
And it was a, it was a situation where there was a tight
construction schedule, and decisions had to be made quick, and
decisions were made to pay the contractor additional moneys to
dredge these barrow areas to avoid the rocks coming on the
beach.
You changed the per-cubic-yard price, the contract price of
something like $4 -- I have it here, $4.50, $4.94 -- to over $9,
almost double, to avoid the rocks.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And we got rocks.
MR. SIEGFRIED: So, -- well, the rocks that came on the
beach, if there was a differing site condition, it certainly was
entitled to it, if it was, assuming there was. But why was the
rocks still coming on the beach and why did we pay them for the
rocks that came on the beach.
We have a cleanup of -- cost of $1.5 million, so if we paid
them for a differing site condition and they were supposed to
skim a layer of sand, we shouldn't have had the rocks. And, you
know, so I don't see that there's much justification -- maybe he's
Page 222
November 14, 2000
not responsible for the full amount of rocks on the beach, but
certainly a good part of it.
There was another, there was another issue that we
discovered, and that was that in the change order -- that was
change order number 2 -- when he went from the dredging of the
barrow in MB-2-A -- there was three barrow areas, MB-2A, B, and
C, there was sufficient sand, according to our engineers, Dr.
Stephens and Coastal, to be dredged from other barrow areas,
yet he dredged in -- the contractor chose to dredge in barrow
area 2-A at the higher price and went beyond the amount that he
was supposed to dredge in that barrow area before going to the
other, and we paid him anyway.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I ask a question?
MR. SIEGFRIED: Should never have done that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 'Cause I, I remember this. I
wanted to know when----if we authorized mediation, when might
that take place?
MR. SIEGFRIED: As soon as, as soon as I come back to you
with the name of a mediator, and I can do that by your next
meeting. I don't know whether we have to come back once they
approve it. David?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I was going to say, if the Board approves
mediation in a public item right after this, we don't have to come
back to the Board for any further approvals at that point in time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 'Cause I, I, I understand we have
to be careful not to make decisions in here.
Would it be okay to state my opinion about mediation,
David?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, as long as the Board itself doesn't make
any determination as a Board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 'Cause I think mediation is an
excellent idea for this case, because it's complicated, but it gets
boiled down to some really simple issues.
But my question is, if we should go forward with the
mediation, how would we give you any parameters on
settlements we would be willing to consider?
MR. SIEGFRIED: Well, the only thing you could do is ask me
to make recommendations, and I don't know whether I should
make them or I can make them in public or if we have to go back
to private session again.
Page 223
November 14, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think we have to come back to
private session.
MR. SIEGFRIED: I have my feelings about that. Of course,
we'd like to get as much as we can from both parties. There is
an offer on the table now which you need to --
I don't know. I think they need to vote on it.
MR. WEIGEL: We actually have two offers that we need to
talk about, because we have T.L. James, and we have this most
recent thing that just --
MR. SIEGFRIED: It was the surety. The surety?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, that's right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is how much, the surety?
MR. SIEGFRIED: That was a, that was a --
MR. WEIGEL: It's -- call it a starter for discussion.
MR. SIEGFRIED: No, it wasn't a discussion. It was just -- I
don't know why this did -- it was $1,000 just so that, just so that
they won, if they won the case, we would have to pay their legal
fees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I see.
MR. SIEGFRIED: The attorneys who just were hired have no
clue about the case, so they were brought in by the surety where
T.L. James' attorney was representing them, so I don't think
they're really familiar with facts of the case.
I think you need to reject that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So do I.
MR. SIEGFRIED: But you need to be advised that if you
reject that and they get -- we don't get more than 75 percent of
that amount -- I don't know whether you gave the commissioners
a copy of this letter?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. SIEGFRIED: It sets forth what your responsibilities are
if you do, but basically you have to pay their legal fees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we don't get a judgment of at
least $750?
MR. SIEGFRIED: I think, I think with all the judgments
against bonding companies, you may be responsible if you lose
to them anyway for legal fees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we --
MR. SIEGFRIED: If you lose to them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you lose, then it would be a
Page 224
November 14, 2000
judgment of zero?
MR. SIEGFRIED: Right. Well, no.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Losing to them would be -- yeah, a
judgment of zero, right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And one of the things that I'm
concerned about that I just want to be sure is on the table when
we talk about what is the County's down side or what have we
lost here?
I understand we've got a million and a half; I thought it was
closer to $2 million for cleanup.
MR. SIEGFRIED: It's a million -- it's 1.5 and change, so far.
There may be more.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Okay. But that's just so, so small
a part, because not only do we have that, but we also have -- this
is the piece I want to be sure stays on the table, and that is the
diminution of value between the beach that we thought we were
buying and the beach that we bought and the value of that shore
protection for the City of Naples, some very expensive properties
in there.
MR. SIEGFRIED: The total damages that we could possibly
claim is the 1.5 million. Now, part of that obviously is natural
rock that appears on the beach.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. Right. So--
MR. SIEGFRIED: It's going to be a small part of--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- factor.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Right. Part of that, if there was truly a
differing site condition, they -- you know, we have to pick that
cost up.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
MR. SIEGFRIED: If there was no differing site condition --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, if there was a differing site
condition, shouldn't our engineer who found the barrow site for
us in the first place have to absorb the cost of it.
MR. SIEGFRIED: The standard is not just a breach of
warranty. In other words, it's not strict liability.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not -- if you reasonably should
have known that it was --
MR. SIEGFRIED: Our engineers -- our experts, who are also
called Coastal, but Coastal Planning --
Page 225
November 14, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
MR. SIEGFRIED: -- have opined that the, that the engineers
that we hired did not perform certain studies that was available
to the engineering community at the time. One is called the
seismic study.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Uh-huh.
MR. SIEGFRIED: The seismic study is a study like -- it's a
study like it's an x-ray where you would see rock at a certain
level.
There's a difference of opinion as to whether or not, number
1, that would have shown the rock or whether it was standard.
I've spoken to, I've spoken to the FDEP and some other
engineers, and there's differing opinions about that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, get us back to the point of
what our maximum damages would be. A million and a half of
cleanup, maximum, and --
MR. SIEGFRIED: A little bit, a little more than that, but I
don't think it's there, maximum, because some of it is natural,
natural beach. Okay.
The 700 and -- let's say round numbers -- 740,000 for excess
moneys that we spent, if it wasn't this differing site condition.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When they charged us for the
expensive sand when they could have given us the cheaper sand.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Well, if it wasn't a differing site condition.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's -- that number, that is
a $740,000 number. All right.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Then there's a number which we haven't
calculated yet, but there's a number which is claimed here -- it's
an undefined number -- and that is, how much would it cost us
now to hire another contractor to -- if we could get a permit, to
take sand that's existing in some of those barrow areas or other
barrow areas and put them on the beach and get the kind of
beach that we were entitled to get at the price per cubic yard
that we contracted which we couldn't --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, that's a big factor.
MR. SIEGFRIED: So that's a difference between what we
should have paid at the time and what we have to pay now.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Can we get a number?
MR. SIEGFRIED: Well, we will get a number. Our engineers
Page 226
November 14, 2000
will give us that number. I don't know the exact number, but it's
several hundred thousand dollars.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, the City of Naples, I think,
has been discussing --
MR. OLLIFF: In the millions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought it was in the millions.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Really?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought it was like $2 million.
MR. SIEGFRIED: No. It's a different price now. It's what
you would have had to pay -- you still would have had to pay that.
MR. WEIGEL: We paid per-unit volume, and we paid for time
they're on the ]ob, so to speak; so, yeah, they worked and they
brought so much cubic yards of sand to the beach, and obviously
rock with it too, but if they had given us the beach that -- the
dream beach that we hoped we would have gotten, we would
have been paying for cubic yards than --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it's the increase in cost.
MR. WEIGEL: Right, it's a differential to factor in.
MR. SIEGFRIED: To put you back in the position you would
have been in at the time, not to get the beach for free though.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I realize this isn't on this
particular agenda, but we need to talk about about when we're
going to accomplish that? As a County, when are we going to
accomplish that differential? Does that have to hold pending this
litigation?
MR. SIEGFRIED: Well, let me give you -- I don't know, I don't
know if this a proper answer, but you don't -- you're still in
violation of your permit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because we --
MR. SIEGFRIED: Because of the rocks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because of the rocks.
MR. SIEGFRIED: But FDEP unofficial told me they're about
to, if you do the right thing, they're about to allow you to remove
the violation, that you've been in compliance. In other words,
you have been doing the right thing.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Continued moving the rocks.
MR. SIEGFRIED: You've been doing, you've been doing what
you're supposed to do, you're in compliance with the order.
I think the next step is to just apply for it. I don't know the
procedures to do that, but your County Attorney and your
Page 227
November 14, 2000
manager will tell you what to do, and I think they're ready to do
that so that you can go to the next step.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 'Cause we've got to do that at
some point.
MR. WEIGEL: And we know that there are allegations,
discussions, that DEP in fact hasn't enforced the permit correctly
and they've made -- that they have made errors on their own part
in regard to the monitoring of the project.
But the fact is, is the County's relationship with DEP is a
permit relationship. As Steve Siegfried just tells you, it appears
that the County has worked very, very diligently to bring itself
into conformance with the permit requirements, at no great -- at
no small expense, either.
And it appears that they are about to say, yes, you are in
compliance with the permit.
Now that hasn't happened yet, but that's -- I'll say part of our
discussions here, of course, are regard to negotiations of
settlement and strategies, and I do think it's important for us to
know that as part of our strategy in approaching this case.
MR. SIEGFRIED: And as an aside, there is -- I know there's
some discussion. I don't know who's having the discussion, but
rather than having a major beach renourishment project two
years, three years, four years now, but an ongoing project --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The City of Naples is having that
discussion.
MR. SIEGFRIED: -- an ongoing project where you constantly
add sand, you know, to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We need to be having that
discussion.
MR. OLLIFF: That was the original plan, was for about
50,000 cubic yards a year, annually.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my question is, once we're in
compliance with the permit, we'll talk about that again. MR. OLLIFF: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Once were in compliance with
the permit, that issue will be back on the table? MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: I think it could be, and of course the one thing
we're keeping in mind always is that by doing additional work at
the beach, the dynamic of the beach, that it's not somehow,
Page 228
November 14, 2000
somehow endangering the proofs that we have of factors that
are already out there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right, and that's why -- that's my
question for today, because it factors in for me on a potential
settlement is the cost of continuing not to do the maintenance
on the beach, are, are damages rising equally to the --
MR. WEIGEL: We're maintaining the beach.
MR. SIEGFRIED: No, no, no.
MR. WEIGEL: It's the question of building it even more.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, but the cost -- we're really --
we're maintaining it, but we're not. We're maintaining it, but
we're not maintaining the program that the Board approved,
because the Board approved this regular maintenance, and if
that has had to stop or be tolled because of this lawsuit, then
that sounds like part of the damages to me.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think it's semantics. I think that the
County is doing all the maintenance that's required under its
permit for the sand that was put on the beach, but you're talking
about adding to the beach to give it the storm protection and
other features that are very important to us in the city.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are we not doing that because of
this lawsuit?
MR. WEIGEL: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why are we not doing that then, I
guess is something we should discuss in the sunshine if it's not
related to this lawsuit.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, our contract, our contract finished with
Coastal as far as the capital improvement element of it, and, of
course, the same with the contractor. Our contract finished with
the capital improvement element that they were providing also.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh, uh-huh.
MR. WEIGEL: And it's not that we didn't get a beach that
wasn't permittable. It was permittable with the sand that was
put on it, but the rocks -- no matter how much sand, even if we
had the big beach, if those rocks had been on it, we would have
had our permitting problems that we do have.
So it would seem, I guess, as part of our, again, staying
close to strategy here, that we can again review and report back
to you probably in open session the efficacy, the
appropriateness, of going forward with a regular continuation or
Page 229
November 14, 2000
an addition to beach nourishment that's already been
accomplished.
But that is, as Steve mentioned, it will require of course
close coordination with the permitting agency.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: But if the contract was to put in
50,000 yards annually, that's the part I don't understand.
MR. OLLIFF: No, no, that's actually separate. That wasn't
the contract.
MR. WEIGEL: The original contract --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Oh, it was not part of the original
contract.
MR. OLLIFF: Right, it was not part of the original contract.
MR. WEIGEL: We have a, we have a maintenance of-- call it
maintenance, nourishment maintenance, of 50,000 -- about
50,000 cubic yards a year, and that's a --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: -- a separate issue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we're not doing that, but --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's a separate lawsuit.
MR. MOUNTFORD: No, that was not T.L. James.
MR. OLLIFF: But that is more of a, that is more of a
permitting, staff kind of an issue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not -- I'm just flabbergasted
though to find out -- I'm going to ask it one more time: We have
not been doing that 50,000 cubic yards a year of what I would
call maintenance -- it's really enhancement slash maintenance.
We have not been doing that, and the reason we have not been
doing that is unrelated to our against Stephen, Coastal, and T.J.
James.
MR. OLLIFF: That is my understanding.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My goodness.
MR. WEIGEL: I would think so, because what I felt we were
talking about was just, we did achieve the big project we'd
hoped; we achieved a significant project that we had hopped.
And I thought you were just talking about the additional
sand that would have gone in the first place.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was at first talking about that.
MR. MOUNTFORD: If I may, I think what you're referring to
is the 50,--- cubic yards from Bonita Grand Sand which is subject
to litigation now.
This is tied into the -- to this lawsuit only from the
Page 230
November 14, 2000
standpoint of the monitoring of that project happens to be under
the coastal Engineering budget for this -- this original contract.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it is related.
MR. MOUNTFORD: But the trouble with the sand there was,
it was nonspecification sand, and we can't foist that on T.L.
James or anyone else, because that's inland sand.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, but we still, while we're
suing whoever it is on the inland sand and while we're suing
whoever it is on the --
MR. OLLIFF: -- gulf sand.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- gulf sand.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- gulf sand, we still need to be
pursuing the work.
MR. OLLIFF: I agree, and this has nothing to do with this
issue.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm glad we were able to separate it
out now.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Just as an aside, if the, if the -- you're one
of the areas that are fortunate to have the source of sand that
you could do that, because most areas don't have it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think we need to figure out what
we're going to do, and I understand with Coastal, we have a
million dollar insurance policy to work with?
MR. SIEGFRIED: That's correct. Now, of course, the
individuals are named, and the corporate entity is named.
It's been my experience that corporate entities like -- you
know, professional engineering entities, if you get a judgment in
excess of the insurance, you really don't have much of a chance
of collecting it.
We're chasing -- my firm is chasing a couple of engineers
now. They wouldn't -- they filed bankruptcy, and that was the end
of it, they started up another company, so --
MR. OLLIFF: So what's your recommendation here?
MR. SIEGFRIED: Well, I don't have a recommendation 'cause
I don't have an offer.
My recommendation on the offer on the table is, they made
an offer of $100,000. I say reject it and don't make a
counteroffer.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. Right.
MR. SIEGFRIED: My recommendation is that we approve a
Page 231
November 14, 2000
motion in open session to go to mediation and listen to all
reasonable offers, and that I'm instructed to come back to the
commission with the offers.
And you have to delegate one person of the three, which I
suppose it has to be one of you two, you know, Carter, for the
record, Carter and Mac'Kie, to attend the mediation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have another question though.
Before we can come back -- I understand that direction. I'm
prepared to make a decision on that in the sunshine, but before
we could accept any recommendations that might come out of a
potential mediation, we have to know what our damage high
number, Iow number is, and we lust don't know that right now.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Well, right, and I could -- I will, I will ask
our expert Coastal Planning and Engineers, to come up with an
opinion on what that is worth in dollars.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: In the public session then, could we,
as a part of whatever we decide to say out there, ask that we get
that number so we know what our damages are?
MR. SIEGFRIED: I don't think that's a problem at all.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a strategy thing though.
We can talk about that here, can't we? We can ask for that
information?
MR. WEIGEL: Sure, you can ask for that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the other question I have is,
does T.J. James have an E&O.
MR. SIEGFRIED: They have a surety plus -- well, T.L. James
is out of business, but they have a surety company.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it's -- that means it's 100
percent of its contract or --
MR. SIEGFRIED: Right now it appears like it will cover, it
covers all of the claims if we prevail.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So to the extent -- so here's what
we have to hope, is that Coastal Engineering's liability here
doesn't exceed a million dollars, 'cause that's all we're likely to
get from them, and that any other liability is the fault of T.L.
James because we're likely to be able to collect from their
surety.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Right. Now, it's, it's easy to say that
hypothetically.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I understand.
Page 232
November 14, 2000
MR. SIEGFRIED: But where, where a jury is going to draw
the line, what the liability of Coastal independently would be, did
they do all that they should have done in discovering those
barrow areas.
Secondly, did they act appropriately dealing with the
differing site condition and the dual layering that they conducted
which caused us to violate our permit. Did they act appropriately
with that?
I will tell you that, that also one of the thorns in the side of
some of the people in the community is the fact that on the
record there was, there was things happening on the beaches
and was not being reported to FDEP.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nor the County Commission.
MR. SIEGFRIED: That's the sentiment.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Uh-huh.
MR. SIEGFRIED: That's the sentiment, that there were these
certifications that Coastal was making to FDEP which did not
indicate that the rock was coming on the beach.
I wasn't there, so I don't know what happened. All I know is
-- for example, I spoke to Steiger, who you all know, and he said
to me, boy, every night you'd go to the beach and you'd hear
those rocks coming down those pipes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Everybody says that.
MR. SIEGFRIED: So -- and there were submissions, these
certifications, to FDEP by -- signed by Michael Poff indicating
that they were in compliance and the material was -- wasn't --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what --
MR. SIEGFRIED: But that's not necessarily increasing
liability or not, but that's what's gotten some of the people in the
community aggravated.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This -- the -- go ahead. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The whole reality is with Coastal
Engineering is that we've got a million dollars to deal with.
Beyond that, those people don't have anything. I mean, you're,
you're a little like chasing butterflies when you get beyond that,
in my judgment. You got to go what they're covered with,
because they're a service organization, and, as you said, they
would shut down tomorrow, and start someplace else.
MR. SIEGFRIED: And of course you, in a trial, in a trial, you
never -- you could get zero or you could get the full amount.
Page 233
November 14, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right, but --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Right.
MR. SIEGFRIED: And I know T.L. James is willing to settle,
as well.
Now, the other, the other thing is that there's finger-pointing
right now. T.R. James is pointing at Coastal; Coastal's pointing
at T.L. James.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Everybody's pointing at the
County.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Well, there is a lot of finger-pointing at the
County --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Should be.
MR. SIEGFRIED: You know, and the record is unclear as to
why the County was making representations to the
commissioners. There was a lot of questions, good questions
asked by you on the record, I tell you that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Didn't get good answers.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Well, you weren't satisfied with a lot of the
answers you were getting.
But it was a pressure situation, decisions were made, there
was a lot of decisions that were made that's going to come back
to haunt the commissioners, and which they will use against the
commissioners and against the case.
So it's not a perfect case, but no case is perfect.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, you know, if this, if this were
to go all the way to a jury, our experts would at some point have
to put down percentages of liability. I mean, they would have to
come to some conclusions.
MR. SIEGFRIED: I'd have to give you my best guesstimate.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know, and that's what I'm going
to want from you soon.
MR. SIEGFRIED: I'll let your experts do it.
I don't think my -- I mean, if I'm a betting man -- and I do bet,
because I do trial work --
bet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, right.
MR. SIEGFRIED: -- I've invested in the stock market; that's a
But I'm not a contractor, and those are really -- those are the
real risky guys, but my prediction is that you will win. My
prediction is that you will probably win for in excess of a million
Page 234
November 14, 2000
dollars, but how much more than that, I don't know, because the
real, the real obvious thing to me as just as someone that's a
citizen is, we paid extra money to a contractor -- assuming that it
was a differing site condition and they were entitled to the
change order -- we paid them for it, and we still get rocks on the
beach.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
MR. SIEGFRIED: So, I mean, I don't know why -- and they
violated the permit, so certainly that's clear.
We wouldn't -- when I first was hired -- and I think I've told
you this individually -- when I first was hired, I expected that Dr.
Stephens would have said, yes, there was a differing site
condition and no engineering firm could have discovered it.
I wouldn't have then -- I thought, well, would it -- because I
spoke to a lot of staff, and they believed that.
Dr. Stephens was the one who told me -- and I call Dr.
Stephens with an S, and I apologize for that. It's without an S at
the end.
But Dr. Stephen and Michael Poff told me that they did an
investigation -- they provided me with a report which I think
you're familiar with -- which demonstrated to them that there
was a direct correlation between the rock that was appearing in
the beach and when T.L. James was going outside the barrow
areas after the skimming operation, so that even after the
skimming operation they were still going down too deep and too
far outside.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Uh-huh, uh-huh.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Now they've recently told me that they're
doing another investigation and will provide us with the report
where they believe that the readings, the depth chart readings,
of the cutter head, which is about 7 to 8 feet in diameter, was at
approximately the midlevel of the cutter head.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was way off.
MR. SIEGFRIED: So if it read 31 feet, it was really --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- 34.
MR. SIEGFRIED: -- 33 or 34 feet, and that would account for
them going beyond the permitted area, as well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, so the quantification you're
going to have to do for us at some point is, what percentage --
assuming that Coastal Engineering is right when they point their
Page 235
November t4, 2000
finger at T.L. James, what's the dollar value of that finger point?
MR. SIEGFRIED: Well, it increases their liability, you
understand.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It increases Coastal's?
MR. SIEGFRIED: Yes, it increases Coastal's.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: By pointing their finger at T.L.
James?
MR. SIEGFRIED: Yes. That was the surprising --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't get that. Help me.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Okay. If these records were available to
Coastal at the time, how did they not -- and this is my opinion, so
I -- when I was in there, I said -- I looked at, I looked at David and
I said -- and there was, there was -- my paralegal was with me
and she was taking the statement, not a sworn statement, but
there was a lot of people there that heard the statements, and I
said, you know, they're admitting that they were negligent in
their administrative services.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, of course.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Because they were, they were making
recommendations. Harry Huber was constantly communicating
to the County Attorney's office and the commissioners.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh, uh-huh.
MR. SIEGFRIED: He had legitimate questions. Who -- is
there responsibility here? We know that there are -- they're in
violation of the contract; they are in violation of the permit.
And he was getting responses from Coastal indicating, no,
there was differing site conditions; there were -- all these things.
Well, our position is, if you could have found it now, why
didn't you do it before or, why didn't you say, why didn't you say,
I have a question about whether they're entitled to it. Let's leave
entitlement -- let's not deny them their claim, but let's wait to
make the decision regarding the change order until we have the
chance to do it, not -- we don't have to do it right now, but I think
they could have recommended that, and nobody recommended
that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, and --
MR. SIEGFRIED: That's staff -- staff didn't recommend it
either.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the bad news here then is -- I
mean, I want some of this to be T.L. James's fault so the County
Page 236
November 14, 2000
can get more than a million dollars, 'cause we're out $3 million.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Obviously, if you believe Coastal, Coastal's
responsible, but the greater responsibility is T.L. James.
Now, T.L. James is going to say, baloney. And they have
their experts. And they're going to say, those barrow areas --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- were no good.
MR. SIEGFRIED: -- were no good and they were within the
tolerances, and, yes, they went out a couple times, and the
County did this. The County compromised their claim. The
County executed a change order where they settled the claim.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's an argument, but it's
not --
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
MR. SIEGFRIED: But -- okay, but you did. You knew the
facts, and you signed a change order, and you allowed a credit of
like 50,000 to I don't know how much money to account for the
rock appearing on the beach.
MR. WEIGEL: But the facts that the Board came to know
were dependent upon, essentially, the assertions of Coastal --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. WEIGEL: -- through Dr. Stephen with the company of
County staff at the time, who --
MR. SIEGFRIED: And that's our defense.
MR. INEIGEL: -- apparently did not independently of Coastal
have differing factual information.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, and, so --
MR. SIEGFRIED: So there's not -- there's no clear-cut
answer. A jury's going to have to decide.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you've got to give us -- you've
got to be the gambling man again and tell us -- MR. SIEGFRIED: I will.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- what, what -- I mean, you said
that you think we'll win and that you think we'll probably get
more than a million dollars. If you had to guess allocating who
would pay percentage-wise, how much would be Coastal and
how much would be T.L. James, could you make a guess on that
yet?
MR. MOUNTFORD: If I may interject for one thing -- one
reason here.
Page 237
November 14, 2000
At every point in litigation, every major case, every state,
federal, there comes a point when a decision has to be made.
I worked for an insurance company that -- for many years
doing insurance defense work, and I've been against some very
good plaintiff's lawyers, and the decision is this for both the
plaintiff and the defense: When is it cost effective to try to
resolve the litigation before you go on?
When we banter about expert witnesses in a case like this,
we're not talking about five, 10, 20,000; we're talking in the
multiples of a hundred thousand, so if you were to go down the
road two years, try this case, put in 5 or 600,000 more and get it
for -- and only get an additional $200,000 from when you settle --
MR. OLLIFF: It's a lot of money.
MR. MOUNTFORD: -- we're in trouble.
So that's one thing I think you have to weigh in all your other
factors.
I think at this point in litigation -- Mr. Siegfried can agree or
disagree with this -- but this may be the one window of
opportunity to resolve it with both sides before it gets too deeply
involved in the costs and before it gets too much newspaper
coverage, one way or the other, which is, which is a down side
for you more so than for you.
Now maybe -- I'm not trying to speak out of turn, but do you
agree with that, Steve?
MR. SIEGFRIED: Yeah. Well, the thing was that we've not
taken any good depositions. We've taken -- we're gotten a lot of
documents, and I've done interviews with a lot of people, and I
don't know what their experts are going to say.
I know what their defenses are going to be, so I, I can't
predict the exact amount the jury is going to award.
I think what you have to do is come up with a number in
your mind that you feel would be a satisfactory resolution to this
and not, and not so much think about what a jury is going to
award.
What is going to be enough money so that you feel
comfortable with saying, okay, we got this money which will
cover this.
And the other part of it is, is a flip of a coin; it's going to cost
us so much to litigate this. It's going to be a lot of aggravation
on the community. It's upsetting the community. There's a lot of
Page 238
November 14, 2000
screaming and yelling, a lot of upset people, and it's not worth it
to take the risk.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But to be able to do that, we've
got to know -- if we know that a million dollars is all the real
money we're going to get out of Coastal -- the figure in my head
is 3 or 4 or 5 million, you know, whatever it is, 3 or $4 million,
then am I going to be able to get $3 million out of T.L. James if, if
it were -- if it's 400 -- I mean, if it's $4 million, is the liability three
to one?
MR. SIEGFRIED: I think if you were talking about $3 million,
the chances of getting that in a settlement are very, very slim, so
you would have to go to trial to try to get that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. SIEGFRIED: If you -- if we're talking in terms of maybe
another million dollars, I think we may have a shot. I don't know
what they're going to say.
MR. WEIGEL: You mean a total of 2?
MR. SIEGFRIED: I don't know. I mean, if we got $2 million
at this stage, I'd say -- I'd recommend that you take it. That's my
feeling.
MR. OLLIFF: And you don't know what the total claim is
going to be.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my question.
MR. SIEGFRIED: We have interest on it, as well. You have
interest on your money, and you have attorney's fees and expert
fees.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think, Commissioner Mac'Kie, as
discussed previously asked and you said we could provide her is,
we can put together a letter as to our client privilege,
confidential, which breaks out an estimate of, an estimate of
damages, as a comprehensive estimate.
And you don't need that right now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-uh.
MR. WEIGEL: You don't need that even prior to mediation.
As Steve said, it would be good if we could have a Board
member at mediation so that that person can report back to the
Board the scope and telling you how things are.
Mediation can be done without that also, but in any event,
whether there's a commissioner there or not, the commissioner
who's there is not impaneled and always has to, of course, say to
Page 239
November 14, 2000
the mediator and the people who are present there is, I have to
take this back to my board.
MR. SIEGFRIED: And we have to take every reasonable offer
back. And we have to take every offer back.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I guess I see -- I can see two
steps there, if I'm correct.
We go to mediation. We hear this out, then come back,
initiate it and report back to the board.
Simultaneously, David, you can prepare us a financial
statement so that we can compare where we are in the
mediation process against what we anticipate are our numbers,
and then deal with it.
MR. OLLIFF: And I think you -- what the commission seems
to be heading towards is perhaps another closed session where
the Board can at least get some feel for it based on what the
total is, the damage number is, what is perhaps the floor?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Uh-huh.
MR. SIEGFRIED: You have to come up with a floor, and you
have to come up with a wish, and then someplace in the middle
at some point in time you'll decide, you know --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: -- enough is enough.
MR. SIEGFRIED: -- enough is enough and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or we're going to fight to the
death in this.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's it.
MR. SIEGFRIED: And if you do, you know--
MR. MOUNTFORD: Either way.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Now, if they come back with such a Iow
offer, it's very easy.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
MR. SIEGFRIED: You know, and then it's the public and
everybody will justify and say, that's fine, you know, that seems
very Iow.
MR. WEIGEL: And again, part of this closed session, of
course, is strategy of litigation, and I would hope that the Board,
collective, as a Board, or any side comment that's ever made, to
the extent that this Board, you know, goes out and endorses,
that we go forward with this lawsuit. Mediation is just one step
of, you know, a road that we take in the prosecution of this
lawsuit, is that for all intents and purposes, everyone
Page 240
November 14, 2000
understands that the Board means business and their
empowerment of staff, County Attorney, and outside counsel is,
we're going to win this case. We are directed to go and
prosecute the case, and that there's nothing wishy-washy in the
meantime.
And that's how we approach the mediation is that we are
there, we have a charge, and we are going to in the mediation
present the case, obviously a little less formal than if we were in
court, but we have a presentation to make and a point to make.
MR. SIEGFRIED: The way -- if I was --lust to close this, if I
was in your position, what I would do would be to say, these are
the four claims. These are the defenses to those claims, and put
percentages on them to yourselves, and -- because there are
defenses to those claims.
One is, were they negligent? Because you're going to have
differing opinions on it. They're going to have several experts
come in and say, no, they met the standard of care in the
industry.
MR. WEIGEL: Sure.
MR. SIEGFRIED: You're going to have staff who's going to
say that, the former staff.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Former staff.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Former staff that's going to say that.
You're going to have other people in this community say that.
You may have FDEP say that. I don't know what they're going to
say. FDEP may say that Coastal did, did everything that any
other engineer would have done, that T.L. James did everything
that any other contractor would have done, and we're all making
a lot to do out of nothing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the only other piece that
we've got to -- and I understand that that's a factor, but the other
piece that I wish you would factor in in your-- in the back of your
mind when you're negotiating on our behalf is, it's one thing -- I
know this sounds a little soap boxy, but it's one thing for me to
say, it's my money, and I'd rather let the headache go away and
settle for something and be rational and reasonable about it.
I'm much more likely to be irrational and willing to fight to
the death, 'cause it's not my money.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Well, I, I don't know how to directly
respond to that, but I will tell you that I think it's much more, it's
Page 241
November 14, 2000
much more productive to look at the facts of the case, look at
the defenses, analyze them, determine what your chances of
success are at the hearing, and being in the mediation session,
you'll hear the defenses that the other side will raise.
I know what they're going to say. They're going to say there
was no negligence, that we're entitled to a differing site
condition, and the rocks were inevitable, and, and that the rocks
that appeared on the beach, we settled with them on.
They're saying, we settled, that we discussed it, and that we
took a deduction of $50,000 for it. It's a claim -- it's a defense
they have. Whether they win on it or not, that's for a judge or a
jury to decide.
I personally don't think they'll win on that, but you have to
put a percentage on that defense; you have to put a percentage
on the different defenses.
Do I think we'll get everything that we're claiming? No.
That's what juries do.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I guess what I hear -- what I'm
hearing Commissioner Mac'Kie saying and what I feel, we'll take
an aggressive position in the mediation to let them know and
understand the defenses, and we're going to come back and
we're going to say ta-ta-ta-ta.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Okay. Yeah.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And then we're just going to have to
find out what begins to boil down in this against our financial
investment here, go back into closed session to wait for
whatever comes.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Right, but at this point in time, we don't
have to worry about it, because they may not make enough of an
offer to even consider.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's true.
MR. SIEGFRIED: So, so there's a certain threshold that they
have to --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, the first one may be the
beginning dance.
MR. OLLIFF: So really there's three questions that are going
to be decided now the way I hear you talking.
One is on the settlement offer itself, yes or no.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
MR. OLLIFF: Secondly--
Page 242
November 14, 2000
MR. SIEGFRIED: 100,000 and $1,000 from the surety, which
is, for the record, it's Highland Insurance Company.
MR. OLLIFF: Right. The second question is whether or not
to direct you on the County's behalf to enter into mediation, and
third is, who, if any, representative from the County Commission
is going to participate.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Right, but I would like, as part of the
mediation -- whoever is going to make the motion, this is my
recommendation -- that you do -- you direct me to proceed with
litigation, aggressively proceed with litigation, while we're
mediating.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Don't stop.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I guess we want mediation then.
MR. OLLIFF: Simultaneously.
MR. SIEGFRIED: But, but tell me -- you know, this
appropriate -- tell me, Steve, while we mediate, we'd like to
settle this case, we don't want this delayed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't lighten up.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
MR. SIEGFRIED: No delaying the ultimate trail of this case.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Two prong.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this our only shade session
today, or do we have another one?
MR. OLLIFF: No. This is it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank God.
(The closed session ended at 7:10 p.m., and the following
proceedings were held in open session.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. We're back in session, the
November 14 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners.
Item #9B
BOARD DIRECTION REGARDING SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
AND STRATEGY RELATED TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES
INCLUDING BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR OUTSIDE COUNSEL
EXPENDITURES IN THE CASE OF THE BCC V. COASTAL
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. ET AL. - $100,000 COASTAL
ENGINEERING SETTLEMENT REJECTED. $1,000 HIGHLANDS
Page 243
November 14, 2000
INSURANCE SETTLEMENT REJECTED. BCC TO ENTER INTO
MEDIATION CONTINGENT UPON THAT THERE BE NO DELAY IN
LITIGATION AND THE CHAIRMAN BE IN ATTENDANCE DURING
THE NEGOTIATIONS. $100,000 BUDGET AMENDMENT
AIITMhDITF'n .l:v/~.D~ hilTelnc ~'~hllMeC:l I=VDI:IdnlTIIDC(2
We had a meeting and discussion of Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County versus Coastal Engineering
Consultants, et cetera, et cetera, and we're now back for
discussion to set a direction or staff direction with retained legal
counsel as to how we want to proceed with this case.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, are you going to
make a recommendation to us?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. For the record, I'll indicate that our
discussion under the agenda Item 9B is in fact an action agenda
item following and pursuant to the closed session agenda Item
9A.
And agenda Item 9A was discussion of settlement
negotiations and/or strategies related to litigation expenditures
in the pending litigation.
Under this agenda Item 9B, included with discussion and
initial Board action with regard to negotiations and strategy and
litigation expenditures is another item for the Board to consider,
which is also an approval on the budget amendment for outside
counsel for the expenses toward prosecution of the case.
With that, I will -- I can turn this over to Steve Siegfried, but
as you are aware and what I'll restate here, the Board, through
its counsel, has received offers, one, from Highland Insurance
Company, and another offer on behalf of Coastal to their insurer,
and Mr. Siegfried may address that to the Board at this point in
time.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Good evening. Steve Siegfried. I am your
outside counsel for the matter that's before.
There are three items that we need to talk about and you
need to vote on. One is the offer from Coastal Engineering of
$100,000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to reject that --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second.
MR. SIEGFRIED: The second one is an offer--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. We want to vote on that.
Page 244
November 14, 2000
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We need a vote that.
MR. SIEGFRIED: Okay. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Is there a motion and a second
to reject Coastal Engineering's $100,000 settlement offer?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any discussion?
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes)
Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the other offer was?
MR. SIEGFRIED: $1,000 from Highland's insurance company,
which is the surety for the contractor, T.L. James, that was
made pursuant to Florida statutes. I'm not sure whether David
delivered the letter to you, but I think you're aware of the
consequences of accepting or rejecting it. We've discussed --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We are. Motion to reject.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
Motion carries 3-0.
MR. SIEGFRIED: And the third item is the commission's
desire to commence mediation with Coastal and T.L. James.
Mediation is a procedure that's adopted, you know, by the courts
in the State Florida. They try to amicably resolve disputes
outside the courts.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll make a motion that we enter
into mediation, because I'm willing to try that and I am hopeful
that we can settle this lawsuit amicably.
But my motion for mediation would be contingent upon
instruction to the attorney that there be no delays in this
litigation, that this not toll any other action that we are
otherwise taking, we go forward with the mediation while
continuing to aggressively pursue the litigation.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll second that motion.
Pair of seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 3-0.
MR. SIEGFRIED: And with that mediation, you need to
designate a representative that will be in attendance at the
Page 245
November 14, 2000
mediation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Carter, do you want to do
that, or--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I, I have no problem with that. I think
historically the Chair probably has done that. I do have a
background in negotiations and in mediations, so I would have no
difficulty in participating in that process when we go and hear
what the initial discussions are about and then return to the
Board with the report accordingly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to designate our Chair for
that.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second,
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 3-0.
MR. WEIGEL: I would indicate that we'll work closely with
you, Commissioner Carter, in regard to timing of the mediation
with your own schedule and develop it as carefully as we can
with you.
The last item that's part of this agenda has to do with a
request to the Board at this point to authorize an additional
$110,000 from general fund reserves to the County Attorney
office budget for the continuation of outside counsel and the
related costs for this litigation referenced in the agenda item
before you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: David, how much money have we
spent so far?
MR. WEIGEL.' So far expenditures are $92,325.23.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And so this 110 would be an -- up
to additional expenditures over the 92?
MR. WEIGEL: That's exactly right. We actually had an
additional 7,000-plus in our budget, but it was not rolled over at
the close of the last fiscal year, so I rounded 210,000 for us to go
forward with at the present time. Obviously, if we don't get it,
WE--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course. And this is
recoverable as a part of our judgment? These fees are
recoverable?
MR. WEIGEL We believe it is. Our contract provided for
attorney fees in the case of litigation if the County is successful.
Page 246
November 14, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll make a motion to approve
that 102,000 expenditure and just say for the record how pleased
I am with the thoroughness and the ability to, to distill
complicated issues that our counsel has shown.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll second the motion, and I second
your comments.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm very pleased with our legal
counsel both internally and externally-- COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I agree.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- as we aggressively pursue this case.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And I agree also. Well done.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 3-0.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, having finished 9B, if you have any
further elements of your agenda the Board continued to move
forward at this point. I know that typically there's a Board
communication --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Board communications, I believe, were
continued, the Wilson Boulevard issue about --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, we did.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We continued that.
If there's anyone here who is here for public comment?
Okay. Any Board communications?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: No.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any staff communications?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Oh, me excuse me. I again want
to thank you for all of the help I've had and the pleasure I've had
in working with the two of you. It's been super. I have a lot of
respect for both of you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I've liked it too.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, David, it's been our
pleasure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, Commissioner, you've done
a really -- you've made a real contribution to the community at a
particularly difficult time.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Well, thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You stepped in and did the ]ob, and we
Page 247
November 14, 2000
thank you for that.
Any staff communications?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. I want -- I'd like to thank the Board for
their considerations very much, but and I also want to express,
you might say, thank you to Commissioner Brandt. It's been a
privilege coming to know you and coming to work with you, and I
hope that outside the confines of the County government
complex we can continue with a nice relationship.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thank you. I would be remiss, of
course, if I didn't in the public thank Mr. Olliff and Mr. Weigel
both for all of the help they've given me, and I think they're just
top-notch people to work with. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The only thing I have on the Board
communications is, I go to Tallahassee tomorrow with two other
commissioners-elect, and I'll come back to Tom, and we will be
participating in setting the legislative agenda, and -- on behalf of
the Florida Association of Counties, and I -- we will be reporting
back to you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I assume I therefore will
continue to serve on the canvassing board in your absence?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Oh, yes, ma'am. I give you that
privilege to go count the votes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's been interesting.
MR. OLLIFF: The only thing that I have was, lust to think
that Commissioner Brandt wasn't being left out, we also as a
staff got him a gift as well, and in order, in your next position, for
you to stay seated as the rest of the items are whirling around
you, we got you a laser light pen so you can --
Of behalf of staff, thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. That's great.
***** Commissioner Mac'Kie moved, seconded by Commissioner
Brandt and carried 4/0, (with the exception of Item #16B8 from
which commissioner Mac'Kie abstained) that the following items
under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or
adopted: *****
Item #16A1
AGREEMENT WITH LEWIS AND ASSOCIATES TO PROVIDE
Page 248
November 14, 2000
AUDITING SERVICES OF MEDIAONE AND AOL/TIME WARNER
PAOl e- TICI W'%ll~lhM CDA&I/'~LII~:e' e-e-[C~:
Item #16A2
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CREATION OF ONE FULL-TIME LOAN
PROCESSOR POSITION IN THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVE
PARTNERSHIP (S.H.I.P.) PROGRAM IN LIEU OF TWO ALREADY
AOODn%le'n pAP. T-Ti.U_" s ,'~AM DD/'~#~CeQ/'~D D/'~=ITI#"~MO
g'lil · ll~V ! /liif Ill IVW'l&ll · ll~VVmlllVVVlq& · VVl · lVIIV
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 2000-372, AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER,
OR HIS DESIGNEE TO APPLY FOR A $750,000 ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT GRANT THAT IS OFFERED THROUGH THE
FLO.D.!nA na'DADTIUIIClLIT OF a'~hI~I~IIIMITV Aa'KAID~
Mn Ual nl~& · IVlliell · VVlIiIIIVllll · · Mil · M'lkll~faV
Item #16A4 - Deleted
Item #16A5
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR TWO EXPANDED "COMPUTER
OPERATOR I1" POSITIONS IN PLANNING SERVICES ELECTRONIC
DATA n. A M A~.'n..'MT (~V~T"n.
Item #16A6
RESOLUTIONS 2000-373 THROUGH 2000-376, PROVIDING FOR
THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT
OF PUBLIC NUISANCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS LEONARD
WISNEWSKI, ROSE CASTEEL, LEON E. LAKE EST., ALFREDO L. &
Item #16A7
RESOLUTIONS 2000-377 THROUGH 2000-381, PROVIDING FOR
THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT
OF PUBLIC NUISANCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS SAM
f~.d~hI~IU~AM I~A/~-I~CI IMA Ol AM/~h AILII~ /~-DC~-hDV A&JI~ e'%lA Obi I
Page 249
November 14, 2000
Item #16A8
RESOLUTIONS 2000-382 THROUGH 2000-386, PROVIDING FOR
THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT
OF PUBLIC NUISANCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS ALFREDO &
MIRADIS MIRALLES, JOSEPH A. MOSES, JESUS JIMENEZ, JR. &
MARTHA ARREGUIN, JAMES W. JOHNSON AND GENE AND IRIS
Item #16A9
RESOLUTIONS 2000-387 THROUGH 2000-391, PROVIDING FOR
THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT
Item #16A10
RESOLUTIONS 2000-392 THROUGH 2000-395, PROVIDING FOR
THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT
OF PUBLIC NUISANCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS JAMES M.
HODGES ESTATE, JAMES M. HODGES, AND EVELYN L. & BOYD
HODGES; EMC HOLDINGS, INC./STEPHEN E. ROSSI; EDWARD
IICI /~, Aldh D/ti'~i'~i'I 177/'1
Item #16A11
RESOLUTIONS 2000-396 THROUGH 2000-400, PROVIDING FOR
THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT
OF PUBLIC NUISANCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS CLAUDE E.
LARUE, CLAUDE E. LARUE, JEAN C. & EARNESTINE & JEAN
MORTILUS, FILOMENO & MARIA J. AVILA, AND MARANT HOMES,
Item #16A12
RESOLUTIONS 2000-401 THROUGH 2000-405, PROVIDING FOR
THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT
~F DIIDI IP UIII~AUPC~ ChD DDhDCDTV hWUCD ~AU ~flhfiUAU
Item #16A13
Page 250
November 14, 2000
RESOLUTIONS 2000-406 THROUGH 2000-410, PROVIDING FOR
THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT
OF PUBLIC NUISANCES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS GERARDO &
GRISELDA TORRES, PORT BOUGAIN, LTD., LUIS CARVAJAL,
pH~_=~A.M.y ~, nAMl~-I ~ AMn IAUM D A~ril--I ~ T.D.
Item #16A14
Item #16A15
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "IBIS COVE, PHASE ONE"
WITH STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
A~_D,-,-U_~.M.T D~-DChDUAMP~' ~cP,,.D..~Ty AMn QTIDIII ATIhMQ
Item #16A16
TERMINATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS BETWEEN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND RIDGEPORT LIMITED
DADTUF'DQUID AUh PD~' AIDDhDT DAb I I~JlT~'~ DADTMF'DQUID
· W-~lIi · Illllml~Vl III , 4/"AIIlIIMr VI~I W'IIIIAI VIIi · · m--il~/ III1111 · klll~ · Jl"lill~ · Ilkll~Vl III
Item #16A17
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "BAREFOOT BAY" WITH
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
A~-DC~'O~'MT AMh D~'DChD~HAMPC ~CPIIDITV
Item #16A18
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "ISLAND WALK PHASE ONE,
Item #16A19
RESOLUTION 2000-411, OPPOSING FLORIDA'S SO-CALLED
COMMUNICATION SERVICES TAX SIMPLIFICATION ACT AND ALL
FUTURE AMENDMENTS THERETO THAT ARE NOT IN THE
IUTF'D~-~T~ hF' Phi I I"'D PhlIUTV
Page 251
November 14, 2000
Item #16A20 - Moved to Item #8A13
Item #16A21
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR LEGAL
SERVICES RELATED TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
Tur),~,,~u ==nT=B."=D ~n 200~.
Item #16A22
LETTER TO THE CENSUS BUREAU REQUESTING A POST-CENSUS
LOCAL REVIEW OF THE ENUMERATION OF COLLIER COUNTY'S
DdNDIII A1"la"~&J Ag&Nh DC_~'"~DP'IdI&gd"~- t'"'~n'''' CI ~OIhAW~ PA1 I ~CM?CD
Item #16A23- Moved to Item #8A14
Item #16B1
RFP #00-3081, CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING INSPECTION
SERVICES CONTRACT - AWARDED TO CONSUL-TECH
ENGINEERING, INC. FOR THE WIDENING OF AIRPORT-PULLING
Item #16B2
CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH BETTER ROADS INC. FOR THE
WIDENING OF PINE RIDGE ROAD FROM AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD
Th I d'"IRAM Fid'bill l'%lAOl"ll DOff ICPT MdN t:tf'kddd
Item #16B3
AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT 99-2992 WITH APAC-FLORIDA, INC.
FOR THE WIDENING OF IMMOI~iLEE ROAD FROM 1-75 TO
J'~d"ll I lCD I~d"tlll w'%IADB"~ IdP*D_ORd%
Item #16B4
RESOLUTION 2000-412, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY
GIFT OF NON-EXCLUSIVE, PERPETUAL SIDEWALK, DRAINAGE,
Page 252
November 14, 2000
SLOPE, MAINTENANCE AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
INTERESTS BY EASEMENT FOR THE IMMOKALEE ROAD
SIDEWALK PROJECT BETWEEN JOHN MICHAEL ROAD AND C.R.
Ql4 #q~l!- &ll'~ ~
Item #16B5
CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 WITH BETTER ROADS INC., FOR
ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR THE WIDENING OF
PINE RIDGE ROAD FROM (AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD TO LOGAN
BLVD.), PROJECT NO. 60111, CIE #4 - IN THE AMOUNT OF
Item #16B6
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF
GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM THE OCEAN BOULEVARD
PARTNERSHIP AND THE OCEAN BOULEVARD PARTNERSHIP II
FOR THc ~-DAMAflA (2:lJt'~OOCO olin
Item #16B7
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF
PLAT DEDICATION FROM CREEKSIDE WEST, INC. FOR THE
Item #16B8
EXTENSION OF CONTRACT FOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR
THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION -WITH SEVERN TRENT
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., ON A MONTH TO MONTH
Item #16B9 - Moved to Item #8B2
Item #16B10
RESOLUTION 2000-413, AUTHORIZING SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION
FROM THIRTY MILES PER HOUR (30 MPH) TO TWENTY-FIVE
MILES PER HOUR (25 MPH) ON 10TM
AVENUE SOUTH WEST FROM
Page 253
November 14, 2000
4 tiC, It Ct:CT WI:;:T hid klADA O/t111 Ct/ADh Th I ft/~_AId O/till I:tlADrl
Item #16B11
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF
A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED AND TEMPORARY DRIVEWAY
RESTORATION EASEMENT FROM THE HALSTATT PARTNERSHIP
Item #16B12
REQUIREMENT FOR COMPETITION WAIVED; PURCHASE OF
BENCHES AND TRASH RECEPTACLES FROM SWARTZ
ASSOCIATES IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,963.20; AND ADDITIONAL
EXPENDITURE IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,491 WITH SPENCER
Item #16B13
RESOLUTION 2000-414, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF
LAND BY GIFT OR PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE TITLE INTERESTS
AND/OR PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY,
SIDEWALK, UTILITY, DRAINAGE, SLOPE AND MAINTENANCE
INTERESTS BY EASEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FOR WHIPPOORWILL LANE PROJECT
BETWEEN PINE RIDGE ROAD TO A POINT ONE MILE SOUTH,
BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE FUTURE EAST/WEST
CONNECTOR ROAD CONNECTING TO LIVINGSTON ROAD (PHASE
I)
Item #16B14 - Moved to Item #8B1
Item #16B15
RESOLUTION 2000-415, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF
THAT CERTAIN JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (JPA) WITH
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, (FINANCIAL
Item #16C1
Page 254
November 14, 2000
CERTIFICATE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR NORTH
COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT FACILITY DEEP
Item #16C2
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CAMP DRESSER &
MCKEE INC., FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO A
COMPREHENSIVE ODOR AND CORROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR
THE COLLIER COUNTY SEWER SYSTEM - IN THE ESTIMATED
Item #16D1
BID NO. 00-3156 RECEIVED FROM E.R. JAHNA INDUSTRIES FOR
PRODUCTION OF BEACH COMPATIBLE SAND REJECTED; STAFF
Th D~'_An%/i'DTI~:~' C/iD DIn~:
Item #16D2
REAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF BEACH
CLEANING EQUIPMENT - FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $33,800 TO
OC DI:ADDDhDOl ATCrt
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 2000-416, AUTHORIZING COMMERCIAL PAPER
LOAN FINANCING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORTH
DCAIAMA, ,
Item #16E1
RFP #00-3070, ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE DESIGN OF
THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING ADDITION AND
PARKING GARAGE - AWARDED TO BARANY SCHMITT SUMMERS
WE:AT/CD AUrl DADTU~'D~ Ilkld'q'' Ilkl TLeC AUhIIIdT hC ,(::"JPA',I OOC
Item #16E2
Page 255
November 14, 2000
RESOLUTION 2000-417, AUTHORIZING THE COMMERCIAL PAPER
LOAN FINANCING IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,565,000
FOR THE DIGITAL COMPONENT OF THE 800 MHZ RADIO
SYSTEM; AND CONTRACT AWARDED TO PROVOICE FOLLOWING
==t,.£W =_y T.u.= r/k. ,B~TV ~ATTO.D.N=v_ ·
Item #16E3
COMPUTERS DECLARED SURPLUS AS A RESULT OF THE PC
REPLACEMENT PROGRAM TO BE SOLD TO EMPLOYEES OF THE
BOARD AS LONG AS EACH INDIVIDUAL SALE DOES NOT EXCEED
Item #16F1
RESOLUTION 2000-418, AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A
STATEWIDE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND OTHER FLORIDA COUNTIES, MUNICIPALITIES,
INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR CATASTROPHIC
EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND RECOVERY MUTUAL AID
Item #16G1
Item #16J 1
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC
Item #16J2
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented
by the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the
various departments as indicated:
Page 256
November 14, 2000
Item #16K1
ENDORSEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE/DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY FEDERAL EQUITABLE
~IJADIM/~- A&JMIIAI d~I:DTICI/'~ATIhi] DI:DhDT
Item #16K2
SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
EQUIPMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,000 FROM AVAYA
COMMUNICATIONS TO PROVIDE COMMUNICATIONS IN
EXPANSION BUILDING "J-l" AND AUTHORIZATION TO
PURCHASE DATA EQUIPMENT FROM IKON, A STATE CONTRACT
Item #16K3
SANDI CHERNOFF DESIGNATED AS COLLIER COUNTY'S 911
Item #16L1
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT PERTAINING TO THE EMINENT
DOMAIN LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. PINE RIDGE
GOLF CENTER, LTD. - STAFF TO DEPOSIT AN ADDITIONAL
C~:A nO") !M TUF' /'~hlIDT DF'~-I~TDV
Item #16L2
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT
ACQUISITION ON PARCEL 318 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. ANGALDO DELIMA, ET AL., (GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD PROJECT) - STAFF TO DEPOSIT AN ADDITIONAL
Item #16L3
SETTLEMENT IN MCCARRON V. BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, CASE NO. 99-555-CA-HDH, NOW PENDING IN
THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER
Page 257
November 14, 2000
COUNTY, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO WHICH THE COUNTY WOULD
PAY $22,500 AND ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE COUNTY WOULD
DE::: rtl~Mic~c:F-rl IA/I'I'U ODE: II Irtl~E::
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2000-70, AMENDING ORDINANCE 80-80, AS
AMENDED, THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY
COUNCIL, TO INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL MEMBER TO
D~'DD~"~:F'IdT /q~l E:%li"l AMI't PI IMI/~
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2000-419, RE PETITION CU-2000-13, PASTOR
VERNA NASH REPRESENTING BETHESDA PENTECOSTAL
CHURCH REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A DAYCARE TO
BE LOCATED WITHIN THE EXISTING CHURCH BUILDING IN THE
'E' ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED ON
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951)
AND 5
TM AVENUE SW, ONE HALF MILE NORTH OF PINE RIDGE
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2000-420, RE PETITION V-2000-19, MARK AND
JENNIFER JOHNSON, REQUESTING AN 8.4 FOOT VARIANCE
FROM BOTH REQUIRED 30-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH 21.6-FOOT
SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR A TENNIS COURT ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 95 MYRTLE ROAD, IN
PI.".E o,rt~c:
Item #17D
ORDINANCE 2000-75, SCRIVENER'S ERROR CORRECTION TO
ORDINANCE 99-84 FOR A PROPERTY IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP
=n ~,'.,TU o~_.' o.. CAST
Page 258
November 14, 2000
If there's no further business before this Board, we stand
adjourned.
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:20 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S} OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTRO_~~
~ ~ ~--h-~.D, Chairman
DWIG~HY~ E~ BROCK, CLERK
.:..~ -, ** Attest as to Chairman's
~~_~ signature on13.
These minutes approved by the Board on . /2: A~.~
presented ~ or as corrected
, as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE LEONE AND SANDRA
BROWN
Page 259