BCC Minutes 02/27/2001 RFebruary 27, 2001
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 27, 2001
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:
CHAIRPERSON:
ALSO PRESENT:
James D. Carter, PhD.
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
Tom Olliff, County Administrator
David Weigel, County Attorney
Page I
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
Tuesday, February 27, 2001
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
February 27, 2001
1. INVOCATION - Pastor Michael Smith, New Hope Ministries
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3, APPROVAL OF AGENDAS
A. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA.
B. APPROVAL OF SUMMARY AGENDA.
C. APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. February 1,2001 -Workshop
B. February 6, 2001 - Workshop
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND SERVICE AWARDS
A. PROCLAMATIONS
B. SERVICE AWARDS
Five Year Attendees:
1) Phillip Tindall, Community Development
2) Theresa Potter, Building Review
3) Hilda Clair, Library
4) Alison Saba, Library
5) Edward Harkins, Parks and Recreation
6) Paul Brower, Wastewater
Twenty-Five Year Attendee:
7) Timothy Billings, Community Development
C. PRESENTATIONS
1) Recommendation to recognize Lazaro Blanco, Senior
Equipment Operator, Stormwater Management Department, as
Employee of the Month for February 2001.
6. APPROVAL OF CLERK'S REPORT
A. ANALYSIS OF CHANGES TO RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES.
1) To present the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in
Financial Reporting to the Board of County Commissioners.
2
February 27, 2001
2)
To present to the Board of County Commissioners the
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year
ended September 30, 2000. THIS ITEM WILL BE HEARD IN
CONJUNCTION WITH ITEM 8 G 1.
PUBLIC PETITIONS
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Report to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the
current structure of the policies and regulations for commercial
excavations and request direction from the Board to staff
regarding those regulations.
2)
THIS ITEM IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE MARCH 13~ 2001
MEETING. Consolidation of the Impact Fee Ordinance. Copy
of Ordinance will be made available on February 27, 2001 at
the County Manager's Office or Community Development and
Environmental Services.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Approve request to terminate Coastal Engineering from
remaining contracts with Collier County and approve retention
of replacement engineers to finish projects, when and as
necessary, and approve any necessary budget amendments.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
E. SUPPORT SERVICES
1)
Approval of the Collier County Government Equal Employment
Opportunity Plan.
F. EMERGENCY SERVICES
G. COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Report regarding the State of the CountyNital Signs Report.
THIS ITEM WILL BE HEARD IN CONJUNCTION WITH ITEM 6
A2.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
3
February 27, 2001
9. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
10.
11.
Am
Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to consider a
proposed agreement from the City of Naples concerning the location of
an exploratory well for a proposed aquifer storage recovery system.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Aa
Discussion regarding County's support for North Belle Meade CARL
acquisition. (Commissioner Mac'Kie)
Appointment of Commissioner to the Canvassing Board for 2001.
(Commissioner Carter)
Ca
Appointment of members to the Emergency Medical Services Advisory
Council.
Appointment of member to the Lely Golf Estates Beautification
Advisory Committee.
Ew
Appointment of member to the Development Services Advisory
Committee.
OTHER ITEMS
A. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1)
That the Community Redevelopment Agency Board review the
proposal received for the Gateway "Mini Triangle"
redevelopment project; not accept the proposal as submitted;
and direct staff to return to the Board within 120 days to
consider re-advertising "An Invitation to Submit Proposals" with
additional submittal requirements.
C. PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HEARD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING STAFF ITEMS
12. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS -BCC
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
B. ZONING AMENDMENTS
4
February 27, 2001
1) THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 23, 2001
2)
MEETING. This item requires that all participants be sworn in
and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.
Petition PUD-86-22 (2), Mr. William Hoover, representing Mr.
Peter Longo of Ohio Sealants, requesting an amendment to the
Pine Ridge Center PUD having the effect of providing an
East/West cross access road on the PUD master plan and
adding Tract "C" to the plan, correcting the project acreage and
the property owners address, and adding additional retail
commercial uses for property located on the South side of Pine
Ridge Road and approximately 660 feet West of Whippoorwill
Lane in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida.
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 23~ 2001
MEETING. This item requires that all participants be sworn in
and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.
Petition PUD-88-11 (2), Mr. William Hoover, representing Mr.
Anthony Jancigar, requesting an amendment to the Pine Ridge
Center West PUD having the effect of providing an East/West
cross access road on the PUD master plan and adding Tract
"C" to the plan, correcting the project acreage and the property
owners address, and additional retail commercial uses for
property located on the South side of Pine Ridge Road and
approximately 980 feet West of Whippoorwill Lane in Section
18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
3)
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.
Petition PUD-00-6, William L. Hoover of Hoover Planning,
representing Ronald W. Ragge, requesting a rezone from "E"
Estates to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as
Ragge PUD allowing for a mixture of Commercial and Office
Land Uses for property located on the North side of Pine Ridge
Road (C.R. 896), and opposite Whipporwill Lane in Section 7,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
OTHER
1) IT IS REQUESTED THAT THIS ITEM BE HEARD AT 11:00
A.M. Amendments to Collier County Ordinance No. 92-102
creating the Collier County Public Guardianship Program to
conform to Florida Statutes by providing for placement of the
program under the Statewide Public Guardianship Office,
appointments to the office, redefining powers, preparations of
the budget, procedures and rules, costs, necessary reports,
access to records and surety bond.
5
February 27, 2001
13. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
14.
15.
A. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
1)
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. V-
2000-32, Stanley Whittemore, representing Ferdinand and
Catherine Fountain, requesting a 5-foot variance from the
required 30-foot rear yard setback to 25 feet for property
located at 355 Kings Way, further described as Lot 8, Block G,
Foxfire Unit 3, in Section 6, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida.
2)
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.
Petition CU-2000-18, Kenneth B. Cuyler, Esquire, representing
Sunvac Corporation, M & H Stables, requesting a conditional
use for horseback riding lessons and horse rental activity on a
parcel of land zoned "A" Agricultural for a property located on
the South side of Newman Drive 1.5 miles East of Collier
Boulevard and one mile South of Interstate 1-75, this site
consists of 10+ acres.
B. OTHER
STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
Reactivating the City and County Managers/Administrators Committee.
(Commissioner Carter)
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.
! m!!! mmm mm! m!!! !! mmmm mmm m!m !!m mmm mmmm m!m m!m! m!m mm! m!!! mm! mmm m!!m !!m mm!m mmm m!! !mm !mm mmm mmm mm! !m!mmmmmm mmm m!!! mmm m
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
l)
Authorize a Resolution relating to the enforcement of vegetation
removal in the rural areas of the County in response to the
threat of fire.
6
February 27, 2001
2)
3)
4)
s)
6)
7)
8)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Bay Laurel
Estates at Pelican Marsh Unit Twenty-One".
Petition Carny-2001-AR #369, Duane Wheeler, of the Rotary
Club of Immokalee, requesting permit to conduct a carnival from
March 1,2, $ and 4, 2001 and March 8, 9, 10 and 11,2001 on
County owned property located on the Southwest portion of the
Immokalee Regional Airport, 520 Airways Road.
Final acceptance of water utility facilities for Ritz-Carlton parking
garage.
Final acceptance of water utility facilities for Boyne South.
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Fiddler's
Creek Phase lB, Unit Two".
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Fiddler's
Creek Phase lA".
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Fiddler's
Creek Phase lB, Unit One".
9)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Norman
Estates at Pelican Marsh Unit 23 replat of Lots 3 through 18
and Part of Tract B".
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Approve Change Order Number 3 with Better Roads, Inc. for
additional construction services for revising Livingston Road
four lane to Livingston Road six lane, Project #60061.
2)
Approve Change Order Number 5 with APAC-Florida, Inc. for
additional construction services for the widening of Immokalee
Road from 1-75 to Collier Boulevard (CR 951), Project No.
69101.
3)
Recommendation to extend Contract #98-2821, contractual
services for traffic signals and street lights.
4)
Approval of staff selection of professional landscape
architecture services firms and authorization to negotiate and
award agreements to same for fixed-term professional
7
February 27, 2001
Ca
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
11)
12)
landscape architectural services (RFP #00-3131 ).
Approve a Budget Amendment to provide funds to the Lely Golf
Estates Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU) Beautification
Fund.
Request for speed limit reduction from thirty miles per hour (30
MPH) to twenty-five miles per hour (25 MPH) in Goodland.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the short list from RFP #00-3152 for an environmental
consultant for Clam Bay Restoration and authorize staff to
negotiate with the top ranked firm.
Request Board direction to establish a proposed Livingston
Road Beautification MSTU.
Approve a Budget Amendment for Construction Engineering
Inspection Contract to Consul-Tech Engineering, Inc., for the
widening of Airport-Pulling Road, Collier County Project No.
62031, CIE No. 55, RFP No. 00-3081.
Approve sole source purchase of "Tideflex" valves for outfall
pipes under US 41/Davis Boulevard Intersection, Project
31805.
Approve a bare license agreement between Collier County and
WCI Communities, Inc., for use of vacant county-owned
property.
Approve a Resolution providing for the establishment of an
ADHOC Advisory Committee to provide input and guidance in
the aesthetic appearance of the 1-75/Golden Gate Parkway
Interchange and the Golden Gate Parkway Corridor as the
Gateway to Naples and Golden Gate City.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Approve the satisfaction of lien documents filed against Real
Property for abatement of nuisance and direct the Clerk of
Courts to record same in the public records of Collier County,
Florida.
2)
Approve Amendment No. 9 to the Professional Services
Agreement with Humiston and Moore Engineers for work
associated with the Big Marco and Capri Pass Inlet
Management Plan.
8
February 27,2001
Dm
3)
4)
5)
Approve Change Order No. 1 to Amendment No. 6 of the
Professional Services Agreement with Humiston and Moore
Engineers for the Big Marco Pass and Capri Pass Inlet
Management Plan.
Adopt a Resolution approwng the satisfaction of liens for Solid
Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1991 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Adopt a Resolution approwng the satisfaction of liens for Solid
Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1992 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
6)
Adopt a Resolution approwng the satisfaction of liens for Solid
Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1993 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
7)
Adopt a Resolution approwng the satisfaction of liens for Solid
Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1994 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
8)
Adopt a Resolution approving the satisfaction of liens for Solid
Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1995 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
9)
Adopt a Resolution approwng the satisfaction of liens for Solid
Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1996 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
10)
Approval and execution of satisfactions of notice of promise to
pay and agreement to extend payment of water and/or sewer
system impact fees.
Authorize a Work Order under the fixed term structural
engineering services contract with Kris Jain and Associates,
Inc., for design of a storage building for the North County Water
Reclamation Facility.
PUBLIC SERVICES
9
February 27, 2001
1) Award of Bid 00-3186 for the re-decking of the existing
boardwalks at Tigertail Beach.
2) Acceptance of an additional $62,667 in State Aid to Libraries in
FY01.
3) Approve road closure of State Road 29 for Roberts Ranch
Roundup Cattle Drive.
4) Approve a change order for Vineyards Community Park Project.
SUPPORT SERVICES
1) Recommendation to amend County purchasing policy to modify
current staff authority and expedite project delivery schedules.
2) Recommendation to declare certain county-owned property as
surplus and authorize a sale of surplus property and approve
sale of surplus Bid No. 00-3160 double-wide trailer to Suncoast
Steel.
EMERGENCY SERVICES
1) Award Bid No. 00-3155 for the purchase of expendable medical
supplies for the Emergency Medical Services Department.
COUNTY MANAGER
1) Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendment
#01-185.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the easement
acquisition of Parcel 258 in the Lawsuit entitled Collier County
v. David G. Hurlbut, Jr., Trustee, et al, Case No. 00-1398-CA
(Golden Gate Boulevard, Project No. 63041).
]0
February 27, 2001
2)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment providing payment for
the County's interest in Parcels 101 and 803 acquired by
Florida Department of Transportation in State of Florida
Department of Transportation v. John N. Brugger, as Trustee, et
al.
3)
A Resolution clarifying the membership of the Collier County
Community Health Care Planning and Finance Committee.
17.
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 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.
Approve Repeal of Collier County Ordinance 74-3 Establishing the
Golden Gate Fire Control District Municipal Service Taxing Unit In Its
Entirety.
Approve Repeal of Collier County Ordinance 75-9 That Called for a
Referendum to Establish the Collier County Fire Control District One In
Its Entirety.
Recommendation to accept a settlement proposal in the case of
Walden Oaks of Naples Homeowners Association Inc., et al v. Collier
County and BIC's Investment Corporation, Case No. 98-2540-CA and
Case No. 98-3135-CA pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court,
Collier County, Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGESTOTHEBOARD'SAGENDASHOULDBE
MADETOTHECOUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICEAT774-8383.
11
February 27, 2001
February 27, 2001
Item #3A, B&C
CONSENT, SUMMARY AND REGULAR AGENDA - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good morning. Welcome to the
Tuesday, February 27, 2001 Board of County Commissioners'
meeting. If you would all rise with me for the invocation
followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
The invocation this morning is by Mr. Michael Smith of New
Hope Ministries.
PASTOR SMITH: Good morning, commissioners, ladies and
gentlemen. Let's bow our heads in prayer.
Dear Lord and Heavenly Father, we thank you for this day.
We thank you for your love, Lord, that so aboundingly comes
towards us through your son, Jesus Christ, because your word
says that he is forever interceding for us.
Your word also says, Lord, that we are to pray for those who
are in authority over us, and so, Lord, we thank you that through
those prayers that they might be granted a heart of wisdom, your
wisdom.
Father, this day we pray for every aspect of government
represented here, but especially for our commissioners. We pray
for them individually and corporately, Lord God, as a board, that
you would grant them your wisdom this day.
Father, I pray for their lives individually and for them
corporately also that they would display integrity in every area of
their lives and as a board so that the young people of this
community, of this county would see them as an example, and
they would desire to grow up to be just as they are.
Lord, your word also says that unless you build the house,
the building is done in vain, and so, Lord, again, I ask for wisdom
for the commissioners this morning and for that which they set
their hand to.
Father, this would not be a time in vain, but it would be of
your purpose, and, Father, we are gathered here again that they
might be granted your wisdom operating under your grace and
your anointing, and, Father, we give you praise and glory and
honor for that, and we thank you for the people, Lord, because
without the people, there would be no reason for us to be
Page 2
February 27, 2001
gathered here today. Even as in our churches, without the
people, there would be no reason for us to be there as pastors.
So help us in our hearts, Lord, to remember that we are
serving the people of this community this day, and we give you
praise and honor and glory in the capacity to be able to serve
them, Lord, that Collier County might be a shining light of godly
and successful government, and it is in Jesus' name that we
pray.
Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.}
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good morning, Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. Good morning, board members.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good morning, Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: If I could, I'll walk you through your changes on
the agenda this morning, Mr. Chairman. If you notice, we've
actually gotten a little smarter, and we put your change list in
the order of the agenda so you don't have to keep flipping back
and forth to try and find where I'm going.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, my gosh, that's a major
innovation. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: After, I think, 30 years of doing it the other
way.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now I'm confused, Tom. I'll never be
able to follow it.
MR. OLLIFF: The first change on your list is an addition. It's
adding Item 5(A}(1}. It's at staff's request that we add a
proclamation of the Board of County Commissioners that is what
we would call a rolling state of emergency, and we will allow this
proclamation to be on your agenda each board meeting, and it
simply provides your emergency management staff an
opportunity to have the emergency provisions in place,
especially during this brush fire season, so that if something
occurs between board meetings, we don't have to call an
emergency meeting in order to be able to exercise those
emergency powers.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So, all we have to do is move for
approval this morning, and we have to read it into the record?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir, you can just move for approval when
we get to that item, 5(A}(1}.
The next item is a move from the consent agenda. It's
Page 3
February 27, 2001
16(B)(8), moving to 8(B), as in boy, (1). That's at staff's request
again. It is a request that board direct to establish a proposed
Livingston Road beautification MSTU. We had a call this morning
from someone who wanted to speak on that item, so that's the
reason for the move to the regular agenda.
The next item is a continuance continuing 10(A) under the
Board of County Commissioners to the March 13th meeting. That
was a discussion regarding county support for the North Belle
Meade CARL acquisition.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I ask that that just be
continued indefinitely so I have a little more flexibility on when
to bring that back?
MR. OLLIFF: We'll make that note.
The next two items are additions, Mr. Chairman. It's an
addition of 10(F), again, under the Board of County
Commissioners, a discussion regarding the Santa Barbara
Extension alignment, and that's at Commissioner Fiala's request.
10(G) will be the discussion regarding the Pelican Bay
dependent district, and, again, that is at Commissioner Fiala's
request.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: My comment on that, Mr. Olliff, that I
intended to bring that up under board of communications today,
but since it's on the agenda, I have all the information, I think,
that will help the board understand the process that got us here,
and I will be recommending that if the community wants to
change it, we go back to the same process, and I will elaborate
on that underneath that discussion item.
MR. OLLIFF: The next item is a continuation from your
consent agenda of 16(A)(5), and that was final acceptance of
water utility facilities for Boyne South, and that's been continued
indefinitely at the staff's request, and the last item is also a
continuance off of your summary agenda. Item 17(C) is being
continued to the March 13th meeting, and that was a settlement
proposal in the case of Walden Oaks of Naples Homeowners'
Association versus Collier County and Bic's Investment
Corporation.
Mr. Chairman, the only other thing I've got is just a
scriveners error or note that I need to make for the record. On
Item 8(E)(1) under the fiscal impact, there is a figure that shows
the amount, the total amount of grant funds under the sheriff's
Page 4
February 27, 2001
department that are affected by this EEOP program. The figure
in the fiscal impact statement reads 9,938. It actually should
have been $9,938,479 in grant funds that have been obtained by
the sheriff's department.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It makes a big difference, doesn't it.
Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: I just need to also just point out that there are
one time certain item requested on your agenda and then one
movement of an item of the vital signs report under the county
manager up to be heard at the same time as your financial audit
information.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL.' No, all the changes have been covered. Thank
yOU,
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' Nothing, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner.
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nothing, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion -- oh, did you have
anything?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have two things, but real fast.
First of all, Mr. Henning -- or Commissioner Henning, I just
want to compliment you right here in public to tell you that I got
a call from Briarwood residents who said that they called you
with some problems that they've been having. You immediately
jumped onto them and have gone all the way to the state to get
their problems taken care of, and we really appreciate that, and
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- so I just wanted to say that
publicly, and the second thing is, I've been communicating with
the city. I'll bring it up later under commission notes, but we're
going to just tweak the words a little bit on that beach
renourishment committee. The words please both the City of
Naples, the City of Marco Island and the County, and so -- but I'll
be reading that later on in the day.
Thank you.
Page 5
February 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Commissioner.
No -- seeing no changes --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve consent,
summary and regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second by Mr. Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed, by the same sign?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
Page 6
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
February 27, 2001
ADD: 5 (A) 1 PROCLAMATION: Proclamation of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County to declare a State of Emergency for all
territory within the legal boundaries of Collier County including all
Incorporated and Unincorporated areas. (Staff's request)
MOVE: 16 (B) 8 TO 8 (B) 1: Request Board direction to establish a
proposed Livingston Road Beautification MSTU. (Staff's request)
CONTINUE: 10 A to March 13, 2001 BCC Meetin_cl: Discussion regarding
County's support for North Belle Meade CARL Acquisition. (Commissioner
Mac'Kie)
ADD: 10F: Discussion regarding Santa Barbara Extension alignment.
(Commissioner Fiala)
ADD: 10 G: Discussion regarding Pelican
(Commissioner Fiala)
Bay Dependent District
CONTINUE: 16 (A) 5 Indefinitely: Final acceptance of water utility facilities
for Boyne South. (Staff's request)
CONTINUE: 17 (C) to March 13, 2001 BCC Meetin_cl: Recommendation to
accept a settlement proposal in the case of Walden Oaks of Naples
Homeowners Association Inc., et al v. Collier County and BIC's Investment
Corporation, Case No. 98-2540-CA and Case No. 98-3135-CA pending in the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court, Collier County, Florida. (Staff's request)
February 27, 2001
Item #4
MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY I AND FEBRUARY 6, 2001
WORKSHOPS - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the minutes
of February 1st and 6th workshops.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second -- motion by Commissioner
Fiala (sic), seconded by Commissioner Henning to approve all the
minutes.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed, by the same sign?
(No response}.
Item #5A1
RESOLUTION 2001-66 DECLARING A STATE OF EMERGENCY FOR
ALL TERRITORY WITHIN THE LEGAL BOUNDARIES OF COLLIER
COUNTY INCLUDING ALL INCORPORATED AND
UNINCORPORATED AREAS - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the state of
emergency proclamation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll second that.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed, by the same sign?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
That takes us now to service awards, and who is the lucky
person today?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I -- I have them right here,
Chairman Carter.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. -- Commissioner Coletta, okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I sure do.
Page 7
February 27, 2001
Would Phillip Tindall, Theresa Potter and Timothy Billings
please -- thank you.
Would Phillip Tindall, Theresa Potter and Timothy Billings
please come up front here, please?
Phillip, it's a pleasure to give you this five year award for
your service in the county. Thank you very much. Is Theresa here? No, she isn't. Okay.
And Timothy, 25 years, congratulations. Nice, a little
something extra here for you, a Collier County tie pin.
That's it.
Item #5C
LAZARO BLANCO, SENIOR EQUIPMENT OPERATOR,
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT RECOGNIZED AS
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR FEBRUARY 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. While you're all down here, I'm
going to do the employee of the month award. We might all want
to stay right here while we bring this person, this gentleman up
here and not strangle everybody with this cord.
This -- the employee of the month is Lazaro Blanco, and,
Lazaro, I'd like you to come up here and get right in front of the
cameras so everybody out there in TV land can see this
gentleman. You turn around and face the audience, and we're
going to tell you some great things about what this gentleman
has done.
He has been with the County for over 20 years and has been
with the stormwater management department for 18 years.
Lazaro is an excellent team player and is always willing to assist
his fellow co-workers. Lazaro started out in the stormwater
management department as an equipment operator one. He's
learned many skills along the way to be promoted to a senior
equipment operator.
The stormwater management department has received
numerous letters of thanks for the excellent and professional
services they have received from the department, quoting the
work that was completed by Lazaro. Lazaro is a great example
of what people can do for people, providing great community
service.
Page 8
February 27, 2001
Lazaro, it is our -- my pleasure and the board's pleasure to
congratulate you as the employee of the month. We have -- we
have a letter, and we have a check that I'm sure that you'll be
able to take care of all right, a small token of our appreciation,
and also a plaque that will be proudly displayed recognizing him
not only today but forever. So, Lazaro, thank you so much.
All right. It's always a pleasure to have a person like Lazaro
come in front of us, and we have that opportunity to publicly
recognize a person who gives so much each and every day to his
job and to the service of the citizens of Collier County.
Item #6A1
CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN
FINANCIAL REPORTING TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS - PRESENTED
All right. We need to move to 6(A)(1).
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioners, good morning. For the
record, my name is Jim Mitchell, and I'm the finance director for
the Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court.
The clerk of the circuit court, in his capacity as the
ex-officio clerk to the board, is responsible for the coordination
of the annual independent audit, along with the production of the
comprehensive annual financial report, which we commonly refer
to as the CAFR. In that capacity, we participated in, an awards
program that is sponsored by the Government Finance Officers
Association. The award is known as the Certificate of
Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting and is
presented to government units whose CAFRs meet a strict
criteria and are considered to achieve the highest standards in
government accounting and financial reporting.
The GFOA, along with the clerk's office and the county
manager's office, believe that governments have a special
responsibility to provide the public with a fair presentation of
their financial affairs. Collier County's CAFRs go beyond the
requirements of generally accepted accounting principles to
provide the many users of these documents with the wide variety
of information used in evaluating the financial condition of the
county.
Page 9
February 27, 2001
Collier County has reviewed this award for thirteen
consecutive years, and it is with great pride that we present to
you today the fourteenth consecutive award for the CAFR that
was prepared for the fiscal cycle in its September 30th of 1999.
Before we present this award to you, I'd like to formally
recognize that it's not the finance and accounting department
that's responsible for this award, but each and every employee of
Collier County. Without their dedication, we would not ever
receive awards of this nature.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the clerk of the circuit court and
the county manager I'd like to formally present this award to you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's good looking.
Tom, we will pass that over to you to proudly display in an
appropriate place.
Item #6A2
COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 - ACCEPTED
That moves us to Item 2, but this needs to be heard in
conjunction with 8(G)(1).
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I think -- for the existing board
members that were here previously, you remember we did what
we call a vital signs report, and we promised to do that twice a
year to give you a snapshot of where are we in terms of both
major projects and in terms of your finances. I think we've got
an opportunity today that works very well in that we can
combine not only the vital signs report that we've got, but also
your annual audit information to be presented concurrently by
the clerk's finance director, Mr. Mitchell, and so I think you've
got a great opportunity just before we head into the budget
season to get a real good feel for where is this county and sort of
a state of the county presentation, if you will, and with that, I'll
turn the microphone over to Mr. Mitchell.
CHAIRMAN CARTER Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Thanks, Tom.
Commissioners, once again, my name is Jim Mitchell, and
I'm the director of the finance and accounting department.
First of all, I'd like to thank Tom and his staff for asking us
Page 10
February 27, 2001
to participate in this presentation.
Our purpose here today is twofold. First of all, we're going
to present to you the comprehensive annual financial report for
the fiscal cycle ended September 30th of 2000, and second,
we're going to walk you through some of the ma]or high points
that are contained in that document, which taken in conjunction
with the vital signs report, is going to give you a clear picture of
the overall financial condition of this county.
Before we actually present the CAFR to you, I wanted to
take a minute to recognize some of the people that are involved
in that, primarily Derek Johnssen, who is our accounting
manager, and all of the employees over at the finance and
accounting department, along with Tom Olliff and his staff and
each of the constitutional officers who support us throughout the
year.
In addition, we've had the pleasure of working with KPMG
for the last three years, and I wanted to extend a "attaboy" to
them and turn the podium over to Chip Jones for the
presentation.
MR. JONES: Good morning. Derek is going to pass out
copies of the comprehensive annual financial report as well as
the presentation that contains the highlights that I want to
review with you.
As you can see from the size of the book that you're being
handed, it is very comprehensive. There's a lot of information
contained in there. Governments are required, and as they
should be, are very accountable for how they spend their monies.
There's a lot of additional rules on disclosures and the way
funds are presented that are required of governmental entities to
be accountable to the citizens of Collier County, and so if you
had an opportunity to go through that entire CAFR, you might find
it overwhelming because there is so much information.
As Jim mentioned, we want to just kind of go through some
of the highlights.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' If I could just --
MR. JONES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-. -- say for future reference, I
would appreciate, even though it might be beyond my scope of
expertise to review the entire CAFR, I would really like to have it
before the meeting, because what I do is share it with people
Page 11
February 27, 2001
who have that expertise who can help me with it, and it feels a
little irresponsible, frankly, on my part not to have the
opportunity to review it more thoroughly. So, I'd like to have that
chance next time.
MR. MITCHELL:
COMMISSIONER
is,
Commissioners, that's actually my fault.
MAC'KIE: It doesn't matter whose fault it
Can we put that on the overhead
MR. MITCHELL: We're working very hard to try to get the
thing together today, but we will definitely note that for next
year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I appreciate that, and I'm not
looking for fault, just next year.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. JONES: The audit went very well. As Jim mentioned,
we actually do individual audits of each of the constitutional
officers, as well as of the board, and what you have is a report
that includes all the financial operations of the county.
On the first page, I wanted to kind of go over general
fund-fund balance, and fund balance is a measure of the
resources that you have available for future periods. They do
two things. One is they cover you, for instance, the fact that
your ad valorem tax receipts generally don't come until the end
of November, it gives you the cushion to handle that. It also
gives you flexibility to handle emergency needs that might come
up for the County; suppose a hurricane hit, something like that.
So, you want to have a healthy fund balance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Excuse me.
MR. JONES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
so everybody can follow us?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks, Tom.
MR. JONES: Now I have to apologize --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It needs to go a little bit -- there
we go.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's good.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe somebody from county
staff can help with that who's got a little more experience
running that machine, because you need to back it out is what
needs to happen; all this high tech.
MR. JONES: As you can see, what this reflects is the
Page t2
February 27, 2001
percentage that fund balance represents of your total
expenditures, and that percentage this year was roughly 22
percent of your total expenditures out of the general fund; up
very slightly from the prior year. Most of my governmental
clients, and I do a lot of them, try to stay in the 15 to 20 percent
range. Now--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I comment as you go --
MR. JONES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- if you don't mind?
MR. JONES: I would like that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because for new board members,
this is a subject that comes up every budget year. There are
people in the community who say that we over budget for
reserves. Is that basically -- this is a fund balance that will come
-- it's money that we didn't spend last year that we taxed people
for, and it's--
MR. JONES: Well, it represents an accumulation over a
number of years.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- of twenty-two million dollars
that we have collected in tax money that we have not needed as
the year bore out, as the years bore out, and I'm not saying we
should -- we should only collect down to the nickel of what we
need, because like you said in your interim remarks, there might
be a hurricane, God forbid, or some emergency, but, you know,
watching this progressively go up over my tenure on the board is
-- I'm starting to listen to Janet, wherever you are, about that we
are over -- we're over taxing for reserves.
So, I just wanted to make that comment as we go into
budget season. Twenty-two percent -- I mean, twenty-two million
dollars is too much to have left over. MR. JONES: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, but they're recommending fifteen
to twenty million, so --
MR. JONES: Two things to keep in mind, one is that this has
to carry you literally through when most of your tax receipts
come in at the end of November. So, you are in a period where
you get your smallest amount of revenues and you have that
carryover.
The other thing is, is that the general fund has loaned to the
airport almost seven million dollars, okay. That is part of this
Page13
February 27, 2001
fund balance. Whether that is ultimately collectible, I don't
know, but--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It will be.
MR. JONES: -- but there's a -- seven million dollars of that
that has been essentially loaned over to the Airport Authority,
and I'll go through that on this presentation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that -- what your point is, is
that that seven plus the fifteen million that you recommend that
we have is the balance. MR. JONES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: To me, it sounds like we're doing
sound fiscal management to protect for emergencies and also to
accommodate the debt that we have out there on what I would
call a loan receivable that has to be protected. If we don't do
that, we --
MR. JONES: Yeah, I think the County is fiscally very sound.
In addition to your general governmental fund balance, you
also have fund balances for special revenue, which is essentially
revenues that are received that are earmarked for specific
purposes and legally cannot be used for general government
operations; fund balance for debt service, which, again, is
required by the terms of your bonds which say that you have to
maintain like pretty much an annual payment; and then fund
balance for capital projects, again, which is earmarked money
that has either come in from specific revenue sources or bond
proceeds.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question for Tom or
somebody about that is, is all of that money committed to
projects or is it available to be committed to projects?
MR. OLLIFF: No, generally we're not taking down a bond
until we have a specific --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, I'm sorry, I meant capital.
I meant the capital projects reserve fund balance.
MR. JONES: That is actually, this year, fifty million dollars
of that has been encumbered for future projects.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
MR. JONES: Fifty million.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
unencumbered.
MR. JONES: Right.
How many?
So, there's ten million
Page 14
February 27, 2001
Now, last year, there was only five million, so there's been a
lot of projects that have been authorized this year that have
encumbered that fund balance.
MR. OLLIFF: What that tells you is over the course of the
past year, we've executed a lot of road construction contracts
which encumbers those funds but they haven't yet been spent
because the construction is ongoing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. JONES: And I've got some additional charts that will go
over the specific major funds in there.
This next chart gives you a breakdown of the total revenues
that the County receives, and, again, it can show essentially
where they're coming from, and of the tax number, that includes
all sources of taxes. Roughly 82 percent of that is actually ad
valorem taxes. There's also gas taxes, those types of things in
there.
The only real significant change to point out to you, which
you may draw incorrect conclusions, if you look over there at the
interest income, it almost doubled from last year. That was
attributable to two things. Yeah, that's great --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good job, guys.
MR. JONES: -- but GASB, which is the government
accounting standards board, says that you have to mark your
investments to market. So, when interest rates are going up, you
have a tendency to have your value of your investments, the
market value go down, and last year, 1999, you actually took a
hit on writing those investments down, even though you might
hold them to maturity, for accounting purposes, we had to knock
them down. This year, the reverse happened. We had an
increase. So, there's a fairly large swing that really had nothing
to do with the actual collections that you got, although the
collections on your interest income were very good this year and
improved over last year, part of that twelve million dollar number
is a swing that is an accounting entry more than a reality.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, it's a financial market driven
project --
MR. JONES: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- versus anything that we can control.
Now, wait until you get this report next year. It could be
just the opposite.
Page 15
February 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'd love -- I'd love to have on
the same chart here for taxes, for the separate -- the many kinds
of taxes, the gas taxes, property, et cetera, just to see that
trend, too.
MR. JONES: I've got that -- actually, on two more slides, I've
got the components of taxes broken out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. JONES: On Page 5, we indicate, again, a pie chart that
shows relatively half of your operating budget for your
governmental funds as coming from tax sources and the balance
as coming from other sources, and all these percentages are
relatively comparable to what they were last year and, actually,
the year before.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just a question on that page,
I hate that intergovernmental piece because I don't, frankly,
understand it. Shouldn't it be green? Isn't it taxes?
MR. JONES: It can be taxes, yes, that the State collects and
remits back to the counties. It's grants like, your community
development block grant money goes in there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it's not -- it's not money that
came from anything other than somebody's tax bill.
MR. JONES: It didn't come from your taxpayers. It wasn't
levied for fines, forfeitures, permits, charges for services. It did
not come from those sources.
MR. OLLIFF: It's -- probably a better way to look at this is
taxes that are locally levied. They're probably what's
represented by your grain in taxes. They're levied outside of this
jurisdiction or probably those that are levied -- MR. JONES: Purple.
MR. OLLIFF: -- in the purple.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Thank you. That will help me.
MR. JONES: Page 6 is a pie chart of the major components
of the taxes, and as I said, the ad valorem was 82 percent this
year versus 81 percent last year. There was actually a 12
percent increase in the actual amount of taxes. You almost had
a hundred million dollars of property taxes, and that was almost
all because the business valuations, the property valuations in
Collier County as well as all the new construction continues to
have that go up. I think in the last four years or five years,
you've almost doubled in the property value that's assessed in
Page 16
February 27, 2001
Collier County.
The second biggest portion was gas tax and then TDC taxes
were 7 percent.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It would be interesting to note here
that with diversification of economy, that you can see that 82
percent figure change, because at this point, the border lies on
the individual homeowners to finance everything in this county,
and if you had major, what I call clean business here, high tech.,
medical research, whatever those are, that would diversify your
tax base more, and that's what the TDC continues to wOrk on.
MR. JONES: It would. You-all are fortunate. None of my
other clients have the escalation that you do in the percentage
because, like I'm a resident of Pinellas County, which is almost
all built out, the save our homes amendment caps the increase
to 3 percent, so they're constantly looking for other sources of
revenue to handle all the demands that are being put on while
you've had the advantage, that even without raising your millage
rate, you've had an increase in tax revenues to cover, obviously,
the very significant increase in services as this county continues
to grow.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The question I had on that slide
is, would it be possible to see a pie chart of ad valorem taxes
broken down in commercial versus residential properties?
MR. JONES: I would imagine that would be definitely
available.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would love to see that if that's
something somebody could produce.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to see a further break
out for agriculture.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a good point; agriculture,
residential and commercial.
MR. JONES: I would think the property appraiser's office
would have that information on how it's levied, and that could be
provided.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. JONES: On Page 7 is bar charts of your governmental
expenditures over the last several years. The biggest, which is
true in any government, is public safety, and it has been going
up. It didn't go up that much this year compared to prior years.
It only went up about three million, but, again, in all my clients I
Page 17
February 27, 2001
see that the public safety expenditure is the largest part of their
budget, as well as the one that's had the most significant
increases.
After that is general government. Capital outlay over on the
far right is quite large this year, and there are a lot of projects
that took place this year, and actually, the capital outlay
expenditure for the last couple of years have been lower than
historical trends have been.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Only we know.
MR. JONES: A couple of terms in here which people always
question, but like physical environment, what does that mean?
Well, that's a number of projects; the biggest was the Wiggins
Pass dredging project, which was 2.2 million; landscape
beautification, two million; beach renourishment, two million.
So, that's where those types of expenditures are going.
Another one is economic environment which people, again,
say what does that exactly mean. The biggest part of that is the
expenditure of the SHIP monies that you receive from the State,
and mostly, again, it provides loans to businesses, homeowners,
ways to improve the conditions within the County.
Human services is another term. That is not your payroll,
obviously, because that's spread around, but included in there is
about three million in welfare costs, about $850,000 paid to the
health department. Animal control is in that category. Again,
just to give you an idea how some of those are played out.
On the next page, 8, there's a pie chart, and you can see
public safety as a total percentage of your expenditures, and I've
excluded capital outlay, because that can skew things since that
can go up and down. So, this is all your other governmental
expenditures. It was 47 percent last year versus 44 percent this
year.
Now, your major special revenue funds, there's four of them
that account for most of the County's total special revenue fund
balance, and, again, these are funds where the monies that come
in are restricted to be spent on specific projects. The largest
one is the unincorporated areas, and, again, that is for -- it's
levied on the unincorporated areas. The monies, in turn, are
spent back in those areas.
You can see the fund balance and the revenues comparison
for both years. Revenues were slightly up on most of these but
Page 18
February 27, 2001
not significantly, and fund balance has gone up from a total of
about thirty-three million to thirty-nine million. Most of that
taking place in the unincorporated areas.
Of the revenues in the unincorporated areas, about ten
million is taxes and about ten million is licenses and permits,
those types of costs.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I must not understand this chart,
because it looks like it's showing that -- for example, in
unincorporated, we collected a great deal more than we -- if
what's there is what we didn't spend --
MR. JONES: That's the fund balance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, heavens, so we only spent
25 percent of what we collected in the unincorporated area?
MR. JONES: No. The unincorporated, you collected 23.7
million. You actually spent about twenty-one million.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, this says I have fifteen
million left.
MR. JONES: You do, but, again, that's cumulative over a
number of years, and, again, you have a number of projects that
have been committed, you have to have the funds, and you may
not collect the revenues. If you look during the year, you would
see that fund balance dipping up and down, depending on the
timing of expenditures compared to when the revenues would
come in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's why in tourist
development, for example, we've got more of a fund balance than
we collected this year because we have the carryforward from
previous years.
MR. JONES: Right. You actually -- of the 9.6 million in
revenues, you spent 8.7 of that in the current year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we have been carrying that
emergency fund and others forward, so --
MR. JONES: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
MR. JONES: Again, those revenue sources are restricted to
specific areas.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nevertheless, we ought to spend
them and not sit on them to a reasonable amount.
MR. JONES: I'll also mention what she just pointed out is,
Page 19
February 27, 2001
which is true, the unincorporated area, a large part of that is
community development fund.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh.
MR. JONES: On the next page is your ma]or capital projects
funds, and as I mentioned to you, we've got significant fund
balances there, but compared to last year where very little of it
was encumbered, roughly almost the entire road construction
budget has been encumbered. Almost all the road impact
district fund balance has been encumbered, and then about four
million of the park impact district fund balance has been
encumbered. So, again, these monies have been committed
quite a bit.
The impact fees are what support the bottom two, and you
can see that there was a significant increase in the road impact
fee revenues this year. It went from 6.8 million to 14.6 million.
Again, that's indicative of the activity that's taken place in the
County.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, that's key to note for our
listening audience.
MR. JONES: Excuse me.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's a key to note for our listening
audience, because of what we did with impact fees and the
ma]or increases that we made, we doubled the amount on the
roads.
MR. JONES: Yes, you've committed all to roads.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right, so that's important for
everybody to understand that when they come to me and say,
why don't we raise impact fees, I believe that we're probably one
of the highest in the state at this point, Tom, if not the highest. I
don't know exactly, but I know we're very high, and you have to
ask your question on that revenue stream, how high can you
raise it. So, it's a good point. You know, we've done it. That's
about as far as you can go at the moment.
MR. JONES: On Page 11, this is just an analysis for your
general government data. I would say you have a lower amount
than most of my clients proportionately. You can see that you
haven't really borrowed any new debt, although I do understand
you've got some debt issues planned coming up in the near
future, so that would change this, but your total outstanding debt
is about sixty-three million. About forty-six million of that is
Page 20
February 27, 2001
revenue bonds, and roughly fifteen million is either commercial
paper or a line of credit with NationsBank.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're absolutely right. We're going to
have things in front of us that's going to encumber us, and
instead of being a pay as you go county, we're going to be one
that finances where we have to go, and then we'll have debt
service, and that will be a change in how we approach what
we're doing as a county to deal with all the road, infrastructure
and community services needs, and that is a major shift in policy
that's developing over the last year, I would say, and probably I
would expect it would continue with this board so that we can
take care of what is already that we have as pent up demand
because it's here today and also to plan for the future.
MR. JONES: That's exactly right, and going back to your
fund balance and all that, you're fortunate that you're positioned
to be able to make those decisions without having a very
negative impact on the County as opposed to others that already
have a lot of debt that are being faced with these types of
issues. Again, the County is fiscally sound and is in a position to
go out and do this debt to do these improvements.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In other words, we should -- we
should expect to get good rates and good deals on the debt that
we have to issue because of those fund balances being so high,
that makes us a financially stable county, keeps our bond rate
high.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're like--
MR. JONES: I don't know how they come up with bond
ratings, but yes, I would think that you would get favorable
ratings.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have a very favorable bond
rating, don't we, Tom? Thank you.
MR. JONES: The last two charts deal with your enterprise
funds, and your enterprise funds are designed to make a profit.
Your largest is water and sewer, and just like a business, they
want to generate a profit so then you can invest in
improvements, expansion of your water and sewer system, as
well as pay off debt that was incurred in prior years to make the
improvements to handle the County's growth. This shows you
the total water and sewer fund debt, and you can see that it's
Page 21
February 27, 2001
been going down. In fact, you have not had any new debt in that
fund since 1992. You had some refundings back in 1994 and a
year ago, 1999, but that was essentially replacing new debt --
existing debt with new debt to take advantage of lower interest
rates.
The note payable amounts are pretty much loans with the
state, state revolving loan fund which are at very favorable rates,
I think 2.65 percent up to about four and a half percent.
Page 13 just shows you three years of operating results on
your water and sewer fund, and, again, the net income doesn't
mean your rates are too high. You have to generate net income.
In fact, your bonds require that you have certain net income
generated to make bond coverage, and you are in compliance
with all your debt coverage requirements.
Page 14 just gives you an idea of the cash flow that takes
place in these funds, and, again, the big expenditures are down
there. Capital expenditures and debt service is what doesn't
show on the income statement but is, obviously, a major
expenditure.
Page 15 just shows the solid waste disposal enterprise fund.
The biggest increase in operating expenses was, you have
Waste Management operate your landfill, but you are still
responsible for some old cells, and they do an evaluation every
year of the closure cost and post closure cost on those, and this
year, they raised that estimate to about three and a half million
from about 1.7 million. So, that was a large part of the increase
in your operating expenses.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question, the fund equity, that
is tied to the CPI if I'm not mistaken, the annual increase.
MR. JONES: No, that just really represents your assets
minus your liabilities.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's --
MR. JONES: And it could go up or down, depending on how
you spend your money.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But isn't that targeted money,
too? Isn't that money that's in a reserve for the purpose of future
landfill needs?
MR. JONES: Yes, or I mean, if you have to open new
landfills or you took back over -- I mean, again, you need the fund
equity to provide for future services in this area.
Page 22
February 27, 2001
Page 16 is the highlights of the airport operation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we go back to that for just
a minute?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, because that twenty-four
and a half million dollars is not Waste Management's profit over
the year. That's how much money we hold --
MR. JONES: A lot of that is tied up in fixed assets.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That twenty-four and a half
million dollars is money that we hold in an account for future
waste management needs of the County. That's the County's
money, not profit to Waste Management.
MR. JONES: It's not all cash or money. I mean, some of it is
fixed assets, which you can't liquidate but -- I'm not sure what
the exact cash balance is in --
MR. MITCHELL: I'm not sure of that either. That is a
combination of our assets, be it cash, be it current assets, be it
long-term assets. That number in no way reflects anything to do
with Waste Management. That is purely an accounting equation.
It's assets minus liabilities equals fund, in this particular case,
the equity position of that fund.
The Waste Management component would show up in the
income statement, which would be your revenues minus your
expenditures, and Waste Management would be included in that
expenditure component as a contractual arrangement with -- this
is purely the assets minus the liabilities that we maintain as a
County.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Mudd, you have a comment,
please.
MR. MUDD.' I'm Jim Mudd, public utilities administrator, for
the record.
Out of that twenty-four million, eight is tied into closure that
we've got to have. It's a requirement by law that we have the
money set aside. If we have to close it, that that money is there.
There's about fifteen million in reserve. That's all county money.
None of it is in Waste Management's pocket.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Mudd, what do we have for
future needs for solid waste? What kind of funds do we have for
that?
MR. MUDD: We have fifteen million dollars in reserves, sir,
plus the equity that you own out in that 360 acres to the north of
Page 23
February 27, 2001
the landfill that's solid waste -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's approximately a million
dollars' worth of assets, if I remember right, property assets.
MR. MUDD: About that, sir. It's about 4,000 to $5,000 an
acre.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And are we truly preparing for
our future needs with the amount of revenue coming in?
MR. MUDD: Sir, I think we're going to decide that in June
when we provide the long-term recommendations to the board,
and with your direction then, I think it might be a little bit more
aggressive than it is today, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. JONES: You have two more enterprise funds, the
airport and emergency medical services, and on Page 16, it
highlights the airport results for this past year, as well as the
two years prior to that, and as I mentioned at the start of my
presentation, you have been advancing money to the airport
authority for their cash needs, and this reflects the total of 6.6
million that is outstanding receivable from the airport back to the
general government.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In the chart before, you showed
what the County spends on economic development. It was a tiny
amount of money, but is this loan money included in that?
MR. JONES: No, it is not recognizing any expenditures. It's
literally a loan between two funds.
If you decided to forgive the loan, then it would be treated
as an expenditure or transferred out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. JONES: Then the last of my presentation --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I believe it's the only airport authority
that I know that's committed to paying back the County. Most
counties at some point in time hope that the airport authority
breaks even. This one says not only do we want to break even
and make money, we want to repay you for what you've invested
in us. That is a real plus to this county. It's unique, and we
ought to be proud of the Airport Authority that we have that has
that kind of commitment to us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Besides, we have a real asset
out in Immokalee, and that's really helping that community.
MR. OLLIFF: But what you need to recognize from this
Page 24
February 27, 2001
picture is it's currently heading in the wrong direction, but we --
but the board has allowed the Airport Authority to continue with
the understanding that this is probably the investment period, if
you will, where they are sinking capital into the assets out there
and then hoping that at some point in the future it does start to
return revenue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the indicator there is that
the net loss has, in the past, been 800,000, 900,000, and in this
year, it's 1.1 million dollars that they have lost out of their
operating, and then the concomitant reduction in the fund to
equity from 5.4 to five two this year is as a result, I assume, of
operating at a loss of a million bucks.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I would hope with the new
custom house and everything out there that we would see a
different picture here in a very short period of time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm ready.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But you're absolutely right, Mr. Olliff,
we would not like to see the trend that it is taking this year.
MR. JONES: Page 17 is the emergency medical services
enterprise fund, and you can see that if you look at the revenue,
obviously, it does not cover the cost, and each year you transfer
money from the general fund. This year it was seven million
dollars.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've got to just comment on that
for a second, that, you know, when we say in this county that we
spend no money on medical -- on health issues. In fact, we spent
7.1 million dollars out of the general property taxes last year to
subsidize our ambulance service, and we should, and I'm glad we
did, and it's the right thing, and it's the best one in this country,
but 7.1 million dollars.
What percentage of our total budget is that? It's a
measurable amount. It's certainly a significant number, and I
wish I understood the jump of four point -- from '98 of 4.2 to 2000
of 7.1. Is that medical costs increase that have caused that or
do we have a great deal more usage or-- I mean, you know, it's --
MR. JONES: I think probably both.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's getting in the neighborhood
of double from '98 to 2000, and should we -- if that's -- is that a
trend we should expect to continue?
MR. JONES: I don't know the answer to that.
Page 25
February 27, 2001
I know that on the revenue side, I mean, you're obviously in
a position where you always have to provide the services. You
can't question whether people have the ability to pay, and I also
know that, particularly Medicare, has taken a much higher line
on what they reimburse. I mean, the questions of whether they
are being taken to the nearest hospital -- they're making
decisions which are reducing the ability to recover a lot of this
money through Medicare.
So, there's a lot of issues, and the other counties that I do,
they have the same issues on the funding, you know, the taxes --
I mean, the charge for service generally covers less than 50
percent of their operating cost. Out of the differences, some
counties actually have specific earmarked taxes where they've
passed a referendum and those taxes go specifically for
emergency medical services, or as in the case of Collier, the
money is transferred over to help it out. Either way, it's taxes
that has to help offset the cost of that service.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In this county, we've set the rate
payable by the user as the -- I think it's the Medicare -- Medicaid
or Medicare?
MR. OLLIFF: I think it's Medicaid rate.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How does that compare with
other counties in your experience? MR. JONES: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You don't know. I'm just really--
I know -- I'm glad that we are able to set the rate at the Medicaid
rate so that people who can pay only have to pay a Iow rate, but
the reality is that we are -- the costs exceed those payments by
seven million dollars a year, and we need to maybe look at that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I agree. I think that we
need to get into more of true costs of accounting in this service.
It is a service and --
MR. JONES: It definitely is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- there needs to be more of a
balance there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know how it can be,
frankly, but--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, if you look at all the costs for
health care anywhere, any portion of the program, I have yet to
see a downward trend. It's all upward, and what we will have to
Page 26
February 27, 2001
wrestle with as a board, not only this, but everything else that's
coming from your health care committee, and at some point in
time, the community will have to ask, what are you willing to pay
for these services, and how much should the taxpayer pay for
this? I don't have the answer to that, but we're in the process
now of trying to identify what it is, what the costs are, and what
does the community want.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I guess I just get a little
defensive when I hear our dear hospital saying that the County
does nothing for indigent care in this county, and that they bear
the whole burden, when if we look in reality, this is a portion --
this is a property tax subsidy to a great degree for indigent care
to some amount just for general subsidy, but it is a real expense
that the County bears year after year.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good point, but it's a tip of the
iceberg.
MR. OLLIFF: And keep in mind, in addition to what you're
providing in the way of an EMS subsidy here, you're also
providing social services support in the neighborhood of three
million dollars a year. Plus you're providing assistance to the
public health department, which is above and beyond what we're
legally required to provide to the public health as well.
So, you're probably spending nearly a million dollars a month
on what you could easily call local health care services outside
of your own employee base.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And if you look at what the State is
trying to do to us, I will soon be bringing a resolution to this
board where we want to support the clinic that was in
Immokalee and also our own David Lawrence Center because a
number of funds have been cut out by the State, and we're going
to have to put every pressure that we can to try and get those
back. So, shortly, we will get a resolution that I will initiate to
try to do that, but that's -- you know, these are the constant
problems we face in mental as well as physical health care.
MR. JONES: Getting toward the end of this, on Page 18, I've
listed out all your cash and investments, and, obviously, that's
your single largest asset outside of your fixed assets, and you
can see that number and say, wow, two hundred eighty-two
million dollars seems like a lot, and let me just tell you where it
is.
Page 27
February 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Three hundred sixty-nine and a
half, right?
MR. JONES: Excuse me. I was looking at the left column.
You're right.
Let me tell you where it is though. It's -- water and sewer
has one hundred twenty million dollars, okay, and that is
designed for required debt service for capital projects that are
planned that are going to take place. A lot of that cash is
restricted. The road impact and road construction funds, again,
as I mentioned, those are all encumbered. That's sixty-eight
million dollars of it. Solid waste has twenty-three million, of
which they mentioned fifteen million is available, but eight
million is also required by the State to be maintained to cover
the landfill cost.
The general fund actually had about twenty-five million of
cash, and you also had bills that were being paid and payroll and
those types of costs that you had to really carry out for two
months. So, it's a big number, but the part on the general fund
where you would focus, I think is where it should be to
essentially cover the County's needs for the two months before
the tax resources come in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Is there a number that would tell
us just very generally what rate of return the County has been
earning on its investments?
MR. JONES: That's calculated.
MR. MITCHELL: Absolutely, Commissioner. We measure
that every year. During the fiscal cycle of 2000, we achieved
about a 6.3 percent rate of return on our total investment
portfolio. The one thing you have to remember is we don't chase
yield.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I know.
MR. MITCHELL: We are very conservative. We comply with
the policy that you guys have adopted.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: These guys measure that every year, and
they would tell us if we were outside of that, but our position is
very strong that we do not chase yield.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But despite that, a 6.3 percent
return is not bad considering that you don't chase yield. That
seems to be a responsible rate.
Page 28
February 27, 2001
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.
MR. JONES: I think that was one of your highest you've had
in the last several years.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm glad I asked that question
this year.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You don't want to know what's going
to happen next year.
MR. JONES: On Page 19, this is just a listing of the various
reports that we issue, and we issue, in addition to these, all the
ones on the constitutional officers, and then the other thing is,
on Page 20, just to let you know, that included in the
comprehensive financial report is certain component units,
which we've listed out, and a component unit means that by
some definition, it is directly controlled or related to what the
government does as a whole that it should be included in the
financial statements.
You have four authorities. The educational facilities
authority is new, but their primary purpose is to issue debt that
support -- you know, like the Cleveland Clinic, they issued bonds
on their behalf, and you have outstanding around two hundred
million dollars --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wouldn't that have been the
health facilities authority? MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
MR. JONES: That was my understanding, that that's where
the debt came from.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Education authority?
MR. OLLIFF: No, health facilities authority.
MR. JONES: Health facilities. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just scared me.
MR. JONES: But you have around two hundred million
dollars of conduit debt, which means the debt has been issued
via county authority, but it's not debt of the county. In other
words, if someone went bad on it, it is not the responsibility, but
we do disclose it in your CAFR.
That concludes my presentation. You do have a good
finance department. We enjoyed working with you, and I think
that the County is fiscally very sound.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you put that on the
visualizer just for a second?
Page 29
February 27, 2001
I want to know who knows what it's a picture of.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
I know.
Who knows?
Is there a price you're going to
give out?
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
declaration of the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.'
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Barron Collier, mother and father.
My--
It's Barron Collier signing the
Establishment.
-- establishment of Collier
County, thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: It's actually Governor Hardy signing the
declaration creating Collier County. I think it took place in 19 --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's Mr. Collier behind there,
but --
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioners, we certainly appreciate the
opportunity to come and present this information to you, and
once again, we apologize for not getting the data to you before,
but after you've had a chance to digest some of it and after
you've heard the vital statistics that Tom's group is going to be
giving to you, if you have any other questions for us, we stand
prepared to answer them. With that, we thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Entertain a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to accept the --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. We have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala. We have a second by Commissioner
Henning to approve this report.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed, by the same sign?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries five-oh.
Item #8G1
REPORT REGARDING THE STATE OF THE COUNTY/VITAL SIGNS
- PRESENTED
Page 30
February 27, 2001
That takes us to --
MR. OLLIFF'. We'll run right into the vital signs report, Mr.
Chairman, that was scheduled to be heard with -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ah, yes, vital signs.
MS. WALSH: We are ready for the Power Point presentation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That means do the switch, Katie.
MS. WALSH: The second half of the -- I'm sorry, for the
record, my name is Beth Walsh. I'm the assistant to the county
manager.
The second half of our report is going to focus on some of
the issues and projects that are going on in the County currently.
Since we met --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we focus in on that a little
bit, make it larger?
MS. WALSH: I can't make it larger. There's going to be
some slides coming up on top of that.
I'll be more than happy to provide you with a hard copy at a
later date.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah, nobody can read this. So, we
have to assume that this is an organization chart.
MS. WALSH: Yes, it's our organizational chart.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is something they really
don't want us to know that they're pretending to show us.
MS. WALSH: I can walk you through it. The boxes in yellow
are the positions that have been filled since we went over the
report last, about seven months ago. We filled some key
positions with some very experienced individuals. We've had
new administrators, Jo-Anne Learner, Jim Mudd, Norm Feder, and
they've, in turn, hired some very experienced people in their
departments.
MR. OLLIFF: If you will remember when we came to you the
last time, we were telling you how we were -- we were in a bind,
frankly, in terms of being able to fill some key positions, and I
think that was part of the phase one of the pay plan adjustments
that you assisted us with, and I think we're here just to tell you
that in a lot of cases we've got some of your key, especially
management positions filled, and I think we've been able to find
some very good, high quality people to help us here in this
county.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So do we. Thank you for that.
Page 31
February 27, 2001
MS. WALSH: The work force assessment team has been
working very hard to implement employee ideas and suggestions
to create a better workplace. We formed over 40 employee
round tables. We've set up some supervisor site orientation
programs for new employees. We've set up communication
centers for employees who don't normally have computer access
at work. All the information that we get through our computers
they don't normally have, so the communication centers contain
meeting minutes, job postings, information that they need to
know.
The work force assessment team is also looking at
modifications to the performance appraisal review system and
also how we reward our employees. They're also looking at
modifying and streamlining the special pay adjustment process.
As you know, we have a lot of employee teams, and they
have been formed by employees, or perhaps by Tom, who has an
idea or a suggestion that they'd like to see implemented. The
team members are made up of employees who have indicated
that they have a special interest in that topic, and, therefore,
they are a very focused group.
The ideas team recently completed a trip to Martin County
where they reviewed their county policies and procedures.
Basically, the concept here was to look at Martin County's
procedures and review ours and see if there's anything that we
can do better.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what did we find?
MS. WALSH: They'll be presenting their final report to Tom
next week.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Good. Thanks.
MS. WALSH: The paid time off committee completed their
report recently on their consolidated leave policy. That's in HR
for review as we speak.
The activities team has scheduled bowling, darts, fishing
and dance activities for employees and their families.
There are a lot of other teams out there. This is just a few
of them, and the concept behind the teams is that they come in
and they focus on a project or an idea. They get it either
implemented or resolved, and then they go away. What we'd like
to do is just continually bring in new teams to focus on new
ideas and suggestions.
Page 32
February 27, 2001
Coming up is Collier County government days. It's going to
be at the Coastland Mall, April 20th and April 21st, and the
department sets up informational booths at the mall. They hand
out brochures and talk to the public about the services that we
can provide to them. I think staff, they enjoy meeting the public,
and the public enjoys meeting people who are working for them.
Next up is Jo-Anne Learner, support services administrator.
She is going to talk about a couple of the capital projects that
have been going on in the support services division.
MS. LEAMER.' Good morning, commissioners. Jo-Anne
Learner, support services administrator.
I'm just briefly going to talk about the Building J addition,
the Golden Gate government complex and the juvenile
assessment and detention center.
As you can see from the slide, the Building J addition has
been completed, and the sheriff has moved in there. I
understand they're very happy with the building. It was a 34,000
square foot facility that houses their operations. We are also
working on an adjacent parking lot to complete that project.
The Golden Gate government complex is well under way.
That's on Golden Gate Parkway next to the community center. It
will house the clerk, tax collector and property appraiser, as well
as commissioner's office. That's approximately a 6,000 square
foot facility, and it should be completed the end of June of this
year.
MR. OLLIFF: And I'm not taking responsibility for that design
either.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A drive-in movie theater is what
it looks like to me.
MS. LEAMER: We do have a slide on the juvenile detention
center. Although we're not particularly managing that project,
the State of Florida is, we did lease them the ground that the
facility is being built on and --
MR. OLLIFF: This is one of those projects where I'm not
sure that you even know it's here, but it is on your campus, and
it's being built about a quarter of a mile that way on the far
northern portion of your complex on the north side of the jail
facility, and as you drive out, maybe you can drive around the
loop and you'll see this building.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like, if we went to the health
Page 33
February 27, 2001
building, you'd see it?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am.
MS. LEAMER: It's right across from the finance department
building, the pink building off of Davis.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had no idea it was this far
along. That's fabulous.
MS. LEAMER: And I understand that building will help the
sheriff out with their operations since they currently have to take
juveniles up to Fort Myers. That's it.
MS. WALSH.' Okay. Next up is, I believe, Ken Pineau and
Diane Flagg. They'll be talking about some emergency services
slides.
MS. FLAGG: Good morning, commissioners. Chief Diane
Flagg, for the record.
The first slide you'll see there is EMS Station 17. This is the
station that's located at the corner of 13th Street and Golden
Gate Boulevard, directly across from the estates library. We're
expecting this project to be completed by May 10th, and we will
be inviting you to an open house for this project tentatively
scheduled for April 6th, which is the twentieth anniversary of the
EMS department.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question.
MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' Does that meet architectural
standards?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Seriously, I wonder if we are
complying with our own -- I know it's not a commercial building,
so it probably doesn't have to comply with the County's
architectural standards, but on a ma]or roadway, we certainly
ought to be.
MR. MULHERE: That is correct. The way -- sorry, for the
record, Bob Mulhere, planning services director.
The way the ordinance is structured, it only applies in
commercial and industrial zoning and cannot be applied to
essential services that fall outside of those zoning districts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's up to the discretion
of staff and the board of commissioners.
MR. MULHERE: Well, we'd have to amend -- we'd have to
amend the code.
Page 34
February 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or we could --
MR. OLLIFF: Or we could do it voluntarily.
MR. MULHERE: Or we could do it voluntarily, absolutely.
MS. FLAGG'. And this is certainly a very cost-effective
building. If the board would like to see something a little bit
more beautiful, we can certainly do that in our next projects.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, or even maybe, you know,
something to make it -- maybe there's some landscaping or
something we could do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We need to take a look at this
project coming out of the ground now because that is on a
thorough roadway, and I think the citizens out there deserve
better.
MS. FLAGG: Absolutely. There is landscaping planned for
this project, and, actually, this is a, pretty much of an identical
station to the station, to give you an ideal what it will look like
when it's completed, the station on Immokalee Road right by the
fairgrounds. What we're seeking to do is to utilize the same
footprint, but certainly, we can make some aesthetic changes to
future stations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's way out of town, and this
is in town.
MS. FLAGG: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING'- Well, the one on Immokalee
Road is not that bad.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Pam.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry, sorry, sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's just as boring as the city
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You didn't want to go there, okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't mean to do that.
MR. OLLIFF.' The station is probably not as bad as this slide
makes it look. You're looking at a very small and during
construction slide, but if the board wants to see some
landscaping plans for that, we can certainly provide those, and
maybe there will be some additional things we might be able to
do in that regard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How about if once we have our
grand opening, the commissioners can have some input at that
time?
Page 35
February 27, 2001
MS. FLAGG: Absolutely, we'd welcome that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One more question, you say the
dedication is planned for next year?
MS. TAYLOR: No, it's tentatively planned for --
MS. WALSH: Oops, my mistake.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 2001.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MS. FLAGG.' It's tentatively planned for 2001, and we'll be
giving you a formal notification once we get everything moved in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Good catch.
MS. WALSH: She's quick.
Ken Pineau is going to talk to us about the fire index.
MR. PINEAU: Good morning, commissioners. Ken Pineau --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That red is not good, is it?
MR. PINEAU'- Not good. Today it's -- on the burn -- the
drought index is 662 on a scale from 400 to 800. It's going up at
about three points per day. We're not expecting any more
rainfall in the near future. In fact, April is the driest month of the
year.
The state department of agriculture services issued a burn
ban yesterday until further notice for 39 of the sixty some
counties, virtually everyone from the Georgia border on down
with the exception of the Panhandle, so we anticipate issuing
the state of local emergency this morning for that reason.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ken, is there anything else we
should be doing? I mean, you would tell us if there were, but this
-- it's a troubling --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I would recommend a first
degree felony for people throwing cigarette butts out of cars.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can go there, and likewise, I
mean, do we -- is that burn ban sufficient or should we have a
broader burn ban if we wanted to be more conservative?
MR. PINEAU-' I don't believe so. I think that the only thing
that we're allowed to burn now is barbecues if they're above
ground, but if we lose any embers from the barbecue itself, it's a
violation of the ban and could be prosecuted.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, for example, in the state
parks, can you have a campfire?
MR. PINEAU: Only above ground, attended barbecues.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not your typical circle fire, you
Page 36
February 27, 2001
can't have right now? Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ken, is there going to be a
restriction on recreational vehicles and access to the lands, the
wild lands out in the estates?
MR. PINEAU: We haven't considered that yet,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know the catalytic converters
that are on the cars have caused some fires.
MR. PINEAU: We'll take that under consideration.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Consider us open-minded to
recommendations from you, you know, if there's something we
ought to do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We realize the urgency of this
particular measure that you're doing, and if you think there's a
need to restrict recreational access to those areas with these
vehicles, please say so, and we'll move forward on it.
MR. OLLIFF: I'll take the opportunity too, the board had
directed us to put together a little public information campaign in
terms of having people be aware about how to clear, especially
their estate type lots, especially around structures.
Commissioner Coletta has been very helpful in helping us put
some information out on Channel 54, and in conjunction with the
fire departments, we've prepared a number of these brochures
which we've distributed out throughout the Golden Gate estates
area to try and encourage those people to clear what could be
fuel, and, lastly, we worked with Waste Management to make
sure that outside of the contract, which has certain requirements
for brush pick-up, that they will pick up any and everything that's
left out on the curbs and it's done during this time of year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, and if we could waive
tipping fee for some of that or reduce the tipping fees, maybe
that would be a way to encourage that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, I'd love -- I would very
much like to get a staff recommendation on -- because cost is
going to prohibit people from doing that. It's expensive.
MR. PINEAU: They're allowed 500 pounds per week, ten
bundles, 50 pounds per bundle.
MR. OLLIFF: And we pick it up curbside for them, so most of
Page 37
February 27, 2001
them don't have to take it to a transfer station. Waste
Management will pick it up at their curb, but Ken and I will get
together, and there are some other things that we think that we
can do. We'll bring you back some recommendations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA.' You mentioned only in the urban
areas is that brush ban?
MR. PINEAU: No, it's countywide, ma'am, and the state of
local emergency is actually for the unincorporated as well as the
incorporated areas of the county.
COMMISSIONER FIALA.' Great. I've had a couple of people
complain to me about things on islands where brush is actually
close to something that could incinerate it, and so I was just
wondering if that was also applicable. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Have we initiated a concerted effort
for PSAs on radio, television and our own channel? Is there more
that we can do in that area so there's repetition, repetition,
repetition out there?
MR. PINEAU: We'll be working with the public affairs
department to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So far, we held down the cost to
the county by having Waste Management cooperate with us on
the waste pick-up and also the mailer that went out recently to
some twenty thousand owners.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Actually, 12,148 residents.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'. Ken was so careful with our
funding that he got a number of volunteers, locally and also from
the jail to help with this effort so we could hold the cost down.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excellent.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Next year we'll be using FP&L.
With three months' prior notice, I found that they will include an
insert with their billing. So, at that point in time, we'll be able to
free up even our volunteer resources.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excellent.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think those are all just excellent
ideas, but I would encourage you, again, on the radio stations in
particular which people listen to, that the more they are
reminded, it may sink in somewhere sometime that you don't
throw the cigarette butt out the window.
Page 38
February 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Keep your butts in the car.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Keep your butts in the car, good
theory.
MS. WALSH: Okay. Diane Flagg is going to cover one last
slide regarding EMS calls.
MS. FLAGG: Commissioners, as I know, I don't have to tell
you how busy the emergency medical services department is in
light of the sirens that you hear constantly. You will see by this
graph that finishing up fiscal equal year 2000, the EMS
department responded to 30,944 911 calls. Based upon our
projection for 2001, it's going to be above 10 percent above what
our year 2000 was.
Just as a bit of trivia, when I first came here twenty years
ago, we were responding to 5,000 911 calls a year, and now
we're almost at 31,000 911 calls.
MS. WALSH: Okay. Next up is Leo Ochs, public services
administrator. He's going to cover a couple of capital projects
going on in the public services division.
MR. OCHS: Good morning, commissioners. For the record,
Leo Ochs, public services administrator.
Just a couple of quick updates, most of you, if not all of you,
were able to loin us last month for the grand opening and
dedication of the new domestic animal services facility, a
beautiful 30,000 square foot facility. Staff is in and fully up and
operational. I'm very excited and pleased to have that new
facility online.
And secondly, you may have noticed at the site of the former
domestic animal services center at the intersection of Orange
Blossom and Airport Road, work is proceeding quite briskly with
the construction of the new north regional library, a 40,000
square foot facility. It will become the new headquarters facility
for our countywide library system. We expect that facility to be
online January of 2002.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's great, Leo. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to waste the board's
time with an apology for just a second to say publicly, Leo, there
is an employee in the state attorney's office who has -- who lives
in my district who has a dangerous dog in her neighborhood who
we finally have an order to have that dog removed and it's still
Page 39
February 27, 2001
not done. Please, please, please get that taken care of. MR. OCHS: Will do.
MS. WALSH: Thanks, Leo.
Next up is Jim Mudd, public utilities administrator.
MR. MUDD: Next slide, please.
In the slide you have in front of you is a method to determine
how our capacity is in our plants in water and sewer, and the
second line -- the first line is existing plant capacity. Water is
thirty-two million gallons a day. Then you went into wastewater
on north and south. The second line down is twelve month
average production. I would tell you that that is a real number.
That is the truth, but that does not give you an indication of how
well you're doing, especially on the sewer side.
On the sewer side, peak is more an appropriate method of
doing that. In both plants we have right now, we're right on the
edge. I'm handling max. flows in both of those trying to keep
them in operation.
We have an -- and as you see if-- and then you go to the third
line, which is a new line that I've had my folks add this year
where we talk about a 30 percent factor. We don't have data to
determine the promises for hook-ups north and south going back
any farther than '98, but if 30 percent of the promises in '98 and
'99 come on line this year, you'll see that we'll have a capacity
problem on the north plant just based on the average, and in
peak, it will be well past that, and I would say --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am -- and I would say to you on the
south side, it would show the same thing.
What we're going to do is we're going to look at three month
peak on the sewer side for future planning and get out of this
average business, because when we have high season, tourist
season, we get a 50,000 to 60,000 influx into the county, and it
has real consequences, especially on the sewer side of the
system.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You addressed my question.
MR. MUDD.- Next slide.
So, there's a ban on that slide. You'll never see it again. I'll
show you three month peaks for that process. Next slide.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
Page 40
February 27, 2001
MR. MUDD: Some good news, we've got the south side
sewer plant expansion going into construction in October of this
year. We're about a hundred percent complete on the design.
We plan to have that online December of 2003. It will bring three
million gallons a day additional on to give us an eleven million
gallon a day capacity on the south side. It provides average
capacity, average capacity through 2016. When we do our new
master plan this summer, we'll get the consultant to focus in on
peak, and we'll see if it still holds to 2015, but I would say we're
probably out there around 2010, and that's an over exaggeration
on what we need to do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Average is meaningless.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am, especially on the sewer side. When
you get it, you've got to deal with it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Mudd.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There ain't no choice.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think we're going to promote
constipation in this county for about the next 30 days or
something until we get out of this, I don't know. MR. MUDD: Next slide.
On the north side, we have a nineteen million dollar
expansion coming on line. Construction, we plan to have the
liquid train on line by February 2002, and total completion of the
plant, December of '02. When this says construction, November
'99, January 2002; February we plan to have the liquid train on
line. There are some other administrative facilities that will be
finished in December 2002. It will have nothing to do with the
capacity issue.
Now, this is touch and go for us. The contractor is about
three months behind in his process. He has labor shortages like
every other construction firm does in Collier County. I can say
every restaurant has the same problem with labor shortages.
What we've done is we've met with the contractor to realign his
focus, his effort to make sure that the liquid train comes on line,
the things that are essential to us so that we don't have the
problem on the north side next year.
In the interim, I've asked my engineers and my chief of
wastewater, Joe Cheatham (phonetic) to get together and come
up with an interconnect between the north and the south in a
Page 41
February 27, 2001
most expeditious manner so that I can take the peaks off of
either north and south of the county so that next year, if I have a
problem on the south side when the north side is online, I can
take that peak off of it and we won't have ourselves a dilemma.
So, I'll be coming to you sometime this summer with that
emergency -- I'll call it emergency, call it critical interconnect.
Next slide.
South water treatment facility, you've seen -- oh, some of
the things we've done on the north side that are good neighbor,
and you've asked us to do that in the past. We've made sure
we've got odor control on the sludge dewatering, okay, because
that did emit some odor. That facility is there, and we've also
converted our chlorine gas into a bleach, a liquid bleach process
that's a lot safer to the neighborhoods and you can get away
from a bad accident if you're into the bleach side of the house.
So, you don't have people running around wearing gas masks and
protective garments. It disturbs the neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I believe under the first one, that was
-- we did get a public-private partnership to assist us in that, so
that was one of the things that helped accelerate that process.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Next slide.
A lot of people have been talking in the press and the
editorials about the county should be going to some kind of a
desalination plant. The north plant is a desalination plant. It has
not only twelve million gallons in a nano filter process, but it also
has another eight million gallons, and this isn't on the slide, eight
million gallons in reverse osmosis, and I was saying, on the south
side with this expansion that's due to start this year and be
finished in April of 2003, we'll have the capacity not -- the first
increment will be eight million gallons a day of reverse osmosis
to link up with our lime softening process that's at twelve million
gallons. It will also go down to the brackish aquifer, the
Hawthorne aquifer to draw that water, and final build out will be
a twenty million gallon a day reverse osmosis plant down on the
south side. Total cost is -- of the twenty million gallon is
thirty-five million dollars. Next slide.
Let's talk about solid waste, our favorite -- our favorite topic.
We received 465,000 tons of trash last year. We recycled about
Page 42
February 27, 2001
87,000 tons of it. We buried about 378,000 tons into the landfill
in Naples and Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we have any idea of that
378,000 tons of garbage that we buried, what percentage of that
was recyclable if we had a better effort?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, we probably -- we probably came in last
year at -- and I've seen some things, 19 percent, 20 percent, it
depends on what you do, you can get up to 24 percent,
depending on what kind of categories you look at. We probably
can get another 16 to 18 percent out of that landfill in the
recycle effort and do a lot better in that process. We should be
well above the 30 percent, and we're not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we're going to be hearing
from you about how to get there?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
Next slide.
We have three issues at the landfill; odor control, landfill
capacity and future method of disposal, and I've talked to you at
some length at the workshop in December and during our
process here in the last couple of months with those issues.
Next slide.
Here's the -- here's the issue resolution that you gave to us
in January; haul a portion of the waste stream out of county, to
expand our present recycling efforts, fully utilize the present
landfill, and that's to line cells one and two, and implement an
expanded odor control measuring system. The second bullet,
implement odor control monitoring program, expanded
instrumentation and taxpayer interest group, and we're in the
process of doing all of those, and I would say to you at the end of
this meeting, at one o'clock, I meet with my final meeting with
Waste Management on the contract negotiation to do the first
four things that are listed on that slide, and I would say to you
that the negotiations are going quite well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We trust you with that.
MR. MUDD: We're winning, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. Keep it up.
MR. MUDD: Resolution -- next slide.
Our prescription, I promise you that we do the negotiation
for January and February. We're going to finish those today. I
will report to you on the negotiations in its complete package on
Page 43
February 27, 2001
the 27th of March as promised. We will give you the high tech.
solid waste proposals on the 24th of April. With that, I hope you
give us some direction on which ones to follow up, and that
would help us with the preliminary bids received for high tech.
solutions through April and June, and then the long-term solution
for solid waste for Collier County on the last meeting in June on
the 26th, and we're still shooting for those, and it seems like
we're on a good time line to have that done for you. Next slide.
It talks a little bit about hazardous waste. I will tell you that
we've had about 86 tons of hazardous waste collected this year.
Some of the things, where we've got the thermometer exchange,
we'll take your old mercury thermometers and we'll give you a
new one that's less hazardous, and it works just as good as that
one. There were 315 mercury thermometers that were switched
out last year that we picked up. We had several round-ups in the
neighborhoods, plus we have a hazardous waste disposal area at
the Naples landfill, and we keep that open through Saturday at
noon so you can just drop that stuff off and not have to go
through any tipping scales or anything like that, we'll just take it;
paints, aerosol cans, batteries and whatnot. Our next round-up,
which we'll have here at the government complex, is on the 16th
of March.
COMMISSIONER FIALA-' And you take thermometers there
as well, huh?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am, and I'll give you a new one.
Subject to your questions, that completes my briefing.
MS. WALSH: Okay. Next up is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question.
Mr. Mudd, when you come back to us on the long-term
solution of the regional landfill and waste county, can we take a
look at the funding source of that, such as we do in our water
and sewer facilities of an impact to that?
MR. MUDD: Sir, when we give it to you, when we bring that
solution to you on the 26th of June, we'll talk tipping fees, we'll
talk costs mandatory to trash collection bills, we'll talk different
fees for different kinds of commodities to give you that
alternative so that you have the complete view of it. We'll do
just exactly what you want, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Page 44
February27,2001
MS. WALSH: Okay. Next we have John Dunnuck,
community development administrator.
MR. DUNNUCK: Good morning, commissioners.
I want to touch upon a couple of the committees that we
have going on right now and kind of give you a few time lines.
We'll discuss them a little bit more in detail at some of the
upcoming workshops, so I'm not going to spend a great deal of
time, and then we'll get to a little bit more of the meat of what's
going on in community development right now, which kind of
gives you some indicators of where we are.
Rural fringe and lands committee, I just wanted to provide
you a little map to kind of show you, this is the rural fringe area
in red. This is the area of the major discussion that's going on
with the final order. You know, we're looking to have the
completion coming up. The blue portion is the rural lands area.
That's the outskirt area, and, you know, the other portion of it,
which you see is yellow, is already state and federally owned, so
the blue portion is the portion that is really the focus of these
committees.
Some of the rural fringe members, I kind of wanted to give
you, you know, an idea of the diversity that you have on these
committees. You know, I'll take a look, you have people from the
CBIA representing, you know, the building industry. You have
the private side all throughout, engineers, people from -- you
know, that work at plumbing, you know, companies and things
along those lines.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Before you leave that.
MR. DUNNUCK: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I need to make a really important
point, and that is, tell me please who represents the general
public or the environmental lobby? I heard you say we have
people from the building, from engineers, from contractors. I
think that we can do better on that committee with some general
public representation and, frankly, some -- you guys may or may
not have been paying attention at the time, but when we were
appointing those committees, the former board vetoed anybody
who was an environmentalist. They would not allow -- yes, they
wouldn't allow Nancy Payton on the board. They wouldn't allow
anybody from the Conservancy on the board. They wouldn't -- on
the committee. They wouldn't allow any environmentalist on
Page 45
February 27, 2001
those committees, and I just think that's a major --
COMMISSIONER FIALA.' On the rural fringe committee?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've been attending the
meetings, and I can tell you something that -- even though the
balance might not have been there in the beginning, it's there
now. They are well represented as more or less ad hoc members
of the committee, and I think the environmental interest is being
protected, but we have to keep a close eye on it. It's regrettable
that it happened at that point in time, but to disassemble this
committee and to try and reassemble it at this point in time --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, no.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- would be a mistake.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not suggesting we
disassemble and reassemble. I'm just making the point for your
consideration as we go forward, maybe with a new committee --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- when we get to implementation
committees or next advisory committees, that we really have --
it's important for these people to have a seat at the table and not
just as public comment section.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I may go one step
forward, I would suggest that everybody on their calendar allow
one day a month where they meet with people from the
Conservancy and the Wildlife Federation to get their input. You
have all sorts of special interests too. They may be a special
interest too. You need to bring things into balance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you going to create another
day in the week for me?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Use Sunday between one
o'clock in the morning and two, and you'll fit right in.
MR. DUNNUCK: And I was just going to point out, Mr.
Bartone does represent the Conservancy, and you do have a
vacant position, so you will have that opportunity as applications
come in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
MR. DUNNUCK: The rural fringe time line, I know this is very
important, and I know we talked about it a little bit at the Golden
Gate master plan, and we are going to discuss it a little bit more
during the growth management workshop coming up next month,
Page 46
February 27, 2001
but right now, I just want to kind of give you a quick overview.
We're looking at doing a transmittal hearing as early as May of
this year. Over the summer, we'll work on it from the staff
perspective, bring it back for BCC adoption in November, provide
the DCA final review in January, and then once we do that, then
there's the opportunity for the response from the public side and
then the final notice, we're looking at February, March. That
gives us about a three month window to when we're supposed to
have this done, which is June of 2002.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You've done a really good job on
getting a lot of things posted on the web site, community
character, et cetera.
Is any of this available on the web? Do you need a
recommendation coming out of this committee or otherwise?
MR. MULHERE: I'm so glad you asked that question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, good.
MR. MUL. HERE: For the record, again, Bob Mulhere, planning
services director.
Every single piece of information relating to the rural fringe
and rural assessment process is now available to the public
through the County's web site, both community character and
rural assessment as of yesterday, probably about 4:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excellent.
MR. MULHERE: They can also subscribe by E-mail. They
can communicate through E-mail. They can take a survey,
several surveys, and they can participate in discussion by
providing us their input, and we would encourage the public to go
to the County's web page at www. CollierGov. net, and if you look
on the front page, you'll see community character or rural
assessment, just click on it, and you can go to those.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CollierGov. net.
MR. MULHERE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great question.
MR. DUNNUCK: And one of the things Bob should be
complimented on is the fact that he's done a great ]ob, and he
will be bringing stuff through in the workshops of the
development review process about public participation. We feel
that's a trend that's coming statewide, and we're going to be
bringing that forward.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just for the board's
Page 47
February 27, 2001
recollection, the settlement agreement with the governor and
cabinet says that public participation shall be the hallmark of
this process, and they're going to judge us by whether or not we
have made public participation the hallmark of this process.
That's what we promised, and we'd better deliver it. I'm not
suggesting you aren't, but I want to keep bringing that up.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I don't see anywhere where we
haven't done that. That would be my question to anyone who
would sit out there and tell me this morning, A, they didn't know
there was a rural land committee, they didn't know there was a
rural fringe committee, that they didn't know they had been
meeting for a year and a half and all the articles that have been
in the paper. What we're doing here on the web site, I would
seriously question if you're not paying attention, what
expectation would you have from the Board of County
Commissioners and our staff to be better informed. I'd really like
to know, and I don't mean that sarcastically or in any sense of
the word. I am always frustrated when people tell me they don't
know, and I'm questioning whether they are not paying attention
or it hasn't affected them in some way, so it's just not on their
screen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my suggestion in that
regard, I think, is one that's already planned to be implemented,
and that is what I would call a road show, and that is we take
this information to community meetings. We have meetings in
each of our districts, town hall meetings. We offer our staff to --
as speakers to homeowners' associations, et cetera, so that we
take it to them, whether they are paying attention or not, I think
we need to do that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I would agree with you,
Commissioner. We're going to do everything that we can that
we know how to do. As you say, take it to them. It's going to be
announced. They can participate. If they choose not to pay
attention, I don't know what to tell you, I really don't, but every
opportunity will be there and documented so when it goes to the
governor and the cabinet, they will know that we have made
extraordinary efforts to communicate this.
MR. OLLIFF.' Mr. Dunnuck, keep us moving.
MR. DUNNUCK.' The next slide is the rural lands area
assessment oversight committee. I just wanted to show you the
Page 48
February 27, 2001
14 members that are currently on that committee as well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' I bet Andrew Mackie would be
interested to see now that his name is spelled like mine. His
name is Andrew Mackie, not Mac'Kie.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Not a relative, huh?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
MR. DUNNUCK.' We will note that.
Rural lands time line, as you know, this is a committee
that's pretty much headed by Wilson Miller with a little bit of
staff input. Collecting existing data, that they are in the final
stages of completing that. They're planning to do an agricultural
workshop in March. Working on the facilitated strategic plan in
April, then going through the opportunities and constraints in
May, and following it up with optional scenarios in June. Once
they finish through that portion of it, you're going to see them fall
into line similar to what the rural fringe time line is. So, we're
looking to keep them moving so that we can finish off within the
time of the final order.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I might add that they're doing an
excellent ]ob. They met last night -- I've been attending their
meetings on a regular basis and listening in to what's happening
so that I'll be fully informed to be able to assist the rest of the
commission at the appropriate time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. DUNNUCK: I'm not going to spend a lot of time, this is a
little community character slide that I've pulled off, actually off
our web page where we have it displayed. The community
character members, once again, you have a variety of individuals
on that committee as well. They are in their final stages, and
that's a mixture of environmental representatives in the private
sector.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I know you didn't mean that they were
in their final stages. They have really been doing an excellent
job. It's been very time consuming, and they have certainly
dedicated a lot of energy and effort to that.
MR. DUNNUCK: March, April, we're looking to do the
community outreach portion, you know, to share some of the
ideas. April, looking at the board presentation, which will be the
review of concepts that they've been proposing, and then in
June, this is where staff -- this is our workshop and where we're
Page 49
February 27, 2001
actually going to put the rubber to the road, so to speak, talk
about the implementation plan and what the cost feasibility is,
because as you're aware with the upcoming budget workshop,
we're going to have a lot of decisions to make.
I want to give you an idea of where we are operationally as
well. This is an impact fee comparison of this year's revenue so
far to what our budgeted amount is. We're a little bit ahead of
where we would budget if you pulled it out on a month to month
basis. We're about four and a half percent above.
The next slide is a little more interesting. This is the impact
fee comparison from this year -- from this year to last year, and
as you can see, we started off very strongly in October, and
we've seen a continual -- we've seen a little bit of a decline on
our impact fee collection, which tells me that, you know, we're --
the projects are slowing down a little bit out there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, can you go back? I
didn't understand the white line versus the pink. I see white is
last year, the pink is this year. MR. DUNNUCK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, we're 35 percent less of
impact fee collections in January of this year versus the same
time last year.
MR. DUNNUCK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Even though we raised them, huh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Without a moratorium.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' Well, there's economic factors
involved here. The recession that's taking place now, the mild
recession is doing what we haven't been able to do. They're
slowing down growth.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Interesting, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So, you've got a negative that's
turning into a little bit of a positive.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got some positive spin for this
community anyway.
MR. DUNNUCK: Well, and I think one of the things we've
pointed out at the last vital signs report too is that the large
chunks of land are slowly -- have been gobbled up, and now
you're starting to see a little bit of the result of it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. DUNNUCK'. On the back side of it, though, the permit
Page 50
February 27, 2001
side of it, we're actually I percent more, which tells me, you
know, we may be doing a little bit less of the reconstruction type
permits, but it's held steady so far.
Building inspections, we're actually doing 10 percent more
inspections right now. So, we haven't caught the lag on the
inspection side of it, and finally, you know, I want to talk a little
bit about affordable housing. We're going to discuss this more in
detail. As you know, this is another one of the workshops that
we have coming up later this spring, but just to give you an
indication, we're -- on projection wise, we're a little bit up from
where we were last year. We had 1,280 units last year, and this
year's projection, if all goes the same, we'll be looking at 1,350.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that 1,280 is actual built last
year?
MR. DUNNUCK.' I believe so, yes.
With that, I'll turn it over to Norman Feder and help him
along here.
MR. FEDER: Good morning. Norman Feder, your
transportation administrator. I'll be fairly brief, since we do have
a workshop scheduled with you on transportation this Friday
from nine to one here in these chambers, but I'd like to first point
out to you, there's been some very considerable effort in the
activity underway since the last reporting.
First of all, we now have a Collier area transit system, and
I'm very pleased to tell you that we had over a thousand patrons
the first week and some very significant success stories that we
will be bringing to you. We're told of folks that now have
employment because they have a way to get to work, so the
system is starting off as we expected, slow but steady, and
we're hoping to continue from here.
Major projects, I'll cover very quickly, the five projects we
already have underway and others coming along soon.
Immokalee Road, 1-75 to 951 or Collier Boulevard, completion by
the end of 2000. We also added the sidewalks and other features
to this project.
Livingston Road, as you know, we modified that from a four
lane to a six lane cross section. The first section, Radio to
Golden Gate Parkway, scheduled for completion in the fall of this
year. As we continue on, we'll also be starting up Golden Gate to
Pine Ridge about mid year for one year construction.
Page 51
February 27, 2001
One thing that we'll have to address here as we open up this
first section, and we'll be coming to the board on modifications
to the Radio and Airport intersection, some prospects of having
to pull into that landscaped median to provide for at least dual, if
not the possibility of triple left westbound to southbound onto
Airport Road.
MR. DUNNUCK: And just one of the things I wanted to point
out real quickly was, here was your before and after picture from
the last time you had seen the vital signs report. For the two
members who were here, you can see they've gotten the asphalt
down on the road.
MR. FEDER: Thank you, John.
The next item that you're seeing is actually a combination of
two issues that we're dealing with. The first is Long Bay
Partners' construction of the initial two lanes north of Immokalee
on up to the county line, and actually, they're working right now
up to the north end of the county line up to Bonita Beach Road
with two lanes. The County is going to expand to four. We'll
come back and expand the third year of our program to six lanes
up to what's called the east-west connector and then four lanes
to combine into Lee County's project, and that east-west will
basically go from Livingston on over to U.S. 41. We have
designed in this year the program on that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we name that something
besides East-West Livingston?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' Do like the Feder Road.
MR. FEDER: We'll find a more appropriate name,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Henningway.
MR. FEDER.' Hemingway, yes-- Hemingway, I like that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was cute.
MR. FEDER: Golden Gate Boulevard, here, we approached
Golden Gate Boulevard with basically two phases. While the
overall construction project is going all the way out to Wilson,
we addressed the first mile of the project out to the school. As
you can see there on the picture, the asphalt is pretty much
down. We're moving traffic on over to the new section and will
continue with that construction and then proceeding on out
further to the west.
Page 52
February 27, 2001
Pine Ridge Road, again, as you recognize as you try to drive
around the County, one of the other construction sites, Airport to
1-75 and over past 1-75, that portion of roadway -- we're almost
done with all the utility relocations. Quite often people say, how
long does it take you to build a road. The road is actually the
fast part. It's the utility relocation that takes us, it seems,
forever. So, the completion of that and the construction to
proceed, completion April of 2002.
You've got Vanderbilt Road expansion. This board
authorized us to move forward, and we are designing a six lane
of Vanderbilt from Airport on over to Logan, four lane from Logan
over to 951 or Collier Boulevard.
We have a number of other projects I'll just highlight quickly;
Airport Road will very shortly be under construction for six laning
between Pine Ridge and Vanderbilt, and as I mentioned
previously, Livingston Phase II will be under construction
starting the fall of this year with completion in fall of 2002.
Again, I'll note to you that we'll go in a lot more detail as to
where we are and some of the upcoming issues this Friday in
workshop from nine to one in these chambers. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the board's
indulgence, but I think the information that we provide both in
the financial audit report and in this vital signs report hopefully
puts the board in a better position for us to step then and do a
strategic planning session, then go from that into budget policy
development and then your actual budget development and
review process.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, Tom, I want to thank you for that
because you're connecting the dots. You're not giving it to us
piecemeal. You're giving us a bigger picture, and I think that's
very critical for us as we go into all the various workshops, along
with the strategic planning, one which is a culmination of
everything we're trying to do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, Tom, I was wondering if
we could possibly get a copy of all of the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Slides.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- slides, thank you, because we all
go out to different speeches around the community, and that
would be a great thing, not only to bring with us, but to pass
Page 53
February 27, 2001
around to the organizations. So possibly having some slides --
MR. OLLIFF: We do as follow up, not only can we provide
you the hard copy, but we can provide you that in disk format as
well if you want to take it out on the road and actually do it in a
Power Point. So, we'll provide both versions to you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Whatever you like.
What we need now is a motion for approval.
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir, I don't think we need a motion. It was
more of an informational item than anything.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Then we're going to stand in recess
for ten minutes, and we have a time certain at eleven o'clock.
(Small break was held).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I need the commissioners back on the
dais. Ladies and gentlemen -- hey, Katie, get this thing working.
Are we live? Nah, you can't hear a thing.
Can you hear us?
Okay, the recorder can hear us. Thank you.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, we are back in session.
Item #12Cl
ORDINANCE 2001-06 AMENDING ORDINANCE 92-102 CREATING
THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIANSHIP PROGRAM TO
CONFORM TO FLORIDA STATUTES - ADOPTED
We are now moving to a time certain item, which is under
the comprehensive plan amendments. It is 12(C}(1).
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you, first of all, for allowing us to be here at eleven
o'clock. It assisted us with our problems with the courts for
today.
We're here to address the public guardianship --.
THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, I need your name.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Sorry, ma'am. I'm Mark Middlebrook,
senior deputy court administrator.
We're here to address the public guardianship program and
the ordinance changes that are necessary to bring us in
compliance with the recent statute changes in the Florida state
statute. Basically, there's going to be a new oversight person,
and that is the statewide public guardian who is responsible for
Page 54
February 27, 200t
overseeing all of the public guardianship programs within the
State of Florida.
Fortunately, our program here in Collier County is going to
be utilized as one of the models for the statewide program.
However, because of the changes, we need to make some
changes to our ordinance to bring us in compliance, and we also
need to make some fiscal changes in order to compensate in
accordance with the proposed payments from the State.
As is typical with some of the things that we experience
from Tallahassee, they've provided all these new state statute
requirements but no funding, which means now that the counties
must pick up the slack.
Although the courts really don't have a dog in a fight
anymore with this, we used to oversee the program exclusively.
The program is basically to assist the courts. The statewide
public guardian will be responsible to report to the judges and
the chief judge of this circuit, and the public guardian that is
appointed through the statewide public guardian must have the
approval of the judges.
So, in essence, the courts will still be running the program
with this umbrella of the state above us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Excuse me, Mr. Middlebrook.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve or amend
Ordinance Number 92-102.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed, by the same sign?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I'll assume that that motion --
since the executive summary wasn't clear in the actual
recommendation, I will assume that that motion included the
approval of the budget amendments necessary to make that
happen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The additional 11,000 out of the
general fund, but it has to be done.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It has to be done. Thank you.
Item #8A1
Page 55
February 27, 2001
REPORT REGARDING THE CURRENT STRUCTURE OF THE
POLICIES AND REGULATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL EXCAVATIONS
- STAFF TO FOLLOW DIRECTION AS OUTLINED ON PAGES 8 AND
9 OF THE REPORT
That takes us back to regular agenda. We're now moving to
Item 8(A)(1) in regards to commercial excavations, and there will
be a report by staff on this, and they also have
recommendations, and Mr. Olliff, I'm sure we have some people
who would like to speak.
MR. OLLIFF: We have a number of them.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: How many do we have today?
MR. OLLIFF: You have at least a dozen. You may have more
than that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So, board, take that into
consideration. We need to hear the report, need to hear the
recommendation, and we need to take the input from the people
here who have patiently waited to express their points of view,
and your recommendations, commissioners, are on Pages 7, 8
and 9.
MS. MURRAY: Good morning. I'm Susan Murray. I'm chief
planner with the planning services department, and my role
today is basically this presentation.
I was looking into the commercial excavation permitting
process, particularly as it applies within the estates zoning
classification. I've assembled some findings, and I would like to
advise the board on the current structure of the process and
some of the regulations as they pertain, again, in the estates
zoning district. There will be a couple of cross-overs.
Excavations are also permitted in the agricultural zoning district,
and I do have some regulations I need to touch on that apply to
excavations in both of those zoning districts, but primarily, my
focus will be on the estates zoning districts.
We understand that there is a concern on the part of the
board and the public related to excavations that have been
approved and are in operation in the estates zoning district and
some in the agricultural zoning district as well. My goal here is
that hopefully we will obtain some direction from the board
concerning the current policies and some of the laws governing
Page 56
February 27, 2001
commercial excavations in order to ensure that these type of
land use processes have minimal impacts on residentially
developed properties, and that they function in the manner that
is in the best interest of the entire community.
I have a summary presentation, and then I'll likely step
aside. We have a few other staff members here, Stan
Chrzanowski and Tom Kuck, who are primarily involved in
implementing the commercial excavation permitting process.
So, if you have detailed questions, I'll be directing you to them,
as well as Ed Kant from transportation, because I have some
comments on the impact fee -- road impact fee ordinance as
well.
The information I gathered, and just to give you a historical
perspective, from what I understand, back in 1999, the board
directed staff to come up with some interim policies relative to
commercial excavations in the estates zoning district. I
understand there were some individuals or an individual who
wanted to excavate a pond on their property and remove the fill
to do that. The pond was -- the fill generated from the
excavation of the pond was going to be way in excess of what
this individual could use on the property, and there was a need to
remove it. As a result, the staff did draft these interim policies,
and they are in place today, and we are having a few problems
with them, again, as they relate mostly to input that we've
received from the public hearing process for excavations within
the agricultural zoning district, and I don't want to mix those up.
I'm going to clarify it a little bit and then go on with my
presentation.
So with that, if you look up here, you'll see, just to give you
an overview, so you understand what a commercial excavation
is, it's any excavation wherein the excavated material is
removed from the subject property. There are other excavations
that take place on property where the material is not removed.
This is particularly involving a commercial excavation where the
material is removed.
The current regulations for commercial excavation permits
in the estates zoning district, what you have are a set of board
approved policies. There is an administrative review process
relative to these policies, which is conducted by the engineering
review section, and then a permit, commercial excavation permit
Page 57
February 27, 2001
that appears on your consent agenda for the board approval.
Different from the estates zoning district, we have the ag.
zoning district. Commercial excavations in the ag. zoning
district require conditional use approval, which consists of staff
analysis, recommendations and a public hearing with the EAC, if
applicable.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Susan.
MS. MURRAY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you forgive me? I trust
and am confident that everybody on the board has read this staff
report, because this is an issue, you know, that Commissioner
Coletta, frankly, has brought to our attention and is one that's
really important. It seems to me that what has happened here is
that they've identified some real problems with our current
policy, and staff has made some recommendations on how to
remedy those. I personally could just hear from the people who
are here to speak and then maybe act on those
recommendations if they meet with your goals, Commissioner
Coletta, I'd be interested to hear that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' Well, I'll be honest with you,
that might be true to a point, but there's a couple of points. One,
the people that are here to hear it don't know the total staff
report. Also, two, there's some monetary issues that have to be
discussed. It's fairly involved. I'm sure we might be able to
shorten it a little bit, but it's really something that the public has
the right to know too.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hadn't given thought to that.
The public needs to hear this presentation even if we already did.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, they need to hear it, and I
wonder if they would be most interested in hearing what staff's
recommendations are, and would they begin to address the
issues that the community is concerned with as we've been
concerned with, and would that be appropriate, Commissioner?
MR. OLLIFF: We'll move straight to the recommendations.
MS. MURRAY: Straight to the recommendations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you just explain to me --
being that most of the ag. land is in the estates, can you explain
to me what the difference is between ag. and estates?
MS. MURRAY: The agricultural zoning district is primarily--
well, two schools of thought here. In the urban area, the
Page 58
February 27, 2001
agricultural zoning district primarily functions as a holding zone
until more urban densities are requested through a rezoning
process, typically to a PUD or a residential zoning district, if it's
residential.
Outside the urban area, your agricultural zoning districts
primarily function for agricultural uses, the raising of crops,
animals, farm, et cetera. That's not always the case. We have a
lot of residents that are moving out to the ag. zoning district
simply for some peace and quiet, and they are just residential
homeowners living on five acre tracts, and they don't have
working farms. The density out in the ag. zoning district is one
dwelling unit per five acres.
The estates zoning district allows some, what I would call
limited agricultural activities, but that's not the primary focus.
The primary focus of estates would be just basically for
residential living, one dwelling unit per two and a quarter acres.
You may have a couple horses for recreational purposes or dogs
or whatever, but that's basically the difference.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And on the map, the brown is
estates, and what color is ag.; the white? MS. MURRAY: That's correct.
And you'll see some intermingling of ag. and estates, so
there's a lot of cross-over. When you start getting excavations in
the ag. zoning district, you affect people in the estates as well.
Straight to the recommendations?
Okay. Basically what we've done is if the board would like
to continue to allow excavations to occur in the estates zoning
district, it's staff's recommendation that consistent with the
agricultural zoning district and excavations, that you require
them to go through a conditional use process. Right now, they
don't have to do that. It's an administrative process. So, that
would mean that they would come before you with a public
hearing, and the public would be allowed to speak, and you could
formulate recommendations based on the application and the
conditions of the area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what's the charge for a
conditional use or the application?
MS. MURRAY: Conditional use charges is $2,000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, again, that leaves -- if you're
excavating for your personal use, you aren't required to pay that
Page 59
February 27, 2001
MS. MURRAY: Well, that's kind of another glitch in the
regulations or in the policies. Right now, under the ag. zoning
district, you can excavate a certain amount of fill up to 4,000
cubic yards, which isn't a lot, and you can take it from your site
and not go through a commercial excavation permit or a
conditional use process.
In the estates, we don't have that. If you take anything off
your site, you're automatically a commercial excavation, the way
I understand it.
So, part of our recommendation is to allow a certain amount
of fill to be taken off an estates zoned property without having to
go through the conditional use process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the policy behind that is
what? Why do we want to allow that?
MS. MURRAY: Well, there are certain -- for example, in the
instance of wanting to dig for a pond, there might be certain
instances that you may need to remove a certain amount of fill
from your property that's not substantial enough to have a huge
impact on surrounding property owners.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many truckloads of fill is
4,000, whatever you just said?
MS. MURRAY: There's 16 -- about 16 cubic yards per truck,
so how much is that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sure some of your speakers
can answer that part.
MS. MURRAY: Engineers.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I have a calculator, but I guess it's
about 250.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two hundred fifty truckloads is
not commercial?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, ma'am, we don't consider that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We might want to rethink that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Susan, have we taken a look at
the economic impacts of the changes that we're looking at now?
MS. MURRAY: In terms of economics of --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Of more government in private
land uses, such as a mom-and-pop excavating company and what
impact that would be on these changes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I think, Commissioner, that goes
Page 60
February 27, 2001
to if the recommendations were to stay in order as I have it in
the book, it goes to Page 9, under a statement about in the
middle of the page, you have one, two, three points, and I had
marked, need an economic impact analysis in order to better
assess that situation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think to me it's just if your -- the
policy ought to be if it's excavation for your personal use, it's not
commercial, and personal use means on your same property, and
if it's excavation for profit, then it's commercial.
MR. MULHERE: Well, we can -- we can certainly do that. I
mean, I just want to raise some issues -- and for the record,
again, Bob Mulhere -- that it seems like 250 trips is a lot, but it
can basically be done in ten days or less, and that's why the
policy has been -- there's a threshold for that, just because you
were going to take some dirt off-site and just because there was
a market, you may have a home, want to dig a pond, you don't
want to put the fill on your site because you don't want to alter
the land by placing the fill on your site, and there's a market out
there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about if you give it away
versus you sell it?
MR. MULHERE: Well, you're saying impacts on the road, so,
I mean -- that's my point. We thought that there should be a
threshold, and that's the way we have operated. I don't think
your staff has a problem if the board's policy direction is that
there shouldn't be a threshold, that if you're taking it off-site, you
go through this process, but keep in mind, again, we talked about
the $2,000 fee, and that seemed like a lot, well, it's not a lot if
you're excavating greater than, let's say, 4,000 cubic yards of fill
because you will be recouping significant revenue from that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the market for 4,000
cubic yards of fill? What can you sell that for? Somebody has to
know that, some ballpark.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Probably six to eight dollars a cubic
yard, depending on haul distance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, you do my math for me. If it's
six, what is the --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Six per 4,000 is 24,000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So, they'd have to pay a
$2,000 fee to earn $24,000. I can live with that.
Page 61
February 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Pam, you've got a good point.
What we have here is the people we don't want to buy.
There are those that are going to excavate on their site and
move the dirt to the front of their property, use for a house pad,
but the other people are going to be impacting their neighbors,
they're going to be impacting the roads. The -- in fact, the rate
that exists right now is totally unfair for the small pit operators.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Excuse me, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've got to tell you, I'm so
grateful that you brought this up, because I'm just ashamed of
myself for not having known that we were regulating the way we
were. I mean, we've done this the wrong way for too long, and
I'm very grateful to you for bringing it up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Pam.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Excuse me, Commissioner, can I say
something? Stan Chrzanowski from development services.
That number that I gave you is if you wanted to buy fill, that
is how much you would pay for the fill in place, because it costs,
I've heard anywhere from 25 cents a mile to haul it, but the fill
actually coming out of the ground is probably like $2, or in that
neighborhood, a cubic yard. The digger, if you hire a digger, he's
probably going to pay you a dollar a cubic yard for the material.
He'll make a dollar, and then the trucker will make the rest of the
money. You've got a food chain in there that is taking a lot of
that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It is conceivable to me that you may
not need all the fill on your property for the home, and I'm an
individual lot owner here, I want to build a home, and I want to
have a lake, and I have excess fill, I don't think it's the role of
government to tell that person they can't sell their excess fill
because it is their property, and they have an opportunity to
offset some of the construction costs.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They can do it --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, but it is the role of
government to be able to sit in there and regulate how this fill is
going to be taken off and at what rate, and there's an impact on
the roads that we're not being compensated for now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the key.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, but if you go to the other formula
Page 62
February 27, 2001
where they're looking at a charge per cubic yard, then that
seems to me under the recommendation to begin to address that
issue. I'm saying let's be careful that we get a solid policy here
that doesn't penalize the individual homeowner. That's what I'm
talking about.
Commercial is a whole different ball game. If you're taking
this stuff out, and we don't have restricted areas and it's
unregulated, then I think it is the role of government, but I'm
concerned about the individual property owner.
MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I did want to -- we
didn't get to that yet, but one of the recommendations, and I
think that -- is that we would go away from an impact fee
assessment and to a maintenance assessment, because that's
really what we're talking about, which Commissioner Coletta
raised, is the impacts to the road network, the existing road
network, and so we would capture -- we would develop a formula
to capture the impacts and to maintain those roads as a result of
the impacts from these in any case, and that's what our
recommendation is.
So, it's not our recommendation to establish a threshold
beyond which you -- what we're talking about is the public
hearing process, not a -- in any case, you would have to pay a
calculated maintenance impact. So, the threshold we're talking
about is really for a public hearing process. Do you have to go
through a full blown public hearing, conditional use, for every
off-site movement of fill, some of which may be only a quarter of
a mile within the neighborhood, and what we're suggesting is
that there be a threshold. The threshold that has been
established in the agricultural district is 4,000 cubic yards.
Perhaps it should be less in the estates, but we were looking at
the same threshold.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Less in both.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Were we supposed to hear from the
transportation services division?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's coming up.
MS. MURRAY: The third recommendation would be that,
again, the existing policies in the estates zoning district are
simply policies, and they need to be adopted into your land
development code if you want to ensure that they are legally
enforceable, and we would recommend that you do that as well.
Page 63
February 27, 200t
The fourth recommendation is to address some of the
inconsistencies in the methodology of calculating permit fees. I
believe that the cost for the permit application fees for your
larger operations and your smaller operations, there's not a huge
discrepancy. There's a minimum -- or a maximum cost that can
be charged, and that cost -- that maximum applies to both your
smaller and your larger, so what we would like to do is separate
those out so that the smaller guys, perhaps, pay less or the
larger guys pay more, just something to address the
inconsistency with the application of the fee.
We also recognize that there's been no research that we're
aware of or nothing that we have in our hand that suggests that
there may or may not be an environmental impact with respect
to permitting a large number of small ponds, if you will, in the
estates zoning district, and we thought that that probably
needed to be evaluated further as well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that something you can go to
EAC for for their consideration? I'd like to see that. MS. MURRAY: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, it seems to me that, I made a
note on that, it needs an overall water management plan when
you do this. You can't look at it piecemeal. MS. MURRAY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think you really have to look at the
whole area and what is --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now you're getting into what
I've been trying to say. It needs a lot more regulation than's in
place right now.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't disagree with that at all,
Commissioner. I think we're on the same page. I'm just a little
concerned about the individual person, and that I don't put him or
her --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' Right, we need to protect them,
and one of the things we're going to be doing with this is we're
going to try to correct the disparity between what the small pit
owners are paying and the large pit owners are paying. It's
unbelievable. It's like a factor of five or six.
What is it, Bob? The small pit owners are paying way out of
proportion.
MS. MURRAY: It's really a fee that has a cap on it, so -- and I
Page 64
February 27, 2001
would call it a minimal fee. There's no graduated scale for large
owners versus -- or large pits versus small pits, and that's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But proportionate to the amount
of money that they're making is what he -- proportionate to the
profit.
MS. MURRAY: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Once you meet the threshold, you're
home free.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, but is it right for a person
that has 120 acres and they're excavating the whole thing to be
paying a fee that's similar to someone that's doing part of a five
acre lot? That's what I'm bringing up here. We're missing out on
impact fees for the roads that are way out of proportion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would agree with you. You need
some sort of a formula for the small --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'. You are absolutely right, and I
think they have something in mind.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct, and, again, the rationale or
the nexus is that frankly with a much larger scale excavation,
the staff time put into reviewing it, the staff time dealing with
neighbors and residents and attending meetings and trying to
resolve issues is more significant. So, there is a rationale or a
nexus for charging a higher fee for a larger excavation and a
lower fee for a smaller one. What we have now is a maximum of
$3,000. So, if you're excavating a million cubic yards of fill, you
pay $3,000, and if you're excavating a thousand cubic yards of
fill, you pay less than 3,000, but it's not proportionate.
MS. MURRAY: The other recommendation would be to
address the inconsistency in subjectivity in the present
methodology of calculating road impact fees for commercial
excavation permits, and this we've talked a little bit with the
transportation department about developing a separate
ordinance addressing earth mining as a unique land use, and I
believe that they are also going to be bringing that forward to
you at their workshop this Friday, but the idea here is that the
impact fees are calculated based on a number of factors, but two
important factors, the haul distance and the time frame of the
excavation have a significant impact on the amount of fee that's
charged, and a year's difference in time could result in a 50
percent increase or decrease of impact fees; same with the haul
Page 65
February 27, 2001
distance.
The problem is we have no way of verifying whether the haul
distances are accurate. You get a long-term excavation. The
market conditions change. Their buyers change, that sort of
thing. We have no way of adjusting for those road impacts based
on the change in road miles traveled year to year, and I'll just
leave that. In case you have any other questions on that -- I
think Bob went over that pretty well. And the idea behind that,
rather than to charge based on the mileage traveled and the time
frame of the excavation, it would be perhaps to consider
charging on a per cubic yard basis, because that's a measurable
amount.
The applicants for excavation permits come in and they tell
us how much they're going to excavate and how long it's going to
take them and where they're going to haul the material to, and
on a yearly basis, that excavation is monitored, and at the end of
the excavation, we have the ability to go in and require them to
submit by a professional engineer or a surveyor an exact -- or
almost exact measurement of how much fill was actually
excavated, and then the road maintenance fee, if that's what you
choose to call it, could actually be adjusted up or down based on
the amount of fill that was actually excavated, rather than the
subjective nature of road miles traveled and time.
That's really it for staff's recommendations if you choose to
allow excavations to remain in the estates zoning district.
If you decide that you don't want to have excavations in the
estates, we would suggest, again, that you do allow a certain
defined amount of fill to be excavated and hauled off-site for
personal use, that you still do address the inconsistencies and
subjectivities in the present methodology of calculating road
impact fees, and that you address the inconsistencies in
calculating fees for permit applications, and that should you
decide not to, that is still our recommendation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner, how many commercial
application -- or pits do we have in the estates today?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The exact number -- I had a map
that was at my disposal, and I didn't bring it with me, but I am
sure you will see something similar today. There was quite a
few.
What it is is on the smaller pits, they go in and they'll
Page 66
February 27, 2001
excavate the pit over a period of maybe a year or two years, and
then move on to another location. In some places, the impact is
minimal. In other places, it's great.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, it's just like strip mining.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, yes and no. In some cases
-- and I hope that the people that I've invited here today-- I sent
out letters to all the miners, the people who have these mine
operations out there in the estates and the agricultural lands, so
they knew this meeting was taking place.
Some of them are actually doing quite a service in the way
they do it, and they leave the land behind in better shape than
they found it, with a beautiful lake, all landscaped, ready to go.
In fact, that particular lot will sell for more of a value than
others, and you're going to find today too that there's other
miners that go in there, and they'll mine the thing to the extent
where it has no value. It's nothing but an empty pit. The price of
land out there being what it is to get that last couple of square
feet of land of value of it way exceeds the value of the land.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So, there's no incentive for
restoration?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In some cases there is and there
isn't. They have a bond that they post, and I still don't know the
whole situation on that, if the people are abandoning the bond or
what, but in some cases, what's been left behind is less than
desirable. Not only an eyesore in the landscape, but it's also an
attractive nuisance for young children.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So, then that would tell me that we
have to -- whatever was decided, that you must restore the land.
There is no option to this, that you can't --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I couldn't agree with you more,
and I hope that before we reach any decisions here, that we will
have the speakers come forward from both sides and present
their case.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, perhaps maybe we should move
to public input and get --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think you might want to hear a
little bit about the impact on roads before we go to the next step.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to take this meeting over, but it's
very important that we have all the facts out.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, no, it's all right. You're not taking
Page 67
February 27, 2001
over. That's fine. I want your input.
MR. KANT: Good morning, commissioners. Edward Kant,
transportation operations director.
Thank you, Commissioner Coletta.
The one issue that we were -- we have been concerned with
for a number of years is the application of a road impact fee for
this particular land use. As you're aware, the road impact fee
speaks to capacity related issues as opposed to operational and
maintenance issues. We cannot use road impact fees. However,
we collect them. They go into the pot, and they are used for
capital projects.
Because of some of the issues that have come up in recent
years, we have looked at this, and we are going to come back --
actually, if you do agree to the recommendations this morning,
later on, one of the recommendations is that we develop an earth
mining road operational fee in lieu of a road impact fee so that
we can more appropriately capture those impacts on the system,
whether they be just down the street on a local road, which,
frankly, may take more of a beating than an arterial road which is
built to a different standard.
So, if, in fact, that is your desire later today and we do get
the direction to work on that, frankly, that will shorten up a little
bit of our presentation on Friday because we were planning to
bring that back to you on Friday, but it is important to recognize
that this is an operational issue as opposed to a capacity related
issue.
There may be -- and this is something which we would have
to address as we review the criteria and try to come up with an
equitable fee, the issue of what about some of these pits which
are permitted for 50 years or a long time, does that become the
land use? We need to sit down with the county attorney's office
-- there's a lot of factors that go into coming up with this kind of
a determination. We would come back to you at some future
date with that.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta, I just want to compliment you on the
homework that you've doing on this and bringing it to our
attention. I know it's vital to your district, but what you're doing
is helping all of us in the health, safety and welfare of what we're
Page 68
February 27, 2001
charged with and responsibility on how to deal with this.
So, in no way did I feel that you should ever be
shortchanged in the time you need to explain that issue to us.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, you've got 15 registered
speakers, so I'll go ahead and call two at a time, and if the
second speaker could just be standing and waiting over here by
the doorway, it would be helpful.
The first speaker is Kenneth Rumple, followed by Rebecca
Winans.
MR. RUMPLE: For the record, my name is Kenneth Rumple,
48365 31 st Street Northeast off of DeSoto between two of these
so-called ponds.
I've been in the -- working in the mining industry for ten
years myself. I work at the bigger pits, and I haven't had the
opportunity to work at one of the smaller ones.
This is a picture, if I may show the commissioners, of one --
that the county code has said this is a finished pond out in the
estates. These ponds, they're digging them on two -- they have
to at least have, to my recollection, two and a half acres to dig
the ponds. There are two by my house that are on about two and
three-quarters acres. They leave 30 foot of ground around the
outside of the pond, and enough pad that they can say there's a
house, but I cannot see how they can put a septic tank and well
on this property and be properly permitted.
Like I said, I live within two. There's another one permitted
to go within a quarter of a mile of my house. I have two small
children, and there are exactly ten children on our street, which
can get into these ponds, and in this dry season, alligators do
like these ponds because it is hard to find water.
The equipment does not have to be fenced in. We have had
kids killed in Fort Myers from playing on equipment by a school.
This equipment is out in the community and is not regulated in
any way. A lot of this equipment is old, does cause leaks on
hydraulic hoses, oil getting into our water supply and no way of
determining whether they clean this up or not.
So, my recommendation to the county board is to shut down
all of the pits inside the residential area of the estates, and I
would hope that you would take this recommendation from me as
the word of a lot of people. We have plenty of signatures of
people that don't want this by them. I don't want to hurt the
Page 69
February 27, 2001
small business people, but our roads are getting torn up. It's not
-- most of them are not that sightly of a place. They are not
doing anything to make them look better.
If the problem is determining commercial and a residential,
have them have to pull the permit for the house before they can
build their pond on their land. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Rebecca Winans followed by
Mike Ball.
MS. WINANS: Good morning. I'm Rebecca Winans, and I live
at 4530 Randall Boulevard, and I presented you with pictures of
some of the lakes right by me, plus the petitions from the people
that signed, and I have a paper that my husband, I'm not sure it's
going to show up, stepped out for one of the pits on the property
on 22nd, and my concern is, we have no spraying out there. We
live out there. I pay a lot of money in taxes. I don't mind living
out there and paying the money and having no spraying, but we
have mosquitoes now to where you can't walk outside as soon as
it gets dark. With these pits not being stocked with fish to be
able to eat the mosquito larvae, we're going to have kids
infected with encephalitis next, because we have no control over
mosquitoes. You don't even come out and see if we have
encephalitis in our area.
Plus also, one of the pictures shows it by a canal. Now, in
our rainy seasons -- when we built our lake on our property, we
had to have the house permit pulled first. You'll see a paper on
the package that shows our permit, how big our lake could be,
how deep it could be, all the requirements on it, the slope and
everything else that was required, but we had to have our house
permit pulled first before we were able to build it. Now, there's
got -- and our lake, when we have a good rainy season, overflows
into our own property. We left the back part of our property Iow
just so it would have a place to go.
Now, this one beside the canal, if it overflows, it's going to
bust that canal out, and there's more money out of you guys'
pocket to dig out that canal, to clear out the canal so that -- and
then what are you going to have; a canal and a lake mixed
together.
That's my concerns, and thank you.
Page 70
February 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Mike Ball, followed by Milly
Ball.
MR. BALL: Hello. I'm Mike Ball for the record. I'm here to
speak on earth mining.
We've been dealing with this for a couple of years now, and
we've had some bigger mines go in, and they're doing a good job.
They're taking care of the neighbors. They're doing some road
maintenance and that kind of stuff and keeping their dust down
on their property, but we're getting a lot of these little pits going
in, and most of these end up on private roads or unmaintained
roads at all, and I asked Mr. Coletta to come down my road the
other day, and we had a dump truck dump ten loads at the end of
my road the other day, and our road decreased travelability
probably by 90 percent during that one day, because the truck
driver was in a hurry. He was going probably 25 to 35 miles an --
everybody says these truck drivers take good care of their
trucks. They are in a hurry, man. They want to get there, get
back and get another load and get back again. I watched him.
He came by. He hit one of the sand holes. Man, he went like
that, and the front end bounced over, and he went the other way,
and then he started trying to dodge the sand holes, well, his tires
couldn't dodge the sand holes. They'd catch the edge, which
breaks it down more, and this is our private road.
I try to get out there with my little Bobcat, and we get a load
or two of gravel in there, and we'll try to flatten it out, and we'll
have these dump trucks come back in there and tear it up again.
And like the picture they were showing, there's a lot of pits
out there that these people claim they're building a house or
going to build a house on it, they're just going out to dig the dirt
up and make a bunch of money and leave a pit behind and
nobody wants it. They say they can build a house on -- like that
gentleman there, how can you permit for a well and a septic tank
when there's only like a pad of a hundred foot square left on this
piece of property to build a house on. Thank you much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can testify that Friendship
Lane is anything but friendly as far as trying to drive on it.
If you had that road down at Donna's street, you wouldn't
have a problem with traffic going through there.
Page 71
February 27, 2001
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Milly Ball, followed by Nancy
Payton.
MS. BALL: Yeah, I have this for the record. I'd like it to be
added as part of the minutes.
I just wrote some -- I do have some definite problems with
the current rules. The dump truck noises, right now the rules say
it's from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. I don't think many people would
care to have those noises in their neighborhood at 7:00 a.m. on a
Saturday morning. I don't think that's being at all considerate.
In addition to the problems -- I wrote problem, and I wrote
solution. The solution, of course, would be to change the hours
from 8:00 to 5:00 Monday through Friday. I think that's more
than reasonable, and then this blasting is a whole other issue,
that they're wanting to blast in residential areas that's -- without
any notice. You know, there's really no way they could notify all
the -- it would be very difficult for them to notify all the residents.
It would be like, surprise.
Damage to the private roads, we have -- yeah, they are
paying money. They are getting dump trucks on the damaged
roads. That's why they pay more, but this road -- that money
doesn't go into our private roads. That comes out of our pocket
and damages our cars, you know, the alignment, and it's just --
you know, it's a pain. The solution would, of course, be if they --
it would be to require them to upgrade the roads, 12 inches of
compacted lime rock base. Again, I've written all this. I thought
-- it's a standard. Yeah, I'm not an engineer, I'm a nurse, but I've
done as much research as I can easily do. I put a fair amount of
work into this.
This final road maintenance needs to be addressed, because
if it's not, then the roads are just left devastated without any --
where the people don't have anything to go back on that. No
solution except, again, more money out of their pocket. We're
paying taxes.
We're subsidizing the people in town because they've got
little flowers and trees in their intersections and their medians.
We've got rotted roads and no -- it's just we're subsidizing, and
that's not right.
Another thing to be addressed is the traffic problems. You
know, we've got mailboxes, rural mailboxes end up being on
those roads. If you're going to be turning in, you have to have a
Page 72
February 27, 2001
turn-in lane, and you've got to have a school bus stop, because
dump trucks are big. They have limited sight. They can't stop
quick, and, you know, we're going to have a tragedy. I mean, do
we need to wait until we can name a law after some kid that got
smooched. Oh, gee, I'm sorry, it's only one kid that got
smooched, you know. That's not what we need to do. I'm sorry,
but we need to think about those things. Again, I've provided the
solutions there.
The other thing is property values go down. Now, who
wants to buy a house with a pit within sight of the place, and we
have -- you know, they are not mansions, but they're nice houses.
We went out there for the peace and quiet. We have a pit
making beep, beep, beep noises. No compensation to us, not
that they would, but our property values go down, but still, taxes
are going up because, quote, Naples is moving out in our
neighborhood, but nobody takes that into account when they
figure our property taxes, and I can maybe live with that if we
had a set -- a time when the pits are going to be finished, but
right now, it's carte blanche. A solution would be to limit
operations to two years with one possible extension. Then the
original pit owner has to be held financially liable to guarantee
that this pit would be converted into a more aesthetic
appearance.
Compromise of private wells, we've heard -- you're going to
hear testimony that it has no impact on the well. However, since
there's an increased number of nearby residents that have had
well problems, there's a probability of loss of water resources.
Solution, a possible solution would be an independent study
complete with mapping of problem areas needed to research the
location and type of problem local residents are experiencing. A
control group of well users who don't have a nearby earth mining
pit could be used if they're not going to step -- you know, we've
said we haven't had problems with the well in the past. If you're
not going to accept historical data, then you need to have a
control group that doesn't have wells in there, that doesn't have
earth mining pits in the area.
Particular attention needs to be given to the depth of the
well and the depth of the earth mining excavation, some of which
have asked to go down 56 feet. Now, I'm sorry, I have a little
problem with a hundred -- that big a hole that deep, and it doesn't
Page 73
February 27, 2001
impact the water.
One more thing, that's it. Lack of accountability to local
residents, now this is something that -- historical inconsistencies
and errors in the application of public hearing for conditional use
and county planning commission memorandums. You know, that
was an E-mail I sent to all the commissioners before one of the
meetings on the earth -- and I have another copy if anybody
wants to see it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that's going to -- we're
going to address that at our growth management plan.
MS. BALL: Let me finish this one solution. More weight
needs to be given to documented inaccuracies identified by
neighbors, including mandated work stoppage until
discrepancies are corrected. Work stoppage would require
re-application through advisory boards to include environmental
and/or planning commission. I pointed out inconsistencies. I
documented them. I -- chapter and versus, nobody said nothing.
Nobody gave me a satisfactory answer. I pointed out essentially
fraud inaccuracies, and you guys can't make good decisions, if
you're not given half the information.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ma'am, if you will provide us with a
copy, I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up now. MS. BALL: That's it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much for your
information. If you want to provide the board with a copy of your
notes, we'll be more than welcome to have it. MS. BALL: I did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may add something here --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- Milly is the driving force down
there on Friendship Lane, and we had this very issue come up
before us, and I think we kind of dismissed it a little too quick.
At that point in time we were trying to point out about the fact
that these people bought in a country setting for country living
and now they're living with a berm for an unknown period of time.
I tried to get this commission to agree at that time to make it a
part of the conditional use of the property that the berm be
removed when the lake was completed, and that it be planned to
make it aesthetically more pleasing to maybe to be able to help
the property values in the future, but we didn't go there at that
Page 74
February 27, 2001
time, but we need to look at that in the future.
Milly, I appreciate everything you've done as far as bringing
the group together and moving this effort forward for yourself
and your neighbors.
MS. BALL: Right. We'd have more people come, but most
people out there are working for a living during the daytime, and
they can't take off.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And Milly works at night as a
nurse, and she came right from work to be here. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you very much.
And if I could just -- on that point you made, Commissioner
Coletta, help us be sure that that is included in whatever
recommendations we give to staff.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very much so.
In fact, when I was reading my suggestions before this
commission before, when we had Big Island before us, I took
Milly's letter, and I was using it point by point going down, and I
think we need to take a real serious look in trying to incorporate
these ideas that she spent the time to research and to come up
with answers.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think she's right on track.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Nancy Payton, followed by Jim
Weeks.
MS. PAYTON: Good morning. I'm Nancy Payton
representing the Florida Wildlife Federation.
From an environmental perspective, burrow pits,
commercial excavations are a pox on the land, and, therefore,
we support the effort to ban commercial excavations in the
estates area.
Florida Wildlife urges that the commission send this
incomplete and -- well, incomplete, I'll leave it there, incomplete
report back to staff and this is why. The staff -- the report should
contain a meaningful environmental component that, one,
requires wetland delineations and agency verification. For
example, there was a recently approved commercial excavation
project in northern Golden Gate Estates, which is right smack
dab in the middle of Winchester Strand, which is one of the two --
one of the two major wetland systems in northern Golden Gate
Page 75
February 27, 2001
Estates, and in the staff report, it said there were no
environmental considerations. In fact, as I went back and pulled
out some of these other executive summaries, some summaries
didn't even have an environmental section where they could say
there weren't any environmental issues. So, this is one of the
points that we want to bring up.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I pause you for a second
there just to ask, are there any other agencies that review these
permits or are we it?
MS. PAYTON: Well, in some cases, you are it, and let me go
through a little bit more about our recommendations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. You already got the top of
my head popping off, but okay.
MS. PAYTON: We're asking that a listed species survey be
done, and I'm specifically talking about the estates and these
small commercial operations. For example, there are burrowing
owls in northern Golden Gate Estates. There are gopher
tortoises. There are various wading birds that use those
wetlands, red.cockaded woodpeckers, and there are a variety of
listed plants, and ferns, shoestring ferns, and also we have
panthers in the estates and black bears, and that's just a
sampling of the listed species that are found in the estates, but a
listed species survey isn't required.
Also, we recommend that the county should issue permits
only after an estate permit has been issued, the ERP permit, the
environmental resource permit, or a letter of exemption is
issued. In other words, don't give out a permit until we know
that the state has issued that permit, particularly because the
county has had the policy in the past of advocating any
environmental planning to the permitting process. That's devoid
again in this, that we're dealing with permitting, and we're not
doing resource planning.
Also, support the staff's recommendation that they need to
address cumulative and secondary impacts of these burrow pits.
Gary Beardsley was not able to be here today, but he sent
me a copy of a -- we call them Gary-grams that he sent, that he
sent to Commissioner Carter and I --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got them.
MS. PAYTON: Very good, and I wanted to make sure it gets
into the record, because he brought up some additional issues
Page 76
February 27, 2001
that I think are very important and deserving of consideration,
and for instance, one of his recommendations was that there
should be sufficient fill stockpiled for the future home pad, septic
and driveway. He also raised the issue about the setback. Staff
says that there's a 50 foot setback for these burrow pits. Well,
my understanding, and based on Gary's memo as well, is that
when you have a parcel in the estates, you own out to the middle
of the road, so where is the 50 foot start, and also on the side
road. So, there's issues of setback.
I agree with Gary about questioning the reservoirs and do
they have a value to the environmental system, and I remind you
that there is a proposed commercial excavation effort in
southern Golden Gate Estates which is the premier restoration
effort in Collier County, and the Big Cypress basin says that this
is going to be a detriment to restoring hydrology and the aquifer
recharge efforts of southern Golden Gate Estates, so I'm sure
that's true, the same for northern Golden Gate Estates.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're saying there's an
application pending?
MS. PAYTON: Yes, it will be coming up soon. It's under the
Guides of Fish Farms.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah.
MS. PAYTON: Also, I wanted to emphasize that there seems
to be three different categories here. There's the large pit, the
small pit and the individual, and I want to make sure that there
isn't a confusion with these small operators that are attempting
to get by as individual, doing something for an individual, and it
would be interesting to look at those 49 applications to see how
many of them are repeat applications by one particular or two
particular companies, and it would be helpful, Commissioner
Coletta, if we could see that map that you referenced a few
minutes ago that identifies where these various burrow pits --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was told that it wasn't
complete. It was to give me an idea of where some of the
locations were.
MS. PAYTON: And just one quick comment is you can't
restore a burrow pit unless you create a burrow pit someplace
else to fill that hole. You can enhance it in some ways, and we
could look at that, but I want to stress, you cannot restore a
burrow pit unless you create a burrow pit elsewhere, and lastly,
Page 77
February 27, 2001
in summary, this report and its recommendations do not carry
out the County's mandate to adequately protect, use and manage
its natural resources, and we look forward to working with staff
to have some of these issues addressed.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Nancy.
MS. PAYTON'. I want to make sure this gets into the record.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The next speaker, please.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Jim Weeks followed by Terry
Dupree.
MR. WEEKS: Before we start the clock, I'd like to have a
minute or two extra like all the others have, please. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, we don't like to run over, sir. We
would just like to give you every opportunity --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We will accommodate you when
we possibly can.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- to speak, but I have to wait a
minute. I have to change court reporters, so if you'll please just
wait a second.
sir.
(Break was taken.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We're ready to go. Your time,
MR. WEEKS: Yes, my name is Jim Weeks. I'm a Golden
Gate Estates resident. I live on DeSoto Boulevard. I -- I
presently own four properties that have had commissioners'
approval for mining. Three of them, the mining operations have
gone successfully, no complaints, no violations of any sort. The
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are they all in the Estates?
MR. WEEKS: They're all along DeSoto Boulevard near my
home. I've had conclusion of two of them. They will not be final
until the rainy season because we are required to put wetland
species in the ponds and to restore the area with grasses and
whatnot. We can't do that right now, we're in a drought. So I
have some that are just pending completion based on weather
conditions.
There are some issues that need to be addressed here
concerning, number one, what kind of a benefit is this to the
community? I live on DeSoto Boulevard and it makes me sick
what I'm seeing coming out Golden Gate Boulevard coming home
Page 78
February 27, 2001
or coming down Randall Boulevard, which is a typical scenario
that gets played out. People buy a property, typically from
Miami, they put two or three trucks on the property and they
have a cousin living outside in a camper home hooked up by an
extension cord. So I'm -- you know, these -- these operations are
being called to question that somehow they're lowering the -- the
value of the area, when all you have to do is feast your eyes on
the scenario coming out Golden Gate Boulevard as to what --
we're losing the battle to keep the area nice.
I take typically a five or six acre piece of land. I will mine
two to three acres on it. Leave a full acre and a half for
development. Anybody is welcome to go out and check them
and measure them. They have a $10,000 bond held against them
for completion, and frankly, I'm preventing these properties from
ever being split and having our other scenario, which just drags
the area down terribly.
Which do the wildlife prefer?. I have deer prints, panther
prints, hog prints, everything coming down to my properties
down the lakes because the water's in the area. We're holding
the wildlife in the area simply because there's a source of water.
It's kind of funny to me, there was a petition going out
yesterday on Randall Boulevard and the person doing the petition
received 30 plus truckloads to their yard through one of my
persons that purchased my property. It went straight into their
yard to restore the farm ditches that were left on their property,
so I guess they got their dirt, now the game's over, let's not let
anybody else in. It's something to consider.
Ed Kant with transportation's going to take particular note
to this and others will be here to speak on this that will support
this. Most of your dirt's coming from Lee County. It's coming
right down 1-75. You're not getting paid a dime of road impact
use fee. Anybody's welcome to go park at one of these exits, 17,
16 or 15 and watch the dump trucks heading south. It's not
coming from Collier County. We need more of these sources of
fill in this county because you're not getting any revenue and
your roads are getting beat up.
Some of the other things to consider --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I pause you for a second
just to ask if staff could consider -- they must have to have an
occupational license or something to operate that kind of a
Page 79
February 27, 2001
business in this county. Maybe we need to look at the fees for
out-of-county operators because we don't want to miss them.
We want to charge them more, not less.
MR. WEEKS: Typically what's happening is, these trucks are
loading in pits in Lee County. The work is, not always, but
mostly in Collier County. How else did we get our assessed tax
base? Did I hear it doubled? Well, it wouldn't have doubled
without good access to mining materials. We're getting a select
group that now that they've got their dirt on their property, I
don't want any more trucks on my street, get them out of here.
Yesterday, 70 percent of our truck volume yesterday out of
our pit went within two miles, over onto Everglades Boulevard.
Now, what's the benefit to the community? The truck traffic is
not coming from way yonder. It's localized right close to where
the material is being used. It's something to think about.
I'm taking these properties now and I'm holding them for a
period of time, hopefully to inflate in value. The lake, truthfully,
will sell for far more as a homesite -- lake homesite. Your tax
base is going up because I'm -- it's not just a pepper inundation.
Last, to address environmental concerns, we are
specifically, most of those here that have done excavations out
there, we're looking for old farm fields. These are farm fields
that have rows and ditches in them. They become pepper
inundations. That's all they are, and the pepper is a controlled
species.
I've got another minute, I think.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right, because we interrupted you.
MR. WEEKS: Peppers are a controlled species. We're
coming in, doing the cost to remove them, putting in the fill,
supplying the area with the legitimate fill resource which isn't
coming from Lee County. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' Mr. Weeks? Mr. Weeks, please?
You stated that you're leaving an acre of land to build on. Is
that all --
MR. WEEKS: The acre is the requirement. I generally go an
acre and a half.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that one continuous piece or
is that all the land around the lake?
MR. WEEKS: I typically get a tract, which -- a tract of five
Page 80
February 27, 2001
acres being 330 by 660 or -- the six acres are running deeper
than 330 by 800. What happens is, you wind up leaving three to
four acres of land still, okay? What happens is, it's in perimeter
buffer which is the setback. We have a 50 foot setback
requirement. So truthfully, we leave an acre and a half of
homesite, but if you count up all the buffered land around the
edges, it's far more.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question. How many of these
fill pits have you had over the years and turned them into lakes?
MR. WEEKS: I have -- we'd have to go back through
development services records.
COMMISSIONER COL. ETTA: Just approximately. I won't
hold you to an exact --
MR. WEEKS: In 2000, I've had four approved by this county
commission.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Have you ever failed to get back
a refund on your bond?
MR. WEEKS: Not once. I'd like somebody in development
services to address that as to what the status and how many
complaints and what our violations have been. There have been
none.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So does that mean if-- the effect
of not having a complaint or a call on your bond means that
you've complied with every regulation, so if we wanted to see
the perfect sites, we could look at yours?
MR. WEEKS: As soon as the rainy season comes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
MR. WEEKS: I cannot complete them because of the
drought because I'm --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you have any --
MR. WEEKS: -- I'm being required to bond the survivability of
the littoral shelves, the littoral shelves that we plant.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, and I appreciate your
staying here and answering questions. This is not a
cross-examination. We're just looking for -- MR. WEEKS: Please, do it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We just want to be informed.
MR. WEEKS: Please do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We appreciate having somebody
who knows what they're talking about to ask questions of. Have
Page 81
February 27, 2001
you ever -- do you have any sites that you would send us to to
say, this is one that is completed where the -- I mean, I'd love to
see one that's a good example. Do you have one you could send
me to?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, there is one on 66th Avenue Northeast --
two. Two, excuse me. Two on 66th Avenue Northeast off
Everglades Boulevard to the east of Everglades.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: There's others on 66th that I'm not in
association with.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And are these currently on the market
to be sold by you for --
MR. WEEKS: They have already been sold and they are
presently in for permit for development. Both have been sold.
Both are presently being permitted.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'. Do you have neighbors on each
side of you on these lots that you excavated?
MR. WEEKS: None of the pieces presently on DeSoto are
within a mile of a home. Possibly within three quarters. There's
none within eye -- within view of the eye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'. And forgive these questions.
I'm not trying to make you uncomfortable and you're answering
them very well, by the way, but have you ever put in an
excavation pit where there was an occupancy next door to you
on either boundary?
MR. WEEKS: I would never be so foolish. I have never once.
I would never be so foolish, but there perhaps have been others
that have done it. That's -- there again, a few bad apples. You --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think what we're trying to do
here is come up with something that's going to meet the needs
of the residents that are out there. So you haven't really
impacted on -- the roads you have used, have they been dirt
roads, have they been paved roads?
MR. WEEKS: I have specifically, in the last year, stayed on
DeSoto Boulevard, mostly to protect my own home, which is
down the street. I'm trying to keep the development out. I own
these now and they don't need to be developed by somebody
from Miami, okay? That gives us that other scenario I told you
about, but truthfully, they're on paved streets on DeSoto
Page 82
February 27, 2001
Boulevard. There's others, I know, in other areas that are not.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think we have a model here to begin
to look at.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Weeks, there were some
concerns about children being a hazard, the lakes?
MR. WEEKS: Could I address that? I'd like to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Please.
MR. WEEKS: We don't mention anything about the hundreds
of miles of canals that are in the Estates, which have straight
dropoffs, foom, like that, but we will take a lake that has a four
on one slope, which -- with liquefied sand, which is -- by the -- we
don't go after rock pits. We're after clean fill material. In
liquefied sand, you get a repose of about three to one naturally
from the wave action in the lake, so if the canals are -- I mean,
how many children are just dying in canals every day? What is
the impact, you know? I will be fencing my sites completely. I
can't fence them at this time because I need to landscape first
and have access to them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it sounds like this is a
gentleman we need to talk to to get advice on how to do it right
and what the new requirements should be, you know, about
landscaping --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Quality Homes too has got a
scenario of events that they use where they buy a number of lots
in a given area and they move the fill a short distance and what
they leave behind is absolutely beautiful. So there are good
examples, but we have heard about some very negative ones and
we need to address that. That's one of the things I was hoping
we would go to is, not so much that we're going to condemn the
total practice of it, but to be able to regulate the practice so that
it won't impact -- by any chance, is a five acre lot too small to be
able to do this or should they be ten?
MR. WEEKS: No, five acres is the minimum. Anything
smaller than five acres would be too difficult when you take your
setback distances to be able to leave a buildable homesite.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Currently can they do two and a
half acre lots?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We've permitted a couple. The
problem with them is that the lakes are very narrow because two
Page 83
February 27, 2001
and a half acre -- a two and a half acre lot is usually only 150 to
180 feet wide, and when you take the buffer on both sides, we
allow them, with fencing, to come closer to the perimeter, but
the side buffers, you don't pick up the proper depth. We like the
lake to be 12 foot deep. To get a 12 foot lake -- or a 12 foot deep
lake at a four to one side slope, you need 48 feet of bank and the
geometry just doesn't work on -- on the narrow lots. You can get
the length of it, but you don't get the proper width. So we have
allowed a couple, but they don't work all that well. I'm with Mr.
Weeks, I'd just as soon do away with anything less than five
acres.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think that's something we
want to really consider when we make this --
MR. WEEKS: May I address something, which is the
mosquito issue? What they're presently doing in Golden Gate
Estates is they are driving all their material, in most cases, from
the rear of properties. They dig a hole two or three feet deep and
carry the material up to make the homesite. These things don't
support fish life year round, so when the rainy season comes, the
mosquitoes that you can't walk through, like the previous person
was speaking, the reason they're there is because every one of
their neighbors has got a hole in their backyard. Not a lake that
supports life of fish year round. Whether somebody put them in
there or not, they transport on the legs of birds. The eggs come
in and you're not going to keep the fish out of these lakes.
Nobody mentioned that, but the problem is without the
accessibility to fill in the area, they just keep digging the holes
behind the properties and carrying it up and leaving the mess.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So while we're looking at this,
we ought to also look at regulating even the excavation of fill for
personal use.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Possibly so it's filled back in to
the point where it's level or above the rest of the ground so it will
settle down and it won't provide a cavity for water to collect in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or have some littoral shelving,
some vegetation, something.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We still want to keep it
affordable. We don't want to drive away the market.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you again. Next speaker,
please?
Page 84
February 27, 200t
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker, Terry Dupree has waived, so
your next speaker will be Frank Kovarik, followed by Kendall
Holland.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
down at Corkscrew. Thank God
he wouldn't be here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
Is Frank Kovarik here?
Frank is -- Frank is the chief
we didn't have any fires today or
He's taking a day off.
Do they get days off?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, firefighters do.
MR. KOVARIK: I don't get days off. Gentlemen -- ladies and
gentlemen, this is not a hard issue. In no other place in this
county would you allow mining on a residential lot.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know.
MR. KOVARIK: That's the whole issue in a nutshell.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's your name, for the
record, sir?
MR. KOVARIK: Frank Kovarik. Do you? Do you allow mining
in Quail Creek? Do you allow somebody to walk in and take a lot,
residential lot and mine it, any place?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Longshore Lakes.
MR. KOVARIK: Pelican Bay, Pelican Marsh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Waterways.
MR. MULHERE: There are -- there are innumerable
excavations in residential areas. The difference is that normally
the way the urban area develops, there is a phase of the
development that gets excavated and created and connected to
the water management system prior to people moving in. I
concur. Here we have residences all in the same area where you
have the excavation occurring and that's the conflict.
MR. KOVARIK: It's that simple. Now, should somebody be
allowed to turn around, have a five acre lot or two and a half acre
lot and be able to turn around and build a pond? I don't know
what water management says. I don't know what the ecologists
say, but I think that if they want to do that and it's okay with
everybody else, that's fine. The people who are mining lots out
there are mining them so that there's no way you can develop
them. There are a couple that have been mined that are
developable, but at that time, that was the standard that you
county commissioners had set.
Page 85
February 27, 2001
Now, since '99, there's an open standard that says they can
mine within 30 feet all the way around of a two and a half acre
parcel. I don't know what that leaves in area. I really don't, but I
know that up front, you can't put a house. I -- I have not yet to
see you be able to build a house on 30 feet. I don't care if it's 30
feet by 185 feet, you still can't do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ten foot wide mobile home.
MR. KOVARIK: That's not an allowed use in the Estates.
You can't put a mobile home --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Any other questions of the
speaker?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Frank, did you want to address
the situation about fences?
MR. KOVARIK: Yeah, what's going on also is -- is these guys
are walking away from these properties. There are -- there isn't
a fence around them, and as one of the speakers had said, it
becomes a convenient nuisance for children. They like them,
and basically we've had a couple of drownings out there.
As far as it goes for us in the business, we fight brush fires
out there all the time and once they leave these lots -- once they
leave these pits, what happens is, it grows up around them. We
can't see them at night when we're going along. If there's not a
fence or some type of marker or marking area around them, we
wind up going into them or almost going into them. It's not nice
to take a $100,000 piece of apparatus for a swim, so I wish you
guys would consider that also.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you, sir.
MR. KOVARIK: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker's Kendall Holland, followed by
Tim Maloney.
MR. HOLLAND: Hello. My name is Kendall Holland. I just
wanted to bring up the fact, I am, many times, on the receiving
end of dirt being trucked to a job site, and if the material is not
close, coming out of Lee County or one of the major mines, we
cannot do jobs as efficiently, which people don't get proper work
done. You see homes with super steep slopes on the sides. It's
one thing -- the one lady was saying it was a detriment to wildlife
the way we were clearing. Every time I've been in the woods,
I've seen wildlife come to water, and I like ponds on property.
People do it with the nice waterlilies and flowers and I personally
Page 86
February27,2001
just think it's appealing to the area. I would do one on my
property, but there's too much rock. I live off of White Boulevard.
Well, thank you. I just wanted to bring those things up.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
MR. OLLIFF.' Tim Maloney will be followed by Bem Smith.
MR. MALONEY: Good morning. I'm Tim Maloney. I'm a
landowner. I also dig dirt. Fill is my business. We have a big
resource of clean fill in Collier County. If I can't get it out of
Collier County, I've got to go to Lee County. Jim Weeks touched
on pretty much everything I had to say, but I target areas to dig
in that are fallow farm fields. I think what I do when I'm done
with them is actually improving my neighborhood, and as a
landowner of many parcels in Collier County, yes, it is an
investment. That's my goal and I think it's a good thing. That's
all I've got to say.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF'- Bem Smith will be followed by Alfredo
Martinez?
MR. SMITH: Hi. I'm Bem Smith, general manager for Soltek
(phonetic) Trucking. Soltek provides services to both businesses
and individuals throughout Collier County and Lee County. We're
a trucking company. We haul the materials. There is a shortage
of materials in Collier County and we do, in fact, haul a lot of
materials at the current time from Lee County, which I think Jim
pointed out that you all don't -- Collier County doesn't get any
kind of impact fees, obviously, from those materials. The trucks
that are here, obviously they do buy their fuel here and things
like that. We pay for fuel, you know, those type of taxes.
I think that that's the biggest point that we had to make was
that there is a shortage of material. We think that you've got
people with property rights here. I live in Collier County. I live in
the Estates and I think that, you know, obviously we need to
regulate it, but it needs to continue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'. Can I ask you a quick question?
Do you ever do the flip side, haul fill from Collier to Lee?
MR. SMITH: I can't think of one that we've done that with.
We -- we also have the contract for the landfill for Waste
Management. We haul the cover material and we are currently
bringing most of that material from Lee County.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, don't stop. Put more dirt
Page 87
February 27, 2001
on that landfill. Cover that odor.
MR. SMITH: We also do Lee County's landfill and all their
material comes, of course, from Lee County.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, we -- that's a real glitch
here. We're not charging any out-of-county trucks for the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But then again too, the impact
down on the smaller roads and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wow.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- generally when they're on the
bigger roads. Six to one, half dozen to another, you know, but
our neighborhoods aren't impacted as much as they would be if
everything was taken from here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you say that you haul dirt from
your mines over to the landfill to cover it right from our own
Collier County?
MR. SMITH: We don't have any mines. We -- we get it from
the people that are mining.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it's all hauled here from Collier
County over there rather than pulled in from Lee County.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just the opposite.
MR. SMITH: Most of the material that's coming to the
county at this point is coming out of Lee County. They require
different types of material, depending on where they're covering.
If it's on slopes, you know, what they're covering, if it's final
versus intermediate cover. So they order different types of
material and we have to find those sources, and most of those
sources are having to come from out of county, just like your
beach contract that's coming up, which we have also.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' And if I remember correctly, the
beach sand, one of the closest sources is Big Island, which is off
Immokalee Road and that's a large pit. He'll be talking to you
shortly too.
MR. SMITH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please?
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Alfredo Martinez, followed by
Esther Swezey.
MR. MARTINEZ: Hello.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hello.
MR. MARTINEZ: I'm Alfredo Martinez. I live at 2595 31st
Avenue Northeast, and as you can see, I'm probably the one to
Page 88
February 27, 2001
blame for hauling all the material everywhere. I haul quite a bit,
all in the Collier County area, from Lee County and from here
locally, but it's a very competitive market out there and
everybody wants supply and demand and I go to all the pits and
try to get the customers what they want, when they want it, right
away. My business is service, so I provide the trucking and then
try to get, you know, material from these pits, from Big Island,
from Jim Weeks, Terry Dupree, Maloney and Sons, everybody. So
I mean, I'm in with them. This is my business and I just provide
for everybody, but I think Jim Weeks said everything he had to
say. I agree with him. He does keep the prices down so that we
can all have a good life, I guess.
COMMISSIONER FIALA.' Do you haul more fill from Lee
County to this county than you do from Collier County?
MR. MARTINEZ: That's hard to say because I haul quite a
bit. I don't -- I never stopped to think, but I would say I haul most
of it from Collier County, but I do haul some from Lee, from No
Limits, which is exit 19, Youngquist RMC, Florida Rock. I haul
from Morgona (phonetic). I haul from even upper -- other
counties.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
though?
MR. MARTINEZ: No, I don't.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
You don't own a fill pit yourself
Do you have more than one
truck, Mr. Martinez?
MR. MARTINEZ: I've had up to 60 trucks running here this
last month.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many?
MR. MARTINEZ: Sixty.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Where do you put them on?
MR. MARTINEZ: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Where do you put them on?
MR. MARTINEZ'. On the road.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You walked into that one, James.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm just trying to picture. I
haven't seen 60 trucks all together in one spot in all the time I've
been down here. Of course they wouldn't be all together in one
spot. Like the Sheriff's Department, take them home with you.
MR. MARTINEZ: I'll give you a prime example. I've hauled
120,000 yards into Fiddler's Creek in the month of January from
Page 89
February 27, 2001
Willow Run to Fiddler's Creek. It's a short haul, in and out, in and
out.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Where's Willow Run?
MR. MARTINEZ: Willow Run is Southern Sand and Stone on
951, okay, which is -- everybody knows where that's at, but I'm
just trying to make a point, you know. We try to go the shortest
route for the supply and demand for the customer. Big Island,
it's a great pit. The Winchester mine or shaggy (phonetic)
cypress, that's a great pit, accessible in and out, but sometimes
their material's too high and the customer doesn't want it from
there, so we have to look somewhere else for a better priced dirt
so that we can be competitive and the customer, you know, be a
little happier with the price, but I --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much, sir. I think
you've answered a lot of questions for me. Time is money, folks.
Next speaker, please?
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Esther Swezey, followed by
June Grogloth.
MS. SWEZEY: I'm Esther Swezey. I reside at 3555 64th
Avenue Northeast. At the moment, I'm between two sand mining
operations that are huge, one on Immokalee Road and one on Oil
Well Road. Mr. Weeks is right, he did leave the two on 66th
Avenue very well. It's just in my backyard.
My neighbor just east of me is having trouble with their well.
They've had to put their submersible pump down further
because they've been having such a time with getting the water.
I have had my well lose water, oh, every so many times over the
past several months, and of course, I could go out and prime it
and get it going with help, and finally, New Year's day, I woke up
in the morning, went out, was going to take a shower, didn't have
water. Went out and my tank was empty. I was able to prime it
and I thought, I can do it, but all I got was black water. I have
since had to replace the well and it's got to be because of all the
sand mining in the area. That's the only thing I can put to the
reason for it, but when this gentleman said he had 60 trucks on
the road, a couple of years back I started counting the trucks as
I was coming from my home into Naples, and from Oil Well Road
to Collier Boulevard, I counted 50 trucks going east to come to
be filled up. They -- I've done it since and it's just amazing.
There's hundreds and hundreds of trucks on the road and it's just
Page 90
February 27, 2001
getting worse instead of better, but that's just my problems, but I
wanted to let you know that it's hitting even the little ones.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please?
MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker's June Grogloth, followed by your
last speaker, Glenn Simpson.
MS. GROGLOTH: June Grogloth. I live at the corner of
Friendship and Immokalee Road, and my concern is in being
notified of the different things going around in the neighborhood.
Is it a hundred feet that they're notifying or 300 feet? MR. OLLIFF: Three hundred feet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Whatever it is hasn't been
adequate.
MS. GROGLOTH: Well, this is what I'm saying. This is
agricultural, it's all acreage, not foot, and so nobody's being
notified. So there's nobody at the meetings because we don't
know about the meetings. They say they put it in the paper, but
we don't take the paper because you have to go out a mile or a
half a mile to get your paper every morning. So I don't take the
paper for that purpose, and I try to listen to the TV and I try to
keep up on a little bit here and there, but I was just wondering --
and especially if they're going to do all of this earth mining on
the side roads on the -- is it possible that they would know the
people that are on that road? Like Friendship Road, if they're
going to use that, for the one pit, and I understand they're going
to try and put another pit just off of Immokalee Road on Platt
Road, there's ten acres there that they're supposed to be trying
to pass through, and the people that are on Platt Road to be
notified that -- because it is not a county road, it is
self-maintained. We, the people, have to take care of it and a lot
of us are on pensions and things and so we like to designate just
where we're going to go with it. We want to do our part. We
don't want to leave it to all the young people that have to pick up
the slack for us, but -- because my neighbors are good. They
watch out for me and I appreciate that very much.
So I was just wondering how we do go about getting notified
more or -- and I did have to have my well redone Friday. I -- I'm
so thankful I was home because the pressure in the lines, the air
in the lines and that, the valve just blew and I had my own
fountain and had Golden Gate Well come out and take care of my
problem and had to -- because of the force and things in the
Page 91
February 27, 2001
lines, there was a leak also down by the well itself, so they had
to do the well, plus up by the pump and so forth and so on. So
it's -- like I said, I had them out there two weeks ago and now I
had them out there for the big -- and since last June, like I had
said the last time, I've had three pressure valves put in, so it's
just -- like you say, it seems like an isolated problem, but it's my
problem, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How much does something like that
cost you?
MS. GROGLOTH: Well, Friday it cost me $200 and two
weeks ago, it cost me $41 and the -- prior to that, some of the
church men had come out and done it and Mr. Balkey (phonetic),
one day when I had a leak -- and it's always -- you know, seems
always on a weekend.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course.
MS. GROGLOTH: -- that you have all of this problem, so I
turn to the men at the church or the neighbors.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you're -- you're incurring a lot of
cost and -- and other problems water related because of this
mining?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's one of the things I hope
we can address in this. I'll tell you, I've been meeting out there
with the residents in that area and I will continue to meet with
them and the local rock pits out there to see if we can come to
some sort of agreement, because we do have a two year review
on this and I'm sure these nickel and dime items are going to be
something that we can resolve.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please?
MR. OLLIFF: Glenn Simpson is your last registered speaker.
MR. SIMPSON: Commissioners, my name is Glenn Simpson.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you. Mr. Coletta has
mentioned to us that there -- this meeting was going on and I'm
one of the owners of Big Island Excavating. I also am an
environmental consultant and have been doing water
management, water related design and expert witness work for
about 15 years now.
Specifically I've got several comments and some answers to
some of the questions that have come up too, especially about
the reclamation issue, which I will address in a minute. One of
Page 92
February 27, 2001
the problems that you're faced with, and it's a very big and large,
complex issue about the mining, because it's basically a
business that's demand driven by development, as the new
development goes in, mining is just like a timber yard or
plumbing supply or anything, we provide construction materials.
One of the problems is, is that all these construction
materials are very visible early on into the project. Then they --
the trucks go away and you don't see them coming in, but it's
supplying the material, the raw material for construction
purposes in general. The impact that this has to our highway
system isn't necessarily a capacity issue, except on some of the
arterial roads, but it's more of a maintenance issue. We don't
have a structure in our county to actually assess a fee or to pay
for the shortening of the life of our road system that the heavy
trucks cause.
Staff has made a recommendation, I think, to address that in
this upcoming review and perhaps modifications to the
ordinances. I know in our perspective, if you're paying an impact
fee, you're really not -- impact fees go for the increase in road
capacity. In effect, the road capacity that is in the residential
areas where the trucks have the greatest impact, it's a
short-term thing. The road capacity really doesn't -- long-term
construction really isn't what's needed to offset the impacts the
trucks cause, but they really do shorten the life of that road,
which does affect long term. So I think this issue of changing
the way we look at assessing the fees and the impact to our
highway system is a very good approach. The same thing really
is an issue that might be considered for other industries that
have heavy trucks that do the same thing.
In choosing where to locate a mine, there are a lot of issues
that come into play. First off, you'd have to find a location that
has the material that's in demand, whether it be fill material,
perc. sand, septic tanks, aggregate for highway construction,
asphalt, concrete, you've got to find a place that meets
regulatory requirements that are specific for the -- especially for
these higher end uses. Those locations aren't really everywhere
you go. They're very specific, and in a lot of areas, if you -- you
may think this is a perfect location for a mine, but the material
may not be there. You may not be able to get the product.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So are there areas, Glenn, and
Page 93
February 27, 2001
can you look at the map that they showed us before that had the
brown for Estates and the white for ag. and say, in general, if you
prohibited -- if you restricted or even if you prohibited mining in
the Estates, what you would be doing is severely affecting the
market for aggregate or the market for sand or, I mean --
MR. SIMPSON: Typically the Estates area has a -- has a real
high quality sand available in a very thin layer that can be used
for perc. sand. If they're in an area that doesn't have the rock
very close to the surface, a lot of that material makes good fill
for house pads, so as far as the material being appropriate for
what it's being used for, that issue, I think, is -- is an issue that
should be considered.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But are you saying though, Glenn
-- this is what I'm trying to get, are you saying that if we didn't
allow excavation in the Estates, that there would be a shortage
of a particular kind of fill material?
MR. SIMPSON: Not necessarily.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. That's what I was trying to
MR. SIMPSON: A lot of that has to do with price relations,
because the larger the operation, the more overhead you have to
carry --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course.
MR. SIMPSON: -- and there is a price advantage to the
smaller operations too.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
MR. SIMPSON: But also in looking at where you'd locate the
mines, you have to try to find a place where you have a minimal
impact on surrounding neighbors. That forces us into the
agricultural rural areas. When you're looking at the larger mine,
you need, you know, larger area, but this county is no longer an
unpopulated county. We have people that are living close to just
about every place that is reasonable to locate a mine.
Another issue is the -- the distance, the travel, because it's
got to be economically feasible. The people that haul the
material get paid by the mile. If you have a mine you locate out
near Immokalee and they can get the material -- even if your
material is cheaper than what they're selling it for in Lee County,
the travel distance is closer, so if you go far enough out to where
you don't have impacts on neighbors, you put yourself at an
Page 94
February 27, 2001
economic disadvantage and there's no -- no financial reason to
even consider doing it. So it has to be an economically feasible
location.
One thing that has to be considered too in this overall
picture is the material that's being produced. If you produce,
process or aggregate material that's going for concrete or
asphalt, not only do you have to haul the material from where it
is to the plant, then you haul the material from that plant to the
end-user site. That really is multiplying the amount of traffic
that's in the concentrated areas.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm going to have to ask you to wrap
up, if you would, please, because you have been interrupted and
you may be interrupted again, so we need to bring this to
closure.
MR. SIMPSON: What I'd like to recommend to the
commission is that they establish a committee including
knowledgeable members of the public such as the fire chief for
the Golden Gate area to sit down and review the ordinance we
have, the ordinance related to mining, related to the conditional
use that is allowed in agricultural areas and really come back
with a good recommendation, with staff, to the commission that
will be a workable and reasonable approach. I suggest that part
of that include the fee structure, the assessment of impact fees,
also the permit fee that's assessed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And staff will do that. I mean, if
we give them some direction, I think that's exactly what we're
here for today, is to give some direction to staff to talk to the
experts, come back, you know, and let us make some changes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: After we hear from Bob over
there, I'd like to make a motion.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. I just wanted to mention a
couple of things. I really appreciate -- I know we spent a lot of
time on this, really a lot of time. It just goes to show you how
complicated the issue really is and how many facets there are.
We didn't expect to resolve all those facets in the 30 days
between when you last discussed this and when you asked us to
come back and make recommendations. I resent the implication
that we didn't -- and I'll take the opportunity to say that, that we
didn't express any concern for environmental impacts. We fully
recognized that there are environmental impacts. In fact, we
Page 95
February 27, 2001
were recommending a full-blown conditional use for most of
these things, with some sort of a threshold. Beyond that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Bob, on that point though,
I've got to tell you, I'd like to see the staff reports for, say, the
last few months of these to see what -- what they reference with
regard to environmental issues and whether they went to the
EAC and if they say -- I don't even remember the name of the
particular strand that Nancy referenced.
MR. MULHERE: Winchester Strand.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did we really do that?
MR. MULHERE: I don't know. We would have to look into
that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, please do.
MR. MULHERE: There is a review on every one of these for
environmental impacts. There may be a recommendation that
there isn't any environmental impact and certainly I can take a
look at those.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And maybe we were wrong,
because if that --
MR. MULHERE: But even if that's the case and we were
wrong, we recognized that there are broader environmental
impacts associated with numbers of these, and we need to look
at it from a policy and global perspective, as well as an individual
and piecemeal perspective. So you know, I think that's
something that we were fully prepared to do.
We were looking at bringing this information back to you as
part of the June LDC cycle. In preparation for that, obviously we
need to go out to the Golden Gate Civic Association. We need to
go to the people who do this for a living. We need to go to the
residents. We need to go to experts. For example, I do not think
that you can jump to the conclusion that in every case, the sand
pit is the -- is the reason why a well is not functioning. We're in
the third year of a very, very severe drought, perhaps a hundred
year drought. There may -- we need to look at the science
behind these things before we jump to conclusions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It kind of gives me the idea
they're digging water, not sand, when somebody says their well's
going dry because of the --
MR. MULHERE: And I think they're good issues and we need
to look at those issues and that was my only point and I
Page 96
February 27, 2001
apologize for probably speaking longer than I should have.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, Commissioner Henning,
what it -- the reason is, is some of the smaller ones there, there's
some de-watering taking place on the site, and when you draw
water out of the ground and disburse it someplace else, you're
going to depress the water table in that given area. That's some
of the -- in this case here too, you're moving massive amounts of
water from one location to another, you're changing the
hydrology of the ground. How you prove it or disprove it, I don't
know, but we're talking nickels and dimes and I'm sure when we
get down to it and we meet with the people that own the
operation, they're going to be more than willing to work with the
residents there.
If I may at this time, I'd like to help make a motion to direct
staff.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. On page eight and part of
nine, we have a number of different ideas that were put forward
that need further consideration. I would totally exclude the idea
that we're going to exclude excavation in the Estates. I don't
think that should be an option. Unless someone disagrees with
me, I'll go on from there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But can I -- the only -- I'll wait
because you're probably going to cover it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. What I'd like to see on
there is answers to the de-watering situation and how they're
handling it. The well concerns addressed in some sort of
fashion. Buffers and how they're going to be removed, at what
point in time. The hours of operation being Monday through
Friday. The notification to be more global than just the 300 feet
that's required by law at this time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you like 500 feet or --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'd like to leave that up to
staff and also their meetings with people from the industry and
residents that have concerns, and by the way, I made sure that
before this meeting took place, that all the pit owners that were
out in that area got notification and also the environmental
groups too because I wanted everybody to be a part of this
particular mix.
The repairs to private roads is a very big issue. I don't think
Page 97
February 27, 2001
we should ever allow a pit to be located on a private road unless
they put up some sort of bond that they're going to leave the
road in 100 percent better condition than they ever found it and
maintain it during the whole life of the -- of the excavation.
The -- a biyearly or a yearly review of each situation. In
other words, if we have a smaller pit that's going in and they've
got a two year life expectancy, that they come back up for
review in one year to see if there's any problems. If it's a larger
pit, that they come up every two years, as we established a
precedence with Big Island Excavation. That we avoid multi
locations on the same street. That the environmental agencies
are brought into the mix so that they have a play into this thing
and that we meet the environmental requirements, and I'm not
too sure at what point water management comes in, but I think
that they should maybe take a little more active role also and
that's what I -- also too, some consideration for fencing for the
bigger pits where you have the side walls that extend straight
down for one heck of a distance, to make sure they don't become
an attractive nuisance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I just add -- offer an
amendment to that motion and then I'd be happy to second it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead. I'm open to any
suggestions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just that on the environmental
side, rather than, you know, mirror compliance with
environmental regulations, that we ask our staff to investigate
and send through the Environmental Advisory Council, give us a
broad understanding of the environmental impacts of this whole
use.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's picking up from where I
suggested and just elaborating on it a little bit more and I have
no problems with it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
can address that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Don't we have some staff that
Of course. That's what I'm
suggesting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' We do, but as far as the
environmental goes, if we're bringing in special interests as far
as the rock --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Everybody.
Page 98
February 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER COI. ETTA: -- miners themselves and other
people that are going to benefit from it, then we need the special
interest on the other side to balance everything out. We're the
final decision makers here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the other -- the other
amendment I wanted to offer is just, and it may have already
been incorporated somewhere, is that staff -- that restoration or
even enhancement of a site be a requirement for an excavation
permit.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it is already to a point, but I
think they need to go into much bigger details on it as far as --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And with a significant -- with a
meaningful bond that stands behind that so that we can do it if
they don't.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And also too, we have to take
consideration for the very small excavation. That one that would
be the property owner itself that's moving fill from one end of his
lot to the other, that a minimal charge permit, just enough to
cover inspections, be put in place.
MR. KANT: Commissioner, I was listening very carefully, but
I didn't hear you mention anything about the review of a
maintenance fee versus a road impact fee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate that. I thought we
were going to come up against that on Friday.
MR. KANT: Well, we were -- we can do that, but if you were
going to give direction today, as I said, it might just cut a few
minutes --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' Consider yourself so directed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In that case, I'll second the
motion.
MR. MULHERE: May I just add one other item? From the
pragmatic perspective, I said June. We're talking about a pretty
substantial review. We really want to get it right. There is the
possibility that -- because to bring it to you in June, I've got to
have it to the Development Services Advisory Committee and
other advisory committees in May. That gives me two months. I
may or may not be able to accomplish that.
I think there's a couple of alternatives. We could do this as
a free-standing ordinance, and therefore, not wait until the next
cycle of the LDC amendments and then incorporate it into the
Page 99
February 27, 2001
LDC after you approve the free-standing ordinance if that -- if
we're not ready in June, and I think I wanted to get that on the
record for you so that, you know --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How will that affect the people
that have been acting in good faith and going through the
process and are maybe near completion or bringing something
before the commission, will they be held by these rules at this
point in time or --
MR. MULHERE: No, it would not affect them until we've
completed that ordinance and until you've adopted it, unless the
board wanted to enact some sort of a --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So essentially you've incorporated
everything on pages eight and nine --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With the exception of no
excavation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No excavation, but if you look at
everything else that was there that was recommended by staff
plus the other comments, plus I believe, in this, you would
probably like to have a citizens committee be a part of this as
was suggested, if that would be a part of --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm open to suggestions on that.
It could be a committee that's formed for it or it could be
something at an open meeting when staff has a meeting that
they make sure that it --
MR. MULHERE: We'll make sure that it's posted and --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' I think that would suffice rather
than trying to put the formality of a committee together.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the lady who was here
before who had that problem, solution --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' Millie Ball.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hope that could be incorporated
into the whole discussion, and frankly, if we miss something on
our -- her list of problems and solutions was so thorough, I almost
want to incorporate it into the motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly. I think so. That's
basically what I was picking up off the last time was her --
incorporating her ideas into my proposal, and go back to it, look
at her recommendations and see where they also apply, and any
other suggestions that came out of this meeting when you go
through the minutes that seem like they might have some
Page100
February 27, 2001
bearing upon the final result. Let's not eliminate anything from
the mix.
MR. OLLIFF: I'm a little uncomfortable when the motion
starts getting that fuzzy. I think you're --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We'll stop just short of Cuba.
MR. OLLIFF: There's a list of things here and I think Susan's
been making notes specifically about what you've been
indicating that you want in the motion. Because this -- the
motion got a little long. For me, I think maybe the best thing to
do is we'll have our staff prepare a summary of what we think
this direction and the motion was after we review the tape. We'll
provide that to you to make sure that that's the direction that
you want us to go in, so that when we go through all these
advisory board steps, we don't want to be missing a bunch of
things that the board thought was going to be in that amendment
that aren't, so we want to make sure that we're taking the right
package --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would concur, Tom, we get that in
and then it can be circulated to the commissioners. Each person
-- each commissioner can make comments on that. Then we'll
make sure it's all inclusive.
So we have a motion and we have a second. Any further
discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries. We will be in recess
until 1:30.
(Recess taken.)
Item #8B1
BOARD DIRECTION TO ESTABLISH A PROPOSED LIVINGSTON
ROAD BEAUTIFICATION MSTU- APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We are back in session, please. We
are now moving to item number --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know the number, but it's
Livingston Road.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Livingston Road.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have Coastal Engineering
Page 101
February 27, 2001
after -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, Livingston Road
beautification.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 8(B)1, staff presentation, which was
16(B)A.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pulled off the consent form.
MR. KANT: Good afternoon, commissioners. Edward Kant,
Transportation Services -- excuse me, Traffic Operations
Director. Old habits die hard.
This is a request to establish a proposed Livingston Road
beautification MSTU. If you remember back in December, there
was a public petition from Mr. Dorrill, who represented a number
of property owners along that corridor, requesting that the staff
be given direction to work with him to determine whether or not
an MSTU was a viable way of approaching the beautification of
that corridor.
Since that time, staff has been meeting with Mr. Dorrill and
with some of the interested parties, and we believe that it is,
indeed, a viable way of approaching it. There are some issues
that will have to be resolved such as determinin9 the limits of
the MSTU boundary, what type of participation formula, a desired
level of landscaping versus what would be a county minimum
level of landscaping.
COMMI$$1OHER MAC'KIE: Sounds like the typical issues for
an MSTU --
MR. KANT: To determine the amount of county contribution
versus the MSTU contribution. I understand Mr. Dorrill's here and
-- or was here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's here.
MR. KANT: And I don't know if he wanted to address the
board or not, but we -- we were looking for direction to continue
to work with the owners and to establish the MSTU
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why did this come off consent?
Is somebody registered to speak?
MR. KANT: I don't know. I was told that it came off
consent. I pulled it and here I am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Somebody called and registered to
speak on this subject, I believe.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excuse me, Mr. McNees, Mr.
Conroy, did somebody register to speak on this item?
Page102
February 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, Mr. Dorrill.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' There you go. Sorry. Sorry.
MR. DORRILL: Good afternoon, commissioners. For your
record, my name is Neil Dorrill. We -- we, and the we in this
case, again, there are two groups that are very interested in the
beautification of this project. I'm here today on behalf of both
the Livingston Road Beautification Association and also the
Collier Naplescape group, who combined, in their two separate
groups, who combined are trying to develop plans and a district
that would landscape and beautify both the sides and median for
the entire ten mile stretch of Livingston Road, from Radio Road
north all the way to the Lee/Collier County line.
I want to thank both Mr. Feder and also Mr. Kant who have
been very helpful in addition to planning and involved in many
transportation items of late, but they have given this the
attention that it deserves and I have been asked to thank you on
behalf of the support that we have had thus far.
The reason that I asked, very quickly, for it to be pulled off
the consent agenda today was to ask you if you would consider
modifying or expanding on one area of the recommendation that
they have asked you for. You may recall that one of the groups,
the Livingston Road Beautification Group, has already paid for
concept plans for what is the second segment, and that segment
goes from Golden Gate Parkway north all the way to Pine Ridge
Road.
Originally what started this item was an agenda item that
was sponsored by the county manager on November the 20th and
he asked you, as part of the authorization that day, to be allowed
to hire a landscape architect to prepare a concept plan for the
entire corridor, and we feel, because the private sector has
already paid for a concept plan for the middle segment of this
project, that it would, frankly, not be very good use of -- of your
money, which is coming from the 111 fund, to recreate
something that we are more than willing to give to you and have
our consultants coordinate to prepare then the construction
plans, and so long as that is done in accordance with your
streetscape --
MR. KANT: Excuse me, Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: -- master plan, that's one of the elements that
Page 103
February 27, 2001
MR. KANT: Excuse me for interrupting. I just want to get
something clear on the record. The request that was made in
November was for us to go to construction plans with the use of
the concept plans that had been developed by both of those two
groups.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, because I was just
gonna say, if that isn't what we did, I know that's what I intended
to--
MR. DORRILL: It wasn't clear in the staff recommendation
and that's why I just wanted -- if that was your intent, I want you
to tell them that today because you, also on the agenda today,
will award annual contracts for landscape architects who
provide sort of task-oriented services throughout the course of
the year, and we just -- we will give you the plans that we have.
We want them to be done in accordance with your streetscape
master plan requirements. I will tell you they have been. We're
using xeric type of native Florida plants and plantings and a local
landscape architect who has prepared that.
The only other thing that I wanted to tell you today, your
road civil engineer has just submitted, I believe, the 90 percent
design drawings for the six laning for this same segment of road,
from Golden Gate Parkway to Pine Ridge, and it appears that
there is a very large irrigation force main that is running down
the median of the road and a very large water -- a potable water
main that is now running down the right side of the right of way.
Unless there are some modifications to those, and you can
confirm your intent today, we will not be able to plant anything in
the median or the right hand or the east side of the road because
you've got huge irrigation and potable water mains, and so if -- if
your intent is to try and see this whole corridor landscaped, we
would like for you to confirm that and at least ask the staff to
evaluate, not necessarily through transportation, but their
counterparts at utilities, the relocation of those two mains as
part of the design submittal to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it sounds maybe, Mr. McNees,
that the right hand and left hand need to coordinate, because I
think our direction was real clear the first time?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think it was too, but Mr. Feder, do
you want to comment on that, please?
MR. MCNEES: Yeah, I think we probably understand your
Page 104
February 27, 2001
direction and the right hand and left hand are probably already
fairly well coordinated. I'll let Mr. Feder respond.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, but if, in fact, they're --
MR. FEDER-- I can assure you that we're going to look at it
and that's our intent, to address it, as I told Mr. Dorrill, if we
haven't already.
Just a point of clarification, and we're fine with what is
being requested by Mr. Dorrill, but what we came to you with in
November was an understanding that while we had these
concept plans out there, that the county had to look at what it
would do on landscaping with anything above that being done by
an MSTBU.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. FEDER: Shortly after that, they came with a request to
formulate the MSTBU. We have not yet hired that engineer, and
so if, in fact, they want to address the full corridor on a design at
the outset paid for out of the MSTBU, we have no objection to
that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would make some sense.
MR. DORRILL: You may still need to do some concept plans
for the northern piece in and up to Mediterra and the southern
piece that runs across the main Golden Gate canal down to
Radio Road. So I'm not here today arguing against concept plans
because we've already paid for the one in the middle piece, but if
you'll just confirm your intent, and I will thank you again for the
hard work of your staff in this regard.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, my direction would be, and see if
the board concurs, I want a -- I don't want to say a consolidation,
but I want to make sure that all concept plans are in -- in unison
here. Are we all working together? Are we all on the same
page? I don't want to see one piece over here and one piece
over here. I want them all to work in sync. It should really be
seamless down that corridor, regardless of who the players are,
so that we all know where we're going to go, how we're going to
do it and who's paying for what.
MR. KANT: My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that there is
a total of 11.6 miles to that corridor from Radio Road to the Lee
County line. It's your intent that we have the entire corridor
landscaped, that we worked with Mr. Dorrill and his groups to
look at the formation of an MSTBU.
Page 105
February 27, 2001
What is unclear is whether or not it is your intent to have
them take over, as it were, and -- and provide these plans and
whether or not the county is going to have some base level of
landscaping over and above which would be the responsibility of
the MSTU. That is an issue that we would like a little further
direction on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we have -- this is currently --
don't we have something, the gateway corridor master plan?
MR. KANT: In the streetscape master plan, the intersection
of Livingston Road near the county line is identified as a gateway
and the rest of that is identified as an urban -- urban residential
area. That has a concept in it. There was a concept that was
done by a landscape architect for, in general, the rest of that
corridor. I believe that the concept plans that the -- that Mr.
Dorrill referred to from Radio Road to -- I'm sorry, from Golden
Gate Parkway to Pine Ridge Road are in a little more detail and
more easily adaptable to construction plans, and we just want to
make sure that we -- what we have is two separate concept
plans done by two different landscape architects. We were
trying -- staff was trying to get ahead of the curve here by going
straight to construction plans and incorporating these concept
plans. We just want to make sure that we --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I mean, what does it take to integrate
the plans?
MR. KANT: The issue, as Mr. Dorrill pointed out, was he
wanted to see that -- and I believe you pointed out that you want
to see that there were no gaps and there were no
inconsistencies and our concern is that you do mean to have the
entire 11.6 miles included in this, and then there's the issue of
.funding, if the MSTBU is to fund the entire project or if there is
some base level for which the county would be responsible.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question on that point is, as
we approve road construction projects every day, what base
level of--
MR. KANT: We were going to bring that up on Friday.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Because we -- see, we
can't answer that question until we establish, what do we pay --
what do you get for a general tax dollar as far as something
green when you build a road. Whatever that is established to be,
then that's what happens on Livingston and the MSTU is for
Page 106
February 27, 2001
enhancement. I mean, isn't that the common sense approach?
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator. By all means, Commissioner, I agree fully and as
Ed pointed out, we're coming to you Friday. I have four active
construction jobs right now, projects underway in the county,
and the answer to the question is irrigation and grass in the
median, which I don't believe is what the community wants.
That's why we're going to come back to you Friday to address
how we respond to those issues.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I guess we'll know the answer
to Mr. Dorrill's question about how much does the county pay
versus how much does the MSTBU after we set that policy on
what you get for your general tax dollar on a road in Collier
County.
MR. KANT: Just as an aside, because of the issue that was
raised by Mr. Dorrill earlier, I just talked with the project
manager and I understand that that issue of the conflict has
been recognized and is being resolved even as we speak.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So under this --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we can just go ahead and
move forward and approve it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one fast question. You said
two different landscape architects designed the concepts that --
MR. KANT: My understanding is that Mr. Leiber (phonetic)
and Mr. McGee, in a joint effort, did the section from Golden Gate
Parkway to Pine Ridge Road and that Mr. Botner (phonetic), when
he was still in town, had done the balance of a plan for the
Naplescape folks.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My question just was, is there
continuity to it? And I see Mike back there now. Do you feel,
Mike, that it flows?
MR. KANT: We have only seen the concept plan that Mr.
Botner had at a very early stage. I have not yet seen anything
from Mr. Leiber, but I might point out also, this morning as part of
the consent agenda, you approved the annual contract for
landscape architects and both Mr. Leiber and Mr. McGee are on
that list, so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So they will fix it as --
MR. KANT: -- we certainly will have a continuing dialogue
with them on it.
Page107
February 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And this item 16 something was
on the agenda for the purpose of approving -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Approving.
MR. KANT: To give us a direction to go forward with the
MSTU and to come back to you at some point in the future with
our recommendation for the boundaries and for the plans and the
costs and all those things associated --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Mac'Kie, second by Commissioner Henning.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
MR. KANT.' Thank you, commissioners.
Item #8C1
REQUEST TO TERMINATE COASTAL ENGINEERING FROM
REMAINING CONTRACTS WITH COLLIER COUNTY AND APPROVE
RETENTION OF REPLACEMENT ENGINEERS TO FINISH
PROJECTS WHEN AND AS NECESSARY - STAFF
RECOMMENDATION APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. That takes us to 8 C,
public utilities. Number one, request to terminate Coastal
Engineering from remaining contracts with Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have one question and I'm
ready to make a motion, Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind.
MR. MCNEES: And you have a couple speakers on this item
as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. Then I'm ready to go
forward with this hearing.
MR. MUDD: The request is to terminate Coastal Engineering
from remaining contracts. We -- it's very difficult knowing that
we have a -- we have a suit against Coastal Engineering for the
rocks on the beach that they were in partnership with T.L. James
from Homer, Louisiana.
It's -- the staff has problems talking to them because you've
Page108
February 27, 2001
got to go through a legal side because of that process. We
thought, as a staff, that it would be -- it would be to our benefit,
the county's benefit that we try to terminate and negotiate a
settlement in the process. So far, that settlement has not been
reached. That's the reason why we're here for termination.
This will be a termination for convenience, for the county's
convenience, and -- in all items except for the rocks on the
beach, and that's basically termination for cause at that
juncture. Our staff's recommendation is that we terminate the
process, and if you look at funds outstanding in the contract, it's
-- purchase orders that are still open are $134,888.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The speakers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' We have a couple speakers.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We need to go to public speakers.
MR. MCNEES: Your first is Michael Stephen, followed by
Michael Poff.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As Dr. Stephen is coming up, a
question for staff. Are all of the contracts that we currently have
with Coastal, are they all related to beaches or are some of them
for road building or for -- I don't have any idea what else they
might be? What is the subject matter, if you don't mind?
MR. MUDD: The subject matter on this one is everything
that has to do with beach renourishment and that process in
Collier County. The other work that they might be subcontracted
to do in county is not affected by it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I wanted to be sure
about because just because we are arguing over a beach
question doesn't mean that we think they don't know anything
about -- know nothing about nothing.
MR. STEPHEN: Good afternoon. My name's Michael
Stephen. I'm the president of Coastal Engineering and it's been
my privilege to have been before you here probably hundreds of
times over the last 22 years, and both my company and I have
personally accomplished well over -- well, thousands of projects,
jobs of different types, different varieties in different coastal
areas in particular over the years, and we're in a business
relationship with you, with the citizens of Collier County, in
effect, and we've been very successful on dozens of ma]or
projects, both beach and otherwise, but including beach, Marco
Page 109
February 27, 2001
Island, Caxambas Pass, Wiggins Pass, that really don't have
anything to do with the beach renourishment project that's in
question.
As can occur in any business endeavor or project, you know,
we do have an issue with -- with the county or you have one with
us, I suppose. One aspect of one facet of a multi-faceted project
where we were not, by the way, in partnership with T.L. James.
We are a separate entity from that group, where we may be in
disagreement, because that has yet to -- to fully be sorted out.
The point is that we've always acted cooperatively and
timely to address the issues. We've maintained very good
working relationships with the staff, even throughout the -- at
least the technical staff, throughout the process of the -- the last
year or so, whatever the litigation's been affected, and so I'm not
really aware of -- and can't really address any difficulties in the
legal parameters, but I -- but I haven't found that to be an issue in
-- in being able to answer and address problems that have arisen.
So, you know, we hope to resolve the issue fairly quickly
and perhaps even in the next 60 days or so. As I would, in any
other similar scenario, I'd like to deal appropriately and
positively with the issue at hand and in the manner that is the
least impact and the least cost to everybody.
As I understood it, the outside counsel did not suggest
curtailment of our projects last year. If he did, at least the board
didn't take any action in that regard when we went ahead to
reach a joint resolution through the mediation process. Thus,
you know, I come from a simple point where two parties are
working to resolve a project component and that does not
require or benefit from curtailment of other non-related projects
or other things that have gone on well in the past, nor does our
constituency, yours and mine, the taxpayers, win anything if the
projects are overturned or turned over that are near completion
because of the body of knowledge that's involved in some -- in
merely closing some of these projects.
I guess there's no reason to impact these unrelated projects
unless -- I suggest some patience, suspend action on the beach
contract if you must, but really, if we can suspend action for the
next 60 or 90 days, we may see some crystallization and
finalization of the whole process, at least as far as we're
concerned, and that's what we would hope. So I -- I appreciate
Page 110
February 27, 2001
the ability to -- to address you this afternoon and thank you very
much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Michael, before you leave, if I
could just say, I think you guys have taken more than your share
of hits for a great amount of this work that -- I may well be the
instigator of this discussion today because of the last -- the last
time, the bags of sand are still back here, where we had to make
a choice about more course or less course grains of sand and I
found myself in the uncomfortable position of having to ask a
Coastal Engineering engineer, is this -- does this sand meet
specs or not, and that's the subject of our litigation and -- and it
was that, frankly, that sent me over the edge that I can't -- don't
-- how can I -- it was actually the fifth anniversary of the advice
to bury the rocks was the day that I had to make the vote on -- on
the grain size of the sand and that -- I don't know if we've gone
farther than the beaches -- than the beach contracts, because I
don't intend to go farther than beach contracts, but that -- that's
just an untenable position to be in and I hope that you can
understand that my bringing it up is not -- and I want to say
publicly, it's not a response to anybody else's urging or
somebody -- you know, because there's a lot of radical people out
here with a lot of radical ideas that I don't share, but that was
the place where it was -- the real world came right home to me
and I felt like I had to bring it back up as a result of that, and I'm
hopeful that the contracts -- and that's why I asked Mr. Mudd the
question, I'm hopeful that the contracts that are under
discussion today relate to beaches and not everything Coastal
Engineering has ever done in Collier County because you've done
a lot of wonderful work in Collier County.
MR. STEPHEN: Well, they relate to inlets as well as
beaches.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MCNEES: The next speaker's Michael Poff, and your
final --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: While he's coming up, Commissioner,
remember, four other commissioners joined with you in that
decision and, you know, it was a unanimous vote by the board
that we had to do what we had to do under the circumstances,
SO--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I guess today's when we
Page 111
February 27, 2001
make that final call.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And that's the day when you make the
final call.
MR. POFF: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record,
my name is Michael Poff. I'm the vice-president of engineering of
Coastal Engineering Consultants. As this is my first time before
our new commission, I would like to welcome and congratulate
our three new commissioners.
As you are aware, we are in a contract dispute over the
beach project. I will try not to repeat things that Dr. Stephen has
already presented to you, other than we are working
cooperatively with your staff to reach a resolution to this in a
very timely fashion. Regardless of the outcome today, we will
continue to work in that positive fashion with you.
As you're also aware, Coastal provides services for a lot of
other projects, and I guess I need maybe some clarification as to
which projects are looking to be terminated. You've said that
you minimized it to the beach projects. Well, does that count for
a survey on our annual survey contract that's an interior canal?
I've been told that that's what is also being terminated today.
Does it account for the Wiggins Pass dredging project? That's an
inlet dredging project. I've been told that that's being terminated
today, or recommended to you to be terminated.
So some clarification, I believe, is necessary, because our
track record on these projects is exemplary. We've provided
services to Collier County since 1985 on the Marco Island beach
project. That project has garnered awards for the county and for
our firm. All the projects that we were charged with on that
project were permitted and constructed in timely and
cost-effective manners.
For Wiggins Pass, we've been working with the county on a
variety of Wiggins Pass dredging projects since 1984. We're
currently in the fourth year of a six year contract for Wiggins
Pass. Dr. Carter, you and I personally sat on the Milestone
Committee working with the Estuary Conservation Association
and county staff, we overcame every permit hurdle that there
was. We acquired new permits, and the expanded project was
completed last year. I defy anyone to say that we did not act in
the county's best interest on that project. That success is
testimony to that.
Page 112
February 27, 2001
As the day-to-day manager of these projects, I'm in constant
communication with your staff. The issue of communication is
not an issue. They call me all the time. They call me directly.
It's not through legal counsel. It is only on the beach project and
the sensitivity to the lawsuit where communication is an issue,
not the Wiggins Pass project, not the Marco, not the Caxambas,
not the annual survey contract, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
There are no communication issues on those projects.
Our record speaks for itself on Wiggins and Marco and these
other projects. It is one of success and cooperation. We are
acting and we will continue to act in the county's best interest
on these projects. I ask for your objective review of our
contracts not related to the beach contract, the Collier County
beach contract, and I thank you for your valuable time and will
answer any questions that I can.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess I'd like to see a list of the
contracts that are the subject of this a hundred and --
MR. MCNEES: I would direct you to page three of the
executive summary of this item. There is actually a list of the
open purchase orders.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. Expert testimony.
What is Collier County versus Bendott? What is that?
MR. MOUNTFORD: If I may, William Mountford. It's my
understanding that that was done through the public works
department and it has something to do with -- it's not beach
related. It has to do with expert testimony in either storm water
or -- or some taking of land. I -- I don't --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, they have so many divisions
within Coastal Engineering that if it's not related to beaches, I
don't think we have to be punitive here. I want to cut the beach
contract. So let's just go down them, if the board doesn't mind,
and --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for Mr. Mudd.
MR. WEIGEL'. Miss Mac'Kie? Excuse me. I'd like to make a
comment here before you go through them line item, and that is,
you know, we're in multi-million dollar litigation in regard to the
beach rocks contract here and I think the executive summary is
-- is fairly express in regard to what it purports to do. Yes, we do
have, in fact, a technical/legal issue in dealing with Coastal in
Page 113
February 27, 2001
regard to the matters we're specifically in litigation.
I will say that we attempted to negotiate a termination, a
settlement, without coming to termination for convenience.
Termination for convenience doesn't cast a pall on the provider
of service. It is nothing more than a -- kind of a colorblind
termination, but as we go forward toward mediation, which is
what Mr. Stephen alluded to, as we go forward to potential trial,
trial by jury, the fact that we have kept a contractor or a
consultant on for other work with the county may very well play
a part in the strategy that the counsel have to deal with in court
before the judge and before the jury, so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So David, if that's the case
though, no offense, but where have you been for a year? If that
is such a problem, why are we talking about this -- how long has
that litigation been filed?
MR. WEIGEL: It was filed in June of last year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- okay. Six months. You
know-- I don't -- I guess there's no point.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I can tell you a couple of these things
were entered into even subsequent to the litigation as far as that
goes, but it has been determined, and with the urging of this
board, that we were to terminate and we believe that -- and
incidentally, these contracts, most of them, are -- you can see,
there's not much outstanding, to a great degree, for what were
significant contracts.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess if you -- you attempted to
negotiate with Coastal a settlement. I would assume that one of
the terms that you offered, and one of the suggestions I would
make to fellow board members with your advice would be, if we
terminated merely the contracts that relate to beach issues,
would Coastal consent not to sue us on the balance of the
contracts for which we're -- I'm sorry, that doesn't work, does it?
MR. WEIGEL: I'm not so concerned about them suing us. I
mean, I'm always concerned about lawsuits, but under the
contract we have contracted for and they have too, are a right
and ability to terminate for convenience, but we were unable to
settle and determine with them, in the litigation in chief that we
have right now, that absolutely our continued use of them, even
on other projects, wouldn't be an item that they would consider
in their strategy and application to court, and we hoped that we
Page 114
February 27, 2001
wouldn't have that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand that.
MR. WEIGEL: We weren't able to negotiate that away. We
don't know if they will do it, but it's still in their armory, so to
speak.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So David, when you were seeking
to negotiate something with Coastal, what was it you were
seeking from them?
MR. MUDD: We were trying to bring the contracts to a -- a
point in time where they could be packaged and transferred and
make that an amiable solution to this termination process on
everything that's there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you got nowhere on that or
what?
MR. MUDD: We got nowhere on that, and one of the things
that was sent to Coastal, and Mr. Mountford gave it to me just a
second ago, it's neither Collier County nor Coastal Engineering
will raise the withdrawal and/or completion of the four contracts
as either an admission or non-admission or inference or
presumption of liability or damages or raise the fact that Coastal
Engineering was not terminated earlier as evidence in the
pending litigation, case number, la ti da. COMMISSIONER
MAC'KIE: And they would not agree to that? MR. MUDD: No, ma'am.
MR. MOUNTFORD: That's correct, Commissioner.
MR. MUDD: And so what you have before you are the -- are
the balance that beach renourishment has that now falls under
public utilities in the contract.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the big one? That's the
one twenty-one?
MR. MUDD: The 143,000, I think that's what's in there --
143,888.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, our page says $198,000.
MR. MUDD: It's been updated, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Total, but if you're referring to beach
restoration and management, that's 121,785.
MR. MUDD: Yeah, and it's been updated since that time
period. I've got a two twenty-two on that. The expert testimony,
the -- the amount remains the same as on your sheet of paper.
The 1,500, second item remains the same. The 3,000 third
Page 115
February 27, 2001
element remains the same. The Wiggins Pass inlet management
plan dropped from $59,596 because we had some invoices and
it's now $48,504. The beach restoration and management plan
on your sheet says $121,785, and because of outstanding bills,
it's now down to $70,637, and the annual .monitoring service on
your sheet says $1,676, and it's now down to $312 because of
invoices that we've received since the time that we sent this
before you, and I'm sorry for that. I should have had --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' No, I appreciate it, and as we
were discussing that item with regard to the litigation, Dr.
Stephen popped up. Maybe he's coming here to tell us they
would agree to that.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. He's speaking without his counsel, but
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, without his counsel. Is your
lawyer here, Michael?
MR. STEPHEN: No.
MR. WEIGEL: I mean, he can speak, but we just need to
know that we have a litigation aspect.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: He's speaking without counsel, and
therefore, it could be reversed at a future date? MR. WEIGEL: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, he can bind his company.
MR. STEPHEN: Michael Stephen, for the record. The -- I just
wanted to comment, I think the -- the issue that they're
conversing about is a legal issue. My only comment was that in
this particular instance, we received, and I don't know whether --
when our counsel received it, but we received a fax from your
attorney's office on either Thursday or Friday with a -- with a
request for response by like the following Monday. It happened
to be the Monday that the county was closed for one of the
holidays, and my attorney said, when we -- we called them about
it and said we don't understand -- I don't understand the rush.
Basically we just failed to respond, and about a week or so after
that, we got a letter that said, based on your response, we
assume you don't want to do it, and that's fine. We just -- it was
unusual and didn't seem to follow any kind of protocol in terms of
the time frames that we were already dealing with and we've
been working in a positive vain, setting up the mediation, so I
don't want to comment on the -- on the legal aspects, but I just
Page 116
February 27, 2001
didn't want us to seem particularly non-responsive in an unusual
circumstance. Thank you. That's all I really--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe if you were willing to
suspend invoicing us for two weeks, we could freeze the
numbers where they are and give your lawyers two weeks to tell
us whether or not they would agree to that request.
MR. STEPHEN: We'd be happy -- in fact, we've already done
that. I mean, when we were notified of the suspension of the
projects, we've suspended activities and billing on the projects.
We're --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wouldn't that be really valuable,
Mr. Weigel, to have that agreement with --
MR. STEPHEN: That's what I said. We're only 60 days from
mediation anyway, so --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'd like to hear from the county
attorney.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's exactly it. These projects are
winding down. There is a cost -- and we look to our client, not
just in litigation, but our client, the board and the taxpayers,
what do we do if we chop this off and have to go out and bring
someone else in who hasn't ground truth all the previous work,
and this was part of what we had to deal with and it's very
significant.
I will say though then that, notwithstanding that there was a
Monday that was a holiday, our outside counsel doesn't observe
that Monday government holiday and that's who you'd be looking
to communicate with, so if their assumptions -- okay. It wasn't
an issue, as my assistant said.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is -- my bottom line is, I
don't want to have a contract with Coastal on the matter over
which we sued them and the beach issue. I don't want to. I
haven't wanted to ever since the issue arose, much less ever
since we filed the litigation, but if they're willing to agree that
our failure to fire them early will not be used against us in the
lawsuit, then I'd be willing to talk about leaving the other
contracts open.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well--
MR. MUDD'. One last piece before you make a decision on
this one, the beach restoration and management plan that's in
front of you, I'm about ready to put 50,000 cubic yards of sand on
Page 117
February 27, 2001
the beach and I've got to have somebody out there managing
that process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Somebody else has to do that
job,
that
MR. MUDD: And all I'm saying is, if you have a continuance,
two weeks will kill me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'- No, I'm suggesting that we would
take action on that one and continue the non-beach contracts to
see if we could make that trade.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I am going to respectfully
suggest, Commissioner, that in negotiations and when it gets to
a jury, you can say anything you want to say here, the perception
of a jury will be, in my judgment, if you -- and I could make this
argument, if you continue contracts with this organization
related to the beaches, as these are, then you must have
confidence in them and that will weaken our position in the
negotiations, in my judgment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, what is the annual land
surveying work order? How is that related to the beach?
MR. MUDD: I --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's the 1,500 one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm just saying I don't want to be
mean about this. I just want to cut off the beach work.
MR. MCNEES: You do have one more speaker, if you'd like
to hear from him now.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
MR. MCNEES: That would be Dave Weston.
MR. WESTON: For the record, my name is Dave Weston,
4754 First Avenue Southwest. Chairman and board members, my
name is Dave Weston. I am the chief financial officer for Coastal
Engineering Consultants. I represent 50 Collier County families.
We have provided many other professional services that we've
been talking about, such as survey and civil engineering for the
citizens of Collier County for over 24 years here in Collier County
with a reputation of honesty, integrity and quality services. I am
proud to have been a part of that good work for Coastal for 16 of
those 24 years.
The resolution of this singular contractual matter was
correctly directed to mediation and out of the political football
Page 118
February 27, 2001
field. In my opinion, flawed newspaper reporting filled with
innuendo and political agendas had overshadowed any of the
facts and really were obscuring the issue. My colleagues and I
are here before you today because of a question raised by one of
you with respect to why we continue to be used for the services
on the very job for which this investigation and contract
resolution is being undertaken. Like a tall tale that's whispered
around a room, by the time it got to the other side, somehow this
issue had mushroomed to a point where now it includes several
other unrelated services like surveying for a bridge improvement
in North Naples and other contracts and services that are beyond
reproach and unrelated to the initial point.
One must ask why. What is the intent of the proposed
action? And legal counsel has given some. And is it a legal
tactic to bring Coastal to the negotiating table? Certainly not.
We're here and we will never leave. I'm raising my family in this
town. Is it to try and bully us to settle, because you know, gosh,
we're under such financial duress? I know the character of the
board, the manager and legal counsel better than that. We go to
little league and everything together. I know that that's not it.
So then what could be the reason? Why sweep all of the
unrelated services and products in with a single issue? The
newspapers glossed over the fact that Coastal Engineering did
the design and permitting of the beach restoration and not the
actual construction. An independent contractor did the
construction under a direct contract with the county and we've
been working with the county staff to try and help them resolve
the problem to the best for the citizens of Collier County.
You and I know that there's a silent majority of the citizenry
of Collier County that are aware that the beaches are great.
There's a small area that had a problem. The cost of even
restoring these beaches to their pristine state, even with the
cleanup, is millions of dollars less than the next closest
construction bid. So if the taxpayers' interest is at the root of
our action, I submit to you that you've done a fine job and so has
the county staff.
Even if you have the right to summarily blackball us from
contracts with the county, I would submit to you that that
doesn't make it the right thing to do. It's not just and it's not in
the taxpayers' best interest. I don't believe that legal tactics,
Page 119
February 27, 2001
maneuvering, escalated financial pressure leading into mediation
contribute to good faith efforts at contract and dispute
resolution.
I think that we should isolate this issue for what it is, let it
go through the mediation process, and I thank you for the
opportunity to give my thoughts on record.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. MCNEES: No more speakers.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No more speakers?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to make a motion that
we terminate the beach restoration and management plan
contract for cause, and that we suspend the balance of the
contracts on this list pending inquiry of Coastal Engineering's
legal counsel about the -- the matter that Mr. Weigel read, and I'd
ask him to read again. Would you, please? MR. WEIGEL: The matter that I read?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You read the proposed language
that was faxed to their office on the Thursday before the Monday
that we were closed.
MR. MOUNTFORD: Are you requesting that it be read into
the record again?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please. I just want to hear it
again.
MR. MOUNTFORD: As part of my letter of February 6th, 2001
sent to counsel for Coastal, one of the paragraphs that I
proposed was this, neither Collier County nor Coastal
Engineering will raise the withdrawal and/or completion of the
four contracts as either an admission or non-admission or
inference or presumption of liability or damages or raise the fact
that Coastal Engineering was not terminated earlier as evidence
in the pending litigation, and giving the docket number being
case 00-1901-CA-TB, which is Coastal -- which is Board of County
Commissioners versus --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And is there any other contract
on this list that relates to beaches besides the beach restoration
and management plan for $70,637? I understand that they're
paid from funds that are tourist development related funds that
come out of the beach, but I'm talking about, which of these are
sand?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Annual monitoring service.
Page 120
February 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is that one?
MR. MUDD.' The -- based on the list that I have, the
Caxambas Pass inlet management plan basic services have been
completed, the purchase order has been closed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We don't have that one on our--
MR. MUDD: I understand that. Because there's no monetary
value on there, okay, but terminate agreement. That has to do
with beach.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Marco Island beach renourishment, okay,
services authorized to date have been completed. Close out
purchase order, terminate agreement, prepare an RFP for future
services, okay. That's not on your list, but when I go out for an
RFP, that means if we terminate --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I want those two contracts in
the list that I'm proposing we terminate today.
MR. MUDD.' Wiggins Pass inlet management. The status,
Wild Turkey Bay management dredging and inlet management
plan channel dredging has been completed. Remaining services
include annual monitoring surveys and preparation of plans and
specifications for the next main channel maintenance dredging
scheduled for FY/02.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's not a sand issue though.
MR. MUDD: When we dredge, in these particular issues, we
put that dredging material on the beach. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: The balance remaining on the purchase order is
that $48,504. Staff's recommendation, terminate agreement,
close out the purchase order, prepare an RFP for continuing
services, because we're going to need those continuing services
if we're going to get ready for the next event.
Collier County beach restoration status. Remaining
authorized services to be completed include construction
administrative services for incremental beach maintenance and
management plan, coordinations of permits for Naples
beachwood growing restoration and amendment number one,
identification of a new offshore sand source. The balance
remaining on the purchase order is $70,637. The
recommendation complete is to basically terminate the
agreement and prepare an RFP and we're going to use an
Page 121
February 27, 2001
indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity AE service that we have on
continual contract to go out there and do the construction. In
this particular case, we have to go out with an RFP to get
another firm to -- to basically fall in on the Collier County beach
restoration project.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Mudd, have I just failed to do
my homework or is that not in my packet? I mean --
MR. MUDD: No, that's in your packet, ma'am. That's that
beach restoration and management plan.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, that list you just read about
RFP, go out -- you read things that aren't in my list.
MR. MUDD.' Yes, ma'am, but what we tried to give you was a
list of those continuing contract with dollars outstanding when
we did the termination.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I appreciate that you're
trying to help me now and I may not even have support for this
motion, but I'm determined to make it, that it is my goal to
terminate all contracts related to beaches and sand. If you could
tell me what those are, and then if you could tell me what
contracts we currently have with Coastal Engineering that are
not related to beaches and sand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we just ask what is
not related?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, what I just told you, the ones that aren't
related are the first three and the last one. So I basically said
Wiggins Pass inlet management plan and beach restoration and
management plan for a total of about 119 -- $119,000, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if I've made a motion to
terminate those two contracts and that all other contracts with
Coastal Engineering Consultants be suspended pending their
attorney's response to the paragraph read earlier by our counsel,
is that going to slow you down on any other projects that you're
working on?
MR. MUDD.' No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then that's my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: To terminate those two?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Terminate the -- the two -- sand
related contracts and don't fire them from stuff that has to do
with bridges and surveying and appraisals. They're not bad at
that. I just don't want to talk to them about beaches.
Page~122
February 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I hear your motion, Commissioner.
fail to get a second. Do I hear another motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' Motion to accept staff's
recommendations related to the contracts on -- for Coastal
Engineering.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COLETTA: And that's to --
MAC'KIE: Terminate everything.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One question is, what is it going
to cost the taxpayers if we do this?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All it says in our thing is, not
much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's not good enough.
Are we talking about a wash where we pick up someone new and
they just pick the balance of it up or do they have to start the
survey -- the study all over again? Are we going to incur new
costs or--
MR. MUDD: That's what we were trying to do on the
settlement where it was a negotiated settlement between the
two so we'd have a clean transfer. At the particular area that we
sit right now, there will be a little bit of an expense. It could be
to the tune of $10,000, and I'm talking out of my head right now.
The exact number, I don't have. I won't have it until you go out
and you -- and you set up another contract with somebody else
and see what the difference was. That's the only way I'll be able
to determine that process with you.
So what we've seen -- or what we have here are -- are
contracts that are -- that are being terminated at a decent place
in time where we can have a good transition so we'll minimize
the impact upon the taxpayers of Collier County.
MR. MCNEES: Commissioner, you can get an idea of the
order of magnitude if you look at the list of items. We've already
taken out the largest two. They're not negotiable, it sounds like,
so there will certainly be an expense in getting those contracts
going again. On the others, the land surveying contract issues
are fairly small. The one that looks like there would be the most
impact, you see there's an expert witness -- expert testimony
fee. We're going to have to pay somebody else to become expert
and -- but the order--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did we find out what the subject
of that litigation was?
Page 123
February 27, 200t
MR. MCNEES.' The order of magnitude would be less than
the tens of thousands, less than 10,000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' I mean, is anybody on the board
interested if the subject of that litigation is bridge building?
MR. WEIGEL: I believe that's a very old road condemnation
case.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So it's going to be a road
condemnation case, it's probably going to be -- the expert
testimony then is based on the value of the land and --
MR. WEIGEL.' Well, the consultant's not the appraiser here,
so I don't think they'll be performing that function.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, they have an appraisal
function within their firm, so it may be.
MR. WEIGEL: I'm thinking it may be in regard to a --
potentially contentiousness of the design selection for the taking
that did occur. I'm guessing at this point though.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if we terminate all of these
contracts for it, I'm going to say this one more time and then I'm
not going to say it anymore because I know you can count, they
can raise in the litigation with a jury the fact that we didn't
terminate our contract with them on beaches. Well, tell me if I'm
wrong, please.
MR. MOUNTFORD: Commissioner, it's my opinion that the
attempt that I read to you in my February 6, 2001 letter to
Coastal was trying to amicably adjust any potential evidence
issue which may come up in the case in chief, for lack of a better
term. It's my opinion that that isn't necessarily going to be
admissible because that is argumentative as to relevancy and
materiality of that with regards to the case in chief, but now
we're getting into that area of trial strategy, attorney/client
privilege, which I would prefer to discuss with this commission
behind closed doors, so to speak, because of the litigation, not --
with a court reporter present, of course.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'd like to say that --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We need a second to the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just what I was going to say.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Commissioner Fiala seconds
the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, but I'd like to say, that second
was -- I have two friends here in Coastal Engineering and I just
Page 124
February 27, 2001
hate to do that, but I think I'd like to clear the air before we move
forward and I think we have to do that by -- by finishing this trial,
so that's the only reason I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm just trying to find out what
our motives are on this. This is something that happened five --
five and a half years ago, correct?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have 60 days to go.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, five and a half years ago is
when the rocks got on the beach, and at this point in time, we're
going back five and a half years and we're going to serve a
punishment -- to serve as an example, we're going to go back and
end these contracts, to incur more expense and possibly have to
go to court over it. We've got a $134,000 balance to go to finish
them out. Why not have something where we don't do any future
business until we settle everything up that's done in the past?
We're opening ourselves up for additional expenses. We're
opening ourselves up for litigation in courts. We're going to have
staff tied up trying to work their way through this. I just don't
understand the reasoning why and the rationale why, at this
point in time, we're bringing it up. Why not cut them off from
anything in the future?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But Jim, when we had that sand
contract and on the fifth anniversary -- I'm sorry, but on the fifth
anniversary of the day that Coastal Engineering Consultants told
me, I was the only one on the board at the time, that it was a
good idea to bury those rocks, that my expert, my hired
consultant that day to tell me which sand to use was the same
one that told me it was a good idea to bury those rocks. I don't
want that contract continued. I haven't wanted it continued for
five and a half years, but we're finally to the point of terminating
that one. I'm just not mean-spirited enough to think that we have
to say they're bad at everything.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the motion, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any other comments from the board?
Call the motion.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Aye.
Opposed?
Page 125
February 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 3-2.
Item #8E1
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY PLAN - APPROVED
The next item is E 1.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If there's no public speakers,
Mr. Chairman, I'd make a motion that -- there is?
MR. MCNEES: No, there are no public speakers.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: There are no public speakers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Be approved.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a first and a second. Any
discussion?
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
Item #9A
AGREEMENT FROM THE CITY OF NAPLES CONCERNING THE
LOCATION OF AN EXPLORATORY WELL FOR A PROPOSED
AQUIFER STORAGE RECOVERY SYSTEM - APPROVED
We are over to 9 A, county attorney's report.
MR. PETTIT: Good afternoon, commissioners, Mike Pettit,
Assistant County Attorney. I'm here to report on the status of
the negotiation with the City of Naples on the ASR exploratory
well issue. The city has, by a letter from their counsel, advised
me that they are willing to amend the original proposed
settlement agreement in all of the ways we requested but two,
and staff is recommending that those two can be thrown away as
negotiable items and to accept the City's proposal.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify -- do we have
speakers?
MR. MCNEES: You have no speakers.
Page 126
February 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Motion carries 5-0.
MR. PETTIT: Thank you.
Item #10B
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE APPOINTED TO THE CANVASSING
BOARD FOR 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Moves us to Board of County
Commissioners. Number 10 A has been continued. 10 B, we
need to appoint a commissioner to the canvasing board.
Commissioner Mac'Kie and I have both had that privilege. It's up
to one of the new commissioners to have that experience.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll be honest with you, I'd do it
again. I thought it was great fun and it was --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is a canvasing board?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know that thing -- I was
holding up that thing to see if there was a dimple in that chad?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: She's a chad checker.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: A chad checker. There's a high
demand for chad checkers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to nominate --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jim has just nominated her. I'll
second that nomination.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
aye.
Okay. All in favor, signify by saying
Done situation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I doubt it will be quite as exciting
next time, but -- I pray it won't be as exciting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Congratulations.
Item #10C
APPOINTMENT TO THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
ADVISORY COUNCIL - TABLED TO LATER IN THE MEETING
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Moves us to item 10 C.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to -- I recommend
Page127
February 27, 2001
Stephanie Vick for the emergency medical services advisory
board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- the advisory committee
requested that the position be re-advertised and thought that we
hadn't gotten enough information out to the communities. I -- I'm
just reading that off the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't -- I think that we do the
same thing for all the advisory boards as far as advertising.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, you know, you're right,
Commissioner Mac'Kie, they had requested that we advertise
again. What's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like to know why they
suggested that. Can -- may I ask that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we know?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I can't give you the answer because I
don't know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But it was their suggestion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe they didn't like the
applicants.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Here's the memo. The memo
says the MSAC advisory council met last week and reviewed Mr.
Mennini's resume. They have requested that this position be
re-advertised and have also offered to assist in getting the word
out to the community. Did they have this Miss Vick's resume at
the time?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, why didn't they comment
on hers, I wonder?. I -- whatever you -- I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I made a motion.
MR. MCNEES: I can't answer that at this moment. I can get
you an answer if you want to put this one off a few minutes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Make everything hard.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Would you like to continue this for two
weeks until you can get those answers?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, if you're going to continue
it, you may as well re-advertise it, if it's going to come down to
that.
MS. FILSON: That whole process takes approximately two
months.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
Page128
February 27, 2001
MR. MCNEES: If you want to defer this to the end of this list
of item number 10, maybe I can get you an answer real --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That would be a good idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you like me to remove my
motion?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I remove it.
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 2001-68 APPOINTING ROBERT M. SLEBODNIK TO
THE LELY GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We're going to table it and
come back. That moves us to motion 10 C. COMMISSIONER FIALA: 10 D?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 10 D, my error. 10 D.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to nominate Bob Slebodnick
(phonetic) -- or accept his nomination for Lely Golf Estates
beautification.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second by Commissioner Mac'Kie.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
The motion carries.
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 2001-69 APPOINTING ROBERT L. DUANE, C. PERRY
PEEPLES, THOMAS R. PEEK, DALAS DISNEY AND BRYAN P. MILK
TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE -
ADOPTED TERMS EXTENDED
That moves us to item 10 F, discussion of Santa Barbara
Extension.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 10 E, how about that one?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, okay, if you want to do 10 E, I'll
go there. 10 E.
Page 129
February 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve committee's
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Seconded -- it's a motion by
Commissioner Mac'Kie, seconded by Commissioner Henning to
approve item 10 E.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, and Miss Filson will assist me
here, we may have three members who have had two terms on
this board and will therefore, under 8641, our advisory committee
ordinance, may need to have an additional unanimous vote for
them to have their terms extended beyond the second time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Motion carries.
Item #10F
TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATOR TO PROVIDE
RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ROAD ALIGNMENT AND COST
FIGURES FOR SANTA BARBARA EXTENSION
Moves us to item 10 F. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Santa Barbara extension, which has
been something that's been very near and dear to my heart. I've
been working with the people along the route that this extension
was supposed to impact the most, the people whose houses
were in the way, and what I'm asking is, I'd like to ask each one
of the commissioners sitting here if they would please allow me
to ask staff to take another look at this route and maybe see if
there's another alignment that they can figure out rather than the
one that goes right through these people's homes, and yet I want
to make sure that while staff takes a look at this, they protect
the -- the -- protect the community of Lely Golf Estates, St.
Andrews and Augusta Boulevards.
It's a tough task for -- for staff, for the transportation staff,
Page 130
February 27, 2001
but I need them to take -- to re-visit this. I need them to take
another look at this. I want to save these people's homes and I
want to save that community, and I was wondering if I could get
one of the commissioners -- all of you to work with me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' Which assignment are you
talking about?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, what I want to do is eliminate
C. C right now. Alignment C is the one that goes through the 12
people's homes and butts out onto Rattlesnake Hammock, and
originally the county was hoping that possibly the Lely Resort
people, now that's the further one down, would realign their road.
The Lely Resort people have said no, they're not going to do
that, which Norm Feder has said would cause, what do you call
the dog bone -- dogleg -- dogleg in the road, which would even tie
up traffic further. Sorry about that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll tell you, Commissioner Fiala,
when we voted on this before, what I said was that my approval
of route C was expressly conditioned on connecting to Grand
Lely and hopefully narrowing the road to a four instead of six
lane and trying to address that neighborhood's concerns. So if,
in fact, Grand Lely has said no, then that's the end of this -- as far
as I'm concerned, I'm ready to do whatever --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, no, let's hear from Norm.
I see him shaking his head.
MR. FEDER.' For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator. I appreciate the discussion, but I do want to
provide a clarification. It was not my impression, Commissioner,
although I'll defer to yours as well in that meeting, that Lely has
said they will not connect up. As a matter of fact, the DRI
provisions, I think, are very clear that they have to work with the
county on alignment options.
I think what I heard from them was some desire for some
issues to be addressed if they are going to hook up, and those
are issues we can continue to talk to them about as we go into
design and specifics, but I don't think I heard that they would not
hook up and I think in their provisions of their DRI and other
requirements, they're pretty well set to, in fact, hook up to the
Santa Barbara extension, wherever that alignment is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, Mr. Feder, I have it in writing
from them that they won't be hooking up.
Page 131
February 27, 2001
MR. FEDER: I've seen that writing where they expressed
some concerns and made a number of conditions. I also note
that in our meeting with them in your office, they did
acknowledge that they have DRI provisions and that maybe, in
fact, they would have to respond, but that that was not
necessarily the desire of the thousand residents that they had
out there at this point, but nonetheless, that that may be
something that they'd have to respond to.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe what we need to do,
Commissioner, is ask our counsel to tell us whether or not we
have the power in the DRI or otherwise to require them to hook
up, and if we do, then that's one choice from the board. If we
don't, you know, we -- I agree with you, they're not going to
voluntarily do this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, and he was pretty clear. He
said his homeowners were totally against it and he -- and of
course, there was a veiled suggestion that he might not get the
rest of his DRI if he didn't line up his road and I -- and I didn't
think that that was -- anyway, I felt that there -- there needs to be
more discussion on that.
MR. MCNEES: Mr. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'd be interested to know
the answer to the question.
MR. MCNEES: I can perhaps put a little light on the issue,
having been in on quite a bit of this discussion. I think it would
be fair to say that if the outcome of it were to be that the Santa
Barbara extension were to not empty out anywhere near Grand
Lely, then their position would be, absolutely, we won't
cooperate. In other words, if they -- I think it's fair to say that it's
almost a tactical issue if, by refusing to cooperate in realigning
the alignment of Grand Lely, they can force Santa Barbara to
empty out somewhere else, I am certain that's the position
they'll take.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They'd be happy with that, but
my question is, for Mr. Weigel, I guess, do you agree with Mr.
Feder's assessment that the DRI gives us the power to require
their realignment? And let me just go ahead and put this on the
table too, if -- don't they have a rezone pending, or there's one
rumored anyway that they're going to be coming in and we could
make it a condition of approval that they align with Grand Lely.
Page 132
February 27, 2001
MR. WEIGEL.' Well, I'll try and answer your question,
Commissioner. The DRI, of course, has as much or more state
ramification as it does local government ramification, but I think
that it is certainly a significant issue and it -- it may be a real
hurdle for them.
In regard to your other question, I'm looking over to the
planning staff in regard to if there's something currently pending
in rezoning, because I don't know off the top of my head.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the answer to my first
question was, you think that we do have or you think that we
don't have the authority to require them to align?
MR. WEIGEL: I'm not sure that the authority is there with us,
but it is an issue and/or a problem with them if there is a
significant change from what's currently been approved at the
state level with the DRI.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Giving a non-lawyer answer.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, if I could -- again, for the record,
Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator. I am not going to
try to provide you legal counsel, but in fairness to our counsel, he
hasn't necessarily read the DRI provisions, which I've tried to
look through. In a quick look and in talking with Mr. Ryan,
essentially they are --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To whom, I'm sorry?
MR. FEDER: Mr. Ryan, Joe Ryan with Lely Resort. They are
in phase one. Their provisions require them, before phase three,
which would bring them up towards the Rattlesnake Hammock
area, to go into a reassessment and a re-evaluation. It also
provides for alignments and connections to be coordinated with
county staff. So those are two direct statements that I can show
you language on that would lead me to believe what I presented
to you previously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But does that -- do those alignments
and coordinations have to meet with their approval or do we just
force them to do that?
MR. FEDER: It is required for them to work with us to get a
coordination of access points.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we have to approve?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we -- in other words, they can't
get their DRI unless they -- they do as we tell them to do, is that
it?
Page 133
February 27, 2001
MR. FEDER: I am not stating it quite that way,
Commissioner. What I'm saying is, is that the DRI provided, on
phase three, for re-evaluation of their transportation issues and it
required coordination between the county and the developer on
access point--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So they might want to coordinate in
a different fashion and not line up their road, right? Is that -- I
mean -- and as long as they provide an access -- what you're
concerned with is an access from Rattlesnake Hammock to 951
or Collier Boulevard and out to U.S. 41, which --
MR. FEDER: With all due respect, Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- eventually they will provide
because their road is going to be hooking up to all three?
MR. FEDER: And with all due respect, we have to agree to
any connection to the county road system, which is what they're
to do with their development.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So they can't just hook in on the
county road system wherever they want to, that's how we have
the control.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No more than anybody else can.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, we just plow
down 11 or 12 homes and the heck with them, is that it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, I'm very
sensitive to taking people's property, but I think that we need to
let this play out and see where we are and I hope that it won't --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's what I was asking to do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I hope that it won't take too
long so these people know what the future is going to be, but we
still need to wait for this DRI process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, Tom, that's going to be ten
years down the road, that DRI process, because they're 15 years
out from completion. They're not even -- they're not even
finished with phase one. They've got three phases. What we're
talking about right now is something that was passed a couple
years back that said there would be -- in fact, I think it was
passed in 1993. It was a long time ago, where the -- the road
was changed from the original alignment, which was a straight
through alignment from -- from Davis Boulevard down to
Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Our transportation staff, in
cooperation with, I guess, a couple of the county commissioners
Page 134
February 27, 2001
at the time, decided a better road could be placed down another
alignment, which was C. That alignment then came down and
came through 12 homes, and then they felt it could align with
Lely Resort.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Grand Lely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Grand Lely Resort, excuse me,
thank you very much, Grand Lely Boulevard. So that was the
alignment. They were still going to keep route A, which is the
straight alignment. They said that they didn't like the T, and yet
right now, they're -- they didn't like the T effect of 41 -- I'm sorry,
the Santa Barbara extension, which is Polly Avenue and
Rattlesnake Hammock, okay, and yet of course we're doing the
same thing at County Barn. We're widening that to four lanes
and it's a T on each end, but that seems to be okay.
What I'm worried about is, as you said, I don't want to -- I
don't want to make these people lose their homes, and on the
other hand, at the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' I said I'm concerned --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. At the very exit -- that's what
I said, we are singing in the same choir there. COMMISSIONER HENNING.' Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: At the exit of Santa Barbara
Extension onto Rattlesnake Hammock, there sits a community, a
community called Lely Golf Estates that has winding roads, 25
mile an hour roads, speed bumps all the way and all of their
driveways right out onto the road. Well, I don't want to see that
road impact them either, and what I'm asking the commissioners
is to please ask staff if they can't find another route, another way
to extend Santa Barbara so it doesn't mow those people's homes
down, so that it protects that neighborhood in the pathway of the
straight shot. They're going to have a straight shot anyway, two
lanes, four lanes, people are going to take that. So maybe
there's another way to look at it, and all I'm asking is, can we put
this on hold and give staff direction to take another look at it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My concern is the fact that
we're going to have this concern continuously through the whole
thing. I have people concerned about Vanderbilt Road being all
the way to Immokalee, and if we start to work into this process,
if we try to amend everything totally at this point in time so that
we're going to miss everybody's homes, we're never going to do
Page135
February 27, 2001
anything. That's the end of it. I don't say we're going to take
their homes. What I'm saying is, let's let the process go forward.
I'm sure that if there's a way not to do it, it's going to be a lot
less expensive to avoid taking them than it would be to take
them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it's already -- it's already
stipulated that that's what they're going to do. I mean, it's
already in place, and what I'm asking is to re-visit it, and Jim,
you know, I feel that we were elected here by the people who are
saying somebody's got to protect us, you're the only five that can
do it, nobody else can vote for us but you, and that's what I'm
doing here right now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, but they also elected you
to find a road system that was going to move them from point A
to point B, and if you listen --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, just not in my backyard.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly. Now you just said it.
Everybody has got the one concern, they want the roads and
they want them to happen, but they don't want them going
through their backyards. We've got to do everything possible to
try to protect the integrity of the neighborhoods. We've got to do
everything possible to protect the homes, but if we start at this
point in time removing something from the mix and saying, we
will not allow this to happen, then I can guarantee you, the whole
thing is down the drain and we're just going to have a couple of
roads that we're building now and that will be the end of --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I'm not saying we'll not allow
this to happen. I'm just asking for your approval to have them go
in and take another look and see if they can't find another route.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, how many times have they
looked at it now? You two were here quite a bit earlier.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, Mike McNees, would you like to
comment?
MR. MCNEES: Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman. If I can explain a
couple things. We may be, actually, Commissioner Fiala, closer
to where you want us to be than you realize. First of all, let's
separate the issue of Grand Lely Drive for the moment because it
-- it's related, but it is actually a separate issue that staff's
working with them on that may or may not be germane to this
alignment issue. The issue of the alignment, staff has actually
Page 136
February 27, 2001
brought to this board on, now I believe five different occasions --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can say six.
MR. MCNEES: -- different sets of alternatives, and at each
step, staff was sent back to the drawing board, more
information, more alternatives, more analysis, where -- which is
kind of where we are now. You're suggesting, you know, we take
another look at those alternatives.
Having now been through that, I could verify yesterday five
times, there may be more, where we are is, we have hired a
consultant, an engineering firm to take what appeared to be the
best of all the available alternatives from a general viewpoint
and look specifically at what potential alignments could there be
that would have the least possible impact on existing homes,
because we haven't known that yet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, but Mike, at the time -- I was
working very closely with you guys then on the outside, okay,
and I was following the -- the consulting crew. It's interesting
how their story changed, by the way, depending on what we told
them we wanted them to discover, and when we told them we
don't want the road here, we want it there, find another way to
do it because this isn't where we want it to end up, they found it.
I've -- I believe that we instructed them to find what we
wanted them to find and to give us the figures we wanted to
hear, and then when I challenged them as president of East
Naples Civic Association, when I challenged them on their
figures, because they were talking about why the road was
needed through that particular neighborhood, then they came up
with a completely different set of figures, telling me the road was
needed to be that wide to handle all the traffic generated by the
Lely Resort people. I said, that's interesting because Lely Resort
wasn't even in effect when you were trying to change this road,
so I mean, how do they know how many people --
MR. MCNEES: Commissioner, one of those variables that
changed during the analysis was, it became a priority to not
force any of this traffic through the old Lely neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We know how that happened.
MR. MCNEES: Which is still one of your priorities and -- as
you've just stated, that is still a priority. So yes, things change
constantly through this process. As I said, we discussed it five
or six times and --
Page 137
February 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mike, let me just say, I mean, I
heard it five or six times and let me tell you, my -- the strongest
argument I have in support of what Donna's saying, and I don't
want to look at this again, but to be blunt about it, at the time
when I got my last set of numbers, I got them from a staff
member who's no longer here whose opinion I don't respect, who
I think might have manipulated or could have been manipulated
or would have agreed with a majority of the board who had an
agenda that I didn't agree with.
So I -- the only question I have is whether or not the staff
that we have today that I do trust will tell me that C is it and it's
got to be C and here's why it's got to be C, and if that's the
answer, then I will believe it from these people, but I don't really
believe it from the people who told it to me the last five times.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The way you just explained it, I
can understand what you're saying. Would this impact greatly
what we're trying to do, to be able to take another look at it,
Norm?
MR. MCNEES: The first thing I'll say before Norman answers
the question is, it is not our practice to second-guess direction
from previous boards, regardless of -- of how we may have gotten
to a particular point, so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But this board can. If we want --
you know, this board may be second-guessing the previous board
for a living.
MR. FEDER: Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator.
What I can answer to your question, Commissioner, is not a
statement for alternative C, but a statement for the need to have
a connection and a continuous connection that goes from Davis
to 41, acknowledging that the original alignment sometime back,
and I'm looking at history here that I'm coming in on, and I spent
quite a bit of time out in the community with Commissioner Fiala
and an awful lot of good people involved in this discussion, but
looking at the history when it was lined up basically on A or Polly
Avenue, that has pretty well been precluded, as is noted, with
the way that St. Andrews was developed. With the winding, with
all the driveways connecting directly to it, it cannot function as
that connection that brings you from Davis -- Santa Barbara,
Davis all the way to 41.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So let me pause you just to be
Page 138
February 27, 2001
sure I understand what you just said. What you just said is that if
route A were built, it would be a good road, but it would not
serve -- it would not serve the function of the connection, the
through-way that we need?
MR. FEDER: That is correct, because even if you had Grand
Lely, you would be required to take two 90 degree turns. You
would reduce an awful lot of the operational effectiveness
because you'd come down Polly, you'd have to take a left turn, go
down --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You said even if you had Grand
Lely. Is that what you meant to say?
MR. FEDER: Yes, even if you had Grand Lely as your
connection to 41. I'm saying you'd have to take two 90 degree
turns on --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So what he means is, if you come
out A onto Rattlesnake Hammock, you'd have to turn left until
you go down to Grand Lely and then -- and that -- I think that can
be done. As you explained to me, it's a lot bigger than a dogleg.
If they didn't move their road over, then they'd have to jiggity jog
and that would tie up traffic further --
MR. FEDER: And Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- but I don't see why people
wouldn't want to make that turn. I personally wouldn't mind
making that left-hand turn and traveling seven-tenths of a mile
further down the road to get to Grand Lely Boulevard, and then
I'm saving these people's homes and I'm not impacting those
people's neighborhoods and I think we can do -- I think we can
have some kind of a road -- a road traffic stopper -- what do I call
it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What you're asking for is just
staff to look at it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're not making this a
proposal to take it out of the mix?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no, no. I just want them to take
another look and --
MR. FEDER: And for the record, let me just throw the rest of
that equation out just so that everybody understands the various
issues we've been looking at recently, because by all means, the
board can direct us and we'll continue to look, as it's been
Page 139
February 27, 2001
looked at before and I didn't need the board direction. I had one
commissioner bring us out to homeowner associations and the
people that pay salary, the taxpayers asked us and we were
looking at it, okay, so we'll continue to, but what you create
there is a couple of things. First of all, those folks at St.
Andrews no longer have that ability to connect because you
want to block them off from that four to six lane traffic coming
down to Hancock-- Hammock.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Rattlesnake.
MR. FEDER: Rattlesnake Hammock, excuse me. You'd want
to cut that off because you don't want it going through their
neighborhood, so then they're cut off from the ability to go north.
They only have 41 and 951 as their alternatives for all of East
Naples growth. The other thing that you'd create, and the
commissioner is correct, the thing I did point out to her is,
whatever alignment we did, we don't want to create it as a slight
offset to Grand Lely because then you cannot make those 90
degree maneuvers even though they are operationally
detrimental.
If you make those operational changes, you would probably
have to stay with six lanes, same on Rattlesnake Hammock and
possibly on Grand Lely. If you made a direct connection and
what we were trying to look at for the commissioner's concerns
was access control on 951 and possibly reducing down to four
lanes. So we have been looking at it and we'll continue to. We
are talking about the nature of looking at an alignment that is not
in your cost feasible plan, depending upon what we do on
resources --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we have plenty of time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I'm going to make a motion
that --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Wait a minute. I have a couple
questions before you make a motion.
How much money have we spent studying this to date?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, this --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: This has been through this five times.
I've sat here and I've listened to all of this. There were four
routes. I'm just asking the question. I'd just like to know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hear my motion because it
doesn't have to do with four studies.
Page 140
February 27, 2001
MR. MCNEES: You do have one registered speaker.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My motion -- I won't make it yet,
but what I'm proposed to move is that we -- we request that Mr.
Olliff direct Mr. Feder to give us his recommendation regarding
those road alignments, give it to us in writing, and if any of us
don't like the recommendation that we get from the man who we
do trust, then we bring it back to the board and it gets put back
on the agenda, but for today, what I want to know is Mr. Feder's
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I would like cost figures in that
too, please. I have no problem with that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do we have any speakers?
MR. MCNEES: You have one speaker, Reverend Peter
Lyberg.
MR. LYBERG: Reverend Lyberg, retired pastor, Shepherd of
the Glades Lutheran Church located on the corner of Polly and
Rattlesnake Hammock Road. I've appeared before this board
both for prayer and for debate on more occasions than I'd like to
count.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we appreciate both.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're pretty good at the prayer.
MR. LYBERG: We were hoping on it. The alignments that
are there, I would very much concur with Commissioner Fiala's
request and for Commissioner Mac'Kie's suggested motion that
sounded like it was going in the right direction, to take a look at
it, because it seems that this whole thing has gotten locked into
one particular direction, route C, no matter what, and even,
almost no matter whether Lely Development concurs or builds
anything or not, and I think that's a tragic situation, especially
when you think that you're affecting 12 or 14 homes that would
have to be demolished in that right of way in order to achieve
that.
The -- the straight alignment, route A, is clear. There's not
even a garage on that thing or -- or a leftover outhouse or
anything. There's nothing there, just a long ditch. It would be
very easy and accessible. The other thing, if for traffic flow, it
ends at Rattlesnake Hammock, nobody wants it to go into St.
Andrews and it's halfway, exactly halfway between 41 and 951,
so that you end up having traffic come and split rather than
funnel it together. We do so much funneling of traffic and putting
Page 14t
February 27, 2001
it together and making more and more traffic rather than less.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Chris, the problem is, that funnel
has to do the inverse as well, you know, to have the wide come
into the narrow and that's the place --
MR. LYBERG: From both sides they can get on to it and go
north. If it's further over, you're not going to get the -- the traffic
from the west end of Rattlesnake Hammock making use of it. If
there were no other choice, you know, if the whole thing was all
houses, then you're talking about which houses to take, that's a
different question, but when you're debating between an open
alignment and -- and a row of houses that has to come out of
there, I think that raises a -- a far more important issue there.
I think there is a way and I think the staff can work at it
whereby there can be a decision, a new decision based on some
new factors that are a part of this whole discussion that will
cause the least harm to all three areas, the ones -- Parker's
Hammock area, Grand -- Lely Resort and St. Andrews Boulevard.
I think all of those can be, to a pretty fair degree, protected and
I'm sure that -- that some options can be looked at and an
achievement reached, a consensus reached on doing that so that
it can come about, and it's a road that 15 years from now is way
late. It's a road that was needed five years ago. That's when it
needed to go in.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't you live on St. Andrews or off
St. Andrews?
MR. LYBERG: I live at the other end of St. Andrews. I don't
drive St. Andrews any more, speed bumps and everything else, I
don't enjoy bouncing over those things, so -- but I live in Lely and
-- and recognize the -- the need for traffic and the need for better
access to get up to Davis and to Santa Barbara going north from
there. Right now, the only thing that connects is little, tiny
County Barn Road and -- and that's a disaster in its making right
there. It needs route A, four laned right there to the corner and I
think that would get things off to a very good start and -- and
provide a lot of good connectivity to the whole area. Thank you
very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Another thing I just wanted to --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any more speakers?
MR. MCNEES: No, sir.
Page 142
February 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA.' Yes, thank you. If my community
were called Lely Golf Estates and I lived on St. Andrews
Boulevard instead of Lakewood Boulevard in Lakewood, I -- I
would have this same feeling. In Lakewood Boulevard right now,
we're hit with about 27,000 cars a day going down our main
street and all of our driveways empty out onto Lakewood
Boulevard. If somebody put a great big median in my -- in the
center of Davis Boulevard so that the traffic couldn't come down
unless they lived in Lakewood, it would inconvenience me a heck
of a lot. I'd love it. I'd love it. Just think, I would only have
maybe 4,000 cars a day rather than 27,000 cars a day, so I
wouldn't mind having a nice island that would divert traffic one
way or another and I'm just hoping that the transportation
department will -- will have an open mind and take another look
at this thing if the commissioners will agree with me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you know, respectfully, I've
got to say that if that happened in your neighborhood, then
23,000 trips a day would have to go somewhere else and
probably out on Davis and we're already max'd out on Davis as
wide as we can get it and so we've got to start having a
secondary road system, not just the giant asphalt slabs, and
that's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Remember Foxfire, okay?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think we'll all remember that.
Last question, it's my understanding is this is in, what, a 15
to 20 year plan? This is what we're talking about, Mr. Feder?
And I think that needs to be incorporated in your memorandum
back to us.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator. It is in the 2025 needs plan, but nothing south of
Davis in the 2025 cost feasible under current revenue stream.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. The other thing that I remember
from prior discussions on this, that if we had to take homes and
when we have to take homes, then in this instance, if I
remember, we were talking about buying those homes early and
leasing them back to the residents for something like a buck a
year so they would have a 15 to 20 year period in which, one, to
live rent free, and the money got -- the receipt from those homes,
they could either, A, decide to move someplace else prior to that
Page 143
February 27, 2001
or they could stay in those residences. Now, if they left the
residence, then it would not be re-rented or used because it
would be part of the condemnation process.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If there was ever a reason to
find a cost-effective way to avoid doing it, that's it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But if I remember all the designs, it did
affect somebody.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Except for route A. I would beg you
to please just ask the -- our transportation department to take
one more look. As long as we have so many years in front of us,
please -- please have them take another look and see if we can't
save these people's homes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd make a motion in accordance
with my earlier statement that we get Mr. Feder's
recommendation and rationale for his recommendation and that
he provide it in writing to each of us. If we have questions or
objections to it, then we would add it back to a board agenda in
the future after we get it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a first and we have a second.
Any discussion?
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 2001-67 APPOINTING STEPHANIE VICK TO THE
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL AND
READVERTISE FOR DISTRICT 3 -ADOPTED
MR. MCNEES: Mr. Chairman, I have an answer for your
question on item 10 C. Apparently the gentlemen who was not
recommended is an employee of the Naples Community Hospital
and there is already a hospital employee, I'm told, on that board.
That would be Mr. Mennini, and they didn't feel like having more
than one was appropriate. The second applicant, Stephanie
Vick, representing the health department, it is recommended to
Page 144
February 27, 2001
you that she be appointed and that only the other be
re-advertised.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'll reinstate my motion then.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. We've got to move it off the
table first.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to remove the item from
the table.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries. Mr. Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve Mrs. Vick, I
believe her name is. Stephanie Vick.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
vacant position; is that right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Yes.
For the EMS advisory board.
And to re-advertise the remaining
No.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, no, no. He's moving that we
accept this --
MS. FILSON: We're confirming --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- person for that position and not
re-advertise.
MS. FILSON: We're confirming Ms. Vick to represent the
health department and the other appointment was representing
District 3.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So don't we need to advertise for
the District 3 position?
MS. FILSON: If you don't want that appointment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
re-advertise that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Oh, we have two vacancies?
Yes.
I'm sorry. So, yes, to
Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
Motion carries.
We need to take ten. We need to switch reporters, or did we
do that? Some magic kind of thing. We still need to take ten
minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
Page 145
February 27, 2001
Item #10G
TOWN HALL MEETING TO BE HELD WITHIN 30 DAYS WITH
PELICAN BAY RESIDENTS REGARDING PELICAN BAY
DEPENDENT DISTRICT
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ladies and gentlemen, we're alive and
well.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, we have a scheduling question
for you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
MR. McNEES: On the community redevelopment agency
board hearing or item that's scheduled, we apparently have an
outside legal counsel who has a plane to catch and we will lose
that person at 4:00.
(Boos from the audience.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, no. You're much more
polite than that. Don't act that way.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Wait a minute, folks.
MR. McNEES: If I might actually get to the question. And
we understand that there are a lot of people registered to speak
on the next item who would be inconvenienced by that, but the
request has been made and I leave it to the discretion of the
Board to choose a course of action.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: This is in regards to Item B-l, right?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The triangle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'll tell you, I would like to
make the motion if we don't even have to go any further. Should
we do that or should we not?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. You can go ahead and
make a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I would like to make a motion
to take staff's recommendation and put this -- re-advertise and
put this on the board again in another 120 days.
I think that -- and I'm sorry to do that, Dan. I'm really sorry.
I know that you've worked hard at this. I know that. But I would
really like to do that, give everybody an opportunity.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, you have nine registered
speakers on that item as well. You have almost twenty on the
Page 146
February 27, 2001
other issue, on the Pelican Bay issue. So this is a classic no-win
situation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would think so.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could we ask, you've checked,
you can't make other flight arrangements? You couldn't stay
overnight?
MR. CARDWELL: If you want to, I will. We just wanted to let
you be aware of it. But I think it is important, though -- I'm sorry,
I'm Dave Cardwell, special legal counsel -- that I could make
alternative arrangements and stay if necessary.
I just would like to point out, though, I think it's important
for you sitting as the CRA to hear the presentation by the
proposer and then decide what you want to do with it, so that
that's in the record.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you don't mind waiting, then --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I withdraw my motion?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion withdrawn. We move to Item
10-G. And as Chair, I would like to -- even though it was brought
on by Commissioner Fiala, I would like to exercise my
prerogative as the Chair, and also because it is District 2 and it
is also the community in which I live.
Number one, I have no personal gain in this issue no matter
what is decided one way or the other. I have not lead or tried to
push any group to make this decision one way or another. I have
passed out for the Commissioners a packet of information that
includes both sides of the issue.
I always operated on the basis that people preferred to elect
those who taxed them versus giving me the power to appoint
those people who would tax them. I've always felt that people
would prefer fiscal accountability over what is currently in the
existing ordinance.
That, again, becomes a decision for this Board for the
people who want to present here this afternoon. I have done
nothing to push the ordinance.
In fact, I'm going to -- if you want to look at it from a
Commissioner's viewpoint, in any district I've given up power.
I've had the power to appoint people to a taxing authority.
And when this has happened in the past, maybe a half a
dozen people have approached me and said, "1 believe this would
be a good person to put on the taxing authority."
Page 147
February 27, 2001
I found no objections in the community. It was submitted to
the Board of County Commissioners. And they looked down here
and I say, I recommend so-and-so. The other Commissioners
having not heard any opposition say yes.
Again, do you want to elect people and have the power of
putting the people in there yourselves as a community, or do you
want the power to rest with the Commissioners to appoint
people to your taxing authority? That's part of the question
that's in front of us today.
I have no problem with whatever this Board decides, with
whatever the community decides. Whatever you want is fine.
But please keep this in mind.
Whether they were appointed or whether they were elected,
first of all, appointees must be residents of Pelican Bay and they
must be registered voters in the state of Florida.
Number two, if you run for office as an elected supervisor,
you must be a resident and you must be -- a resident and you
must be a voter in the state of Florida.
That means 4400 people out of the community will
determine, if they all voted under the election process, who
would be your supervisors. That is the issue in front of us.
I've understood there is a lot of concerns about it. And I
have listened to the dissident groups, the people who raised
objections.
I have put out to this Commission all the meetings that were
noticed and held publicly. I have participated in many of those,
with the exception of the MSTBU.
Because when those discussions were held, I stayed away
because I in no way wanted to influence that taxing authority by
my presence in the room. Not that it should, but I didn't want to
take that chance. I've always tried to remain objective in this
process.
And today it is being raised by a fellow Commissioner and
we can bring it forward. We've got a number of registered
speakers who want to speak to both sides of this issue. And at
the end of the day we have to come up with some decision that
says it will be this or it will be that.
And that's where we are this afternoon. Whatever the
community decides, whatever this Board decides, I will continue
to support and represent Pelican Bay and all of the Second
Page 148
February 27, 2001
District to the best of my abilities.
So Commissioner Fiala, I think it's time that we bring people
forward who want to speak to this issue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Very good.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. McNees.
MR. McNEES: Your first registered speaker is Ken Harrigan,
who will be followed by Neil Dorrill.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I should have said this
already. Continuing with the prior position I've taken, that I have
had a conflict of interest on this matter, or at least there would
be the -- what is that word?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Perception?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Perception of one, I am going to
abstain.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I understand, Commissioner Mac'Kie.
You've always abstained from this and for the same reason. It's
certainly valued by this Commissioner because of the position
you find yourself in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Very reluctantly.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
MR. HARRIGAN: My name is Ken Harrigan. 7910 Cocobay
Drive. I'm speaking on behalf of Paul Slater, who had to leave
earlier. And his address is 7945 Via Vecchia in Bay Colony.
About two years ago the legislative delegation from
Tallahassee was persuaded that a majority of the residents of
Pelican Bay did not want cityhood.
This assessment was made after a full and complete
provision of information to all Pelican Bay property owners by
both sides of the argument, including numerous meetings at
which the issues were openly discussed.
Since then, Pelican Bay residents have kept a wary eye,
really, on the progress of the various new ¢ityhoods that have
been created in Southwest Florida.
Without doubt, the overall majority of property owners would
vote in favor again of the status quo. That is the structure prior
to the recent establishment of a dependent district.
That decision by the Board of Commissioners was based on
false information that a majority of Pelican Bay residents were in
favor of closing the MSTBU and replacing it with an elected
board, an imaginative team to run a new dependent district.
Page 149
February 27, 2001
Now, no poll was taken of either property owners or resident
taxpayers. No information was sent to property owners or their
condominium associations concerning this issue.
Apart from the required public notice of this item appearing
in the Commission agenda last summer, when seventy-five
percent of the property owners were absent, there was no
information provided to the community.
The Pelican Bay Property Owners Association represents
only a small minority of Pelican Bay property owners. And the
only information received by the community was an after-the-fact
report, which was included in the community newsletter
produced by the Pelican Bay Foundation, which runs community
affairs. And residents returning in the fall were faced with a fait
accompli. And I must say, we're outraged.
Furthermore, the proposal to elect a first board was also
handled, I must say, in a secretive fashion with minimal
communication to the Pelican Bay community. No information
on issues were circulated and no public meetings were held.
As a result, seven of the proponents of this change elected
themselves by default last week. Now, this is an outrage.
Election by a minority.
I am asking the Board of Commissioners to order a straw
vote of all Pelican Bay property owners to establish what
community government it wants. Let democracy take over.
If the majority vote is to keep the original status quo, then
the Board of Commissioners should abide by that result and
rescind the dependent district's decision and revert to the
MSTBU as the interface with the county; albeit with an elected
board.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
(Applause.)
MR. McNEES: Mr. Dorrill has indicated he's here, if you have
questions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Just as a point of reference, it was not
a secretive process when people went down and filed at the
board supervisor's elections or run for that office.
There were 4,400 people who were registered voters in
Pelican Bay that had that opportunity. That seven people and
seven people alone did that, I don't have any control over that,
ladies and gentlemen, but it was due process under the law.
Page 150
February 27, 2001
And when you talk about again electing people, it has to be
by registered voters. I own property out of state. They take my
taxes. They love the dollars. But I have no voice in how they run
that community because I am not a registered voter of that
state.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is
Neil Dorrill. I am here this afternoon on behalf of the Pelican Bay
Property Owners Association to provide you with a chronology
for the new board and also with some facts concerning the
recommendations that were ultimately adopted and forwarded to
you.
Dr. Richard Woodruff, the former city manager, and I were --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: By the way -- excuse me, Neil -- that is
in a packet I've provided all Commissioners, if they want to
follow with this.
MR. DORRILL: And I'm aware of that. Dr. Woodruff, former
city manager, and I were engaged in February of last year,
actually February the 16th, to provide for an analysis of both the
Master Homeowners Association, which is known as the
Foundation at Pelican Bay, and also options for the future
governments of the community as we near the end of
development on the part of WCI. And the process was engaged
and kicked off and announced actually on February the 16th.
As part of the recommendations that were made, we were
asked to do so and be prepared to present them at the annual
meeting of the Property Owners Association before the end of
last season, when people were nearing the time when they
returned home around Easter.
That was done in the final alternatives report from both Dr.
Woodruff and I. There were two separate reports. They were
issued at the end of March and on April the 17th concerning the
options that were going to be pursued.
There were any number of meetings. But over the course of
the spring and the summer of last year in the year 2000, there
were no fewer than twelve public meetings that were held;
public meetings that were either advertised or were required
public meetings of the MSTBU.
And over the twelve public meetings that were held, all of
which were in the community, there were four different drafts of
the ordinance that were reviewed over the course of the late
Page 151
February 27, 2001
spring and summer.
The ordinance in question, I should tell you, was prepared by
Ken Van Assenderp, who is Florida's preeminent attorney for
special purpose district governments. And in particular, he is
perhaps Florida's preeminent expert on Chapter 189 and Chapter
190 special district governments in the state of Florida.
And while they have offices in Pelican Bay, Ken actually
works out of Tallahassee. But he is the gentleman who drafted
the initial ordinance and then who provided the legal sufficiency
for each of the four drafts and revisions that were made prior to
what was then the public hearing that was adopted -- initially
advertised for the meeting of November the 7th, I believe, and
then continued at the request of the county until the meeting of
November the 20th, when it was adopted at a second public
hearing.
During that particular point in time, I will tell you that
presentations were also made to the foundation, which is the
Master Homeowners Association, the Presidents Council, the
Commercial Area Association. None of those meetings are part
of the meetings that I have just referred to.
The twelve meetings that took place in the community were
public meetings or annual meetings of either the Property
Owners Association or the MSTBU, which is the district that is
and was in place.
So I wanted the audience and the Commission to be aware
of the fact that it is disturbing when that amount of effort took
place to hold that many single-purpose public meetings in one
community over the course of the year, but then to have -- and
you may yet hear this afternoon -- the fact that the public input
was not sought or the public was not afforded an opportunity to
participate in the process.
When in fact the issue is that the public revised the
ordinance on four different occasions and the revisions were all
made to the
extent and then ultimately approved by a majority vote of the
advisory board that was in place prior to this.
And it was also approved by the Master Homeowners
Association, their board, which is the Foundation. And it was
also approved by the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association
as part of a second discussion that was held at the annual
Page 152
February 27, 2001
meeting this year.
You may elect to do something other than what has been
done. But I will tell you that, as someone who has spent their
entire adult life dealing in local government issues, straw ballots
don't have a very good history in this particular county.
And for that matter, straw ballots don't have a very good
history at the local government level pretty much anywhere that
you look; either at cities, towns, villages or counties, for that
matter.
Nonbinding straw ballets may cause you more trouble than
what they are worth. I have provided only facts and information.
And I would be happy to answer questions other than that. I
appreciate the opportunity to be here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Dorrill, Pelican Bay Property
Owners Association, how many members are there?
MR. DORRILL: I don't know. You'll need to ask someone
other than myself. I am told several thousand. That is not the
Masters Homeowners Association, which is a mandatory
organization.
The Property Owners Association, as I understand it, is a
voluntary organization, but they have several thousand members
who pay annual dues of some type.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like that, if somebody
has that.
MR. DORRILL: I'll let somebody know.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. O'Connor, who is signed up to
speak, I think can answer that question for you.
MR. O'CONNOR: You want me to answer it right now?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We'll wait until you come up, Mr.
O'Connor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Johan Domenie, followed by Lou Vlasho.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I say something?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Oh, sure. You may at any time. I just
thought I'd get them on the on-deck circle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll make this brief also. I just
wanted to mention, a couple of people have asked me why I
brought this up rather than Commissioner Carter. And I want to
tell you, there is nobody that is more faithful and loyal to Pelican
Page 153
February 27, 200t
Bay than Commissioner Carter. And he is a pleasure to work
with.
I think it's because I don't live in Pelican Bay and because I
have no ties there that it was easy for people to approach me. I
found that there was a lot of confusion on people's parts. They
didn't understand this issue.
And I wanted to bring it back up to make sure that
everybody knew what they were voting for. They could have
their questions answered. And that's why I'm bringing this
forward. And then I wanted a straw poll.
I think that when information isn't there, even though Neil
has just told us that they had plenty of opportunity, I know, like
in the triangle area, there wasn't that much information.
Nobody came out to any of the meetings and then
afterwards they said nobody told us. And we had been working
at it for two years. So I wanted to give everybody this
opportunity, and I thank you for allowing me to do that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's why we're here this afternoon.
MR. DOMENIE: Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners.
My name is Johan Domenie and I have been a registered voter in
Pelican Bay for fourteen years. I too am a concerned citizen and
therefore try to keep up with events.
How? I'm a member of the Board of the Pelican Bay
Mangrove Action Group. I'm a member of the Board of the
Property Owners Association of North Collier County, and had the
pleasure of hearing Commissioner Fiala last night.
I am the Pelican Bay representative of the Community
Emergency Response Team. I am co-chair of the Community
Affairs Committee which, incidentally, is not a part of the
Foundation; which since October has held five advertised
meetings.
These meetings are advertised on Channel 44, our own
channel. And these meetings have been held at Hammock Oak.
These meetings have all been aimed at governments in Pelican
Bay. And these meetings are all in addition to the meetings
which Neil Dorrill mentioned.
The last meeting on February 6, featuring our own
Commissioner, Dr. Carter, was again posted on Channel 44,
advertised in the Pelican Bay Post, which is mailed free of
charge to all properties in Pelican Bay, and on posters at the
Page 154
February 27, 2001
Commons and Hammock Oak.
I think Frances Barsh and Charlie Popper can readily testify
how embarrassed I was when less than twenty people came to
hear Dr. Carter two-and-a-half months after the ordinance was
passed.
The MSTBU meets on the first Wednesday of each month, at
which many financial affairs regarding Pelican Bay are
discussed. But on some occasions there are more board
members present than people in attendance.
And oh, yes, I am one of those terrible people in that vile,
detested, secretive, dishonest, sneaky and lying Pelican Bay
Property Owners Association.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Was that a confession?
MR. DOMENIE: No. That's what people call us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just teasing.
MR. DOMENIE: But I'm here on my own and not representing
the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association. All I want to tell
you is, I am involved and I am interested. I am an interested
voter.
I would like to add something. The U.S. Constitution was
drawn up by people with good intentions, yet it was not perfect.
We added the Bill of Rights and have since added twenty or more
amendments to the Constitution. The ordinance can also be
amended, if necessary.
I ask a question to the audience. Why are we being so
antagonistic? We all want Pelican Bay to be the best in the
world. Instead of fighting, why don't we extend our hands out to
each other to resolve any potential differences? Why don't we?
Frances and Charlie, will you invite Lou Vlasho, if he's willing to,
president of the MSTBU and president of the Presidents Council,
to appear at your meeting tomorrow morning at 8:30 so that he
can answer all your concerns? Would you do that? May I have
an answer?.
MS. BARSH: Why not?
MR. DOMENIE: Okay. Charlie?
MR. POPPER: Perfect.
MR. DOMENIE: Lou, I've put you on the spot.
MR. VLASHO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did he say he would go?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All of them would go.
Page 155
February 27, 2001
MR. DOMENIE: I guess so. I would also like to ask Charlie
and Frances if they will support our effort of -- this is the
Community Affairs Committee, effort on March 6 at 7:00 at
Hammock Oak to hear the seven candidates in a forum which the
Community Affairs Committee is conducting.
I've asked the seven -- I didn't know how many candidates
there were going to be. I've asked the candidates to prepare
three minutes, prepared statements, followed by questions from
the Community Affairs Committee, followed by written questions
from the audience, followed by a two-minute closing statement.
I think that would be something very fair. And let's not get
embroiled in the pros and cons there of the ordinance.
Well, that depends how it's interpreted.
(Inaudible comments from the audience.)
MR. DOMENIE: That depends on how it's interpreted.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The man has the floor to speak.
Anybody that is signed up to speak may come to the podium and
do that. They are not candidates -- to correct that -- because
only seven people signed up. It is like having one person run in a
primary. That means those seven people would be the new
supervisor.
MR. DOMENIE: Except that we don't know who is running
for one-and-a-half years and who is running for three-and-a-half
years.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. You don't know what --
THE WITNESS: That still has to be decided.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
MR. DOMENIE: Right.
questions?
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
And you don't know at this time.
Thank you very much. Any
Thank you. Next speaker, please.
MR. McNEES: Your next speaker is Mr. Vlasho, followed by
Peter Gerbosi. And I will explain, just for the benefit of those
who asked, there were many of you who asked to speak last.
And since only one can, we take them as they come.
MR. VLASHO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. First of all, I
would like to say, my name is Lou Vlasho. I'm an eleven-year
resident of Pelican Bay, currently chairman of the MSTBU and
also currently serving my third term as president of the
Presidents Council.
First, Commissioner Mac'Kie, I'm really sorry that you have
Page 156
February 27, 200t
to recluse yourself. I have no idea where you would be on this
issue, but I really think that's a stretch and it's a shame because
I would rather have you hear the discussion and vote the way
you think you should vote.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just tell you, I would rather
be criticized for not voting than for voting when I might not
should. So it's a close call and I just have to do what I think is
right.
MR. VLASHO: I understand. In my opinion, it's not a close
call. You're bending way backwards.
The second thing I'd like to say, Neil Dorrill and Richard
Woodruff were consultants to the committee that worked on this
ordinance. We were not led by Neil Dorrill and Richard Woodruff.
They were the consultants, and the input and direction came
from the subcommittee.
I wrote a letter that I believe has been given to you dated
February 20th, which I did as good a job as I thought I could on a
couple of pieces of paper to summarize the whole situation. I
won't try to repeat that, but there are a couple things.
In there I state that we have been called a special interest
group. And we are, we're a special interest group that is
interested in Pelican Bay.
Over the course of two years we had the following people
working on that small special interest group. From the
Foundation we had the president of the Foundation at that time,
Henry Hammel. Then we had Doug Fairbanks, who was the
president. And then currently the chairman of the Foundation,
Dick Census, is on the committee.
From the MSTBU we had Dr. Alan Varley. And when he -- I
was on it at the same time representing the Presidents Council.
Now I represent both groups. Dr. Varley resigned once we
thought that there was a potential that the MSTBU may be part
of this discussion.
For you see, we started on a -- with a blank piece of paper,
not really knowing where we were going. When it became a
possibility MSTBU would be involved, Dr. Varley resigned. And
then the president of the property owners, Ray O'Connor, has
been involved since the project started.
In Pelican Bay we seem to have the issue of the year.
Sometimes it's the widening of the berm. Sometimes it's this or
Page 157
February 27, 2001
that. This is the issue of the year.
So while my motions are, why are we doing this now, again,
after what -- I believe we did follow the procedures and we did
come to you and we did tell you, Commissioner Fiala. We didn't
mislead you at all. I don't know if that was your statement or not
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think you did.
MR. VLASHO: -- but that's the way it was reported.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no, no. I didn't ever think that
you misled me. What I felt was that a lot of people did not
understand or were not here for the information. I don't think
you misled anybody. And if you took it that way, please
understand I never meant that; never even said that.
MR. VLASHO: But, you know, how can anyone stand here
and be against Pelican Bay residents wanting more information
or an opportunity to voice their opinion? I'm not against that.
But where were these people? And I see good friends of
mine in the audience. I know there were seventeen to twenty
meetings. Where were they when the MSTBU meets, when we
meet in an empty room? Where were they at the Foundation
meetings? Where were they at the property owners meeting?
And more importantly, where will they be tomorrow when this
issue is resolved one way or the other?
They will go back and they will go on with their lives until
somebody, a small group, using, in my opinion, alarm gets them
excited and gets them out. We have been accused of doing this
in the summer, at night, ramrodding it through. I don't think
that's fact.
On the other hand, I could also perceive that this meeting
and being on the agenda today is a ramrod. To hear about it -- to
read about it this morning and get a call at about 11:00 that we
are on the agenda is a little bit of a ramrodding.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Actually I wasn't even going to call
for anybody to speak. All I was going to do was ask to have a
whole town meeting where everybody could come at that point in
time and you guys could supply everyone with your ordinance.
And I'm taking your time, so you have a few more minutes,
okay. Supply everybody with your ordinance, have them read it
beforehand and then come to that meeting and ask the
questions. You explain it. I would bet you --
Page 158
February 27, 2001
MR. VLASHO'. I have a suggestion for you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: By the way, I will bet you dollars to
doughnuts that everybody will go along with it. It was a great
piece. I read it. But I felt that they should have the opportunity,
being that I had so many calls. Go ahead.
MR. VLASHO.' I understand. And you know, I don't want to
be here picking on my friends for issues, you know. We were --
we don't know the financial impact. We said we have a $4
million budget. We believe we'll be at a $4 million budget when
the new supervisors take up.
On the other hand, we get numbers of 500,000, 600,000
thrown out against us, saying it's a big increase in cost. The tax
issue, we're going to be able to tax whatever we want.
We, the new board of supervisors, because I wasn't a
candidate. And I was purposely not a candidate because I didn't
want my particular preconceived notions to have an impact on
the future. I will be available to the board of supervisors for
whatever help they need in the transition.
So that I don't use my time up, I want to conclude by saying,
if you have your town meeting, I would be in favor of the
Commissioners having an unbiased town meeting.
I would suggest before that's scheduled, though, that you
engage Ken Van Assenderp to come down and explain the
differences between the new ordinance and the prior ordinance.
And I think the community, I agree with you, would not have
any problem with this ordinance. And I just think that it's a
shame that we get to bickering and we have to take your
valuable time to redo and rediscuss something that has been put
to -- really been finalized several times with all the discussion.
So if you have that kind of meeting, I will endorse it.
Because the last thing we want to do in Pelican Bay is have
people feeling that something was pulled over there eyes, and
we don't want that at all.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And maybe this meeting will be a
come-together, where everybody can understand.
MR. VLASHO:
MR. McNEES:
David Roellig.
MR. GERBOSI:
Drive, Pelican Bay.
Thank you.
Mr. Gerbosi. And the next speaker will be
My name is Peter Gerbosi, 768 Willow Brook
Page159
February 27, 2001
Commissioners, I spoke before you on January 28th
regarding this very same subject and I'm going to repeat a
comment. I don't know whether I'm for or against this ordinance.
But I would like to have had the opportunity to review it and
vote on it. I was not given that opportunity. (Applause.}
MR. GERBOSI: You have had a previous speaker state the
Constitution. I would like to state the Declaration of
Independence, which gives us the right for the pursuit of
happiness.
(Laughter.)
MR. GERBOSI: They said the meeting was advertised. I
have lived in Pelican Bay for two years. I don't watch Channel
44. I have to work. I get home in the evening. My wife keeps me
occupied. How was it advertised?
The Foundation felt it was important enough to make
changes in the grounds. They sent out an-eight page
questionnaire to every homeowner asking their opinion, whether
they can do this, whether they can make changes.
A matter such -- as important as this, we never got one thing
in the mail. Wasn't it just as important to send something out to
every homeowner and ask them?
They stated that they based their opinions on a survey
conducted in the past. 1994, seven years ago.
This poll was sent out, a straw poll to all members of the
Pelican Bay Property Owners Association, not to all owners.
Only 3700 ballots were sent out and only sixty percent were
returned; and of these, only fifty-one-and-a-half persons approved
for incorporation. That's about a thousand people.
We've already collected over a thousand petitions saying we
don't want it. In fact, Frances somebody handed me a petition
on the way over here that I want to add to the pot.
A poll was taken seven years ago, as I said, which does not
represent the property owners of today. Over forty percent of
the property in Pelican Bay in 1994 was not even developed. All
of these new residents did not have an opportunity to vote.
There's been a twenty-five to thirty percent turnover in
owners since 1994. All of these new people have not had an
opportunity to vote.
Homeowners who were not members of the Pelican Bay
Page 160
February 27, 2001
Property Owners Association have not had an opportunity to
vote. We don't get advertising. How is this advertising? I didn't
hear a thing about it until after the fact.
I'm against this ordinance and I request the Council to
repeal it and to conduct a straw vote. If everybody is in favor
and as I may be after I have had an opportunity to review it and
vote on it, so be it. But this is the way I feel. Anybody else feel
like I do?
(Applause.)
MR. McNEES: Mr. Roellig.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Dave, I know it's coming up next. I'll
remind you of some procedures in which I'll have the county
attorney at the end address on the issues of straw votes and
whose vote would count, whether you have to be a registered
voter in the state of Florida.
Because let's say that eighty percent of the people who are
property owners and not registered voters said, "We don't want
to change it," that's no different than any other place that I know
of where that is not how it works.
Ordinances can only be passed by county commissions,
cities and state legislatures. And the people who act upon those
have to be registered voters when it comes to making those kind
of decisions.
It's not Jim Carter's law. It is the law of the State and
generally the law of the land. So I'll look to the county attorney
to address that so we don't have more confusion about what we
can accomplish and cannot accomplish. David.
MR. ROELLIG: Thank you. I'm David Roellig. I live at 6000
Pelican Bay Boulevard. I'm a member of the MSTBU and have
been for about three years.
I serve with Lou Vlasho and other folks on the
eleven-member board. We have considerable differences of
opinion. Mr. Vlasho and the proponents of this have indicated
there's been meetings for two years, that there have been many
opportunities for the public to be informed. I just want to get a
little history.
The spring of year 2000 the Pelican Bay property owners
funded Mr. Dorrill to come up with this ordinance, which he took
to his firm, and it was presumed to be one of the top in the state.
Page 161
February 27, 2001
Now I'm going read to you some of the things that were
brought before the MSTBU board. There is a transcript taken at
the board meeting and this was taken -- this was our September
6th meeting.
Mr. Marvin Peterson, Pelican Bay Property Owners
Association: The board of the property owners are not involved
in the detail of this ordinance. We agree to fund the project and
then we put the responsibility on the MSTBU because that is your
area.
To say that they've looked at this for two years at twelve
meetings, here is the Pelican Bay property owners saying they
haven't looked at the details.
Well, anybody who wants to look at a legal document that
ran, depending on how big the type is, twenty-five to fifty pages
knows that the devil is in the details.
The same meeting Mr. Peterson also said: We are not
looking at this ordinance. We are relying on you people to do
that. I could tell you that I have never reviewed this ordinance or
reviewed comments on this ordinance because I thought it was
deeply flawed, and many other members thought so also.
At our next meeting, October 4th, year 2000, reading from
the transcript, Mr. Roellig said: At the last meeting Mr. Marvin
Peterson was here and made some comments. And as I
understand, he's a board member of the Pelican Bay Property
Owners Association.
Mr. O'Connor, who is the president of the Pelican Bay
Property, replied that: Mr. Peterson is the vice president and
acts in my absence. Mr. -- or I mean to say, Mr. Roy said that Mr.
Peterson said that we have done -- this is referring to Mr. -- we
have done nothing except to spend the money which we got from
our people.
Mr. O'Connor replied -- because there was quite a lot of
discussion, but I'm picking out sentences here.
Mr. O'Connor replied that at the time Mr. Peterson had
spoken, which was in September, we had not had any meetings.
We did not have any meetings from June through October.
We met yesterday, which would have been October 3rd,
prior to your meeting today and we went over the entire draft to
be presented to you. The meeting lasted from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.
A group which was dedicated to looking at and discussing
Page162
February 27, 2001
this ordinance, which we have distributed to our board so that it
could be fully -- to have the opportunity to read it.
My point is, that as of October the Pelican Bay property
owners who have paid for this have not reviewed this thing. To
say that there have been informed meetings when the details
have not been reviewed by the property owners or by the MSTBU
is false, is absolutely false.
And I object to people saying that there have been a lot of
meetings and people should have gone, and it's a problem of the
people in Pelican Bay that they didn't go to the meetings. The
Pelican Bay property owners were not ready to make a stand on
this until October, so there's only been a few minutes -- months
ago.
I think the property owners -- but I continue to say that by
placing the blame on the people for not being informed is an
absolute falsehood.
Because the property owners were not informed until no
sooner than early October, so all these meetings that were in the
past were general and not specific.
As was mentioned previously and as I understand, there are
-- well over a thousand petitions have been signed in the last
week or two. Just a little more.
Pelican Bay is in an uproar over this. And I think what we
really need is a cooling-off period. Passions are high. People are
outraged.
I don't think we're ready for a cool discussion on this,
personally. I think it would be well to repeal this ordinance and
wait a year or two and start a cool dialogue on this.
As far as the election goes --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: David, I'll have to ask you to wrap up,
please.
MR. ROELLIG: All right. Thank you.
I feel the reason there were no candidates other than the
seven that -- is that there are a vast number of people who are
opposed to this ordinance and would not run. I would not run
because I'm opposed to this ordinance. And I don't think the
ordinance would be easily implemented.
And I think it's an outrage that we would now have a
nonelection and have people on there that were not appointed by
the board or elected by the people. Thank you.
Page 163
February 27, 2001
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please.
MR. McNEES: The next speaker is Charles Popper. He will
be followed by Harry Van Benschoten.
MR. POPPER: I was going to say good morning,
Commissioners, but it's now almost cocktail time, so I'll try to
make this brief.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good evening.
MR. POPPER: My name is Charles Popper. I live at 7086
Villa Lantana. I have been a resident of Pelican Bay, as I think
I've told you at the last meeting, for on to thirteen years.
I was part of the -- well, I sat two seats on the Pelican Bay
MSTBU. I was the vice president of the Foundation. And I think I
had at one time a very good grasp of what was going on in
Pelican Bay.
Mainly there were the proponents of incorporation and the
people that were very comfortable with the status quo. And I
think, unfortunately, today we're faced again with the same
situation.
Call it by any other name, it's still cityhood incorporation.
It's not the status quo that the people in Pelican Bay have
enjoyed for the last twelve years since you have started the -- or
since the MSTBU has been started.
Let me refer to my notes because I spent about three hours
writing this. But I feel that some of these things should be said.
Oh, before I get into that, the meetings that we're talking
about, that twelve, fourteen, eighteen meetings have been held, I
can tell you for a fact because I've looked at the minutes, very,
very few people attended those meetings.
So with the idea that everybody has been known -- has
known about it is a true -- absolute untruth. It's a fallacy. It's a
misstatement.
When I served on the MSTBU board, especially over the
summer months, we were lucky to have three people in the
audience. When I served as vice president of the Pelican Bay
Foundation, we were lucky to have more than fifteen, twenty
people in the audience in the height of the season; even during
the times when it was budget time.
Now, it's very easy to put the onus of responsibility onto the
residents. And I think that's wrong. Because I think for an issue
Page 164
February 27, 2001
of governance that controls our lives and our future, the amount
of money that we pay in Pelican Bay, there had to have been a
far greater effort.
And you can say, "Well, what was the effort?" First of all,
you don't do this in the twilight hours. You don't do it in the
summertime. You don't do it in the spring after Easter when you
know fully well that all the people leave Pelican Bay. You do it in
February, when the issues are here.
We had over a thousand people that have signed petitions
and every day they are coming in more and more. And the fact
that people are incensed today.
When we started this grass roots -- and it seems to be that
Frances and I have been tagged with this. I can assure you that
some of that may be true, but we have had a grass roots
formation of people that are very, very unhappy.
And they would say to us as, you know -- as once we get our
information out, for instance, that this new seven elected
supervisors have unlimited powers to increase the ad valorem
tax up to two mills. A, we found out that that's unconstitutional.
You have to have a referendum for that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have to correct you, Charlie, but that
is not true. County attorney just shook his head.
MR. POPPER: That's fine. But --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And also to say this. They
compressed the millage under this ordinance. There was an out
-- in the old ordinance the county could assess ten mills. The
taxing authority could assess ten mills. That's twenty. I'm not
saying it would ever happen, but the potential was there.
Under the new ordinance it's been compressed to ten, a
combination of the county and the taxing authority. I'm not
taking away from your time. But I just have to --
MR. POPPER: Commissioner, please. I would like to have a
dialogue with you, but I'm sure this is not the time. We've done
that before.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I just --
MR. POPPER: My only point is, then why write it into the
ordinance? The other point is that the ordinance calls for the
clerk, the superior -- the clerk of the works here in -- what is it?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Clerk of courts.
MR. POPPER: Dwight Brock.
Page 165
February 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. POPPER: Thank you. Dwight -- Mr. Brock, it's
unconstitutional for him to handle the fiduciary responsibilities of
Pelican Bay.
Now, you may want to disagree with that. But as of two
days ago, we spoke to him. And to the best of my knowledge,
that is still part of the flaws of this ordinance.
We now can have bond issues. We can now have the
authority to finance and construct facilities. I wonder why we
are going to construct a facility in Pelican Bay.
Garages? I doubt it. Office buildings? There are enough
office buildings. But maybe it would be nice to have a city hall,
which is at the basis --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Where would you build it, Charlie?
You have to help me on it. Where would you build it?
(Inaudible comments from the audience.)
MR. POPPER: Wait a minute. Please.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm just asking some questions here.
MR. POPPER: Commissioner, I -- excuse me.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm not on anybody's side. But if you
want to get --
MR. POPPER: Excuse me. Let me answer your question,
please.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- an answer to the question, you have
to ask, where is the land to do this?
MR. POPPER: Let me answer your question.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
MR. POPPER: Excuse me.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll give him the time.
MR. POPPER: Let me answer your question.
I didn't write the ordinance. That was written by the
proponents here to have cityhood. Where --where -- I don't
know.
Why put it in the ordinance? Why make it so complicated of
having twenty-six pages of legal terms and of the authority and
to hire. We now have to hire a full-time manager. Prior to that
for twelve years we seemed to have been very satisfied with a
part-time manager who we pay a fraction of what the new
manager will undoubtedly cost.
We now have -- or excuse me -- the manager has unlimited
Page 166
February 27, 2001
powers to hire, to determine compensation. The ordinance calls
for a treasurer, the -- an attorney. It calls for six or seven
positions that have to be filled, plus secretarial and other. And
this is all listed on page 13 of the ordinance, if you would care to
take the time to look.
Because the opposition here or the proponents are going to
tell you, "This is not going to cost you any more money. All we
want to do is to elect seven people and have the ability to have
control of our own destiny."
To this date I am not able to determine what that means. It
cannot be explained to me. One person said, "Well, there was a
person that had to have an increase and we had to have dialogue
because we couldn't get the increase."
Well, I cast my mind back to when I was in business.
Somebody would come to me and ask for an increase. It would
not be automatically given. We had to have reasons and so on
and so forth. That person eventually got the increase.
But more importantly, the idea that you have to have control
of our own destiny. And that these people, the seven people that
are elected will be more responsible -- let me quote to you.
The new board of supervisors will be more responsive to our
desires and more accountable. Well, I take real issue with that
because I think that's really a slap in the face of the people that
have served this community, past and present, who have devoted
their times for hours at a time and not received any remuneration
for this. And they have done, I think, an outstanding job.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the way Pelican Bay
is situated at this point. We have the new monuments coming in
on 41. They are the ones that did all of the mangrove issues.
They are the ones that have taken care of the streetlights and
the new signage in Pelican Bay.
And I ask you all, you know, what is wrong with the way this
community has been run to date? And yet, I cannot get a
definitive response to that. That really gets to the core of the
problem.
What we're looking at here is a few people, a few people
that are determined and hellbent on having cityhood. And this is
the closest thing.
And Mr. O'Connor, at the May 3rd meeting -- and it's in the
minutes -- stated that: If you like this new ordinance and you
Page 167
February 27, 2001
wish to have more independence, the next step is an
independent fire district, which does not report to you folks here,
and then we can go on to cityhood.
Now, that was stated -- that's in the May 3rd minutes. And
then we have Mr. Vlasho who comes in and says, "There has
never been any discussion whatsoever about the idea of
cityhood.'
You know, we have been accused of scare tactics. I guess
our only thing that we will accept as a fault is that we are being
a watchdog.
And we are very, very concerned at the manner in which this
was promulgated to start out with. We are distressed that the
ordinance itself is flawed. And I'm going to finish in one more
minute.
And the fact that this community did not have an
opportunity to express itself and to vote. And with that, I would
ask you all to have a straw vote or hopefully to repeal this
Draconian ordinance, and to let us go back to our lives where
everybody was very, very happy until this came up. Thank you
very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Charlie, I thank you for your input.
And Charlie Popper knows, if there's anybody in the community I
respect, it's him. The questions that I ask him are questions that
need to be answered.
And Charlie would debate me with that all day, I know, but
I'm going to defer these things to the county attorney to respond
to some of these things at the end.
Again, I'm going to tell you, it makes no difference to me
how you want to do it, but be sure that it is factual information
that is there on which you make that decision; and don't go to
where the inferences may be made on either side. So I'm asking
you to think that through as this is deliberated.
MR. VAN BENSCHOTEN: My name is Harry Van Benschoten.
I live at 6581 Ridge Wood Drive in Pelican Bay. My wife and I
have been residents of Pelican Bay for more than fifteen years.
I'm a registered voter of the state of Florida. And I have
been very active in the last ten years in a number of matters
concerning Pelican Bay.
I was also recently a member of the board of the
Page 168
February 27, 2001
Foundation.
And I would like to address my remarks principally to the
meeting at which presumably the board endorsed and
recommended that somebody come before you and speak on
behalf and in favor of the ordinance.
I went back to the agenda and the board book and the
minutes relative to the meeting of October 23rd. There was
nothing on the agenda that addressed the issue that was brought
up at the meeting.
Which meant that none of the board members had any
information in advance or any copies of the ordinance or any
statements or recommendations or proposals. They came
without any information beforehand.
In addition to the members of the board and about a half a
dozen people from management, the minutes say there were
twelve outside people who attended the meeting. And let me
read what was said, if I might, at the conclusion of that meeting.
The item came up under what is called new business. And
under new business the minutes state as follows: That the
chairman reported there will be a County Commissioners
meeting tomorrow. A proposed change to the Pelican Bay
MSTBU structure may be presented.
Under this proposed ordinance, future MSTB advisory board
members will be elected by the residents of Pelican Bay rather
than being appointed by the Board of Country Commissioners.
The motion was made by the board to ask the chairman to
attend the County Commission meeting and speak on behalf of
the board's support of this ordinance.
I submit to you that anybody coming before a group like that
and to have the chairman address an issue and say what we're
talking about is the opportunity to elect the members of the
MSTBU and not to have them appointed, I doubt if anybody would
vote in the negative on an issue such as that.
All of the other aspects relative to the ordinance were left
out in the discussion. And I submit to you, that this is what one
would say, from the other side, is a representation of the board
of the Foundation speaking on behalf of all of the members of
Pelican Bay who are members of the Foundation.
And there's no justification to make that kind of a
conclusion on the basis of that one short, brief meeting and
Page t 69
February 27, 2001
discussion.
I would say the reason, perhaps, behind a lot of the unrest
that has developed in the last several weeks, you've heard a lot
said and quite rightfully so, that there's been a scarcity of
information, regardless of what has been told to you.
But I would submit to you that what we are most concerned
with, and as Charlie alluded to, we are happy with the situation
as it presently exists.
There is nothing within Pelican Bay or among the residents
of Pelican Bay in the majority who would come to you and say,
"We are unhappy with the way in which the county is handling
the affairs of Pelican Bay."
Quite to the contrary, I think we're very happy. And we
certainly are happy with some of the more recent developments
that have taken place.
So I believe a good part of our concern and our unrest is that
we would much prefer to maintain the status quo than see any
Thank
changes made towards an independent elected group.
you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker.
MR. McNEES: Michael Biondo, is followed by David Rynders.
I don't see Mr. Rynders. If he's not here, the next speaker would
be Erika Cook.
MR. BIONDO: Gentlemen, my name is Michael Biondo. I'm a
resident at 8773 Bay Colony Drive. Maybe six hours of listening
has done something to my voice.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And to our ears.
MR. BIONDO.' And I'm a concerned citizen.
go through the litany of what you've just heard.
I'm not going to
It's obvious
where the centers of concern lie. But let me just pinpoint a
couple of issues.
And it has to do with doing your homework. We do not feel
the homework has been done in regard to this ordinance or even
the recommendations of the ordinance.
Within Pelican Bay, if my memory serves me right, we have
an assessed real estate value of close to $2.4 billion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's correct.
MR. BIONDO: Thank you. Memory hasn't left me. That's a
lot of money. That's a lot of concern. Within that framework we
Page 170
February 27, 2001
have two large resort hotels. We have the Waterside Shops. And
we have arguably some of the highest priced real estate in all of
Naples.
We have seen no financial performers. We've seen no -- no
assessment of what the added cost is going to be. And in all due
deference to Mr. Vlasho and the others who say, "Well, there's
not going to be any added cost," we're not naive. There's got to
be added cost. All we want to know is, what will -- how do the
numbers look? We've seen nothing in that regard, nothing.
Legal liabilities, with the transfer of these assets, we're
going to assume serious legal liabilities. What are they? None of
us know. We don't have any concept of what the legal liabilities
are.
I mean, very fundamental thoughts. What happens if the big
one blows in over the gulf and we have ten feet of sand on
Pelican Bay Boulevard and we now own all these assets, what
are the implications there? Where does the county interface
with what this new proposed concept is all about? Again, we
don't have the information.
On the subject of elected officials, it's like motherhood and
the flag. Who is going to argue against an elected official? Let
me tell you, here's a list of the seven individuals. I don't know a
soul on here. I don't have any idea what their qualifications to
run for this office are. I never saw any of these names up until a
couple of days ago.
I notice that on the 22nd of February one Mr. David Murray
withdrew. And on the 23rd, a Mr. William Ventrist replaced him.
That was three days ago. I mean, how can we possibly know the
qualifications of these individuals?
The debate over an elected official versus an appointed
official. I'll just touch on that for one quick minute. I believe
that there are citizens in our community, and we've seen them
perform over the last twelve years, who will accept appointment.
I know I served on the MSTBU for three years. I had to
submit a dossier an inch thick. And I'm pretty sure the then
County Board looked at it carefully and assumed I met the
mustard.
But a lot of capable individuals will be willing to serve the
community on an appointment basis who might not necessarily
want to get involved in an election.
Page 171
February 27, 2001
So to assume that elected officials are going to serve the
community better than appointed individuals, I think is subject to
debate.
Where do we go from here and how do we resolve this?
Because I, too, feel none of this, believe me, is meant -- that is,
this outrage and this concern is meant to in any way cast
negative views regarding how the county has managed our
community.
In fact, you've done such a great job, that's why we don't
want any change. And it's been an excellent job. You know,
coming from the philosophy if it's not broke, why fix it, is what a
lot of the thinking of the community is at this point in time.
We need time to fall back and review. We feel this thing
moved entirely too fast. It was not thought out. The
well-meaning individuals that have been involved in their various
rolls in the different organizations, I'm quite sure were well
intentioned.
But we need to review this carefully. It's our
recommendation that the ordinance either be repealed or put on
the back shelf. We need a period of six to nine months to
understand the dynamics of what's being proposed, get our act
collected and then come back to you folks.
Whether or not that takes a straw vote or a vote of the
community, I don't know. But this is moving entirely too fast.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker.
MR. McNEES.' Erika Cook, followed by Frances Barsh.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: How many do we have?
MR. McNEES.' You have about five more.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thankyou.
MS. COOK: My name -- I should say, good afternoon. My
name is Erika Cook. I live in Pelican Bay. I'm a member of the
Pelican Bay Property Owners Association.
I was never made aware of any meetings concerning
Ordinance 2000-82. The Pelican Bay Property Owners
Association only notified me after this ordinance had been
passed of its existence.
There seems to be a small group within the Pelican Bay
community who have attempted, at one time or another, to make
Pelican Bay a city in one way or another; and in each instance
was refuted.
Page172
February 27, 2001
Of the seven people who were recently accepted for the
seven positions available for the new management team to
govern Pelican Bay, six are members of the Pelican Bay Property
Owners Association.
And now that one of the other ones is -- that seventh one
just was reappointed, that person possibly could be a member of
the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association too. I don't know.
I commend Commissioner Fiala for realizing that this issue
needs to be readdressed and that Pelican Bay voters must be
made aware of the true meaning of this ordinance and all it
implies.
The governance of Pelican Bay by the MSTBU has been
exemplary. The selection of the MSTBU members by the Collier
County Commissioners to serve on the MSTBU has been
excellent. How often does a governmental body such as yours
get a compliment like that? I am here today as a member of the
concerned citizens of Pelican Bay because the people of Pelican
Bay were never really asked if they wanted a change in their
form of government; especially a change in the taxing and
bonding powers initiated by Ordinance 2000-82.
The MSTBU ran so smoothly that some people did not know
it existed. And those that did marveled at its efficiency. And
that brings me to ask, why was something changed that worked
so smoothly and efficiently, and I might add, for free? The
system was not broken. It did not need fixing.
I suggest that you read, if you have not done so, the lead
editorial in this past Sunday's Naples Daily News expressing the
same concerns we, as members of the concerned citizens of
Pelican Bay have, and that is one of honesty, justice,
constitutionality and democracy with regards to this issue of
Pelican Bay governance.
I would like to have the Commissioners receive copies of
this editorial and make it part of the record, please.
Thank you, Commissioner Fiala, for revisiting this issue and
for starting the wheels of the democratic process with regards to
the issue at hand, Ordinance Number 2000-82. Thank you.
(Applause.}
MR. McNEES: Your next speaker is Frances Barsh, followed
by Joseph Bawduniak.
MS. BARSH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I am Frances
Page 173
February 27, 2001
Barsh. I'm a registered voter in Collier County. I'm a resident of
Pelican Bay and also a concerned citizen of Pelican Bay, as are
so many of these people here. There were more people here this
morning, but they unfortunately had to leave.
Henry Clay said, "Government is a trust and the officers of
the government are trustees. And both the trust and the trustees
are created for the benefit of the people." When you were
elected Commissioners of Collier County, the people of Collier
County, which includes the people of Pelican Bay, placed their
trust in your judgment and your wisdom.
On November 28th, at the first meeting of this board, with
three newly-elected Commissioners, you were asked to make a
weighty decision regarding the change of government in Pelican
Bay, which affects the lives of approximately 14,000 people.
Ordinance 2082 -- dash 82, was not within the knowledge of
the preponderant majority of people of Pelican Bay. Ordinance
2000-82 was not brought to the people for referendum or were
the terms of this ordinance presented to the people.
Such a vacuum of information has poorly served the people
of Pelican Bay; so too you. Our Commissioners were poorly
served by an untrue picture of the sentiments of the people of
Pelican Bay, as well as by a void of information and inadequate
analysis of Ordinance 2000-82.
You were told that there were -- would be no fiscal impact at
this time. However, the core, the core of Ordinance 2000-82 is
all about fiscal impact.
The ordinance is flawed by repeated contradictory and
conflicting terms. For example, the new Pelican Bay entity is
described as cost effective, financially sound, economic,
focused, single purpose.
On page 5, the new entity's policy is to eliminate needless
duplication of government activities. Yet, on the same page, the
ordinance cites the need for the Pelican Bay area to have its own
staff. Duplication? Yes.
Further, Ordinance 2000-82 requires the board of
supervisors to employ or contract with an independent
contractor and fix the compensation of a district manager, who
in turn can hire professional supervisory and electoral employees
without limitation.
Ordinance 2000-82 calls for a paid treasurer who, by the
Page 174
February 27, 2001
way, is not -- does not have to be a resident of Pelican Bay; just a
resident of the state of New Jersey. Independent accountant.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think you mean of Florida.
MS. COOK: A district engineer, a district attorney, et cetera,
et cetera, et cetera.
Common business sense tells one that such staffing
increases cannot be more economical or more cost effective
than that which now exists with the present MSTBU.
As one continues analysis of Ordinance 2000-82, it becomes
blatantly clear that this dependent district is not a focused or
single-purpose government entity.
This is evidenced by the broad powers to tax, to levy
maintenance fees over and above the ad valorem, to sue and be
sued in the name of the district, to condemn property, to bond
without limit for forty years; and this without sunshine,
publishing or posting. To adopt resolutions, it asks, in effect, to
make laws. And it goes on, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
There are serious constitutional questions posed by the
ordinance, id est, the changing of the tax millage rate without
referendum, requiring that -- and/or requiring the county clerk to
provide constitutional oversight for a government entity whose
funds can't be commingled with those of the county.
The flaws of Ordinance 2000-82 preclude any sense of good
or economical government for Pelican Bay. Today we have over
a thousand petitions, with more coming in daily, requesting the
repeal of Ordinance 2000-82. I will sum up quickly.
We ask you to listen to the voice of the people. We ask you
to prevent taxation without representation. We ask you to repeal
Ordinance 2000-82 and return Pelican Bay to the good,
economical government of our MSTBU.
Your immediate action to repeal Ordinance 2000-82 is
critical. Pelican Bay must be returned to an MSTBU status
before the county budget cycle is completed; otherwise you and
we, the people of Pelican Bay, will be left with an unfunded
district. Is this good stewardship on your part?
Edmund Burke said, 'A political magistracy is a great trust."
We thank Commissioner Fiala in honoring the trust of the people
of Pelican Bay. Today we also, we, the people of Pelican Bay,
place our trust in you, our Commissioners, and we ask you repeal
Ordinance 2000-82 as quickly and precipitously as you can.
Page175
February 27, 2001
Don't be remembered as a Commission that left an entity, a
government entity unfunded, or the highest taxed in the county.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. McNEES: Mr. Bawduniak, to be followed by Raymond
O'Connor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' Mr. McNees, how many more
speakers do we have?
MR. McNEES: I think these are your last two.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I know Commissioner Henning has a
prior commitment.
MR. BAWDUNIAK.' Good afternoon. My name is Joseph A.
Bawduniak. 803 Norwood Court, Pelican Bay.
I happen to be sitting at this time on MSTBU; however, I'm
here as a private concerned citizen since nobody is authorized to
speak for the MSTBU today.
After eight years of volunteer public service, I'm not a
stranger to covenants, ordinances or statutes. Last summer I
was the MSTBU member who made the motion to continue the
process for elected supervisors and get rid of us. Elected
supervisors can be a good thing. I was trying to get myself out of
a ]ob. Elect the folks that sit there.
I voted to support the ordinance with great reservations. I
was a vocal critic, it's public record, of the ordinance. I thought
it was sophomoric, insulting and poorly done. I won't go into the
details. You have heard of some of them.
I voted to favor it with a great degree of optimism and a leap
of faith because I had been told, again public record October,
that it can be fixed by amendments.
I really wanted to see elected supervisors. I no longer have
confidence in the process or in the ordinance. For me to sit back
there and hear that Young and Van Assenderp are the legal
entity that are experts in the State is ludicrous.
You all are aware of the January 4 letter from the supervisor
of elections. This is 101 legal. It was not covered at all in the
ordinance. At that point, after I met with the supervisor --
supervisor of elections, I became very concerned, just how bad
is this?
In January you were told by several of our august citizens
who were very interested in the betterment of governance in
Page 176
February 27, 2001
Pelican Bay that the citizens supported this.
"This" wasn't defined for you. "This" at that time was, let's
have supervised elections and have elected people replace the
committee members on the municipal services taxing benefit
unit.
The "this" in issue, the meat of the matter, the nuts and
bolts today and now for all our citizens is the ordinance; flawed
ordinance.
Pelican Bay is as apathetic as any group in the country and
a bit somnambulant. I know. I'm there. But they sure are
waking up now.
You had a series of meetings. Many meetings we had, true.
You had Dr. Woodruff, consultant, one meeting. He came in and
summarized the covenants. Gone. We had Mr. Dorrill come in
several times. The meat of the matter wasn't treated.
You had many, many early meetings which should have
alerted the citizens that something is going on. They didn't get
alerted. But the meat of the matter, the ordinance, did not come
to fruition until late summer, winter.
I was a student of it. I've read the first fifty-seven pages,
the second fifty-seven pages. And then they typed it smaller and
cut down on the spacing, so it's down to twenty-some pages.
Very difficult to read. A challenge.
Was it made available? I had to seek it out once or twice
myself. And I am on the MSTBU and wanted to stay with it. So
to say it was made available, sure it's printed someplace. I
attended all the meetings. I maybe missed one.
The president of our existing Pelican Bay property owners,
in his diligence, is to be admired for the many years he has
sought to enhance governance and our control over ourselves in
Pelican Bay.
Unfortunately he and our very concerned Mr. Carter or Dr.
Carter have not been served well by the legal firm, by Mr. Neil
Dorrill to allow this poor piece of documentation to flow.
And I have to admit, they have not been served well by our
county attorney by omission. Why hadn't he picked up on any of
these things? We have a lack of diligence here.
The initial benefit of this ordinance has been defeated by
the fact that not enough people stepped up. We have seven
self-appointed supervisors. They weren't vetted.
Page 177
February 27, 2001
Mr. -- or Dr. Carter, please forgive me. Dr. Carter vets people
he puts up. Made me feel very good to hear about his process.
I respectfully request -- and I'm concluding now, thank you --
please determine if the citizens of Pelican Bay want this. I don't
care how you do it. I don't know how good a straw vote is. Have
a town meeting. A straw vote might be better because more
people will respond.
Find out what the citizens want, react to that and not to a
group of board members who are not really fully aware of the
consequences and some of them aren't yet, and who pretend to
speak for the many. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
MR. McNEES: Mr. O'Connor. And I understand Paul Slater
has left, so we just have Mr. O'Connor.
MR. O'CONNOR: I'm Raymond O'Connor. As been noted, I'm
the president of Pelican Bay property owners. I have been a
resident of Pelican Bay since 1994. I have been president of the
Pelican Bay property owners the last four years. And I have been
a member of the board of the Pelican Bay property owners for
five years.
I think, just to set the record straight, we have 3,500
households, which compute out to about 6,000 members. It's a
voluntary organization. You don't have to belong to the property
owners if you don't wish to.
When we first started out on this effort, I have had the
governance committee of the Pelican Bay property owners
expanded to include people from Mr. Paul Slater's opposition
group to the incorporation effort. I had people pro incorporation.
I had people pro annexation to the City of Naples.
And we discussed this. In fact, the prior speaker was a
member of that governance committee. We discussed this for
about a year and a half and then decided to form a subcommittee
of the four ma]or organizations within Pelican Bay to see what
we could do about getting some more representation for the
people of Pelican Bay.
We approached -- I think through Dr. Varley we approached
the County Commission to see whether or not the current MSTBU
members could be elected.
We were given an opinion back that the MSTBU, because of
the nature of the ordinance, could not elect the members of the
Page178
February 27, 2001
MSTBU. They had to be appointed by the Board of County
Commissioners.
So then we remembered what Pelican Bay had in the
beginning of its inception and that was a Pelican Bay services
district, where there were elected people running Pelican Bay.
And they were in existence up until 1990. And at some time
just after that the county took over the operation of Pelican Bay
and put in this board that -- this MSTBU board of appointed
people.
Now, I point out to you, Pelican Marsh, a new development,
is going to have their first election for their supervisors. And all
new -- all new developments within the state of Florida will be
permitted to have elected members on their board. The reason
Pelican Bay cannot have any is because we were never
grandfathered into that legislation.
Now, the charge has been made that we want to spend
about 500- to $700,000 to hire a manager and staff. We have a
manager. He's paid $48,000 a year and we have twenty-six
people on staff, including a full office staff. And I can see no
reason to hire anybody else.
The manager's position is out for bid, as is the usual bid
process within the county. We're waiting a report back from the
people of the county who handled the bid as to who bid for the
job and how much they want in compensation to manage the
new district. In the meantime, the current manager stays on a
month-to-month contract.
You've already heard about how we're going to raise taxes
and I think that question has been answered. I think the bond
issue is a red herring. I don't see any reason to even have a bond
issue at this time. There's no purpose for one. I think it's
boilerplate language that happens to be in the ordinance.
They want everybody to vote in Pelican Bay, whether they
are registered to vote or not, just because they own property.
Well, I can't give them that right and neither can you.
That's a state law and I think it's a federal law as well. You
can only vote in one place. You can't vote all over the country
just because you own a piece of property there.
Pelican Bay can be sued and we'll be liable for our lawsuits.
Well, we've been told that that's not true. Since we're a
dependent district, we come under the umbrella of the county's
Page 179
February 27, 2001
liability process.
And that the county attorney would represent us in any
lawsuit and we would not have to buy legal services if we were
ever sued for any reason in Pelican Bay.
They make a lot out of the fact that they brought in here a
thousand petitions. Well, here's one of their notices for a
meeting.
It says in here: This action was advocated by special
interest group without knowledge or ratification of the members
of our community. And this change can increase your taxes and
affect our community as we come to know it.
If I were to submit to the community of Pelican Bay an issue
and said that this issue if adopted will raise your taxes, I'll bring
10,000 petitions in here before you. The minute you say, "raise
taxes," people are going to sign anything without knowing what
they are talking about. The other issues in the ordinance are not
discussed. They are going to raise taxes. This is a special
interest group.
Well, the other -- excuse me. I'll wind up. I'm one of the five
people running for this office, and I'm running because nobody
else put their name in.
Five of those gentlemen that have put their name in I never
met. I never heard their name before the day it was up for
election. And if that comprises --
(Inaudible comments from the audience.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Other people --
MR. O'CONNOR: I never heard their name.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let him finish. Everybody has had
their chance.
MR. O'CONNOR: If that comprises a special -- if that
comprises a special interest group and those people are labeled
with that kind of a label, I wouldn't be surprised if they withdrew
their nomination.
I wouldn't want to be labeled as a special interest group if I
was bringing myself forward to run for an office that these
people had an opportunity to run for.
You, Ms. Fiala, and I think you, Mr. Coletta, told them that
they should run for the office, when they came here the last time,
if they had opposition to it. Not one of them saw fit to put their
name forward to run for one of these offices.
Page 180
February 27, 2001
If we could have got other candidates, I would have been
glad not to run. I will continue to serve as president of the
property owners for my final year and retire and rest on my
laurels, or whatever they may be, when my time is up. But thank
you for listening to me and I just wanted to set the record
straight.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. That concludes our public
speakers. I would like some comments from legal because some
issues have been raised and I think they need to be clarified,
legal liabilities from your point of view, Counselor, transfer of
assets, the legal implications of what's going on here, the taxing
authority --
MR. WEIGEL: Sure.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And bonding. I think those are two
issues -- those are a couple of issues that need to be addressed
so that we get your input on this.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. And I think I'm going to talk to you and
the public about the straw vote also.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, we need to do that.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
All right. There are several issues. Obviously many of the
speakers touched on some of the points that, having been asked,
I'm happy to respond to.
First I'll mention that Mr. Carter mentioned early on the
agenda item about a straw vote. And if the Board should opt to
go for one here, of course they would have to determine what the
question would be.
A straw vote typically is a straw vote that -- vote within a
district or within a -- within the county which is conducted by the
supervisor of elections. If it's conducted by the supervisor of
elections, they -- it is an election with the registered voters.
Anything other than that is not a typical straw vote, as you
talk about using the elections supervisor offices, as far as that
goes.
There can be a polling that's done, could be done by mail, by
the county staff using the county appraiser property ownership
records or tax collector's addresses, things of that nature. It's
not a straw vote. It's a poll.
It obviously would -- could be distinguished and
Page 181
February 27, 2001
differentiated from the registered electors, if you go to owners
within the Pelican Bay area.
It's conceivable that if a straw vote was done of all owners
within the Pelican Bay area, that result or the receipt of
response could then be checked at a cost with the supervisor of
elections to determine which of those responders were in fact
registered electors.
So there are a couple of ways that something like that could
be done. The true straw vote, as discussed in the Elections
Statutes 96 through 101 of the Elections is talking about a straw
vote through the elections -- supervisor of elections offices for
registered voters.
I noted -- I won't use too many names here, but I will use a
couple names in regard to some comments made. Ms. Barsh,
with whom I've met a few times, the discussions that she and Mr.
Popper and a couple of other people had had when they met with
me were not about the text of the ordinance itself, were more
about, well, what could be done to either stop the ordinance or
stop its implementation? And as with any public person who
comes to -- a member of the public that comes to our office, I
provided the information and tried to respond as fully as we can
to the questions that are asked.
But their comment today that this district, when it becomes
operational, would be enacting laws by resolutions, I must point
out, as I do to this Board from time to time, is that the enactment
or adoption of resolutions is at best an adoption of policy.
Ordinances are local laws and can only be adopted at the
local level by county government or municipal; that is, city
government.
This district isn't a city. It's not the county. It's a special
dependent district, pursuant to Chapter 189 of the Florida
Statutes. And from that standpoint, it has no law-making
authority whatsoever.
It does have -- and this ordinance has been described as
sophomoric, having problems, it's also very comprehensive, to
some degree repetitive. I note that, too; not being the drafter,
but being the reviewer.
But in its ascertainments and determinations and purposes,
it has gone a long way to describe the kind of government that
it's supposed to have.
Page 182
February 27, 2001
And what it ultimately is, I think, is a hybrid. It has some of
the -- call it the operational flexibility of a community
development district, which is what one of the last speakers
talked about, but not using that term, Pelican Marsh.
And that is a community development district provided
under Chapter 190 of the Florida Statutes, is a district typically
created for new development.
Pelican Bay of course has been around for twenty-five or so
years, so it cannot have this elected government created through
the community development district because it requires absolute
unanimity of all of the landowners for a community development
district to be created.
They are relatively easy to create at the initial phase of a
development because there's maybe only one or maybe just a
few landowners, the initial developer, the landowner.
And then thereafter, when the subdivisions get platted and
the lots get sold, you get a diverse land interest and ownership
interest, and the ability to get unanimity for a community
development district is usually no longer there.
In this case it has some of the operational functions of a
community development district. But what Mr. Van Assenderp
looked to do here was to provide a dependent district that
provided some flexibility from an elective standpoint at the local
level, but with actually a surprising number of checks and
balances with this current -- with this Board of County
Commissioners. And this is what I'm going to tell you about right
now.
Before any tax is levied whatsoever, a referendum will be
required of the voters of Pelican Bay. I don't know exactly what
your millage has been for this MSTBU in the previous years, the
third or half of a mill, somewhere in there.
But this Board of County Commissioners will determine what
will be the millage for referendum for this district to vote up or
down.
There are many other aspects of fiscal control that are here.
A proposed budget prepared by the district supervisors will be
reviewed by the county manager and the clerk.
The clerk actually has, one might say, veto power in regard
to the budget that goes forward, if something seems untoward in
the draft proposed budget at that point.
Page 183
February 27, 2001
Subsequent to that, when they -- after the county manager
and the clerk make their recommendations that are sent back to
the district board, the seven-member district board, the district
reviews these things, makes whatever changes it wishes and
then sends it up to the Board of County Commissioners in the
budget process.
The Board of County Commissioners has absolute line item
veto on every item of this budget. And that's -- page 15 is where
it's reviewed by the county manager and the clerk in the
ordinance.
The referendum is stated in page 21. The line item veto is --
oh, it's in there. I can give you the page number in a moment.
But they also have absolute budget approval, aside from line
item veto.
If this Board doesn't like the budget in toto, in whole, it can
stop the process by this very law that has been adopted. So
from that standpoint you have Commissioners, as always before,
that have the oversight, the budget review; in fact, by this
ordinance a rather specific budget review that doesn't exist in
quite the same way and that budget process that exists for
MSTBU right now.
The ordinance provides for an absolute two mill cap on ad
valorem taxes. It's not open-ended. That's not to say that this
Board, or the district board once in place, is going to go for two
mills right out of the shoot.
But what it tells you is, it could never go over two mills as
an absolute cap no matter what this district supervisors wanted
to do, let alone the budget process that I just explained to you
here. That two mill absolute cap is on page 22 of the ordinance.
This is now a special -- it is to be a special dependent
district, as opposed to an MSTBU, as Mr. Carter, Commissioner
Carter noted; therefore, it has actually collapsed and lost millage
power that it ultimately had as an MSTBU.
As an MSTBU, technically, legally you could be taxed up to
ten mills annually, apart from your county tax bill that includes
county government and the school board; two separate ten mill
areas for levy.
The district board has been collapsed into the county's ten
mills. The county, as you know, has a little space left within its
ten mill cap, but that, again, should be -- potentially could be
Page 184
February 27, 2001
additional assurance in regard to the limitations of a tax and
spend in the district.
The clerk, as currently written, is the custodian and
accountant for the district funds. And the clerk writes the
checks. Yes, that does need some work, not only working with
the clerk, Mr. Van Assenderp, but also the fact that there is a
treasurer provided for in here.
And that is because that language is more akin to the
Chapter 190 community development district. I expect that
there will be some amending to that process at that point.
But it also provides separately on page 13 of the ordinance
that the financial records of this board shall be audited by an
independent certified public accountant at least once a year;
another check and balance.
In regard to bonding and supposed forty years debts that
might occur, no bond can issue unless the board orders and calls
a referendum election, per state statute.
But even more important and expressly stated on page 18 is
that there is no bonding for long-term debt without board express
written approval.
So first the board would have to receive the request
probably in the annual budget process, but it could be at any
time, and -- for a request for bonding. And the board says no,
doesn't sign anything in writing, it can't happen.
And beyond that, even if the board said yes, it would have to
order a referendum election to the very people that are affected
within the district.
So from that standpoint, there are many checks and
balances which have not been really discussed, or at least to my
office or in the newspaper to any great degree. And so there's a
lot of things in there that I think are important to know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Carter.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I believe I have a resolution on
this and let me put it out there. There is going to have to be a
referendum on the -- to adopt the standard of the level of tax.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Two mills, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And that's going to have
to be a referendum.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's correct.
Page 185
February 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we piggyback on that
the question of should we abolish the dependent district at the
same time?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Question for counsel, if that's
possible, it's an interesting thought to entertain. Because you
have to do one, can you do the other? What if they approve the
two mills and defeat the other? I'm not sure where that takes
you.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's true, you can't have conflicting
questions. One thing I didn't mention here is that the district just
saved between $8500 and $10,000 in not having it do its
election.
But also, an election where you are not involving candidates
can be done by mail ballot under general circumstances. And I
think that that's a possibility here.
I would have to talk with the supervisor of elections before I
definitely say that both those kinds of questions could be offered
on the same ballot, however.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like to see -- one of the
reasons I called for a town meeting before any kind of a ballot or
poll or straw poll was taken was because I feel so many people
really were not fully informed.
Now, David has done a lot right here to explain some of the
things mentioned in here that left a lot of question in other
people's minds. I don't know how many other questions there
would be.
But I would hope that before they go to vote -- because they
might stay the way they are once they get all the information,
that that information is given to them. Possibly once they've
gotten this information they will decide, well, this isn't so bad
after all. I'll stick with this. That was the purpose --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, Commissioner, I have no
difficulty with that at all. I would like -- without a question we
need a town hall meeting in Pelican Bay to get all this front and
center so everybody has a clear understanding.
Now the question will become, how do you notice it? How
do you -- and, you know, this can be a mailing to every household
in Pelican Bay, every owner, every property owner. That's a
possibility.
I don't know if we can -- what period of time it would take to
Page 186
February 27, 2001
do that. But if that's possible, everybody knows there is a town
hall meeting. And all of these issues could be presented to the
community to address.
And along with that, have an answer to the question and let
them know when it comes to a ballot, you have a two mill cap to
approve or disapprove and you have an opportunity to approve or
disapprove the new ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What would be the effect of
voting to disapprove the two mill cap?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that would take an ordinance
amendment to change that. That's in the ordinance. But the two
mill cap is really -- it's a cap to tell you that you couldn't go
beyond that. But the annual budget could always be something
significantly less than that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what I'm asking is, if you are
going to have a referendum and it's on the question of, do you
approve a two mill cap for taxation for this district --
MR. WEIGEL: Let me jump in. And the question wouldn't
have to be a two mill cap. It could be, do you approve a .35 mill
cap?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what if the answer was no,
then what happens?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, then I think we probably would look to
reinstitute the MSTBU.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So there is your answer.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: However, they could not exceed. They
could not exceed that. Even the MSTBU could not exceed it.
MR. WEIGEL: No, no, same thing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we need to bring this
back at our next meeting for discussion so we can --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I think -- what I would like to
see us do is, within three weeks time -- there was a gentleman
here that stood up, and I'm sorry I don't remember which one it
was, but he had said that he had received one notice about
something, but he never received any notices about the
meetings.
And so whoever that list was that he said everybody got an
advisory on that, maybe he could find that list, send -- and the
Pelican Bay people could be responsible for getting all of their
Page 187
February 27, 2001
people out. I would bet that both sides would find their way to
that meeting real quickly.
Look at what Frances has done with her group and getting
these thousand things signed in a matter of a week. Get them all
to a meeting and we could pick a date right now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's it going to accomplish,
though? A resolution has to be --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: To provide the information. First of
all, everybody to have a copy of this ordinance that it seems
nobody was really completely aware of or had read. Secondly,
then for them to come to that meeting and have their questions
answered. And that might solve the whole problem.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, first of all, I don't know how we
could physically get a copy of the ordinance to everybody prior to
a meeting. I don't know how to do that, but we may have it
available --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about through a computer?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I don't know. If it's online,
people can pull it down. Let me suggest this. That stacks of
those could be placed in the community center at Pelican Bay
and we let everybody know that they can go and pick up a copy
of the ordinance so that's no question that it's there. And if there
needs to be other locations, I don't have a problem with that.
Two, I think we need to notice to everybody that you're
going to have a public hearing and at that time you can clarify
everything that's there.
However, it still gets back to the point, no matter what
happens, a referendum has to be sent to the community to
approve millage. And whether that's going to be one mill, two
mill, three-quarters of a mill, it has to be put out there.
And perhaps out of that meeting, we will have some
indication of what that number should be and it can move
forward, if that's a logical approach.
MR. WEIGEL: Are you looking to me?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm asking legal counsel whether I'm
within the confines of what I am bound to do. MR. WEIGEL: That's very logical.
One last point I wanted to respond to, and that is in regard
to the jobs or positions that are listed in the ordinance. There is
nothing in there that says you have to pay them full time or pay
Page 188
February 27, 2001
anybody any differently than they are paid right now.
But what it does is, it provides a framework of positions in
there for operation which can't be avoided. So you can't have a
board of supervisors that goes forward and doesn't have the
appropriate staff, which is modeled largely after the staff that
works in these kinds of things, anyway.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I'm going to make a motion to
see if it's acceptable to the Board; and that is, we have a town
hall meeting held within thirty days and where this is thoroughly
presented and discussed with the community.
And at the same time, the subject about the millage cap is
thoroughly discussed in the community and some sense there --
we may put out a form that people can tabulate what they are
willing to accept. And we can take that and get some idea of
what that cap are going to be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Because you can't shut down a taxing
authority.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' Did Commissioner Henning
withdraw his motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' No. I said I second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: He seconded it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I made a recommendation. I
didn't make a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me. I just wanted to
make sure we didn't miss something along the way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is this also going to include
something to these Pelican Bay residents that says, after they
have gotten this information, no, I don't want it, no I don't want
this ordinance?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The town hall meeting should give us
a sense of direction of where that is and we will find some way
to -- that people that show up or whatever, is going to have an
opportunity to give us some input on that.
I think if you have the town hall meeting, it's thoroughly
discussed and there should be some way and some mechanism
which we have to craft -- I don't know how to do that at this point
-- where you get objective feedback in a way that some forms
can be, you know, collected so that we know or have a sense of
where it is.
Page 189
February 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like that to be included in
the motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was just going to ask you, I
take it from the interest that's out there, it's going to be a very
big town hall meeting. Where is it going to take place?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a couple of opportunities. We
could probably try and use the Registry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Your house.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I was going suggest the Ritz
Carlton or the Registry.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I'm sure we can find a place,
Commissioner. And I think the interest in the community would
be--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If anything it might bring
everybody together when we get all through with it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We will develop --
(Inaudible comments from the audience.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Pardon me?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Being run by the Commissioners,
no special interest group?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I will chair that meeting. I think all
Commissioners certainly could participate and listen and hear
what the community is saying, so that you have that input in
thinking, as it comes back, if further action is required --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We have to be careful of-- Mr.
Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What would be the situation if
we all showed up at this town hall meeting as far as sunshining?
MR. WEIGEL: That would be delightful if you could. No. All
we do is put notice out ahead of time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What would the notice --
MR. WEIGEL: Take minutes of the meeting. And it's in a
place where the public can adequately hear everything.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: In fact, I'm thinking out loud, folks, is
that I think this Board gets up there in this town hall meeting, we
could take all of this, we can have the issues addressed.
We can have each side where people who have questions
and presentations in an orderly format, like we did here this
Page 190
February 27, 2001
afternoon, sign-up slips, everybody can speak. Everybody has
the opportunity to communicate their point.
And we will provide ahead of time -- and I don't know how
fast we can do this, Mike, copies of the ordinance that could be
physically in place in Pelican Bay. How long does to take to run
5,000 copies, let's say, if 5,000 people wanted to pick them up?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who pays for that?
MR. McNEES: Just for your reference, 5,000 copies of a
twenty-seven page ordinance is going to cost you 10- or $12,000.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, there was a suggestion by
Commissioner Fiala that we take that approach.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And if -- if that's going to be the case, I
don't know if there's money even in the MSTBU budget this year
to do it. There may be a way to do it.
MS. BARSH: May I make a request? I believe that, since
Commissioner Fiala brought this question, permit the people in
Pelican Bay to express their views, I think it would be very fair if
Commissioner Fiala would chair any meeting of this type.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That will be determined. And I
understand what you're asking. The Board will be there and the
Board will hear. The Board will make sure that the appropriate
people are there to get the input, so that you all know at the end
of the day what is and what isn't.
And because -- and I understand that request, Ms. Barsh. All
I've tried to do as I've gone through here today is listen to
everyone again. I've also asked for clarification.
And all I'm trying to do is get rid of disinformation. I think
the town hall will accomplish that. And that is my job as a
Commissioner, to do that.
It is also my job as the District 2 Commissioner. It is also
my job as the chairman of this Commission in any area, any place
to exercise the will of the people of this county.
So we'll talk about that and whatever works the best will be
done. But if the Commissioners decide to be there, they will all
hear firsthand everything that anyone wants to say. And we will
get a communication out to everyone.
Page 191
February 27, 2001
MR. McNEES.' I might suggest, Mr. Chairman, I suspect the
vast majority of the Pelican Bay residents have access to a
computer, whether they own one or not. We can -- give me a few
days and I suspect we can get this ordinance on the county's
website with a link to it and --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's no good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, is there a way, then, that you
folks can make the copies and distribute them to your people? I
mean, if you can do that, that would help us a lot. I mean, I don't
want to cost the county $12,000, yet I want to make sure that
your information gets out.
I mean, if everybody hasn't read the ordinance, I don't know
how they could be fully informed. If you haven't received the
ordinance, then I don't know how you could be happy or unhappy
with it because you haven't seen it, so --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Just a moment, Commissioner. We're
getting people talking back and forth. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And this is violating the policy of this
Board. I will take two more questions from the audience. And,
Mr. Popper, you had your hand up, and Mr. Vlasho. If you would
come to the podium and do that, please.
Commissioner Henning has to recuse himself.
So those two people, if you want to come back up here and
make your point, please do so.
MR. McNEES: While he's coming up, I'll make the
commitment, for those who wish to take advantage of it, we will
put the ordinance on the county's website so that if you go to the
website, there will be a link to get to it. No one is obligated, but
it will be available for those who wish to find it that way.
MR. POPPER: Thank you, Commissioner, Commissioners.
I have a couple suggestions. First of all, I'm sure we could
find the hotel, the Registry or the Ritz Carlton would be more
than happy to do it.
I don't want to speak in their behalf, but they have been very
generous in providing space, especially in light of the fact that a
two mill cap would absolutely throw their fiscal budget out of
line.
But as far as I -- I really have a question, which I don't
understand. We're going to have a town hall, and I think that's a
Page 192
February 27, 2001
wonderful suggestion.
We will undoubtedly have legal representation there that
can argue with Mr. Weigel because many of the things that he
has brought up, you know, we obviously question and it -- in good
spirit we question it. So we will have a very healthy debate.
The proponents of the ordinance will speak in terms of what
they believe in and there will be some people that will speak on
behalf of abolishing and repealing the ordinance.
The question I have, though, ultimately it's going to sit in
your lap, collective lap, if I may say that. And I question -- and
perhaps you can't answer this now, but how are you ultimately
going to make a decision?
Do you take a weight, you know, whoever claps the loudest
or whoever hissed the loudest? Because we have 14,000 people
that can make an awful lot of noise. And I respect your
positions, that I don't think you really want to find yourself in
that type of a venue.
Ultimately the decision is going to be yours. And I agree
with the town hall, but I think ultimately whether it's -- I don't
like to use the straw ballot because I understand that that may
have some constitutional problems.
But ultimately you are going to have to send out a mailing to
all the residents of Pelican Bay asking a very, very simple
question. Are you in favor of or are you opposed to?
And let's not have a Palm Beach here where it's a duplicate
or God only knows what. Let's keep it as simple as possible. I
think by the time you have the town hall meeting, everybody will
be advised and spoken to.
We have a meeting tomorrow and Mr. Vlasho has invited
himself, and we're delighted to have him. And we will have a
discussion. We will have a discussion.
But -- not to repeat myself, but ultimately there has to be a
vote taken. And I'm sure that somehow legally that can be done.
And what that will tell you is, is the community in favor or are
they opposed. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- I'm trying to say very
little here, but is there -- I thought that the issue on the one
question I asked before, which is when you vote on the
referendum for taxing authority, you will vote yes or no to an
amount of millage, isn't that the decision of the community?
Page 193
February 27, 2001
MR. POPPER: I don't think that -- if I may answer that, I
think that is only one small aspect of it. Because there are many
fundamental issues here, which I'm sure you don't want to hear
me talk about now, that changes the whole governance of
Pelican Bay in terms of hiring people. And yes, you have to hire a
full-time manager. That's on page 15 of the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if you want to repeal the
ordinance, you vote against the tax.
MR. POPPER: Wouldn't it be much easier to keep this
simple, instead of defining one element, and just say, are you in
favor of Ordinance 2000-82 -- and by this time everybody will
know about it that really cares -- or are you opposed to it and
would you like the status quo, or just the status quo?
And I would plead with you that, let's make it as simple and
as concise as possible. There can be a mailing -- there is a
mailing list available through the Pelican Bay Foundation. There
are labels available.
And it would be a very simple thing to develop a letter,
which we would like to see as well as I'm sure the opposite side
would like to see, to make sure that in our combined opinions it
states our cause fairly.
And then have an enclosed card that could be mailed back
to a lock box. I love that word, a lock box. I learned that during
the election.
And there could be no effort or no intent or no
misunderstanding about tampering. I mean, let's do it. We have
learned a lot from the last election. Let's not fall into any of
those pitfalls.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would certainly be easier than
a town hall meeting.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What I'm hearing Mr. Popper say, it's
not to have a town hall meeting, but just do a mail out and get
everybody's input--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you say that, Charlie?
MR. POPPER (From the audience}: No. I'm saying, let's have
the town hall. Let's get everybody out there. Anybody that can
let them express it. (Inaudible.} Let's have the legal people talk
about it. Because there is obviously a divergence of thinking.
And then after that or coincided with that, let's send out a
mailing. (Inaudible.} There will be 14,000 letters that go out with
Page194
February 27, 2001
a reply card. Let that come back to lock box.
Let's let it be counted by both sides. And at the end of day,
good, bad or indifferent, we can go back to playing golf and
tennis and enjoying our retirement. (Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and read it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Vlasho.
MR. VLASHO: Unlike Charlie, I have confidence in you. I'm
not going to stand here and tell you what to do. You passed the
ordinance. We went through the procedure. You ought to figure
out how you are going to do this thing. For us to sit up here and
tell you how to take votes and put a lock box together, that's not
our job.
The people wanted to be heard. They are being heard. We
said, "Fine, let's have a town hall meeting." I think a town hall
meeting is where you will get the facts out. You will get the feel.
You will know what the community wants to do.
I also am somewhat perplexed that -- the counsel attorney
did a very nice job of explaining the ordinance, but it appears to
me not much of that was heard.
So I would like for you, in addition to when you set up the
procedure for that town hall meeting, to allow him to expend the
funds, if he feels so, to have Ken Van Assenderp attend that
meeting so that we can get the facts out there. Because what I
heard him say, it ain't all that bad, folks, if you just pay attention
to what he said.
So please, we'll do whatever we want. I'm not going to this
meeting tomorrow morning because it will serve no purpose. I
will be at your town hall meeting if I'm in town that day.
And if I'm not, I'll have a representative there. Because in
thirty days, depending on what's scheduled, I may not be in town.
But I will do my best to be there.
But I think the purpose of this meeting today that the group
suggested was to get you to a point to have a town hall meeting
so that the residents of Pelican Bay, not the few people
represented by our side or the few people represented by their
side, but the people of Pelican Bay, let them speak with you. Let
them understand this thing.
And as the Chairman said, that's where it's going to end up
anyways. And the four of you or the five of you, I hope by then
Page195
February 27, 2001
that the fifth Commissioner can decide to vote. You can decide
what's best. You were elected. You have the responsibility. We
don't need to do all these other things.
If you decide that you need a straw vote or you need a poll
or whatever you need, then you should do that to satisfy yourself.
Because regardless of what people say, the monkey is on
your back. And you now have to decide, do you stick with what
you've already approved or do you reverse your course?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We serve the will of the people.
Sometimes it's a little difficult trying to figure out what they
want.
(Inaudible comments from the audience.)
MR. VLASHO: But I'm afraid -- I'm not telling them what to
do. I have confidence in you. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Come on. Let's get this going.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ray, I've really got to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's put Charlie Popper in charge
of arranging for the --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You know, ladies and gentlemen, we
have been ladies and gentlemen listening to everything that you
have had to say this afternoon. Give us time to discuss among
ourselves what we've heard, rather than rush into something
where at the end of the day you're unhappy.
So let us do what we need to do and that will be a
discussion on this dais because of the input and the great input
we've gotten from this community.
So Ray, I just, you know -- I've got to cut it. I appreciate it.
MR. O'CONNOR: I have one question that has nothing to do
with this town meeting or anything else. There are seven people
who have put their name forward to be supervisors.
I suggest to you that if there is a town meeting, that perhaps
you might consider reopening the election process to get more
candidates.
If as a result of that town meeting people are understanding
what's happening and can come out and put their name forward,
maybe the election process could be expanded just by an
amendment of the ordinance.
I think the ordinance called for an election within 180 days.
I think perhaps you might be able to do that. Because I think the
seven people, myself included, are kind of in limbo. You're going
Page196
February 27, 2001
to
have a town meeting referendum --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I understand.
MR. O'CONNOR: I mean, it's not fair.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Everybody is going to be in limbo. And
we got a time line here as to how long this current MSTBU will
be in effect; and that is to April 26. Now, we have to do
something differently here if it's going to go beyond that.
The question becomes, how far beyond that? What period of
time does it take to accomplish this? And can we do it in that
period of time?
And I don't know the answer to that. I am concerned not
because we're going to have a town hall meeting. I am not
concerned because we're going to get all this other input. I am
not concerned that you go out and take a straw vote or a vote,
whatever it takes.
I am concerned about, how does the taxing authority
function in getting into their budget reviews and starting this
process like now while we still deliberate, do you exist or don't
you exist? Now, they have to have a time to know if they're
going to exist until this period, that date, that they can do what
they have to do. And that involves all the county budgeting
process.
So we are not in, you know -- ideally I would have asked that
it go back to the same process by which it came to this Board.
We don't have time to do that.
MR. O'CONNOR: I understand that. But again, I reiterate
that the seven of us who in good faith put our name forward are
kind of stuck there.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I understand that.
MR. O'CONNOR: And I think some decision has to made and
I recommend -- I make my recommendation, but I leave it to the
counsel attorney to advise you on that. But I think that some
decision has to be made to tell us where we are precisely.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Understood. And I will not take any
more public input. We need to go to the county attorney for
advice. We need to make a decision as a Board.
And if we need to continue that discussion until our Friday
workshop, we can put that on the agenda early. In terms of what
we're going to resolve, there would not be any more public input
Page 197
February 27, 2001
on that basis.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Fine. Well, the answer is really pretty
simple. If you just look -- if one looks at the ordinance, it
provides for an election to be held within 180 days.
Pursuant to the ordinance, the election process was put in
place, working with the supervisor of elections. And the election
date is April 26. The district actually becomes operational after
the election and seating of the elected supervisors.
So I don't think that the persons who have been selected or
elected by virtue of the number of candidacies, receipts that
have been filed, makes really any difference at this point in time.
If there were an election on the 26th, everybody who was a
candidate would be waiting for the 26th. And they would be
getting together and doing their job as adroitly as possible.
Obviously with the assistance of the county staff that would
be looking for as seamless a transition from the MSTBU to the
district dependent board as possible.
But April 26th is the date. We've got -- that's the information
that's before the U.S. Department of Justice for preclearance,
which is still required. And it seems to me that that's the
operational date and answers almost all questions in that regard.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So we need to get this done by April
26th.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, April 26 is the date -- after that time the
district board needs to be seated, which means they would be
sworn in pursuant to statute. Until they are sworn in after the
26th, there is still no operational district.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Everybody here that's left understand
the situation?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
Yes.
The story that never ends.
Then we have a motion that we
will hold a town hall meeting, that we will make available the
copies of the ordinance either through the internet --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: On the internet.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- or stacks of it will be available in the
Hammock Oak Center. We will get a letter out to all property
owners, as I understand it, in Pelican Bay, even though only the
registered voters at the end of the day can vote on a situation
Page198
February 27, 2001
like this.
But we will at least get their input in terms of the totality of
the feeling of the community. And everyone will have an
opportunity to participate in that.
And the other decision that will have to be made, coming
out of that, is a referendum will have to go out with some millage
right to the community to approve or disapprove.
Am I correct in that, Mr. McNees and Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. And just so I understand, you say a
letter will go out to all property owners in Pelican Bay?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's take it into that picture because
a lot of people who have signed --
MR. WEIGEL: Right. And that's a letter--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- the petitions are, if checked, may or
may not be registered voters in Pelican Bay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But taxpayers.
MR. WEIGEL: But I'm just saying --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, they are taxpayers but they don't
-- everybody is a taxpayer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Everybody that owns land.
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Everybody is a taxpayer. And even
under the appointed board now, you have to be a registered voter
to be on that board by appointment.
MR. WEIGEL: I just want to make sure that I'm clear in
regard to the mailing. The mailing will be of the town hall
meeting?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have to give notification.
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't want anybody to come back
and say, "1 didn't hear about it." I want everyone in the Bay to
know.
MR. WEIGEL: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The funds for this are coming
from general funds or can it come from the taxing district there?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: A question I don't know the answer to.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's a good question, Jim,
because I had wanted to see all property owners who pay taxes
Page199
February 27, 2001
in this Pelican Bay community vote on whether they wanted to
fund this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're getting into a real legal
question there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Be real careful. If you're going
from one extreme to the other, you are going to be empowering
people that don't have the right to vote in Florida, you are giving
them the right to vote in Florida, contrary to the laws of Florida.
So think about it very carefully.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I asked David Weigel about
that yesterday and, David, you can --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I'll just state again. It depends on the
kind of vote or information you are looking for. The county, as a
county, can send a letter, an inquiry to whoever it wishes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A survey.
MR. WEIGEL: Like a survey. To whomever it wishes, to
property owners in that district. If one were to use the elections
office for any purpose, it would be registered electors because
that's what they have on file there.
And it appears that the direction is going to be, the letter of
the town hall meeting will be to all property owners. If there's a
question in regard to polling after that, if the Board entertains
that kind of question, then you will have the decision as to
whether you deal with electors or all property owners.
Conceivably a distinction could be made in the response at
any point in time in that regard.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And we can answer those questions at
the town hall meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So who is paying for this mailing?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Who is paying for the mailing? The
Commissioners need to address that.
MR. WEIGEL: What I would suggest that this Board gives the
direction is -- to the extent legal, that it be taken care of by the
MSTBU, Pelican Bay MSTBU.
I will work with the county manager and the budget director
and we will obviously need to coordinate with the advisory
committee of the MSTBU. And if it can't be done that way, then
Page 200
February 27, 2001
it will be an expense of your general revenue, I believe.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just so we know where it's
coming from, how about the room at the Ritz Carlton or the
Registry, that would be our responsibility too, then?
MR. WEIGEL: To the extent there are expenditures incurred
there, yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That all comes out of either the taxing
authority there or it will have to come out of the general fund.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No charge, Charlie was saying, at
the --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The Registry usually for community
citizens doesn't have a fee and, you know, everything else we'll
try to get done as economically as possible.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no problem paying for it.
I just want to make very clear to the public where the money is
coming from.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I understand.
MR. WEIGEL: We'll make sure we check it against our gift
policy.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
MS. BARSH: May I ask a question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MS. BARSH: What be the time frame for introducing an
ordinance to repeal the district, the dependent district, and
reinstitute the MSTBU so that we could get back into the county
budget cycle as an MSTBU and remain at our millage of point --
19617
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm not sure whether or not you could
repeal this prior to seating a new board of supervisors and
allowing them an operational period.
You always have the right to come back through process to
go back to where you were, but I'm not sure in this time frame,
unless counsel can advise me different, that you could do that.
MS. BARSH: Well, how long does it take to bring an
ordinance up to repeal another? What is the time frame in that --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: This is a process of months --
MS. BARSH: -- so that we could return to the MSTBU and
stay within that 1.961 millage? MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
(Inaudible comments from the audience.)
Page 201
February 27, 2001
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER FROM THE AUDIENCE: We have to
determine if the residents of Pelican Bay want to return to the
MSTBU before we talk about that. Why don't we go through what
you asked for originally, instead of now trying to go from one
thing to the next to the next?
MS. BARSH: No. We don't object to any town meeting.
MR. WEIGEL: I'll respond --
MS. BARSH: It's important information.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Excuse me, Ms. Barsh. You know, I
really appreciate all your input and I sincerely mean that. But
there are some time lines consideration here --
MS. BARSH: Well, that's what we're concerned with.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- and my accountability to this county,
to that taxing authority is that I give them the time to get their
budgets together and I can't hinder that. Can you change it?
Yes, ma'am. Can you change it before the new one goes in? I
hear the -- I see the county attorney nodding to me. MR. WEIGEL: You can.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is that possible?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, this ordinance is subject to the directive
of the Board to advertise an amendment at any point in time,
whether it's mere modification or even dissolution.
Once the district is up and running and has taken over
obligations and assets, if the district were to be dissolved, those
assets and/or liabilities come back to the county.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: But --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So after the town hall meeting, if there
was an input that said we could or should or consider repeal of
and going back to, we would have that opportunity.
In all due respect to the total population of Pelican Bay, we
need to have that town hall meeting where everyone and anyone
who wants to participate and wants to come and hear what we
have to say and have questions answered have that opportunity.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Dr. Carter, I would strongly
suggest at that meeting that we invite the supervisor of
elections along.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, I agree.
MS. BARSH: I believe if we could return simply within the
budget cycle of the county, the county budget cycle, then it
Page 202
February 27, 2001
would be the most elegant, simplest solution.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ms. Barsh, we cannot take away what
has already been done without going through the other process.
MS. BARSH: Another ordinance --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We never approved the other process
without going through a process.
MS. BARSH: Yes, yes. But that's the concern, is the time
frame of that process, to get us back into that MSTBU.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, if out of that meeting -- and that's
an if -- the sentiment of Pelican Bay is to go back to the other,
there would be a time line, I'm understanding from the county
attorney, that that could be accomplished and allow the current
MSTBU to continue to function -- if I'm understanding that
correctly -- if the members who are there choose to do so.
MS. BARSH: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: You have a motion on the floor?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.}
Opposed by the same sign?
Motion carries 3-0.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we take a three-minute
break?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. The Commissioner wants a
break. Take five.
(A recess was taken.)
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 2001-71 REGARDING PETITION V-2000-32,
STANLEY WHITTEMORE, REPRESENTING FERDINAND AND
CATHERINE FOUNTAIN, REQUESTING A 5-FOOT VARIANCE
FROM THE REQUIRED 30-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK TO 25
FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 355 KINGS WAY FURTHER
DESCRIBED AS LOT 8, BLOCK G, FOXFIRE UNIT 3 - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ladies and gentlemen, we are back in
session, please. I see the clerk was here. I didn't know whether
he wanted to come and address us, but I don't think at this late
hour he wants to. He's going home.
Page 203
February 27, 2001
I have been requested that it is the pleasure of the Board
that we have two zoning variances. One, the person has been
here since 9:00 this morning. And they are respectfully asking if
we could do with the zoning appeals, which are two items, and
then move back to the regular agenda. It is the pleasure of the
Board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead. What is the number?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That will take us to Item V-2000-32,
Stanley Whittemore requesting -- Ferdinand and Catherine
Fountain requesting a five-foot variance from the required 30-foot
year -- 30-foot rear yard setback to 25 feet for property located at
355 Kings Way.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 13(A)(1).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Reischl, are you the presenter?
MR. REISCHL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have to have everybody sworn in.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I need disclosures from the Board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: None.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: None.
No one has had contact with Mr. Hoover or the petitioner in
this matter.
MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. This is a
request for a five-foot variance from the required 30-foot rear
yard to 25 feet for a single-family house in Fox Fire. And as you
can see on the visualizer, Kings Way -- you see the location of
the house on Kings Way. The rear has a stormwater
management lake.
Here is a detail. The house is in pink. There's an existing
screen patio, which is in yellow. And, again, there is a 20-foot
lake maintenance easement. This is the property line. So there
is 20 feet of undeveloped property from the property line to the
control elevation edge of water.
The petitioner wants to enclose an existing screen patio,
turn it into a Florida room. And that would force an
encroachment of five feet into the 30-foot rear yard setback. As
you know from hearing these zoning petitions, most rear yard
setbacks are 20, 25 feet.
This one is 30 feet.
Page 204
February 27, 2001
The Planning Commission did take that into consideration of
this petition, along with the fact that the rear yard is a
stormwater management area, plus the additional unbuildable
area of the 20-foot lake maintenance easement. And the
Planning Commission voted 6 to I to recommend approval. And
we also received a letter of no objection from the Fox Fire
Homeowners' Association and no calls or letters of objection
from anybody.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to make a motion
that we approve it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you would like the basis for it,
if you would turn to Page 13(A)(1)(20}, it shows that there has
been five other variances made that fall right along the same
line. It is kind of unfair at this point in time to not consider
granting it when they have already granted it numerous other
times.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And, Mr. Manalich, that requests -- that
requires what; three or four votes? MR. MANALICH: Three.
MR. REISCHL: I believe it's just the regular three votes.
MS. STUDENT: Three votes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is there any speakers?
MR. MCNEES: Yes, sir. You have one on 13(A}(1}, Stanley
Whittemore.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You can waive if you would like,
sir.
MR. WHITTEMORE: I can waive.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: He is waiving.
All in favor of -- did you make a motion, sir?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Fiala to grant
the variance. All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Aye.
Motion carries 3-1.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In case if there's any doubt, if
Page 205
February 27, 2001
you will take a look and you'll see where everything is outlined in
my notes.
There has been quite a bit of research to justify the motion that I
made.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. It's in their minutes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No problem with it. That's one of the
wonderful things about up here, if we all agreed, we don't have
one person.
Item #13A2
RESOLUTION 2001-70 REGARDING PETITION CU-2000-18,
KENNETH B. CUYLER, ESQUIRE, REPRESENTING SUNVAC
CORPORATION, M & H STABLES, REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL
USE FOR HORSEBACK RIDING LESSONS AND HORSE RENTAL
ACTIVITY ON A PARCEL OF LAND ZONED "A" AGRICULTURAL
FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF NEWMAN
DRIVE 1.5 MILES EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD AND ONE MILE
SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 1-75- ADOPTED
Okay. We move to Ken Cuyler. You have a petition,
CU-2000-18. You all need to be stand -- all need to stand and be
sworn if you are going to participate in this discussion. (All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Any disclosures? We are on
Item CU-2000-18.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have to find this.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Immediately following the second one
that we just passed under zoning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 13(A)(2) is it?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It is --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is on the stables, right?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. Page 6 of your agenda items in
the works.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this Mr. Cuyler's item?
I have heard -- for disclosure purposes, I've met briefly, five
or ten minutes, with him about the facts surrounding this case.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I did also. And I don't know if it
makes any difference, but I went out to see the property, as well.
Page 206
February 27, 2001
I didn't see it. I mean, there were people on there, but I didn't
talk to anyone. Just --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I also met with the petitioner
and one of the neighbors.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have not met with the petitioner, nor
have I talked with legal counsel. Doctor Badamatchian.
MR. BADAMATCHIAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
Chahram Badamatchian from planning services staff.
Mr. Ken Cuyler is requesting a variance on behalf of M&H
Stables. There's an -- they have an existing stables that was
approved in 1996 or '97. What they have added is a horse renting
business. They are next to the State Park and they added horse
rental business.
They have around ten -- eight horses right now that people --
they can rent to visit the State Park. And they are also teaching
horseback riding, which requires a conditional use. That's the
only reason we are here.
They are around -- they have around 100 horses. But, as I
said, the stable is a permitted use. We are here just for those
ten horses which are available for hire and horseback riding
lessons.
This stable generates between 35 to 50 trips a day, which
around ten percent of it comes from the horse rental business,
which would be three and a half to five or six trips a day.
This petition was reviewed by the Planning Commission.
And by a vote of 7 to 1, they recommended approval. There were
several people who opposed this. Basically what it is they have
to use Benfield Road to gain access to their property. And the
applicants, they have
paved Benfield Road, which used to be a gravel road. And the
neighbors along that road, they were objecting to this saying that
it generates excessive traffic and the road is not wide enough.
I have a picture of the road that I took. And it is no different
than any road that you see in the Estates area. It is not wide. It
is around 18-foot wide. But the traffic generated by this horse
rental business, which has been five to six trips a day, doesn't
justify us to ask the applicant to widen any more than what they
have done. They have paved over a mile and a half of the road
leading from Beck Street, which is extension of Davis Boulevard,
Page 207
February 27, 2001
all the way to the stable.
Staff recommends approval of this. We added one more
stipulation, which is not in your packet. I just wanted to let you
know and read it for the record. Basically it says, "This approval
is conditioned upon the following conditions." And we added
number -- the last one, which says, "Uninterrupted legal access
to the Benfield -- to the benefit of applicant, its successors or
assigns over Benfield Road."
Benfield Road is a private road. It's not a public road. And
we had a legal opinion that the stables can use that road.
However, since it is not a county road -- it is just an easement
over private properties -- County Attorney's Office felt more
comfortable saying that if for some reason something happens
and they have no right to use the Benfield Road, then the
conditional use must cease. Which, I believe, if they cannot use
Benfield Road, they have no access to their property. The staff
recommends approval of this petition.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions ofstaff?
No questions of staff. The Petitioner, Mr. Cuyler.
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, for the record,
Ken Cuyler with Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson representing
Sunvac Corporation and SM&H Stables. First of all, thank you for
moving us up. Although, I want to put on the record that I didn't
ask for that so nobody takes any swipes on me on the way out.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: While we are here --
MR. CUYLER: Commissioners, I have a stunning
presentation, but in light of the fact that it's 6:00 and --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any questions for the petitioner by the
Board?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a lovely road. How long
is it?
MR. CUYLER: It's a mile and a half.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The horse stables paid for the
whole road; from beginning to end?
MR. CUYLER.' In excess of $100,000 to pave the lime rock
road. It was under no obligations to do that. As best I can see, it
benefited the residents at no cost to them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' I understand, too, that you have
access to the Picayune State Forest?
MR. CUYLER: Correct. This property is directly adjacent to
Page 208
February 27, 2001
the State forest and the owner -- it's the owner's position that he
is providing a service. This is not a terribly lucrative business in
terms of renting horses, but he does provide a service to tourists
and those people that visit the stables to go in and ride the horse
trails in the State park.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This will only increase the
traffic on the road by ten percent maximum?
MR. CUYLER: Probably five trips a day maximum based on
what staff and the petitioner have looked at, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there any speakers?
MR. MCNEES: Yes. You have three more public speakers, if
they are still here. Dan Hoolihan, Steve Thomas, James Winge.
You have no public speakers.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Pleasure of the Board?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Pair of seconds. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion approved 4-0.
MR. CUYLER: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Now we go back to our regular
agenda.
MS. FILSON: Did you hear her make the motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I made a motion that --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie made the
motion, Commissioner Coletta seconded it.
Item #11 B1
REVIEW PROPOSAL FOR THE GATEWAY "MINI TRIANGLE"
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT- PROPOSAL REJECTED - STAFF TO
MEET WITH PROPERTY OWNERS AND RETURN WITHIN 120 DAYS
WITH A PROPOSAL
We are now back to Item 11(B), Community Redevelopment
Agency.
MS. PRESTON: Good evening. For the record, Debrah
Page 209
February 27, 2001
Preston with the planning services department.
For the record, I would like to show that the Board of
Commissioners are in recess and the Community Redevelopment
Agency has been convened. And Commissioner Mac'Kie is the
Chairman of the CRA.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie, would
you like to carry on?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: She will take care of it.
MS. PRESTON: Just for the record, in October we published
a notice for invitation to submit proposals for the redevelopment
of the mini triangle project, which the project site is shown on
your visualizer. And we have received one proposal. And that
was from F&P Investments.
They will be doing a presentation for the Board today and for
you to make some consideration on what the next steps will be.
You have several options to consider.
Before we get into the presentation, I would like to have
David Cardwell, our outside legal counsel, give you a brief
overview of the process that we are undertaking.
MR. CARDWELL: Good afternoon. David Cardwell with the
law firm of Holland and Knight, special counsel to the CRA.
The process that you've gone through here and that you're
still in the middle of is a process under the Community
Redevelopment Act for when a CRA is going to potentially
dispose of property that it may acquire some interest in that it
must first publish a notice requesting proposals from developers
for that property, receive those proposals, consider them, and
then either reject the proposal, accept the proposal and enter
into negotiation, or reject the proposal and go with another
request for proposals.
In this particular case, the mini triangle was identified in the
Bayshore/Gateway redevelopment plan which you adopted as a
County Commission, as well as a CRA. And it is one of the initial
catalyst projects to try to stimulate redevelopment in the area.
Because of the potential due to multiple ownership, some
property might be acquired as part of a land assembly, which is a
historic role of a
community redevelopment agency. It was felt, if necessary, to
go out, pull the RFP to, in fact, determine if the proposals did call
for property acquisition. And you will hear in the presentation
Page 210
February 27, 2001
from the one proposer that he does, in fact, request site
assembly.
What I would like to suggest is that you hear the proposal
from the developer, then if you have any questions concerning
what he's requested and how it fits with your plan and with the
Redevelopment Act, we would be glad to try to answer those
questions and then answer any questions that you may have as
to how to proceed from here.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any questions, Board members?
MS. PRESTON: Then with that, I would like to invite Dan
Pioli, our submitter of the proposal to come up and give you his
presentation.
MR. PIOLI: Somehow we -- here we go. I'm waiting for this
to be switched over to your television monitors by your technical
people.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. PIOLI: Thank you, Katie.
MR. DUNNUCK.' Katie, could we get the power point
presentation?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: She said we may need to reboot.
MR. PIOLI.' I apologize for the delay, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We apologize to you for delaying
yOU,
MR. PIOLI: It should come right up. You should see this.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What if -- what if he talks us
through the brochure.
Would you like to walk us through the brochure?
MR. PIOLI: That's the direction we're going.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Maybe we can go to some of the
MR. PIOLI.' Katie, if you could go back to the visualizer,
please.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: There we go.
MR. PIOLI: Wait a second. That looks familiar.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's on the visualizer.
MR. PIOLI.' I can see that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good ]ob.
MR. PIOLI: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It is evening.
MR. PIOLI: Good evening, thank you. Anything after dinner
Page 211
February 27, 2001
hour is evening, I take it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Correct.
MR. PIOLI-- As you know, my name is Dan Pioli and my
company is FT Real Estate Investments. And I'm very proud of
the fact that I was in a position to be able to respond to your
request for proposals for the mini triangle redevelopment.
The presentation that you're about to receive is the
culmination of about one and a half years of work on my part and
many more by others. Certainly preceding Boards have
dedicated considerable hours to see that this project came
forward. It is difficult, obviously, to compress all of that into five
to ten minutes. So I will ask for your patience and I will be in a
position to welcome your questions when we finish.
The theme of my project is a beautiful village in a beautiful
city. And I will try to get Debrah to go as fast as I can get her to
go. The name of the project is Bella Villaggio, which in Italian is
beautiful village. I have been reminded by one of my fellow
countrymen here recently that it should be Belle Villaggio so that
it was all more of a masculine name. But we'll work on that.
And that project is presented, of course, by myself, Daniel Pioli,
with FP Real Estate Investments.
And this, of course, is a Bayshore/Gateway triangle
redevelopment district initiative of the Collier County
government for the mini triangle project. And in that this is a
community redevelopment, it is a public/private partnership
whose objectives are to achieve urban renewal, create a
landmark gateway and catalyze further redevelopment
throughout the district.
What is Bella Villaggio? Well, that is a mixed use
redevelopment plan that includes retail, office, residential and
hotel uses.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Was it just me or does that need to
be -- sorry. There. Thank you.
MR. PIOLI: The project seeks to achieve a Tuscan
architectural theme in a pedestrian friendly environment with
self-contained structured parking. And this all creates an urban
environment with character and distinction.
The site plan you see before you, which was a part of your
original package, focuses on a few key issues that pertain to the
site in particular. Along U.S. 41 on the lower portion of the site,
Page 212
February 27, 2001
that being the kind of roadway that doesn't allow for vehicles to
pull up to a curb, park, get out and go out inside a business, we
chose to structure our primary row of buildings along 41 so that
they would benefit from the passing traffic, with an access point
located in the center of the property.
Along Commercial Drive to the right-hand side of your
screen on Building Number Six, we have positioned a proposed
hotel project.
Building Seven along the north on Davis Boulevard is additional
office space. And the centerpiece of the project in the middle
will be the piazza or the retail facility that will include both shops
and restaurants through a two and three-story facility.
What we have tried to do as well is to create a water feature
out at the western point at the tip of the triangle that will be a
true aesthetic feature that will really be a focal point of the
project as you pass by in your vehicles. And that will be visible
from all directions and will include substantial landscaping, as
well as water features.
Here what I have given you is a series of photographs that
are about to follow that give you a sense of the architectural
theme that would be included in the project. And just a little bit
more slowly, if we could. Maybe we can go back.
Here you see in this photograph a typical outdoor fresh fruit
and vegetable, flowers and this kind of thing, the true outside
type of environment out in front of a store that is part of a piazza
actually in Italy. We will also create an outdoor dining
environment in somewhat of a botanical enclave in front of some
of the
restaurants throughout the piazza, as well. And obviously this
has been a very popular theme in Naples lately, especially along
Fifth Avenue, as well as now up and down 41 and in other retail
areas of the community.
Structurally the type of design would include some
archways that would also shelter the pedestrians visiting the
property as they tour
the various retail shops throughout the piazza. Here we see an
iljustration of the kind of floral arrangements that can be
positioned throughout to add character and warmth and charm to
the
facility, as well. The structural improvements here indicate how
Page 213
February 27, 2001
we have a use of balconies and benches and wrought iron and
shutters to accent the exterior and create a warmth and charm
throughout the project. And here again, as well.
There are five key elements to the redevelopment of the
mini triangle. These elements are a product of considerable
research on my part. As I first undertook the process through
discussions with Commissioner Mac'Kie over a year ago, it was
apparent that there was some issues that have to be addressed
in order for redevelopment to occur in the mini triangle. These
aren't going away. Regardless of who your developer is, these
issues must be addressed. Land acquisition cost, transportation,
environmental, stormwater management and parking.
Now, if we were watching power point, these would be
coming in very nicely one at a time. Element number one, land
acquisition costs are extraordinarily high and the purchase of
property will set records for U.S. 41 East in Naples. Prices
comparable to 41 North. This is clearly a change in the trend of
property valuation along the eastern corridor of U.S. 41.
Element number two, transportation system deficiencies.
Without question, everybody agrees that something needs to be
done with the Brookside/Davis/Commercial intersection. A
realignment in that intersection is what's been proposed. There
are three potential alternatives as to how that might be
addressed. One, to realign Brookside with Commercial. Two, to
do a minor realignment of Commercial with Brookside. And
three, to do a major realignment of Commercial with Brookside.
In any event, the intent behind the realignment is to achieve
a signalized four-way intersection. And that new traffic signal
will facilitate the flow of traffic not only to and from the property,
but to and from those areas east of Commercial Drive, which is
the subject of future redevelopment activities, and to facilitate
the movement of traffic over into the Royal Harbor and Oyster
Bay and Naples Land Yacht Harbor neighborhoods.
I didn't get anybody's particular attention with that. But the
idea being to create a safer means of getting to and from those
residences that they were deprived of when 41 and Davis
Boulevard were modified by FDOT.
Element number three, possible environmental
contamination.
It's clear over the years there's been a history of suspect activity
Page 214
February 27, 2001
on this site. And this site is downstream from additional suspect
activity. And it is anticipated that the soil and groundwater are
contaminated and will require substantial remediation.
Element number four, stormwater management. I don't need
to tell you about that problem. It is well known and well
documented.
Because of the cost associated with each of these four elements
thus far -- and they are substantial -- in order to achieve an
economic result that would even prompt someone from the
private community to come forth and participate in this
redevelopment process, how the parking is handled is going to
be a very important issue.
My proposal is to structure that parking and put it inside the
buildings. No parking garages, no cars underground. It would
eat up the site so quickly that you wouldn't be able to get enough
density in there to achieve any kind of a viable economic result.
So this proposal includes structured parking and for that reason.
Now, those five elements together are what need to be done
to prepare this site for redevelopment. And what do they
translate into? Density. Now, typically that's not a good word.
But I know all of you have seen the Naples Daily News article,
thanks to John Henderson and his considerable research in
working with me to present information, that clearly identifies for
you how this type of a concept has worked extremely well with
Mizner Park in Boca Raton and with City Place in West Palm
Beach.
Before you today is a staff recommendation that includes
language that may result in the modification of the RFP. If that
language were to place any kind of a limitation on the density
that could be allowed in this mini triangle project, that
insufficient density could result in insufficient economic results.
And that can translate into a limitation on property values and
potentially unmarketable properties. And that equals no change
and continued blight. It's a serious issue right there that if a
developer isn't able to achieve a sufficient economic result, then
the properties won't be redeveloped and the property owners
won't be able to get the price that they think is fair and equitable
for their property.
A developer's note here. The original proposal that was
submitted to you -- and I am trying to go as quickly as I can.
Page 215
February 27, 2001
We're almost finished given the late hour -- included an allocation
of uses and densities that may have exceeded a DRI threshold.
It was never the developer's intent to submit a proposal that
would have to be a DRI.
On the other hand, if a DRI is required in order to get the
economic result that is necessary to merit the redevelopment,
then that's what will have to be. But given that that's unknown
at this point, what I have done is reallocated the uses as
following: Office was reduced from 250,000 square feet to
150,000. Residential was increased from 85 units to 135. The
retail space was retained at 175,000. And the hotel, instead of
being proposed at 200 rooms, is now proposed as 150 to 200
rooms. All of that will be subject to where it ultimately ends up
as a DRI calculation.
Why Bella Villaggio? Well, that's simple. Jobs. 2,500 of
them estimated during construction and 2,000 permanent jobs in
Collier County.
Impact fees. Approximately 1,200,000 after proposed
discounts, waivers and credits.
Ad valorem taxes. Approximately one million five hundred
annually based on the current millage, plus untold additional tax
revenue as a result of increased area property values. And this
is already happening.
Other tax revenue will include sales tax annually and bed
tax revenue from the hotel.
The project capitalization is proposed to include County
contributions that include an advance against the tax increment
financing, impact fees, credits, waivers and deferrals, capital
project cost participation, an EPA grant application, and permit
and other fee waivers. Bella Villaggio is clearly a unique
opportunity to lay the foundation for the future and meet the
needs of a growing population and prepare for the day that the
growth turns around and comes back down U.S. 41.
(Commissioner Henning entered the Boardroom.)
MR. PIOLI: And I offer as evidence of this Winding Cypress
in excess of 2,000 residential units already approved out 41 East.
Hampton Harbor is over 5,000 units, if I have that correct.
Fiddler's Creek is over 5,000 units. And Lely Resort. These are
major investments that are already in place and there are more
to come in the future.
Page 216
February 27, 2001
One of the critical things that I think that has to happen in
this community that's being overlooked is that we have to create
better balance. In this community we have basically the mall in
midtown, the Waterside shops and the power centers in the north
end.
You have no such similar retail facility serving the south end of
town for all of this future density that will occur out to the east.
If we are left in a position where all of those residents have
nowhere to go but back to the mall or up to the north end of town
to shop, then your traffic congestion that already is problematic
there will be even worse. One of the key components to your
community's infrastructure has to be better balance in its retail
facilities.
And I am here to tell you that within two miles of the Davis/41
intersection, in 1998 20 percent of all retail dollars spent in
Collier County were spent there.
At that time that was $850 million. The number will be
bigger now. I didn't have a more recent number unfortunately.
There's clearly a need not only to balance the community, but to
meet the needs of the future, as well.
Bella Villaggio is, again, a beautiful village in a beautiful
city. And that is presented, of course, by me. And I have a
prepared closing statement that I want to offer and then I will
welcome your questions.
In closing, I would like to inform the CRA that a broad base
of support has developed for my project. I will leave with you
today -- and I have copies right here for you -- of letters from
residential homeowners' associations that include Royal Harbor,
Oyster Bay, and Brookside and various business and professional
interests offering
their support for Bella Villaggio. This includes Hammer, Siler
George Associates, one of your own land planners who
participated in the process of preparing your redevelopment
plan.
That support also comes from within the mini triangle
property owners' association. Depending on -- depending upon
who is a registered speaker today, you may hear that some of
these property owners support my project and not a proposed
plan to be sponsored by their own property owners' association.
As evidence of this, I must inform you that I have been
Page 217
February 27, 2001
informed that all 14 property owned -- properties are for sale.
And I have reached an agreement with four of them to purchase
their property. I will modify that only slightly and say that I've
reached agreement with four of them. Three of them are signed
and one of them is in financial review.
I also am entering into negotiations with two additional
property owners this week. I hope to have as many as six or
seven under contract in the very near future. In spite of what
staff and the Board of County Commissioners have been led to
believe, it is my opinion that the property owners' association
never intended to submit a redevelopment plan.
Before you today is a staff recommendation to not accept
my proposal and to direct staff to re-advertise the RFP for the
mini triangle. This arises out of a supposed POA, property
owners' proposal, and staff concerns regarding the intensity of
the proposal.
In light of these new developments, I, therefore, ask the CRA to
direct staff to enter into negotiations with me to arrive at
acceptable development agreements so that I can complete the
job I have started.
This concludes my comments and I will welcome your
questions.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Questions for Mr. Pioli?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Pioli, I apologize for being
late. I had a commitment.
MR. PIOLI: Quite all right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your project -. we met several
months ago --
MR. PIOLI: Yes, we did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- on your project. Has it
changed one bit?
MR. PIOLI: Actually, I -- it's changed only to the extent that
I've reallocated the uses to bring the calculation of a DRI down
below the threshold. Otherwise, the uses are pretty much the
same. The positioning of the improvements on the site are the
same and the project has advanced considerably in terms of its
architectural design. And I have advanced my discussion with
prospective development partners and investors considerably,
many of whom are standing by waiting for the outcome of this
meeting.
Page 218
February 27, 200t
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, when you submitted your
RFP it has changed because it didn't -- it went over the
thresholds to a DRI?
MR. PIOLI: It was a DRI. And it was never my intent to
submit a DRI. I didn't think either the County or myself would
want to go through the time-consuming process and the expense
of a DRI application. It was never my intent.
And, in fact, I sought counsel at the time prior to submitting
the proposal to determine if, in fact, I exceeded the DRI
threshold.
And, unfortunately, I didn't get the guidance I needed. Given the
deadline and the fact that it was 5:00 -- it was due in by 5:00 on
Thanksgiving Eve and it was 4:00 when I actually delivered it, I
had to get it in knowing we would revisit this issue certainly
during this presentation, but at the very least during my
negotiations with staff for the development agreement.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Are you at liberty to disclose who
the three signed contracts are with?
MR. PIOLI: No, sir. We have a confidentiality agreement.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Public speakers.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I just had a couple of comments
right, if I could, before we go to public speakers.
First of all, just to thank Dan for the amount of time and
commitment and effort he's put into this. It has been
phenomenal.
It has been -- you have helped me with my learning curve as I
learned about redevelopment and how to do it. And I think in
some cases we have learned things very positively and in other
cases we have learned some negatives.
I've made a commitment to state publicly what I am about
to say.
And that is a sincere apology to the property owners who own
property within this mini triangle that we did not communicate
with you better before going forward with this. I have apologized
to them already, but I told some people in a public meeting that I
would make that apology publicly in this hearing. So I am doing
that.
Because we got off on the wrong foot, I think we have -- I
think we have done some improving to that. I think that the --
the relationship with the property owners is now going to be a
Page 219
February 27, 2001
better one. But I think, Dan, that you and I both learned that
lesson the hard way. And I think in hindsight .- I'm guessing,
because I haven't spoken to you about this. But I imagine that
you wish, as I do, that there could have been a different -. better
communication with the property owners. Because basically
they got up one morning and read in the newspaper that the
County was going to redevelop their property.
And, you know, there is a lot of excuses that we can make
and a lot of discussion we can have about how we came to be in
that position and -- similar to the Pelican Bay discussion, frankly,
about one zillion meetings that we had and one zillion
opportunities for people to participate and they didn't. But, you
know, bottom line is I wish that I had made 14 phone calls to 14
property owners to talk to them about what was potentially
happening. And I want to apologize to them for not doing that.
I also think that there is a lot of positive that can come out
of this. Although, I have to agree with the staff's
recommendation, Dan, that we don't accept your proposal. And I
differ with you on a couple of points.
One, the most important one probably is -- I think that if we
do re-advertise this we need to do it with some much clearer
delineations of what is it -- a maximum, at least, amount of
acceptable density, intensity, height, et cetera. Because despite
the fact that I very much like the theme -- I think it is a beautiful,
beautiful project -- it is just too much by a -- I don't know what
factor, but by a very large factor, for what I would like to see
happen on that triangle. The intensity and height and density
were surprising to me once we got to that point.
I think -- I was going to say this later, but I will just do my
whole spiel now. I think that we need to re-advertise. I think we
need to re-advertise with some more specific criteria, and that
we need to ask you to reapply, if you're still interested, ask the
property owners' association to apply, and anybody else who is
interested to apply for this -- to respond to this new RFP, but with
much more specific guidelines about what we would be willing to
approve in the area of density, intensity and height.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I agree, Commissioner Mac'Kie.
MR. PIOLI: Commissioner Carter, may I respond to some of
those comments, please?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Sure.
Page 220
February 27, 2001
MR. PIOLI: First, as far as notification of property owners is
concerned, one of the very first questions I asked is if these
people had been spoken to. And when I was told they had not
been, the very first thing I did in June of last year was to send
each and every one of them a letter telling them what was going
on, which was what led us to this issue of me sending out
newsletters to them informing them and updating them of what
the process -. what process was unfolding.
So I initiated that process right from the very beginning of
my involvement. I know that's not new --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to interrupt you -- I'm
going to interrupt you just to say that -- that I hope that if we go
forward in this that if you're trying to work with these property
owners -- I've seen that letter. And I hope you'll do a better job of
communicating with them than that letter did. MR. PIOLI: The June letter?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, the letter I saw was pretty
presumptuous.
MR. PIOLI: You saw a newsletter that was well after that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. PIOLI: But the idea was to inform the property owners.
And I did take it upon myself to do that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I'm glad you did, but --
MR. PIOLI: Okay. As far as the density issue is concerned,
that should be, and I believe will be, of grave concern to the
property owners and here is why. Less density means less
income. Less income means less value for their property. It will
place a limitation on the value of their properties very seriously.
Now, the only way that redevelopment can occur would be
for significantly greater county contributions towards the cost of
acquiring that land. In other words, to make up the difference to
them in terms of what their properties should be worth.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Pioli, I disagree with you.
MR. PIOLI: And this will be an issue that you will be --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because the existing uses on
the property are supporting that property right now.
MR. PIOLI: The existing uses. You've said it correctly.
What we are looking for is a redevelopment plan here that
beautifies the area and acts as a catalyst for further
redevelopment throughout the area.
Page 221
February 27, 200t
So you said it correctly. The existing uses are functioning
fine there, but they are not what we want marking the gateway
in accordance to the redevelopment plan. And that, I think, is
the objective here.
Now, I appreciate the position of everyone on the Board
today.
And I certainly anticipated this coming in here. But what I hope
to accomplish as we are standing here today is that you have a
greater awareness not only, one, of the expense that I've
incurred to get us to this point, but the commitment I have made
to do this right. The reason that these letters of support were
submitted today was because I have been honest with people.
I went to them. I told them the truth. I didn't pull any
punches with them about what this was going to be, as I did with
each of the five of you. Well, three of you were candidates and
two of you were still sitting on the Board.
I told you eight stories. I told you how many square feet.
Each and every one of you knew that then and it hasn't changed
in that respect now, not one bit, other than the reallocation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You are absolutely right. You have
been up-front and forthright with us. MR. PIOLI: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA.' And I would be the first one to say
you approached me way before. I don't even know if I was a
candidate.
Or if I was, that was great.
MR. PIOLI: I am not sure you were at the time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you showed me your .- I was so
excited and thrilled that somebody would even look favorably
upon that area because nobody that owned property in the area
seemed to do anything about looking favorably upon their own
property.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, you know, that wasn't their
fault.
That's where the County's role in this redevelopment -- forgive
me for interrupting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA.' Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because I know that you know this
already, but I just want to say this. The County's role in the
redevelopment of this mini triangle and in the whole triangle is to
Page 222
February 27, 2001
see where we have regulations that inhibit the redevelopment of
property. And we have many in this area that do.
They have to do with parking mostly. They have to do with
the configuration of the lot sizes. I mean, we've learned a lot, as
I was saying, as we went through this process. They also had to
do with the fact that there is no stormwater program in there.
There's property floods.
I mean, we've learned a lot about what the County's role
needs to be. And, frankly, we had boxed people into the position
where they couldn't do much to improve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because they were grandfathered
in also.
It would have cost them a lot of money in order to improve the
appearance of their property, yeah.
Anyway, Dan, I just wanted to state up-front that, yes, you
were very honest. And when you sent letters out to the people in
there, you even called me to let me know that you were advising
all of the property owners. I know you were up-front about that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Do we have public speakers, Mr.
McNees?
MR. MCNEES.' You do. You have about eight. Your first is
John Hooley.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: My position, Dan, is I really appreciate
what you have done. And I think we've all benefited from the
experience.
But I'm a private sector guy and I want to see the private sector
work through this and come back to us in a way that there is
minimal involvement on the part of County, other than to
establish the specs.
And we may need better specifications as we put it out for a
second time around.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' I concur with you too, Doctor
Carter. If you want to take a straw poll, maybe we can help them
move the process along.
MR. PIOLI: Well, let me say -- and I will step away from the
podium. You haven't seen the last of me.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's good.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Great news.
MR. HOOLEY: Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I'm John
Hooley.
Page 223
February 27, 2001
I live at 386 Pine Hurst Circle in East Naples. And I'm here as the
President of the East Naples Civic Association.
thinkI too am very impressed with what Mr. Pioli has done. I
it would be great for the area. The only concerns we have
really are some of the same concerns that you have voiced. We
have got a high density. And I know Mr. Pioli says it is just not
going to make economic sense unless you have that high
density, but I am not sure eight stories backing up to 41 is a
good idea. Maybe it can be redesigned. But if you go from
ground level to eight stories, that is little tough on the eyes.
And I'm fully behind Mr. Pioli and the County Commission in
granting a certain amount of deference in getting this place
redeveloped. And I think he's -- I think he's come up with a plan,
but I also think we have a duty to the people who live in East
Naples to make sure that if he is acquiring the property through
private acquisition that we help. But I don't know that we can
force these people to sell their property. And that's been one of
the issues that has been brought to the East Naples Civic
Association that we can't support. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
MR. MCNEES: Your next speaker is Kathleen Slebodnick,
who will be followed my Don Sheehan.
MS. SLEBODNICK: Good evening, Commissioners. My name
is Kathleen Slebodnick. I have been here since 9:00. I am fuzzy.
I don't know about you, but I hope what I have to say makes
sense.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You're doing great, Kathleen.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I relate to the fuzzy comment.
MS. SLEBODNICK: I think what -- I have been involved in the
mini triangle properties, I think, ever since we started talking
about this. My records go back to 1997.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I know you have.
MS. SLEBODNICK: It may have been earlier. I think I have
attended every meeting about the triangle, all the Landers-Atkins
workshops, the discussion with the lamp posts, anybody who let
me in the door, including a private home where the DFOT and the
County met regarding the flooding, and interviewing the owner of
the Lizard Cafe when we had to wade through the stormwater to
get into the place. So, if nothing else, tenacity brings me here.
And I -- I guess everybody has a right to my opinion. So that's
Page 224
February 27, 2001
what I have to say.
I have often characterized this area as a place where people
come to for a different way of life and then they spend the rest of
their days trying to turn it into the place they just came from.
This is a very unique area. And, I guess, after 33 years of being a
property owner in East Detroit, my eyes have become more
Florida-ized.
I am not offended, for example, by mobile home parks. They
represent a way of life in this community or in Florida. And if
they are neatly kept, there is -- I don't see anything wrong with
them. I am not offended by modest homes with -- whether
they're made of cinder block or whether they are made of stucco.
They represent people who are starting out in life many times.
They represent people who are doing the work. They represent
people who have families and who have kids.
And they are -- they are part of the community for everyone,
not
just the people who have come here on retirement incomes. I
am not offended by mom-and-pop stores. These people provide
services to the communities in which they exist.
I am offended, however, by litter, trash, anything that
appears in the triangle that should not be there. And I do support
redevelopment. After all of those meetings, believe me, I do
support this.
I am offended by absentee landlords who do not care about
their properties, who are there to collect the rents, who push the
codes to the limit and see what they can get away with. I am
offended by what I call McMansions and buildings that are built
to the absolute limit of what is legally possible without any
regard or respect for the community, their size, their character,
or their scale.
And I'm offended by replicas of Italian cities that are not
Florida, particularly when every public meeting we have had in
the last four or five years have said that the people who live in
East Naples want an old Florida type of community, architecture
and facades. And I support staff's recommendation not to
approve this proposal. And after all of the time we've put in, I
think we can do better. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Kathleen, I would like a transcript
of your remarks because they were so articulate and so on point.
Page 225
February 27, 2001
I commend you. If that is you with fuzzy thinking, stay fuzzy.
Boy, do I agree with everything she said.
MR. MCNEES: Don Sheehan, followed by Doreen Davis.
MR. SHEEHAN: Good evening. I went out this weekend --
this past weekend to inform the property owners and the
businesses of this meeting tonight and I was astounded how
many people did not know anything about this triangle project.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Wait. Of the 14 property owners
within the mini triangle?
MR. SHEEHAN: No, not of the mini triangle. Everybody
knew about not this meeting -- a couple people didn't know about
this meeting. But in the whole area where the -- where, I guess,
you'd call the drainage basin. That's Phase II and Phase III.
In that area there, I would say I only had two people that
knew anything about this meeting going on. One person wasn't
even aware that there was a triangle going on. She lives in Fort
Myers and she was not aware of anything going on of this nature.
So I would like the CRA to please make the property owners
of this area more aware of what is going on with the properties.
I was amazed. I mean, it was amazing going door to door letting
people know about this meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Sheehan, we are talking
about the mini triangle.
MR. SHEEHAN: I am, too. This does affect -- this mini
triangle does affect these people also, does it not?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. SHEEHAN: It does. I mean, if you go forward with the
mini triangle and the redevelopment of it, it is going to affect
these businesses and these property owners. And they have the
right to know what is going on and they don't.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You know, Debrah, let's just pause
and you tell us briefly what the method of notification has been
for--
MS. PRESTON: I guess I would like to ask Mr. Sheehan if he
received a notice of our meeting that we had about two weeks
ago that was held at the elections office here. We sent a notice
to, I think, around 2,000 or 3,000 property owners.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It was 3,000.
MS. PRESTON: 3,000 property owners that are registered
with the property appraiser's office. We had a turnout of about
Page 226
February 27, 2001
100 people at that meaning. And that meeting was geared
towards everyone that is in the triangle area, which is bordered
by Davis, Airport and 41.
And from that meeting we are sending out another notice on
meetings that we're having in the month of March. And we had
several people come from this blue area, which is Phase II of the
triangle project.
MR. SHEEHAN: Okay.
MS. PRESTON: The mini triangle property owners, we have
sent individual letters to each of those property owners letting
them know about what we have been doing with this particular
project. We have a meeting scheduled with the blue area we are
calling it and then we have a meeting scheduled with the orange
area that we're calling it and then the red area. So we have
divided them up into subareas and we're going to have meetings
specific to those areas.
We've also created a community redevelopment web site
page that is accessible through the county web site. And so
we're hoping to, again, be able to communicate better with all
the property owners. So we are very sensitive of that, but I am
really concerned that you didn't receive a notice if you are a
property owner in that area.
MR. SHEEHAN: I am. And I didn't receive a notice.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Did you get your tax bill?
MR. SHEEHAN: Sure did. I own five acres in that area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She doesn't get it from the tax
assessor.
MS. PRESTON: No. I get it from the property appraiser's
office. And we did find one mistake with Mr. Conroy, who had a
wrong address listed with the property appraiser's records
versus the tax collector.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So why can't we get our mailing
labels from the tax collector?
MS. PRESTON: We have not approached that. But we are
aware that there was a discrepancy and we're checking to find
out what the lag time was between your tax bill and what the
property appraiser has listed. We normally go to them and have
them give the printout.
But to go door to door and only find -- and not find -- and I
forget what you said -- one or two people that were aware of this
Page 227
February 27, 2001
process.
MR. SHEEHAN: I was surprised myself. I really was.
MS. PRESTON: Well, they might--we had, I believe,
announced this at the meeting that we held two weeks ago that
we were doing this.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There was more than one or two
people who were business owners and property owners in the
blue area at the supervisors of elections meeting.
MR. SHEEHAN: I must have hit the wrong people. I can give
you a list of the people that I went to.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, I don't doubt you. It's just so
frustrating.
MR. SHEENAN: A lot of them were here this morning, but
this meetin9 has dru9 out for so long today that, I guess, they left
US.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you had that problem at a
couple of those meetings, too, didn't you, recently, Debrah?
I mean, people saying, "1 didn't hear about this until my
neighbor told me." And, of course, you sent out a rash of these
things and yet you still didn't hit them. So I'm just wondering if
maybe we could go to a different source to get a better list.
MS. PRESTON: We'll check with the tax collector. And,
again, we have been sending, I believe, both the site address --
because some people are renters and they're not the owner of
the property. So that's another way to do it.
But we're hoping that if we can get the information out and
people are aware that if they do have access to the computer,
they can go to our web page and be able to find out when the
meetings are and what is going on and they'll actually be able to
interact with us and give us their comments back.
MR. SHEEHAN: When do you think the web page will be up
and running completely?
MS. PRESTON: It's under .-
MR. SHEEHAN: It is under construction now. I went on
there to look.
MS. PRESTON: We are hoping within the next 20 days that it
should be functioning.
MR. SHEEHAN: Okay. That's wonderful.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. SHEEHAN: Well, I appreciate that. That's what I'm
Page 228
February 27, 200t
asking.
I'm asking to be more informed, to have the people of the
community more informed.
Another thing that I would like to see is -. is the CRA going
to give the private owners of these properties any incentives to
redevelop themselves? Give them the opportunity to do it
themselves and to beautify that area. It's -- go ahead.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Every incentive that's available to
anybody is certainly available first of all to the property owners.
So yes.
Absolutely, yes.
MR. SHEEHAN: Like if we wanted to build new buildings on
the property or whatever, would we get a break on impact fees?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You certainly would have the same
opportunity to ask for that -- MR. SHEEHAN: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- as Mr. Pioli.
MR. SHEEHAN: That's what I'm asking.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- if you have this project.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Ms. Preston.
MS. PRESTON: If I might, we are planning on coming back
to the Board in April with -- well, at the end of March to set up an
advisory committee for the area. And then that area advisory
committee will help us formulate some incentives that will be
available to all the property owners, which will include facade
grants, Iow interest loans, deferral of impact fees. There are
several different incentives that we want to be able to provide
each of the property owners.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commercial and residential.
MS. PRESTON: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But let's keep in mind that that
package has not come to the Board yet. We have not agreed on
what will be in that incentive package, other than that it will be
under consideration and everyone will have an equal opportunity
to apply and use it.
I don't want to mislead you, sir, to say that there is one
particular thing or another in there. It's just not the case at this
point.
MR. SHEEHAN: You know, it's not -- it's not any different
than old Naples. You know, Fifth Avenue, Third Street. You
Page 229
February 27, 2001
know, that was a -- we're calling this area blight or blighted.
That was not any more blighted than this area, okay?
It will redevelop itself in time. And giving the people the
opportunity to do it themselves, the property owners, it could
happen sooner than that -- sooner than --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Fifth Avenue didn't redevelop on
its -- by itself.
MR. SHEEHAN: No.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we are trying to offer the same
incentives to you as were offered to Fifth Avenue. MR. SHEEHAN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Didn't they propose a theme and so
forth with Fifth Avenue so that it kind of flowed?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You can only have a certain color
of paint on Fifth Avenue. I mean, you know, it's very, very, very
detailed on Fifth Avenue. But --
MR. SHEEHAN: Well, I hope you all really take a hard look at
the mini triangle project. Because if that goes forward, I think
it's going to be detrimental to the Fifth Avenue area, those
businesses. It's really going to take away from. And what's
going to happen to that area if that much density is put into that
small of an area?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, based on the way we hear it
from the City of Naples, they would like less people come down
there and have more traffic, you know, out in East Naples. MR. SHEEHAN: Really?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do you have a business there, Mr.
Sheehan?
MR. SHEEHAN: No, I don't.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do you live in the triangle?
MR. SHEEHAN: No, I don't. I own property there though.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Would you be so kind as to give a
business card or an address to Ms. Preston?
MR. SHEEHAN: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
the list.
I just do that every time.
MR. SHEEHAN: I will.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
And then we can be sure you're on
Thank you.
Page 230
February 27, 2001
MR. SHEEHAN: And thank you for your decision about going
out for a reproposal on the mini triangle.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
Our next speaker.
MR. MCNEES: The next speaker is Doreen Davis, followed
by Jack Conroy.
MR. CONROY: Doreen Davis is gone.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Mr. Conroy.
MR. MCNEES: After Mr. Conroy will be Anthony Pires.
MR. CONROY: My name is Jack Conroy. I've been a Naples
resident for the last 38 years. I function today as president of
the Apex Triangle -- Naples Gateway Apex Triangle Property
Owners' Association.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You would like for us to stop
calling it the mini triangle and start calling it the apex triangle?
MR. CONROY: Who knows. We all know what we're talking
about.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's possible.
MR. CONROY: The function of the association is primarily to
provide cooperative support in maintaining property values in the
area. We're in favor of being able to develop the maximum
economic benefit from our property.
We have several, several comments about the proposal.
First, the reason for opposition to wholesale condemnation. I
think I've mentioned this before, but the process of
condemnation relies upon
past sales. The East Trail has been flat in terms of sales for the
past 15 years. If we rely upon past sales, we're not going to be
able to generate the number of dollars that we believe to be the
appropriate dollars for our property.
And the second thing would be to be forced to sell at the
time the infrastructure has been put in does not give our
properties the appropriate time to appreciate in value. The real
estate explosion that we have in southwest Florida occurs in
slow motion. You don't see the explosion instantaneously. It
takes time for the real estate market to mature, develop and for
the values to be created.
We're opposed to the current proposal because of its
reliance upon condemnation in the documents that have been
presented by Mr. Pioli. Contracts that are currently submitted
Page 231
February 27, 2001
are not really what I would call contracts. They are more like
free options.
In other words, the contract is -- has a very small number of
dollars at risk. You know, no dollars at risk, very small dollars
put up in escrow. And it guarantees that the seller will sell at a
stipulated price up to four years in the future.
So the reality is that these contracts are, from my
perspective -- and I am also a professional realtor, a commercial
realtor. From my perspective, I think this is not an appropriate
thing for anybody to sign that guarantees a price for four years.
The intensity of the use will produce massive public outcry.
We have already seen the reduction of use -- the voluntary
reduction of use by the DRI, which is something we weren't
aware of until just now. The economics do place an
extraordinary burden on the property with that kind of intensity
because it costs so much to build buildings that are between 84
and 140 feet high. The wind loading requires substantial
structural construction such that the economics tend to be very
difficult.
By the way, 140-foot high building -- this is one of the
numbers that's on his proposal. That's twice as high as this
building here.
Put another building right on top of it and that's the height that
we are talking about.
Caution about some of the models for the current proposal
that we saw in the newspaper last weekend, Mizner Park and
City Place. As part of the Fifth Avenue development group, we
went over and physically visited Mizner Park and said, "Hey, this
is great." What is great about it is that you have got all kinds of
open space in the middle. Lots of big promenade space, ease of
access. According to the little layout that we've seen, there is
certainly no internal open space in this project. The intensity
doesn't permit it. At the same time, the City Place is on five
times as much acreage. They're not really comparable.
There is a -- I notice one little subtlety that in both cases
there was great public opposition on the part of people to both
Mizner Park and to City Place. Well, the logical error that could
be concluded -- well, there is opposition here. That was
successful; therefore, this will be successful because there is
public opposition. Subtle, but not, in fact, logical.
Page 232
February 27, 2001
I would like to suggest a couple of other problems with the
plan that we currently'have. The current idea of inviting
developers without having well-defined land code elements.
First, the problem -- there is a distinction between investment
and value.
If a person today invests in his or her property in the triangle
-- as, for example, I did with my little nightclub operation there. I
invested there, but that didn't add one cent to the value of that
raw land for a redevelopment. The fact that Mr. Cagrone
(phonetic} spent an enormous amount of money in terms of
substructure that he had to have for his gas station a couple of
years ago doesn't change the value of his land one minute. May I continue?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Conroy--
MR. CONROY: Yes, sir..
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To save yourself some time,
why not pass this off to Ms. Preston to take it under
consideration?
MR. CONROY: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I wish that we would give Mr.
Conroy a little more time. Hey, I am the chairman of the CRA.
We have to give you more time.
MR. CONROY: Thank you, ma'am. I will be as quick as I
can.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You didn't hear me object,
Commissioner.
MR. CONROY: We do have the problem of existing leases
that the County will have to struggle with. Because some
property owners, myself and many others, have, in fact, binding,
existing leases. You can't just sell your land and walk away from
those leases. That has got to be addressed.
The problem is of satisfying all of the stakeholders. The
stakeholders aren't only the landlords, the stakeholders are also
tenants, people who have businesses in these lands and are
under lease. These people have got to be made whole. And the
making whole of everybody drives the price up in terms of this
kind of thing.
Finding alternative locations for businesses can be
extremely difficult because people, like U-Haul -- now they use
Page 233
February 27, 2001
three and a half acres. They don't use a one-acre site. So it is --
this drives
the cost up because you have to -- they'd be looking to have a
facility replaced that would fit their needs.
Ultimately, you've got the problem of control. No single
developer is going to come into the property, unless there is
unitary control. Now, how do you do this?
Well, one way is by trying to use free options, which is not a
valid way. People, as a whole, I think, are not going to buy that.
The second option is to put up cash and take risk. Now, that's
the kind of person that all of us would probably talk with, but not
where you don't -. where the purchaser takes no risk whatsoever.
Finally, the problem of using the big hammer. The big
hammer is condemnation. My suspicion is that there would be
massive public outcry if, in fact, all of the properties were
condemned. Jack Antaramian was quoted in the newspaper
saying, '~Nell, I would be interested in this if the County
condemned it all and handed it to me."
But, you see, the issue is control and you have to know
exactly what the cost of the property is. To ask another
developer to come in without control, where he or she doesn't
know -- have a clue as to what that property is going to cost
means he or she is not going to be able to present a logical, well
thought-out, economically sound program.
Alternatives. "A", modify the zoning regulations to permit
more intensive use, but not as intensive as the existing proposal.
They should entice, rather than force property owners to
cooperate and let the market do its own thing. But they have to
be in place now.
Second --
(Commissioner Henning left the Boardroom.)
MR. CONROY: Second, negotiate the purchase of the land in
the center of the mini triangle -- just in the middle -- and
construct a parking garage, CRA, that would be usable by all
property owners provided they participated in the joint venture.
This would provide the most important element in a development
scheme. Size, access and configuration would have to be
developed in conjunction with the property owners.
And, frankly, if the developer put a parking facility in the
center of the triangle and let each and every property owner
Page 234
February 27, 200t
develop his or her property the way he or she sees fits.
is the critical access -- the critical element. It could be office.
could be retail, but let the market decide.
Recognize the inevitable forces that are now at work and
rely primarily on these. The idea that government knows best
has been proven radically false by the enormous Soviet
experiment that ended only a decade ago. Results of
government economic planning can be seen strewn across the
Parking
It
landscape of eastern Europe. Even today, as these governments
struggle with the eyesores, the abandoned buildings and vacant
factories that the all-wise government planners constructed
between 1945 and 1989 in eastern Europe.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And, Jack, you know that this
Board has no interest in anything similar. I mean, you have
heard from us enough to know that we are not the least bit
interested in anything anywhere close to that.
(Commissioner Henning enters the Boardroom.)
MR. CONROY: No. I am talking about government planning.
The government deciding how something should be planned.
That's the issue, not condemnation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I'd like to participate in that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, it's our job. We have to
participate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. CONROY: I am talking at the regulatory level, not in
terms of doing anything, besides establishing regulations, letting
the marketplace do its thing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What else would we do?
If we are not going to do eminent domain, what else would
we do, besides establish regulations?
MR. CONROY: If, in fact, you're not going to -- if, in fact,
you're not going to exercise condemnation, then what you can do
is work an infrastructure for the entire area, provide a parking
facility, things of this character.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Stormwater issues.
MR. CONROY: Stormwater issues. Those are things that
perhaPs only government can do. At that point then the
marketplace --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This will be in the proposal that
you are going to make to us?
Page 235
February 27, 200t
MR. CONROY: Okay. Now we talk about the proposal that
we are talking about. The proposal presupposes that we can
gain unitary control of the entire parcel. I rather doubt if this is
going to happen.
First, if Dan has, in fact, signed contracts -- I have heard that
some people have verbally agreed to the price that has been
offered. I haven't heard that they have physically signed the
document. If they have, then, in fact, what this means is there's
no -- that there can't be a single, unitary proposal as we had
expected.
Secondly, we have two people -- national companies -- who
are not interested in investing. They would have to be bought
out and they would have to go somewhere else. And they don't
want to be bought out. They don't want to be bothered with this.
They want to do their business. I'm talking Goodyear and
U-Haul.
The reality is they say, "Look, we're users. We're not
investors." I'm an investor, not a user. So those folks have said,
"We're not interested in cooperating in putting our property in,
contributing it as equity," which probably -- I would say probably
11 of the 14 people would be likely to do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What you're saying is that this is
just an exercise that will never work?
MR. CONROY: I am saying that I doubt whether our
association is going to be able to present to you -- now, I
remember when I first brought this up, which was like 60 days
ago. At that point I said, "We would like to try it."
We have formed the association. We have had meetings.
We have done research. We have talked to people. And I would
say it is unlikely that the property owners' association as a
totality, as a single, unitary group are going to say, "We'll do Dan
Pioli's deal, except that it's going to be this way, instead of
something else."
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Could we get 11 to agree?
MR. CONROY: Conceivably.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If the 11 could agree-- if a majority
of property owners could agree and bring forward -- would they
consider bringing forward a proposal either on their own or in
conjunction with Mr. Pioli, another developer, with -- what we
need to know is: How many of you -- let me say this a better
Page 236
February 27, 2001
way.
The very best alternative for the redevelopment of this apex
triangle is if it is done in a unified plan. I'm not suggesting that
every -- one entity has to own all of the land. I am not suggesting
that the County knows what should go there.
I am suggesting that in order-- like Fifth Avenue South
where you had small properties with no opportunity to solve their
parking problems --you have identified parking and I would add
to the list stormwater as the two impediments to redevelopment,
other than the regulatory impediments that we need to get out of
the way. We're in the process of developing zoning overlays. We
have done some of that already on Bayshore and elsewhere.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, that --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The issue is: Are you -- can your
group bring forward a unified proposal for development or can
you at least bring us one that says, "If we owned this piece of
property and this piece of the puzzle that we don't, here is what
we would propose to develop"?
Can you do something like that? Otherwise, we're just
stuck.
MR. CONROY: Yeah. I think there's a limit to what we can
do because of the character of the ownership that doesn't want
to participate.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, that's true, but --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Give me that in a shaded -- you
know, give me a redevelopment plan that says, "If I owned all of
this property, this is what I would propose."
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But no matter who comes with .-
if you have two pieces of property there who are going to refuse
to participate, that will be a given and you have to come to us or
anyone has to come to us with plans that incorporate that this is
the remaining stumbling block. And it will be up to us to then
reach some sort of conclusion on what we can approve or not
approve or how we go about it.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Or maybe that's where eminent
domain is the appropriate thing.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, that becomes an option.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There's been --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let me finish one thing. We in
government have a responsibility for architectural standards, of
Page 237
February 27, 2001
landscaping standards, of community character. So our role is if
there is a theme, that's great. A theme for Fifth Avenue.
As long as you stay within that framework, whoever wants
to bid on this process, great. What I think -- that's our role and
that is really the end of our role. And I would like to let the free
market forces work through it and come back to us with
recommendations, whether it is in conjunction with or separate
from. Excuse me for interrupting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I absolutely agree with the theme.
But the free market sources, as you have mentioned, have been
at force, at work for the last 27 years, as long as I have lived
here. And I've just watched the place deteriorate. I've seen
people that don't even care about their property. They board it
up or they abandon it or they never bother to fix it up, clean it up,
even mow it.
And so free market forces haven't done much. Dollars will
get you donuts, when tax time comes, they figure on the bottom
line taxes aren't -- I mean, their property is worth nothing. But if
a good developer wants to come in and redevelop that area, their
property values are going to be sky high then because they feel it
is worth a lot of money eventually.
But as long as they hang on to it and leave it in this
deplorable condition, it's not going to be worth anything.
Somebody needs to guide it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That is the free market approach.
That is -- with a set of eyes, whether it's under this authority, it
is now a change in direction. So, therefore, if you had no
motivation in the past, you currently now have a motivation to
become a player.
And just by the establishment of this authority and sending
it out for an RFP change, what could happen there -- possibly
happen there?
MR. CONROY: Could well be.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You've got everybody's attention.
MR. CONROY: I think the presupposition that we are
operating on is that unitary ownership and control of the mini
triangle is a necessary element.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. It's not necessary.
MR. CONROY: And I don't think it's necessarily the case. In
other words, Fifth Avenue did not develop as one.
Page 238
February 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
MR. CONROY: Nobody knocked down everything on Fifth
Avenue.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that's why I said not unified
control and ownership, but a unified development plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA.' Theme, just as Jim said.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: A plan for shared parking. That's
all I'm talking about.
MR. CONROY.' I think this kind of thing could most likely be
developed. It is my belief that it can subject to all kinds of
problems, such as existing leases.
You know, Don Chesser has got a lease on a tower with
AT&T.
That's a long-term lease. He can't just say, "Well, we can forget
about that." He's got to be concerned about his obligations in
having entered into that lease.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' I think where we are heading
here is we are going to be not accepting the proposal as
submitted and directing the staff to return to the Board within
120 days to consider re-advertising.
This is where you would come in at that point in time to be
able to make your proposal. I don't think we can ever build a
mini triangle here at this desk right now.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Definitely not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you are not planning on coming
back to us then?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' Yes, he is.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Do we have any other public
speakers?
MR. CONROY: No. I think that I would work to bring the
association back to present something. I will say that if we, in
fact, have letters of intent executed or contracts on certain of
the parcels, that this itself means, "Well, we can't include that."
In other words, if somebody has already signed a
commitment to Dan that they would sell their property to him,
they have given up certain rights to participate in this. So what I
can't say is that I can -- I can't speak for those folks who may
have executed contracts, because they have given up the right
to do something other than sell in a period of up to four years.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You can only do what you can
Page 239
February 27, 2001
do in the framework that is left over. MR. CONROY: You got that right.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And what we are going to need -.
and then we need to go to the next speaker. We're going to need
guidance, advice, thoughts on how we can structure an RFP that
gives you the opportunity to respond within development
constraints so that you know how high, how tall, all those things.
MR. CONROY: Correct.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But that don't tell you that you
have to have a unified ownership to come back in.
MR. CONROY: That, I think, makes sense. And provided
that the land use regulations are put in place prior to requesting
the proposal, then you don't get a situation where somebody
says, "Well, Mike, we have got to have 140-foot high buildings."
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't think we have to put the
land use regulations in place. I think that we have to define the
limits in the RFP. I mean, that's different from adopting zoning
regulations, which will take us a year. MR. CONROY: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. MCNEES: Mr. Pires will be followed by Chris Lombardo.
MR. PIRES: Madam Chairman, members of the Board,
Anthony Pires.
I represent Sand B Investments, Inc. who owns property at 1911
Tamiami Trail South -- or East, I guess, depending on how you
want to characterize it.
We concur with the staff's recommendation of not accepting
this proposal submitted by Mr. Pioli's group. What we request is
a little bit different twist, as far as direction to staff, and as part
of the discussion that has ensued from Commissioners Mac'Kie
and Carter and all of the Commissioners with regards to what
would be appropriate for coming back before this Board.
We think a collaborative effort, working with the staff-- and
the staff came up with this great idea for the area east of
Commercial Drive to, in the next year or so, work with those
property owners, identify the LDRs, land development
regulations. Be they the subdivision regs, be they the
stormwater management regs, be they the landscaping, parking,
the zoning district regs, identify those that are impediments to
redevelopment to this area and identify what areas can be
Page 240
February 27, 2001
modified and adjusted to create the greater flexibility to
incentivize the private market. That's --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Tony, you know we have done that
over the last couple of years.
MR. PIRES: Not in this area that we are aware of. In fact, I
asked that of staff for this particular area because I think -- using
the Fifth Avenue analogy is very appropriate because, as
Commissioner Carter indicated, the properties were -- it took a
long time for the parties to agree upon the concept and the
overlay and the SAC committee process. And properties, such as
where Harmon-Meek Gallery is -- I don't know if you realize, but
that is a 50 by 100-foot parcel. Now, if they had been forced to
aggregate that with everybody else to come up with a huge
project, that wouldn't be there today. I can assure you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We don't want them to aggregate.
MR. PIRES: So the ability to have LDRs is that we allow
development in the aggregate or allow individual parcels as part
of this overall concept. I think it would be appropriate. And that
is something that we would greatly look forward to working with
the staff and coming back to this Board.
It may take six months. It may take eight months. But
that's a process that we think is important. That's the horse
before the cart. I think what you're seeing is the cart before the
horse by buying into a concept of, "Here is what we want."
You've already -- in a sense, you're driving something else.
You know, it's almost like a contract zoning situation. We think
that we can work with you on that. And we think that idea of
using what you are planning on doing east of Commercial Drive is
very appropriate in this area west of Commercial Drive in the
mini triangle area.
We have been concerned about the process. We thank you
for the communications because we think that the
communications in the past have been primarily with one
individual who has expressed the desire to utilize this
governmental body and its funding sources to acquire my client's
property. And we believe that the proper incentive is through
revisions, looking at the LDRs, looking at the LDCs, creating
flexibility and incentives for the private marketplace to look at
that and realize the value.
As far as the agreements, I will make as part of the record a
Page 241
February 27, 2001
copy of one of the agreements. It is -- it is a 24-month due
diligence, $500 down. It is contingent upon him getting
contracts signed with everybody else.
I think the term is illusory, I think Commissioner Mac'Kie,
from her practice of real estate law, would indicate. I would like
to make this part of the record so you all see --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I would love to see that.
MR. PIRES: -- the good faith proposals -- and I'll use that
term loosely -- that are being extended out there. And I think
what also I would like to have made part of the record all of Mr.
Pioli's materials that he was using in his power point
presentation and to make them part of the record. And if we can
get copies of this at a later time.
What we would ask, therefore, is that there be a rejection,
as you indicated, to staff's recommendation as to not accept the
proposal. But at the same time, as opposed to saying in 120
days resubmit for RFPs and come back with a proposal for a
plan, that in that period of time -- and maybe take a little longer.
It's a maturation process, as Mr. Conroy indicated.
You can't force it to occur. And I think that's what this
mechanism that's being driven today is to try to force something.
The attention of the property owners has been achieved. I mean,
that's now been achieved. The communication system is much,
much better.
I'm getting e-mails from Debrah on these things, which is
terrific. I mean, these things pop up on my e-mail and I can't
ignore them at the peril of-- maybe that's why Debrah is smiling.
Because I have -- I mean, it is good. I think that's wonderful and
that's now occurring. That is something that has been resolved.
So we -- we would request the time frame. And maybe, like I
said, take six months, take eight months, that we can sit down
and work with Debrah, work with the current planning section
also and identify -- look at the whole LDC and say, "What causes
the problems?"
And we thank you for the opportunity to, you know, bring our
concerns and your receptiveness to the idea of letting the
marketplace drive what's going to go there. The values will be
going up based upon incentives through the LDC and LDR
revision process.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question.
Page 242
February 27, 2001
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Where it says 120 days to
consider re-advertising, you don't think that that is -. you think
that that is too short of a time frame?
MR. PIRES: I don't think it will work. I think, once again,
what will happen is you'll come back with proposals of just a
concept -- a plan without maybe identifying and sitting down with
staff and the property owners identifying what land development
code regulations are the disincentives, are the impediments.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Debrah, what he is saying is
making a lot of sense to me. Is there another side to that story
that I should be thinking about?
MS. PRESTON: Well, there's two things I wanted to bring up
to your attention. One is that the recommendation was to come
back in 120 days to the Board to ask them if they wanted us to
go ahead and publish another invitation to submit proposals.
Within that 120 days, staff would like to continue to meet with
the property owners within that mini triangle and see what we
could come up with. We've taken Mr. Pires' considerations. And
if we just do a land development code change, will that work?
There are some other issues that were also brought up. The
cost of those infrastructure improvements that might need to be
done and providing that shared access and can we get
agreements for stormwater. So there is a variety of things that
we want to look at.
And what we wanted to do within the next 120 days is to
continue
meeting and then come back to the Board, give you sort of an
update.
If you want us to then go ahead and publish another proposal, we
can do that. Or if you want us to continue to work with the
property owners, we can do that.
And after you finish your public speakers, I would like to
suggest that maybe David Cardwell could come up for one more
minute to just go over some of the issues with eminent domain
and the process.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That sounds good. Thank you.
MR. PIRES: We welcome the opportunity and appreciate
that to work with you and the staff. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you.
Page 243
February 27, 2001
MR. MCNEES: Mr. Lombardo, followed by Chuck Gunther.
And I will let you know that Mr. Pioli has also asked if he could
have another couple of minutes when you are finished.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's up to you, Madam Chair.
MR. LOMBARDO: Good evening, Commissioners. I know it is
a scary thought -- or it's a scary sight to see me standing here at,
what, 7:20. And I'll --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What; are there some sort of
Native American issues in this or --
MR. LOMBARDO: No, no, no, no, no. I will pass on the
Native
American issues today. I'm sure this is some sort of tribal
ceremonial land that was developed --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's bound to be.
MR. LOMBARDO: -- under a joint venture between the
Miccosukees and the Seminoles and the Caloosas when the
Caloosas took over the property under an RFP.
I am Chris Lombardo. I am here today on behalf of the
Thalheimer family who has owned property in that zone since
1976 and has been a respected and active member of this
community ever since. The Thalheimers have been involved in
all kinds of projects, both on a civic basis and on a commercial
basis and almost all with great success.
I'm also here on behalf of Bob Taylor who has owned
property in that zone since 1969 and has also been very active in
this community and an extremely successful businessman. Bob
has been here all day today because this is that important to
him.
I want you to know something. What I want you to know is
that Bob Taylor's property is not for sale. It is not for sale. It has
not been for sale. The statement that all these 14 properties are
for sale is incorrect.
I also want you to know that Danny Shryver is back there.
Danny has been here all day. Danny Shryver's property is not for
sale. It has not been for sale.
Now, that is an important note. We want you to know
something.
We think that the way to do this is to sit down with the property
owners and work out what can be best done to give them
Page 244
February 27, 2001
incentives and move forward. That's what happened on Fifth
Avenue. That's what was successful. It will be successful here.
Commissioner Fiala, I think you need to recognize that it
wasn't that long ago that the Florida Department of
Transportation came through this stretch and caused a
significant amount of upheaval for these businesses and a
significant amount of stress, which caused some of these people
to have to pull in their horns for a little while because they knew
that they couldn't survive.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For Thalheimer it was. I mean, it
put him out of business.
MR. LOMBARDO: That's absolutely correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right. But some of the other
businesses that are deplorable looking were deplorable before
FDOT came in.
MR. LOMBARDO: Well, Thalheimers -- just for the record,
Thalheimers ran a successful business in that location up until
the road widening --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would never say anything about
Thalheimer.
MR. LOMBARDO: .- and then we were put out of business.
And we didn't go out voluntarily. We went down kicking and
screaming. And we'll talk about eminent domain in a second.
We think you -- what you did here was you said, "Let's pick
the project, Mr. Pioli's, and now let's figure out how we're going
to get there." We would tell you that you need to sit down and
figure out the LDRs. You need to figure out what you want
ultimately and the rules under which we're going to develop it
and then see what comes forth from there.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Will you work with us for next 120
days?
MR. LOMBARDO: Absolutely. You know I will. You know I
will.
We want to point out something .-
COMMISSIONER CARTER: As long as it takes us to where
we want to go.
MR. LOMBARDO: And we're going to get there. Resolution
2000-360, in our eyes -- excuse me, 2000-360. You know, you
picked the project, you did the LDRs. You weren't doing a
planning function in there. What I think, in my humble opinion, is
Page 245
February 27, 2001
that kind of borders on what we would consider an illegal
contract zoning. And it is out there. And, quite frankly, we're
ready to deal with that issue.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Why would --
MR. LOMBARDO: That, in essence, created a moratorium.
And, quite frankly, it has chilled development. And, you know, it
is interesting to us -- because what is frustrating to us is that you
have some very good people in that area who have had strong
commitment to this community and have been very successful
and are saying to you, "Hey, all you had to do was come to us
and say, 'What do we do?' And we will tell you and we will work
with you and we'll get there."
But instead what happens is we wind up in a situation where
we're told October 22nd, "You have got 30 days to put together a
proposal for redevelopment," when Mr. Pioli had over two years
to consider that. I mean, I have an e-mail of June 16th, 2000 to
you, Commissioner Mac'Kie, from Mr. Pioli. And we found this a
little disturbing because it says, quote, "1 was driving by the
triangle recently and see new types of businesses opening up
there. This wouldn't be very consistent with the redevelopment
plan. I thought I'd better remind you that I'm still going forward
on my project and am concerned about what I see as it relates to
my ability to assemble the sites. I wonder if this is something
you would want to check out."
And it goes on about rumors about Mr. Taylor's property.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Did you get my response?
MR. LOMBARDO.. And you -- I understand your response.
Quite frankly, this is not his property. It's our property. We have
an interest in it. We were alarmed and upset because we are
given 30 days to put together a proposal and he had two years.
And to us, that's a little scary.
We are -- we don't want a private project forced down our
throats. We are quite capable. We are quite competent. We
have the funding. We have developers. We have the people. We
are quite competent to go forward with this if we can work out
what will be best for County and what will incentivize this
approach.
You know, when you look at Fifth Avenue what you see is
the product of government working with the local owners. I'm
going to ignore that for just a second. You see the product of
Page 246
February 27, 2001
local government working with local owners and getting there in
a very cooperative way.
It is driven by the free market and the free market system
worked. That's what our system is based on. It is a system that
is extremely efficient for you because it avoids eminent domain.
And, again, I want to have a couple of comments on that for you.
And it
winds up with what I think is best; a diversified product.
You look at Fifth Avenue and it isn't an overall building. It is
a diversified set of ideas that works. It's wonderful. You know,
some of you know that I tend to travel a lot. And I'm Italian. I've
been there a few times.
And I was fascinated with the slide show. And I am here to
tell you that I would take a flying leap gamble that the
photographs of the building that you saw that were located
probably in Italy weren't developed by a unified developer under
some form of development plan.
Those probably happened over centuries. It was probably a
variety of people's mind-sets. And, quite frankly, most of those
wouldn't get past your zoning ordinances because of all kinds of
interesting and odd little problems.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You're telling me that you don't
think that Caesar was that good.
MR. LOMBARDO: Caesar was good in his day, but even
Caesar must pass. But the point is that what you had -- what
makes that interesting is that over the years you had all those
little different developments, the same way Fifth Avenue came
out. What you're going to have here is one big unified complex,
which we find disturbing.
140-foot buildings, ten 14-story buildings is not what we want to
see on our property. That's not something that we appreciate.
Now, we would tell you that --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I will have to ask you to kind of
wind down.
MR. LOMBARDO: I'm winding down right now.
We would tell you that you need to avoid your eminent
domain issue. And what you have to recognize on those 14
parcels is that those 14 parcels include not only land, not only
buildings, but businesses. And I'm going to tell you, and I know
from a firsthand experience, that those types of cases can be
Page 247
February 27, 2001
long, can be painful, and extremely expensive for the County.
You've been asked to be a joint venture partner with Mr.
Pioli. You've been asked to put our tax dollars at risk. Not just
the six or seven million dollars in impact fee waivers and all of
those things, but also the acquisition costs. And I'm going to tell
you is it five million, two million, ten million? No. It's going to be
significantly more.
You know, the Thalheimers can tell you with experience
that eminent domain cases are tough things, but the juries tend
to like the property owners. And we are -- you know, not as a
threat, but just as an observation, all of these parcels, all of
these unit owners are willing to stand to the bitter end to be
treated properly in that regard.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But Chris --
MR. LOMBARDO: We don't want to go there. We want to
work with you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's what we're saying.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And, you know, you guys are just
hearing a lot of frustration because of how we handled it poorly
at the beginning. And I think we're required to sit here and let
people tell us what we've already said we're going to do is the
right thing to do.
You know, they're mad at us for the way we handled it.
They're entitled to be mad at us. So I think we have to sit here
and take this sort of verbal beating.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we really didn't try to get
businesses out, Pam. We invited them.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We tried our guts out.
MR. LOMBARDO: And I don't mean to be beating on you
verbally. And I want to tell you that our thing is that we can
forgive quickly, okay? You know, that's --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's where we are.
MR. LOMBARDO: And that's were we are, too. You know,
we're here. We came here to extend the olive branch to try to
get this thing worked out. And thank you for your time.
MR. MCNEES: Chuck Gunther is your final registered
speaker.
(Applause.}
MR. GUNTHER: It's a tough act to follow. Chris is always
good.
Page 248
February 27, 2001
My name is Chuck Gunther. I live in the triangle. I am a
resident, own property there. 2448 Bayside Street.
We just started an association or in the process of starting
an association with property owners within the triangle. We do
feel very strongly about this triangle and about the mini triangle.
We have felt strongly about this from the beginning.
The one thing we've heard through this whole thing through
all the years that we've gone through all of these meetings .- and
I have gone to most of them. They want input. They want input.
And I keep saying this in every meeting.
The input they have had has not come from the triangle. It
has come from everywhere outside the triangle. And if I have to,
I will have to subpoena all of the sign-in sheets. Most of the
people do not come from within the triangle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're right. That's what we say.
You have --
MR. GUNTHER: I'll tell you what, I've got more people out at
my meeting than the County can get at theirs and they are
supposed to have more money than I do because I'm dead broke.
So we better get something straight. Something is not right.
What we're saying -- in the beginning we said it was triangle
and you had Bayshore. It was two separate groups. Fine. Then
they said, "Well, we have to start a CRA."
Make two CRAs. No, they made it one. So now the Board
sits on the one CRA, the triangle is in the position where we have
no real control, no nothing on it. Besides that, now they come in
and saying, "Well, we want it -- just like Bayshore, we want to put
a little thing and we give you two .- one or two or three percent,
you know, mill increase in your taxes that will stay in your
neighborhood to fix roads, make things pretty, stuff like that."
That sounds good. The roads should have been fixed years
ago.
We should have had lights years ago. That is the County's job to
do.
It's not my job. I shouldn't have to pay extra taxes after we paid
taxes for years.
I call that dereliction of duty. I'm sorry. If they don't do it, it
is not time for me to make up for it. We'd like to see the CRA
dropped in the whole triangle. If you want a two or three mill
increase in my taxes, I'll go back to my group and say, "Let's give
Page 249
February 27, 2001
them a two or three mill increase. It is worth it."
I wouldn't give it to the County. We don't trust the County. I
would give it to this group right here; the mini triangle. These
people there -- there is people there that know how to develop.
We had right in that little neighborhood -- that is a small
little area. Thalheimers built the Taj Mahal. Fifth Avenue had
nothing compared to that building. It was a darn good building.
It was a beautiful building. Couldn't match it.
We had the most beautiful Burger King in the country. And
Burger King will tell you that. It was the most beautiful in the
country. It went bust because the neighborhood could not keep
it going.
We want to. We want to make our neighborhood better. We
ask the County for things, we don't get things. And we can't get
the -- the little swales out in front of our road taken care of. No,
they say, "You take care of it."
Fine. If I have to take care of it, that's good. But when I cut
my leg off when I'm cutting the grass out there, the County is
going to pay for it dearly. They're not going to pay just for the
fact that I'm one person. I'm just telling you, you'll pay for the
whole damn thing. I'm sick of this stuff.
We want the County to work with us. And we want to work
with the County. Let's work as a group. Don't fight each other.
There's been mistrust. There's been a lot of things here.
Mr. Pioli many times -- he come out to our first meeting. He
gave a presentation. He told us -- he said it here today. He
worked on this project for a year and a half. Well, here's the bid.
That was a 30-day bid that came out October 22nd, 2000. That's
not a year and a half ago.
I've always thought it was illegal to bid on a -- to start
working on a bid until the bid came out because you shouldn't
know it is a bid.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know that he didn't really do
that.
You know that --
MR. GUNTHER: I do? No, I don't.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, you should have.
MR. GUNTHER: He said a year and a half he's been working
on it.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: He's working on it the same as you
Page 250
February 27, 2001
have.
MR. GUNTHER: What is this?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You've gone --
MR. GUNTHER: A bid is a 30-day bid. I am sorry.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And--
MR. GUNTHER: This is my five minutes, not yours. I'm
sorry.
You know, we've got to work the way it should be. If a man
has a bid, work within the rules. A 30-day bid is that; a 30-day
bid. I don't think anybody here can come up with a bid for a
14-acre plot of land and say, "Here. Here's a beautiful place."
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You think you're the only one who
knew --
MR. GUNTHER: I like Dan. He's a nice guy. But this is
wrong.
That's why the people don't trust the County because these
things happen. We don't want that to happen. We want trust.
We want to be able to work with the people, with the County,
with people like this.
These people will fix that triangle up. And they will fix it up
to the tip of it to all three tips of it. We'll have a nice triangle.
But let us do it ourselves. And that means the residential and
the commercial.
I don't need any more time. I'm tired.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Any other registered
speakers?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The only point that I wanted to
make there about the year and a half business is that Mr. Pioli,
as this gentleman was, has been involved in all of the meetings.
Some of us have been doing this for five years now. Having
community meetings.
He apparently got the idea in his head a couple of years ago
that he was going to try to do this and he has been working on it.
That doesn't mean -- anybody else who has been at all these
meetings or who could have been at these meetings could have,
likewise, done the same thing. And I don't think he deserves to
be criticized for that. There wasn't anything dishonest in that.
Certainly there's nothing dishonest on the County's part.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Donny Chesser was at the
meetings. I've seen him at some of the meetings.
Page 251
February 27, 2001
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And you know what, Dan, I'm not
going to let you talk again either.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We are not going to have a
dialogue with the dais. I'll tell you that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Excuse me. I'm not -- Dan, we are
not --
MR. PIOLI: I'm not rebutting.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm not going to let you.
MR. PIOLI: I'm not rebutting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not going to let you. You've
had your turn. You had more than five minutes and that's
enough.
And we're going to talk over the next 120 days. We're going
to talk and talk and talk until we're purple in the face and then
we're going to come up with a program that will come back to
this County Commission and we will all speak then.
So I would like for our attorney -- and then I'd like to close
the public hearing and we'll go to the discussion of the Board.
MR. CARDWELL: Good evening. It's has been a long day.. I.
will be brief. But a few things I would like to do -- because th,s ,s
the first time that you, as a CRA, have gone through this process.
I want you to know that this is not unusual. You're not the
first CRA that's had the reaction. I've often said .- I have been in
redevelopment in the state for over 20 years. And if you don't
get
somebody upset, you're not doing redevelopment.
But one of the things that's so nice about the
Redevelopment Act that you operate under is that it provides a
great deal of flexibility in buying and selling property, acquiring
property, putting deals together, negotiating deals with
developers, using tax increment financing and other ways. So
it's incredibly flexible and gives you some tools that you as a
County could not do, but as a CRA that you can.
However, it has one provision that I must tell you is probably
the most restrictive and the one that causes the most problem.
It's the 30-day rule. For whatever reason, the legislature when it
put in the property disposition procedure said if the CRA wants
to dispose of any property, it must publish a notice of intention to
receive proposals and in 30 days, you know, close for those
proposals.
Page 252
February 27, 2001
So what has happened all over the state is almost every
request for proposals -- and it is not a bid. It's a -- in this
instance, it is very general what's submitted. RFPs are issued in
response to someone -- a property owner or developer or
someone coming to the CRA
and saying, "I've got something that I'd like to propose." Well,
we've got to open it up to everyone and the statute says 30 days.
Now, there's a lot of CRAs that are grappling with how can
we provide other ways for other people to get involved. I am
going through this right now with the City of Fort Lauderdale that
has a large 34-acre parcel with a potential for 50 and they said
30 days is not enough time. And we recognize that.
But we put out a 30-day notice and the same thing happened
there that's happened here. We got responses that said, "It
doesn't work.
This particular approach doesn't work. Try this approach."
What it was is it was a learning process. You just -- I think
the RFP just worked. You got the attention of the property
owners in the mini triangle. You got the attention of other
people in town. I think it did exactly what it's supposed to do.
Maybe not exactly the way you'd like it to, but I think --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Somebody should have warned us
then.
MR. CARDWELL: Yeah, right. Unintended consequences,
right.
What I'd also like to mention under eminent domain, it is
provided for in your plan, but it is as an acquisition of last resort.
It has been used very sparingly around the state.
In fact, earlier today Debrah asked me how many times has
eminent domain been used in the State of Florida for
redevelopment purposes where it actually went all the way to a
take. Now, I served as general counsel for the Florida
Redevelopment Association. I represent a majority of the CRAs
in the state. I could think of five that it went all the way to a
contested take.
You know, very often the property owner requests
condemnation.
There are tax benefits for selling the property under
condemnation or having it condemned. We've had some property
owners actually ask to be put under a threat of condemnation.
Page 253
February 27, 2001
But when you look at the -- at the contested ones -- I will tell
you one of the most contested ones was Mizner Park. I know
because I testified in that case. So when someone talks about a
wholesale condemnation, there's been no evidence of that
anywhere in the state.
And it's really been used as an absolute last resort. It almost is
a way of establishing value.
What has happened in almost every instance, the process
that's followed is that you do go through some RFP process, a
developer is selected, and then one of their responsibilities is to
assemble the site, if they have not already done so. And then if
there is a holdout, if there is -- if someone says, "1 want to sell
under threat," then condemnation has been used in the state.
Also through that process is when you identify who is paying
for what. And one of the things I think that we also learn from
this RFP, if you look at the proposal that was submitted, is that
there was a significant amount of up-front costs to be paid by the
CRA.
Now, that, again, is not necessarily unusual. If you look at
the two projects that are mentioned in the papers at City Place
and Mizner Park, there was a significant up-front public
investment. However, what I would suggest as part of the
process of developing the new RFP -- that should be, in fact, the
direction you're going in -- is that -- I think that one of the things
we've learned from this is we need to request more information
from the developer.
The RFP we did this time is the one that barely met the
statutory requirements because we wanted to keep it as open as
possible. What else was out there, besides the one that we
knew about? I think now what we know is we should say, "If, in
fact, you're going to need assistance with acquisition, let us
know how much that's going to be. How much of that can you --
do you think you can assemble?"
Second of all, if you're asking for up-front financial
investment by the CRA based upon tax increment revenues,
which have to be based upon the anticipated development, you
have to know that that development is going to occur the way
that it's projected to occur, not that it's going to be a hole in the
ground for a couple of years. So I think you also need to have
some market studies, some backup to projections on: Is there,
Page 254
February 27, 2001
in fact, a need for a 150 to 200 room hotel on that site, for
example? Is there something that backs that up?
Because if you're going to go out in front with the
investment, every CRA always makes sure that they are
protected. That for, one, that there's project financing in place;
that you have got your public investment protected in a variety of
different ways. And that's what the development agreement
provides you that opportunity for.
So I'd just close by saying that the Redevelopment Act
process gives you a great deal of flexibility. Unfortunately, you
sort of learned that there was one limitation on the 30-day
notice. But I also want to mention to the property owners -- the
14 in the mini triangle -- the Redevelopment Act says that so long
that there is no proposal where the CRA takes title to any
property, a neighborhood group, which can be commercial or
residential, can submit a proposal at any time to a CRA on their
own initiative. They don't even have to wait for an RFP.
So if they've got something -- as long as it doesn't require
you getting in the property acquisition business, but they just
want some incentives, they can do so. They can identify, you
know, that there's some land development regulations. And I
think it's better for someone who is looking at development to
tell you what the problem is, rather than you trying to look at it
from the regulatory side. Let them tell you, "1 can't build here
because of this," or, "1 can't make the improvements I want to
make," and then give you some real life examples of that.
So they've got a lot of flexibility there. And I'm sure as we
move forward we'll be talking with them and trying to work
things out. But I wanted you to know a little bit more about the
process and tell you that you now can join the ranks of those
battle weary CRAs who have gone through at least one round of
this.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Before you leave the podium, just a
question, if my brain will stay in gear. You have seen this
obviously in other CRAs before. Is 120 days enough time for us
to be asking the property owners to give us some ideas?
Is 120 days long enough for this investigation period?
MR. CARDWELL: I think so. It may not be the end of the
process. I think we need to have a reasonable deadline for what
may be nothing more than a look-see and kind of where we are.
Page 255
February 27, 2001
If you don't establish some deadline, it will just stretch out.
And 120 days is enough time to do some things, but not so long
as it is going to be forgotten. So I think it's probably a
reasonable time.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I am going to close the public
hearing.
I am going to -- I know I'm the Chair and I'm not supposed to
make a motion, but I am going to make a motion that we accept
the staff's recommendation that we reject the proposal before
us; that we direct staff to meet with the property owners and the
interested parties over the next 120 days to develop a plan to
come back to -- to present to the Board of County Commissioners
that will advise us whether or not we need to advertise again for
another RFP, if we need to seek neighborhood application for
approval for development, and specifically what land
development regulations need to be changed in order to give
incentives for redevelopment of the property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great motion. I second that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: May I add this to your motion;
and/or providing us with recommended standards?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, absolutely. And that's --
recommended standards as opposed to recommended changes
to the zoning regs?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. Just give us some criteria.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Flexibility.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I will second the recommended -- or
amended motion.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any further discussion on that
motion?
If not, all in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That passes 5-0. I'm glad to know
that was how it was supposed to work.
Item #11C
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now we are going to public comment
Page 256
February 27, 2001
on general topics.
MR. MCNEES: You had one registered, Mr. Chairman, but I
think he's long gone. Bob Chrisosky (phonetic).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now we are going to move to public
hearings.
How is my reporter doing? She's okay.
Item #12B3
ORDINANCE 2001-07 REGARDING PETITION PUD-00-6, WILLIAM
L. HOOVER OF HOOVER PLANNING, REPRESENTING RONALD W.
RAGGE, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "E" ESTATES TO "PUD"
ALLOWING FOR A MIXTURE OF COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE LAND
USES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PINE
RIDGE ROAD (C.R. 896), AND OPPOSITE WHIPPORWILL LANE -
ADOPTED WITH CCPC RECOMMENDATIONS AND STIPULATIONS
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, we have -- we
have a number of residents here on one of these land use items.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's do it first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's the Ragge property. It is the
last one.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. If it's the pleasure of the Board,
we'll hear the Ragge property first.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please, if that's what the
speakers are ready for.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If you'll be quiet as you go out, we still
have a number of people to be heard this evening.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is the matter -- is the Ragge PUD
the one that we have registered speakers on, Mr. McNees? MR. MCNEES: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the agenda item for that?
MR. MCNEES: That would be 12(B)(3}.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So all persons wishing to be
heard on that agenda item, please stand and raise your right
hand and be sworn by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.}
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As far as disclosure, I have had a
great amount of contact both from neighbors and I have -- from
people in
Page 257
February 27, 2001
the neighborhood and I've also met with the developer's
representative.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' I have my contacts in here. I
did meet with -- let's see. Mr. Yovanovich, the petitioner's
representative, and everything else is here in the file.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've met with people. I've talked
with people. The -- I have met with Mr. Yovanovich. I have had
many, many e-mails. I have met with the landowners and the
homeowners in that area. I have spoken with Mr. Hoover. Phone
calls. I think that's it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' With the exception of Mr.
Hoover, the same. And it is in my file.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So then we'll hear the
staff presentation.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I'm Ray Bellows and
presenting Petition PUD-00-6. If you would like, I could just give
you a brief overview or would you like a more detailed
presentation?
(Commissioner Mac'Kie left the Boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Brief.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Brief.
MR. BELLOWS: Keep it brief.
This is a rezone from Estates to PUD, a planned unit
development, within activity center number ten. It is adjacent to
an existing PUD, Angileri PUD, which was developed as a Race
Trac service station. As you can see on the master plan, it is on
the north side of Pine Ridge Road. It lines up with the entrance
with Whippoorwill Lane to the south.
(Commissioner Mac'Kie enters the Boardroom.)
MR. BELLOWS: It has three developed tracts, Tracts A, B,
and C. Tract A is the water management and preserve tract to
buffer the residents in the Livingston Woods subdivision. It's a
75-foot deep
tract. Tract B will provide C-3 type uses. It will allow for a
hotel/motel and retail uses. And Tract C, fronting on Pine Ridge
Road, will allow for a little more intensive uses, maybe a car
wash or an auto leasing type of use.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are there issues on this PUD that
kept it off the summary agenda, other than the transportation
issues?
Page 258
February 27, 2001
MR. BELLOWS: No. The transportation issue is the sole
issue.
And I have Norm Feder here to discuss that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wonder if we want to just --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, we have two policies to consider
here.
One is the interconnectivity policy and the other is a public road
policy. So those are the two. So you have a public road --
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Those are two. You have a public
east/west interconnection.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, interconnectivity is a policy.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And so is public roads. And anytime
there's a public road that means that all citizens of the County
have a right
to use it. I'm not taking one side or the other. All I'm saying is
that you have two policies in front of us this evening that we
need to keep in consideration as we hear all of the presentation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So really the first question I have
is -- because of what Commissioner Henning was kind enough to
provide us, copies of the excerpt from the Golden Gate master
plan, I'll tell you -- and I know that you guys are going to lynch
me in the parking lot. But I think that this interconnection is the
right thing to do.
Now, what Mr. Henning showed me though makes me
wonder if it is the legal thing to do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think the spirit --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that's my question for Mr.
Weigel, if I may.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So, I guess, if we have a Golden Gate
master plan that was provided --
MR. BELLOWS: If I may, the subject site is not located
within the Golden Gate area master plan. It's in the activity
center number ten on the future land use map. The PUD --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is activity number ten, right
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- that we are talking about?
MR. BELLOWS: The Golden Gate activity center-- there's a
separate master plan for the Golden Gate Estates area.
Page 259
February 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In other words, the Golden Gate
MR. BELLOWS: The PUD to the far west of the Cambridge
Square came in under the comprehensive plan amendment,
which allowed for the medical office type uses.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Stop and let me just ask a
question. I'm also tired. The section that Mr. Henning copied for
us, does it apply to the subject property; yes or no?
MR. BELLOWS: No, it doesn't. It would apply to the
Cambridge Square to the west.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I hope that everybody
recognizes the spirit of the language in there, I think, applies to
the road. And why is this language in there?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could you read it, Tom?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: "There should be no access to
Livingston Woods Lane." And that's where Whippoorwill -- that's
the connection that is in question at this time.
It would connect to Whippoorwill Lane -- I mean, Livingston
Woods Lane. And it's only about a mile long, but the spirit of --
and, Commissioner Mac'Kie, I'm sure you were on the Board at
that time. The spirit is because what you have is an intense
commercial and it backs up to residential. There is no stepping
there. There is no stepping at all.
So the -- to protect the integrity of the neighborhood, there
was supposed to be walls. And it's spelled out in the language.
And if you look at the language here, that language applies to
this in some sense because there is the wall there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me interject.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's the spirit of it that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In my -- again, I have already
spoken with some of these people face to face and told them
that I think that it is -- that the County has recognized the failure
of its past policies and that we need to provide a secondary road
system. And that this, unfortunately, is a place where we ought
to do it.
I'm sorry. I know it's not good news for you. But I -- unless
it's not legal, then I think it is the right thing. And I know the
developer doesn't want it. The neighborhood doesn't want it, but
our transportation system needs it.
Page 260
February 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I would like an opinion from the
County Attorney. And while he or she is going to comment on
that, I don't know if everybody else has disclosed, but I must
disclose that I have talked to both the petitioner and the
residents and all of the parties that have been involved in this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So you had a question for David?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I want to know is this -- I want to know
the legality.
MR. WEIGEL: Which question?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, in terms of what Commissioner
Henning raised. Was this in the spirit of; is this an absolute?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That if this is in an activity center,
then consequently what we have is two policies to consider;
interconnectivity and access to public roads.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the activity center, I believe, being
separate from the Golden Gate master plan -- these are separate.
And the spirit of one doesn't move over to the other from a legal
standpoint or a legal enforceability standpoint.
But in regard to interconnectivity and the -- we'll call it the
public need for health, safety, welfare and things of that nature.
If you're asking me a question about do you have the power and
ability to say, "Well, here is a new subdivision coming along and
interconnectivity and public roads are to be part of this
subdivision," we have been kind of bumping up against this for
quite some time. I think that you have a lot of power under your
public health, safety and welfare considerations.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. So I think you've answered my
question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is discretionary.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's a discretionary policy.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the other point that I have is
that we've really beat up those people across the street in
Whippoorwill and made them build a road and told them they're
going to do it. And we, frankly, gave them impact fee credits.
That now, if this doesn't punch through, I'm not sure we have
accomplished much. You know, I think that our policy began to
change when we changed the Whippoorwill policy. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Feder.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, for the
Page 261
February 27, 2001
record, Norman Feder, transportation administrator.
In recognition, the property owners have a very strong
vested interest. I'm going to be fairly short. They have waited a
whole day. And I appreciate their coming out and waiting the
whole day with us.
I think we've got a couple of issues here. And let me try and
provide some clarification. I think Commissioner Henning is
correct in pointing out that the property owners have had a
strong fear and came in when the Race Trac came in that, in
fact, it was going to be an effort to try to provide a buffer for
them. I believe it's an
eight-foot wall. Some of that hasn't been developed.
Nonetheless, it's supposed to be on each of the individual
parcels that they developed, as well as landscaping.
But the provision that he provides -- that he showed to you,
that was really Golden Gateway, which is further to the west.
The rest of the activity center, that came about and that's part of
what brought about this provision in the amendment to the
master plan on this one parcel. So I think that there is
precedent, if you will, that, in fact, there's a desire to buffer and
continue. And I'm not adverse to that.
What I am raising is the fact that I'm not talking about the
connection with each of these parts in and of themselves to the
Livingston Woods development, but rather recognizing a couple
of policy issues that we need to come to grips with. And,
unfortunately, from a lot of perspectives, comes to reduce very
much on this project.
The first of those is interconnectivity. We do have a very
definite policy. It's in our growth management plan, 9.3, calling
for interconnectivity. And in the case here, we have a situation
where if we are to continue with what has been basically
direction or decision of the Board on each of the individual PUDs
as opposed to a necessarily written provision in the plan, and
continued to erect a wall without any -- I won't say access, but
public street connection, which, as you see on the aerials,
existed previous to this development along Pine Ridge, then
we're setting up a situation where 1-75 basically to the east,
Vanderbilt, basically because of the large development to the
north, and now conceivably Pine Ridge to the south, we'll be
basically closing off and creating what amounts to private
Page 262
February 27, 2001
streets under public operation and maintenance.
The issue that we're raising by encouraging the Ragge PUD
to provide a connection through and connecting to Whippoorwill
Lane is recognition of what we have done further to the south,
where we paid a million for right-of-way and are committing
impact fee credits towards construction, is consistent with the
fact that that community more likely will not receive traffic
through it because of the nature of the circuitous route.
Although, there will be some. And I will address that in the next
point. But rather it has the opportunity to access the interstate,
as well as any of the development in the area without having to
come through the Pine Ridge/Livingston intersection, which is
exactly what we're trying to do is to forestall great separation
and other issues as we put more and more burden and demand
solely on the arterial system.
To the other issue of-- if we do close it off, we've created a
situation where we have to ask the question: What is a public
street? It is the other policy issue for you. Is a public street only
a street for those people that own property on it?
When I read the write-up, I find that any other traffic is
labeled as transient. I hate to think that if I'm driving on a
public street that I don't live on that I'm transient. But,
nonetheless, that's the orientation that we have here and the
orientation when we consistently, throughout this County, have
eliminated any collective road system, put more weight to bear
on the arterial because everybody wants the opportunity to make
sure that only they have access to streets in front of their house
and others should find a different route than going by them.
So I present to you those two policy issues, recognizing
there has been some history. There's some awfully fine people
that I expect to get up here and speak and express their
interests and their concerns. And there are a myriad of issues
that the Board may have to take into consideration in making a
decision. But, again, we have two very, very strong policy issues
in front of us that we've got to come to grips with if we're going
to address transportation in this County. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: One question, Norman. If we did allow
the access there, is it my understanding that you would have a
three-way stop or a four-way stop so traffic entering would have
to stop, either go right, left, or straight ahead?
Page 263
February 27, 2001
MR. FEDER: Very definitely you'd have a stop for any traffic
entering the community. Whether that needed to be a three-way
stop, that definitely would stop anything entering such that you
would create that as the first of traffic calming. Now, again, if
we get a few extra cars through the neighborhood -- and I don't
expect a lot.
Nonetheless, if we get some, I'm not sure that calls for traffic
calming. But if you get speeding, if you start getting high
volumes, then we've got to start addressing those issues.
But, yes, the first step that obviously we'd put a stop sign
right there. And as you have a stop sign there, there are other
issues. If you look at the nature of the roads with only two
access points off of Livingston via old Livingston as a service
road, it is not a desirable cut-through, but it is another opening
both to serve the community without going through the
intersection and another opening to the public, being very
up-front about it. That's what we need to do.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That would deliver the
interconnectivity between the PUDs that we're addressing --
MR. FEDER: That is already in place.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- and the Perkins that's going up in
one area. So that would say the community would be exiting
more to come to Perkins versus going out and around and
through an intersection.
That's just one example.
MR. FEDER: That's not just access to those development
parcels, it's to 1-75 or anyplace they want to go, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Norm, before you leave the
mike. Is there any other reason about this PUD, as far as their
access to Pine Ridge, that we should be aware of; is there any
problems?
MR. FEDER: Not on this particular PUD. They are directly
across from Whippoorwill, which there's been a lot of public
investment in to create just the type of thing I'm asking you to
consider here. That is another collector status to take relief off
of the intersection.
But, no, their connection point is directly across from
Whippoorwill. It's a signalized location, again, to address that
traffic on Pine Ridge.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Page 264
February 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Speakers.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We'll go to --
MR. YOVANOVICH: The petitioner.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- Rich. He represents the petitioner.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. For the record, Rich Yovanovich
representing the petitioner in this matter. I don't want to make a
long presentation, but I do need to point out a couple of things.
First of all, the type of road that Norm is talking about is not
a site-related road. And Norm has agreed that if it's going to be a
public road to serve the entire community, it's beyond the scope
of impact of our project. So Norm has agreed he has to purchase
the right-of-way to accommodate that, and, I guess, also build
the road.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or you could donate it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We could. We could do that. But at this
point we -- that's not an option that my client has decided to
follow through with.
I do want to emphasize an interconnectivity does exist. All
the PUDs in that area are interconnected through a frontage road
system to take traffic off of Pine Ridge Road and also at the time
to take traffic off of Livingston Woods Lane. I want you to know
that our submittal was consistent with the previous Board's
direction
regarding keeping traffic off of Livingston Woods Lane.
And in reliance upon that previous Board's direction, that's
how we designed our PUD. I believe the neighborhood, which
will speak for themselves, do not have a concern with the uses
proposed in our PUD. It's the staff request that Whippoorwill
Lane be extended into their neighborhood.
I do -- I think we need to draw a little bit of a distinction
between what happened on Whippoorwill Lane with all of the
developments that were coming through at the same time with
the number of units that were being brought on-line. There were
many issues that were dealt with. And that was not only the
road issue, it was the drainage issue, the utilities issue and how
to make sure we accommodated all of those uses while several
thousands of units were coming through at the same time.
(Commissioner Mac'Kie left the Boardroom.)
MR. YOVANOVICH: So I think that's a little bit different than
the situation we're in right here. We are -- as I said to the
Page 265
February 27, 2001
Planning Commission, my client is neutral to the request to
extend Whippoorwill Lane to Livingston Woods Lane.
It is not our preference to do that. We would like to honor
the neighborhood's request that all the traffic from that entire
side of the road could be directed to Livingston Woods Lane. But
we'll do what the Commission directs us to do, but that would be
a change in the policy. And I believe you will hear that from
many of the neighbors. And we're comfortable with leaving it
like it is.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let me ask you about the buffer
between the neighborhood and the PUD. Are you in agreement
that a wall would be constructed buffering?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, absolutely. Every PUD in that area
has a wall.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. That would be done prior to the
construction of anything on your PUD. That becomes, first, part
of the agenda to do that and to get it in and then we would look
for landscaping enhancement thereafter. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: There has been a violation already by
Harley Davidson PUD that the wall was not built.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner, are you asking that we
do that concurrent with our site development work? You know,
before we go -- before we go vertical?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. I want it there because we had
a violation on the other where trucks were coming in and driving
across. We caught them, we fined them. We want to prevent
that from happening.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We need --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I want to see the walls in there.
Before you start going vertical, I want the walls in there. And if
that's a commitment on your client, that's important.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. That's a commitment. The wall is
in the PUD, like it is on every other PUD there, for the specific
purpose of keeping the commercial traffic out of neighborhood.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And I would also point out the map on
the visualizer shows the alignment of the walls for all the PUDs.
We are
Page 266
February 27, 2001
going to articulate them with a five-foot setback off the
right-of-way with a ten-foot setback within the required buffer
area.
So all of these PUDs as they come in, we will be having
them place the wall in. Where there is a problem with code
violations, such as Harley, we've been working with code
enforcement to get that rectified. The wall that was put in for
the Naples Gateway, the hotel, we received lots of compliments
from the residents of how well that was done. We're trying to
make sure that the entire length --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Has the Harley group constructed the
wall now; is it up?
MR. BELLOWS: No. They're still undergoing site
development and the wall is not up. I have some pictures, if you
would like to look at them.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, what disturbs me the most is
that specific direction was given by the Board to make sure that
wall went up and it wasn't after the fact and it was at the
beginning of construction. And I feel a PUD is a legal document.
It has not been followed through on.
MR. BELLOWS= And code enforcement --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I want it enforced.
MR. BELLOWS: We'll be working with code enforcement to
make sure that the wall is in place.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In the future we can refuse the
CO if the wall is not in place, correct?
MR. BELLOWS: You still can.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good.
MR. YOVANOVICH= Unless you have any other questions of
me as the petitioner --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We are going to go to public speakers.
MR. MCNEES: The first is Steve Blount, followed by Donald
Falls.
MR. BLOUNT: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm going to
try and keep my comments as brief as possible. I don't think we
have a question today of whether or not we should be doing the
legal thing or the interconnectivity thing or the appropriate
policy thing or whether we need to weigh various policies. What
we need to do today is the right thing.
For years various parties have come before this Board -- and
Page 267
February 27, 2001
I recognize that some of the members who are on the Board now
were not the members who were here then. But people came,
Cambridge Square, Hawthorn Suites, the Harley Davidson dealer,
Perkins, Race Trac, they all came in. And the direction they
received from this Board -- and I recognize that it may not be the
people sitting here, but the direction they received was, "You
work with the residents of Livingston Woods. You work with the
residents. We don't want to mix the commercial along Pine
Ridge Road with the residents behind them.
We want you to work with them."
And what came out of that and the residents working with
staff and everything was: We don't want any connection. No
ingress, no egress from Livingston Woods Lane because that's
going to cause a problem. And the Board supported the
community on that. And the staff supported the community. And
everybody was on the same page. And everybody said, "Gee, this
is working great."
Everybody in Livingston Woods was afraid of the developers.
Developers are going to trick us. Developers are going to figure
out a way. Harley is going to figure out a way to get those
motorcycles in and out of Livingston Woods Lane and we're going
to have a problem. They don't even need a road. All they need is
a gap in the wall. That's what they're working for because they
are going to come drive their Harleys up and down our road. And
they're going to coming up on Livingston Woods Lane and
Bottlebrush Lane and so on. And Bottlebrush Lane is where I
live.
And everybody was concerned about that. And it started to
happen right. And we said, "Gee, we don't have to worry so
much about the developers." And now what everybody is saying
is, "We have to worry about these guys. We've got to worry
about the County."
Because now the County after telling us for years and years
and
years, '~Ne're going to protect you. We're not going to -- we're
not going to approve this zoning. We're not going to approve this
PUD amendment. We're not going to approve this, unless they
agree in writing in that PUD no ingress and egress onto
Livingston Woods Lane.
None, never. Ten-foot wall, landscaped buffer. We're going to
Page 268
February 27, 2001
keep them out of your neighborhood."
And we said, "Gee, our public officials are doing their ]ob.
This is great. This is wonderful. This is working just like it is
supposed to."
And now what has happened? And the majority of us are
finding out 30 days before, 15 days before because you had to be
within 300 feet to get notice. Now what we're finding out is that
it is not the developer that wants the road; the County wants a
road. Now the County is going to do that which they prevented
the developers from doing for the last ten years. And it is not to
benefit the developers, certainly not to benefit the residents of
Livingston
Woods. I can't figure out who wants this.
So far what we've heard is the residents don't want it. The
petitioner doesn't want it. The County has got to pay for it. The
other businesses along the strip don't want it. Why in the world
would we want to do this, other than to send a message to
everybody in Livingston Woods, "You can't trust the government.
We're going to get you in the end. And we're going to figure out
a way to go against our word."
It may not have been these people sitting up here that gave
that word, but it was Collier County that gave that word and that
word has
got to mean something. And this Board has got to stick to the
policy that was established in the last, roughly, ten years of,
'~Ne're going to -- we're going to protect that access -- that
ingress and egress onto Livingston Woods Lane. We're not going
to let it happen. We are not going to let Cambridge do it to you.
We're not going to let Hawthorn do it to you. We are not going to
let Perkins do it to you.
We are not going to let Harley Davidson do it to you. We are not
going to let the Race Trac do it to you."
Please, don't do it to us now. It just doesn't make any
sense.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a question. You need to help
me with this, if you will, please. How do I explain to all the
taxpayers in Collier County that they pay for and maintain public
roads of which they have literally no access to; they have none
at all?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They have some, but not much.
Page 269
February 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: My concern is how do I explain that to
somebody that says, "You really, in effect, have created a gated
community here without a gate and I'm paying for it,
Commissioner. Why is that? Why can't I do that in my
neighborhood?"
MR. BLOUNT: Well, I--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I really need help on this. Because
that's the questions that will come to this Board or future Boards
or anybody else.
MR. BLOUNT: I understand. And the benefits -- I don't think
you can -- we can go through the County and pick out any single
road and say, "Gee, how much use does the guy in northern
Collier County get out of -- I don't know -- Bayshore Drive or any
particular street down in the southern end of the County?"
And it is not a question of any one single road, I don't think,
Mr. Commissioner. I think that the question is out of the overall
layout and the overall plan of the way the roads fit together, how
much benefit are you getting out of that particular grid? How
much benefit are you getting out of that particular section?
What's happening to us in Livingston Woods is there is now
a six-lane highway that's going to go in along what will be the
new Livingston Road. And that has affected all of the frontage
property
that fronts Livingston Road now and the property values all along
there and the people in that community are getting on the road.
And the rest of the community is going to benefit from that. They
are going to have a major artery that is a mile away from 1-75.
I'm not a traffic planner myself, so you -- but I kind of
question the logic of having such a major highway one mile away
from 1-75, which is going to have an interchange at every section
anyway.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I can clarify it for you because the
interstate is not a local thoroughfare.
MR. BLOUNT: I understand. Like I said, I'm not a traffic
planner and I was just merely giving you my opinion. I
understand that there are reasons for it. I understand that.
But when you look at the grid as a whole, the traffic is going
to flow by and around and through Livingston Woods more
efficiently with the setup that we have on Pine Ridge Road and
on Livingston Road.
Page 270
February 27, 2001
You know, I have tried not to get into some of the other
issues because I think this is pretty simple. You told us for years
no access. Nobody wants access and somebody is going to try
to force it on us now. That seems to me not to be the right thing
to do, period.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I ask a question?
Who made those commitments; was it -- I mean, any of these
Board members?
UNKNOWN VOICES: Pam Mac'Kie. She did.
MR. BLOUNT: That's interesting that you point that out.
Because one of the comments of Commissioner Mac'Kie was --
and I wrote it down. And she said, "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, but we
recognize our past failures."
You know what, I don't want to have to pay for your past
failure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well --
MR. BLOUNT: You made me a promise. You said, "We're not
going to let anybody come in and out of these businesses from
your community. We're not going to let that happen to you."
Now today you're saying, "Gee, I was wrong. I failed. I was
wrong about that. And now I'm going to not only let them, I'm
going to demand they do it." They don't want it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I just need to have another
question from health, safety and welfare. If you in Livingston
Woods want to go to Perkins, you have to access a six-lane road,
go down to an intersection, make a left-hand turn, and then make
another left-hand turn to get to Perkins. What have I --
MR. BLOUNT: Or you can make a right-hand turn and go to
I-HOP.
I mean--
(Commissioner Henning left the Boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But what about -- I'm just saying, what
about the people that want to go there; have I put the community
who wants to traverse to those -- to that restaurant at risk where
they could come through an access and an interconnect within a
PUD and never go through that?
That's a question that we're wrestling with as policy
changes, as conditions change. I'm not saying I'm going to vote
one way or the other, but I am raising these questions because
those are questions that are raised to commissioners all the
Page 271
February 27, 2001
time.
MR. BLOUNT: If I can address the question, I think -- you
know, again, I'm not a traffic planner. But I'm from Dade County
originally and I got out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Congratulations.
MR. BLOUNT: And one of the reasons that I got out is
because I was brought up on a little street called 17th Terrace
that is right off the Coral Way exit to 826. And as they -- as they
put those roads through, guess what happened?
The thieves came down and said, "We can get into this
neighborhood and get right back out because there is this easy
access right next to the on-ramp to the interstate and I can be 20
exits away before a cop is anywhere in sight," okay?
And I believe that having this -- what is tantamount to me to
a short alleyway between Pine Ridge and -- there is no
conceivable reason why anyone would want to go from Pine
Ridge through that alleyway onto Livingston Woods Lane, other
than the few people that live on Livingston Woods Lane --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
MR. BLOUNT: -- unless they had some other reason to want
to sneak in and out fast. And I think it's going to cause a
problem in my neighborhood with crime.
And if we want to talk about health, safety and welfare, I
think it's far more likely that there's going to be additional crime
in the Livingston Woods area with this additional ingress and
egress than there is that somebody might get in an accident
trying to make a left-hand turn because they prefer Perkins over
I-HOP.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I thank you for your comments.
Next speaker, please.
MR. MCNEES: Mr. Falls, followed by Alexander Fehr.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess, while he's coming up, I
will go ahead and say, you know, I base decisions that I make up
here on the advice that I get from staff and on the research that I
do on my own.
And in this case what I've been told is that we got bad advice
before and that we weren't looking at the transportation system
as a whole, as a grid. And I am willing to continue to learn. I'm
going to change my mind when I get better information.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir.
Page 272
February 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Excuse me. I must say that a
few months ago that we went on the staff's -- off of the staff's
recommendations in the Goodland issue that we're fighting in
court right now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure. The bottomline -- I mean,
I'm sorry. I've done it twice today. I'm going to do it again. The
pressure is on Mr. Feder. I respect his opinion. He tells me --
MR. FEDER: The pressure is on us. It is not --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'm telling you that I'm
basing my
decision to a great degree on what Mr. Feder tells me the
transportation network needs.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Let me get the rest of the
public speakers and then --
MR. FALLS: My name is Don Falls. I'm a resident of the
area.
And Mr. Feder told me he's not going to push this one very hard,
so he must have some feelings that this isn't that important an
item.
I am looking at the interstate activity center, which is down
from the Cambridge Square. And if you see over here, this is
Whippoorwill Lane and it stops where; at Pine Ridge Road?
There is no road. When they talk about, "We're going to
punch through the road," well, there is no road. This is a
make-believe road that you're going to create. It's not a
dedicated road.
Anyway, let me just say -- I reside at 6659 Livingston Woods
Lane across from the brand-new Whippoorwill Lane. I was the
first one to build a house here about 25 years ago when Pine
Ridge Road was a dirt road. There was no Whippoorwill Lane on
the north side of Pine Ridge Road.
To open up Whippoorwill -- to open up the neighborhood by
punching through Whippoorwill Lane would destroy the quality of
life we now know. It would mix residential and commercial. It
would be detrimental to the property values we have worked so
hard to maintain. The increased volume of traffic would
endanger our children and families. But we can preserve our
community by adhering to uniform architectural standards and
not punching through Whippoorwill Lane.
When the Race Trac PUD was proposed in 96-3, the
Page 273
February 27, 2001
neighbors of Livingston Woods community met in the Community
School where they were assured by developers -- and this is what
they passed out to everyone -- that access from this property
onto Livingston Woods Lane would be -- in bold print -- prohibited,
okay? The building setback from the edge of the right-of-way of
Livingston Woods Lane would be a minimum of 90 feet. Within
that 90 feet minimum setback closest to Livingston Woods Road
Lane, there will be a 20-foot wide dense landscape buffer
consisting of trees and shrubs.
Well, I don't know who does the follow-up to make sure
architectural standards are done as proposed, but I measured
some of the walls and -- from the center of the road one is 34 feet
and the next one down the road is 42 feet. The wall appears to
be misplaced, but I personally don't care as long as it's
connected with other walls, offset or whatever and looks like the
exhibit that was -- you can see that here -- the exhibit that was
presented.
As the attorney stated in 96-3, Page 50, Book 00089, it says
that the same -- what you see is what you get. Commitment also
applies to the rendering of the eight-foot wall to be constructed
on the north property line. Well, this is what I see, but now
comes reality.
How would you like this if you lived there? This is what we
got. Can you see that? All it is is a concrete block wall. And
that's been there for three years, all right? Now --
That's just obscene. How can
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
that be?
MR. FALLS: I don't know.
years.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
But we have lived with it for three
That's obscene.
MR. FALLS: Now, here is the -- this is the Hawthorn Hotel.
That is beautiful. That's the way it should be done. That looks
just like the rendering they had.
It has got the fancy gingerbread on the wall and everything.
It has got the landscape. And a picture of the wall now finished
with the Race Trac and it looks like -- this was just taken. And
there are no sprinklers for the grass. The trees are kind of -- I
don't know.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And the rendering you showed me
earlier was the one that was presented when the PUD was
Page 274
February 27, 2001
approved?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: By the Race Trac developer.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And the PUD, as I understand it, is a
legal document. How in the hell did this thing happen?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Code enforcement, let's go.
MR. FALLS: I don't know who does the code enforcement,
but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See that man right there nodding
his head yes, he's going to take care of that tomorrow.
MR. FALLS: But it also shows it looks like what appears to
be sidewalks. I don't know. Even if they had a bike path. I know
the planners they had -- they said, "Where is the sidewalk?
Where is the bike path?"
I said -- they asked the rhetorical question, "Who would use
it?" Well, all the people from the Community School. The track
team uses it. Barron Collier track team uses it. People on our
street all use it and the people on all the streets north of us
would use it. We see them jogging back and forth all the time.
How it can be achieved, I don't know. You know, because,
again, you have got a sidewalk and then you've got, you know,
vacant land, where does the sidewalk go? I don't know if it
would be just put in and then pro rated as someone comes in to
develop a piece of land and say, "You owe us for this piece of
sidewalk," or what. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was this part of that --
represented at the Planning Commission? MR. FALLS: Yes, it was.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Leave that there.
petitioner if there is a sidewalk going in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He is not the guy.
Bruce Anderson.
MR. FALLS: That was Dwight Richardson.
We'll ask the
That was
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is part of this PUD coming
up before us today.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We'll have to go back to the petitioner.
MR. FALLS: That was the Race Trac originally.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We need to finish with public speakers
and then we'll go back to ask the petitioner any questions that
you have. You want to know if it includes the sidewalk.
MR. FALLS: Okay. I just have a short -- now that Hawthorn
Page 275
February 27, 2001
Hotel has a beautiful wall and shrubbery, it looks exactly like the
rendering. They should all be like that in adhering to agreed
upon strict architectural standards and create some type of a
theme going
down the whole block. It would even be better with a sidewalk
or a bike path on just the south side of Livingston Woods as
depicted in the picture.
Today's petitioner, Mr. Richard Yovanovich, agreed to
putting in sidewalks at the planning committee board meeting as
long as the other developers did. Therefore, maybe something
could be worked out somehow. I don't know.
Just a last thing. It would be nice if others would follow
suit, as did Race Trac, by putting up the wall first before the
buildings -- although, it was up three years unfinished, before the
buildings and not putting construction traffic into the sites from
Livingston Woods Lane. Like in Harley Davidson there's over 100
dump trucks that went down the road. Some of the trucks got
stuck in the ditch and almost turned over. There's still dirt on
the street.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: John, from a code enforcement
perspective you're going to see if we can make them put in the
wall before construction commences?
MR. DUNNUCK: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. FALLS: Maintenance. I would think that they would
have sprinkler heads here like they have them in the Hawthorn
Hotel.
Thank you very much. Next.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please.
MR. MCNEES: Mrs. Fehr, followed by Robert Fehr.
MS. FEHR: It has been a long day and I'm very tired and
hungry.
Livingston Woods is a Iow density,~ traditional neighborhood,
established, older residences, not a cookie-cutter community.
We're a neighborhood compiled of professionals who live here
year-round.
Who is going to benefit when Whippoorwill Lane is put
through?
Not the families living on my street. Our property values will
devalue sharply. We trusted the County Commissioners when we
Page 276
February 27, 2001
worked together in the past and made sure that the commercial
properties would be separated from the residential by agreeing
to have an eight-foot wall, proper setbacks, and a landscape
buffer with no access.
Within the past one and a half years, nine new homes were
built on my street alone and countless others in the streets
behind us.
What does that tell you? It tells me that these people who, by
the way, paid top dollar for their land, felt safe and assured that
when these commercial properties get developed we would be
protected from the said properties by a beautiful landscaped
buffer and a wall and no access.
I remember Pam Mac'Kie was on that and she was the one
who said, '~Ne need uniformity and we need to agree that
everything looks the same and stays beautiful and no access."
We trusted the people that were on that committee.
The residents who do not want or need Whippoorwill Lane
for their use will -- we will have plenty of roads going into and out
of our community when Livingston Road extension is finished.
The streets are too narrow and cannot accommodate heavy
traffic as they are now. Even though the Planning Commission
voted 6 to I against it, Mr. Mulhere, the planning services
director, indicated he wouldn't push for it. Ragge PUD aren't
interested in having this road either.
We're surrounded by 1-75, Pine Ridge Road and soon
Livingston
Road extension. Major traffic we -- we cannot and must not
allow this traffic to bleed through into our neighborhood. It's not
necessary. Usually the people that will cut through these
neighborhoods are impatient drivers that like to speed and like to
save time.
I have children and my neighbors have children who ride
bikes, rollerblade and jog through these streets. I am afraid for
their safety. Please don't open Pandora's box. Be wise and vote
against this bad idea. And honor the past Commissioners
promises. Thank you.
MR. MCNEES: Robert Fehr, followed by Ellie Madigan.
MR. FEHR: My name is Robert Fehr. I live at 6911
Livingston Woods Lane. I didn't know I was talking, so I am
going to make it very brief.
Page 277
February 27, 2001
Harley Davidson will be needing to test ride their
motorcycles when they are actually fixed somewhere. It is
better for them to go into smaller roads to test ride their
motorcycles from their standpoint. My father used to test
motorcycles when he was younger.
That would give them an excellent way of getting into Livingston
Woods, which is quiet right now, to try and test ride their
motorcycles before they are actually finished being serviced.
I am against the punch through of Whippoorwill Lane
because, as already outlined before, it would create more traffic
for us. And it probably will. There is a safety issue there
because it's easy to get off 1-75, to Pine Ridge Road and within
seconds you're actually in a very quiet community. You can do
whatever criminals do and then be back on 1-75 very fast. We
have so many roads around us already giving easy access into
our community.
All of that is already before you. I just want you to take that
into consideration and to abide by what in the past you've always
promised us to protect the people there. And it is to no
advantage for any of us that live there to have Whippoorwill go
through. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Excuse me, sir. Do you have
any children?
MR. FEHR: Yes. I have two sons. My wife was the previous
speaker.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's why I was trying to make
the connection. Because her statement was that her children,
you know, roller--
MR. FEHR: Those are mine, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Rollerblade and bicycle.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: She did all the work. He helped a
little.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just trying to make the
connection.
MR. FEHR: Thank you very much.
MR. MCNEES: Next speaker is Ellie Madigan, followed by
Tom Kepp.
MS. FALLS: Ellie is gone. She had to leave. Could I speak
in her place?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Tom waited all day too, so he left.
Page 278
February 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Fine. I don't have a problem with that.
MS. FALLS: Hello. My name is Linda Falls. I'm a resident of
Livingston Woods. I live on Livingston Woods Lane.
I want to talk to you about a couple of things. I will make it
fast and as brief as I possibly can. First of all, we did get
petitions from the residents of Livingston Woods and we have
154 signatures.
And I would like to answer one of your questions, Mr. Carter.
And that is that you were saying it would be inconvenient for the
residents of Livingston Woods who use Perkins to have to go all
the way out and turn around. And that was discussed. My
husband and I and a couple of other people in this community
were the people that did seek the signatures for these petitions.
And everyone that we spoke to said unanimously that that was
not an inconvenience or a concern of theirs. That they felt so
strongly in opposition to having Whippoorwill Road come through
that they would gratefully go out on the new road and make that
turn to access any area there that they wanted to use. So that is
not a certain for the residents.
In getting the petitions signed, we had 100 percent of the
people who lived on Livingston Woods Lane sign. We had all but
three out of 43 on Bottlebrush. And we had, of course, the
balance on the other streets. And there were a few that we
couldn't get just because they had fences and big dogs.
The point that I want to make is that the -- there were five
previous Board meetings discussing and setting the precedence
on these. Five Board meetings that lasted over ten months. And
this was in t996. There was a tremendous amount of discussion,
concern, objections and precedence set at that time. This was
an arduous, long, drawn-out process. And that's why we are so
concerned and regret having to come before you at this time to,
again, ask for your support in upholding the votes of the previous
Board.
I have a few minutes that I would like to read from. And this
was July of '96. Commissioner Mac'Kie said, My question was:
"Who, if anybody, will be talking to us about architectural
standards? I am interested in getting a better picture of what
it's going to look like. Stucco" --
She was interrupted by Commissioner Hancock. He said, "1
too have a laundry list of that area and I think that it may be
Page 279
February 27, 2001
appropriate that we hear the concerns of the public."
Going on, there was a real estate appraiser who testified
that architectural standards, et cetera, would be very important.
Mr. Bryan Milk in response to Commissioner Constantine's
question said, "Proper buffering, screening, traffic circulation, no
access to Livingston Woods Lane definitely has a bearing on
what the neighbors will hear, as far as noise and impact from the
Race Trac."
And this was all in a discussion of just the Race Trac at that
time. Again, later on that same date, Commissioner Constantine
said, "1 heard testimony that less -- from both -- from Mr. Milk and
from your expert" -- he was speaking to Mr. Anderson at that time
-- "that less intensive commercial use would have more desirable
impact on the neighboring properties, particularly those
residential properties to the north. And so, again, I think it goes
back and adds a little concrete to my argument that commercial
is appropriate, but not at this intensification. And the traffic
circulation elements and some
of the other impacts I'm concerned -- again, going back to
Commissioner Hancock's comments from prior hearing, that this
is -- this sets a precedent. And with those most intense uses this
individual 4.5 property isn't going to have more than five percent
impact, but the precedent is set and the corresponding 20 other
acres approximately doing the same is going to have an
overwhelming impact."
And I would like you to please take that into consideration
today when you vote. A couple other things, as well, is the fact
that we are going to have two openings. And, again, in response
to Commissioner Carter's question earlier, we are not trying to
keep the public from coming into our community. The public can
access into our community.
And right now we have one point of egress/ingress into
Livingston Woods. With the new Livingston Road, we will have
two points. We'll have 100 percent more egress and ingress than
we currently do. So the public certainly can come into our
community in those areas. The interactivity is within the --
within the commercial area and not into our area.
One other quick point that I would like to make. You have
talked about the difficulty in having the traffic from Harley
Davidson and the big trucks and so forth that we saw on our
Page 280
February 27, 2001
road. And they continue to do that on occasion. If this road
comes through, it is going to be much more difficult for the
County to keep those commercial developers from using our road
because they're going to have quite -- it is going to be a
nightmare for the County to try to police that and keep them from
coming in there because they are going to have such an easy
access.
And we're -- there's going to be a million phone calls from
the residents saying, "Look, they're continuing to do it." Even
though they are going to put a wall up, they are still going to
have that interconnectivity and they'll be able to get into our
area. So I think that's another area of concern that we have if
that road goes up.
Thank you very much for your time.
MR. MCNEES: You have two more registered. Barbara
Rudnicki and Tom Bartis.
MS. RUDNICKI.' For the record, my name is Barbara
Rudnicki and I live at 6800 Bottlebrush Lane. Gee, I hate being
back here again.
It was July 16th, 1996. And this was the document that was
produced from our meeting right here in this room. What we
were asking for at the time and what we're asking for now is that
we're not asking for you to deny development, we're asking you
that you control it in a fashion that is as aesthetically pleasing
and will welcome the people into Naples and protect the
integrity of our neighborhood.
That is still what we're asking for. If you take a look at the
area around Livingston Woods, it is a disaster as of this day. I
only hope it gets better.
Introducing Whippoorwill Lane coming through to Livingston
Lane, we're talking about a block. A block long street. A teeny,
weeny little piece of a road. That's what we're talking about
here. We're not talking about a whole big road like the other
side, the south side of Pine Ridge Road. We're talking about a
little teeny, weeny road.
Well, is that going to ruin or protect the integrity of our
neighborhood? You bet. It is going to introduce transients.
We've already got them because the walls aren't there. As a
matter of fact, it wasn't a transient. It wasn't anyone who was
intending to do any harm. But a woman got lost while taking a
Page 281
February 27, 2001
walk down our road.
When someone stopped and asked her what she was looking
for, she said, "1 don't know where I am. I have gotten lost. I am
just
staying at the Hampton." It is going to happen when people
intentionally leave Pine Ridge Road to come back in there.
Is it going to jeopardize the integrity of our neighborhood
and increase the crime rate? I was the one that stood here and
gave you the statistics on crime which I collected from the
police department, from the Sheriff's Department. Year after
year after year they were skyrocketing. Well, Whippoorwill Lane
isn't even open yet and a resident on Bottlebrush Lane, my very
road, whose driveway goes a long way back to her house, got out
of her car just two weeks ago, went into the house, left her purse
in her car for just a moment while she ran in to get something
and come back out, and someone came in and stole her purse
out of her car in Livingston Woods. This quiet, little,
non-commercial traffic road, her purse was stolen out of her car
two weeks ago.
Are we compromising the integrity of our neighborhood --
you bet -- by letting Whippoorwill Lane go through. It is going to
be a heavy impact. Crime will increase. There will be a break in
the
promised wall if that road is allowed to go through. It may be the
only break in the wall, but it's going to be a break in the wall.
To answer your question of, "What do I answer to the
public," Linda gave you one less number of accesses to
Livingston Woods. There is an access now through Livingston
Road. There will be two additional accesses from the new
Livingston Road in, as it is currently planned. And, of course,
from Pine Ridge Road there will be the third access.
One of the people that did not sign the requests that we had
for signatures was a policeman who lives in our community who
said, "1 can't sign it. Because what I would like to use that
cut-through for is to direct traffic when there's a backup on Pine
Ridge Road." So don't tell me that people aren't going to cut
through there.
I can't tell you how many times I have sat on Airport -- on
Pine Ridge Road waiting -- going westbound, waiting to make a
left-hand turn down on Airport. That is a horrible traffic light
Page 282
February 27, 2001
there. I don't think I've ever gotten through it during regular rush
hour in under four turns of the light.
So what do people do? They cut through Office Max and
Eckerds shopping center. One after the other, after the other,
after the other. And I hate to admit this, I've done it once
because there was an accident at that corner and I was -- I was
scheduled for a meeting.
Are people going to cut through when the traffic is bad on
Pine Ridge Road to get to the new Livingston Road extension?
You bet.
And they are going to come through. And if they can't turn left
on Livingston Woods Lane, they are going to turn right and go
down Soil and come up Bottlebrush Lane and that's where I live.
I don't have kids. I have a fabulous cat who is really pissed
because he didn't get to eat at 5:00 tonight.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So are my kids.
MS. RUDNICKI.' We are not a new subdivision development.
So I think the rules for applying roads to a new subdivision does
not apply here because we are not a new subdivision. We have
been here a long time. I've personally lived in my house for nine
years and I've owned it for 12.
This is not going to be an attractive access. There isn't any
need for it. And we certainly don't want it. It's only going to
apply negativeness and a negative impact to our community.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
MR. MCNEES: Mr. Bartis and then you have one who just
submitted a slip. And it would be at your discretion, Mr.
Chairman. Past policy has been not to accept speakers after the
item was heard, but that's up to your discretion. CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's up to the Board.
MR. MCNEES: She's apparently been here all day.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: She's been here all day.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She's been here all day.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't have a problem with it.
MR. BARTIS: Everybody's awake? Because I'm not.
My name is Tom Bartis. I live at 6641 Livingston Woods
Lane.
At least I think that's it, isn't it? I've forgotten. I'm so tired from
9:30 this morning until now.
When I came here to Naples, the thing that impressed me
Page 283
February 27, 2001
was the neighborhoods. That was the one thing that stood out
about Naples and the area was the attractiveness of the
neighborhoods. So I bought in Livingston Woods. And two years
later -- I don't know whether it was fortunate or unfortunate. I
sold my property in Connecticut and built a house in Livingston
Woods. I've been very happy with them; the neighbors and what
goes on there. It's really a wonderful area to live in.
I cannot stress to you enough what is happening -- what I
have observed in the eight years -- six, almost seven years that
I've been here is these neighborhoods are being destroyed for no
reason at all.
Completely destroyed. When we all fought against Race Trac, it
was not to keep business away from Pine Ridge Road. That's not
our --
that's not our business. Pine Ridge Road is a commercial area.
What we were fighting against was keeping the commercial
in one place and the residential in another place. And as Ms.
Mac'Kie remembers, you know that that was the stipulation; to
separate commercial from residential. And so far it has been
done haphazardly. But, fortunately, after today, maybe
something is going to be done about it.
Hawthorn Suites is attractive, but the place after that, to
the west of it, is very attractive. We have no gripe with that.
Race Trac we have a lot of gripes about. Two years we had a
cinder block wall looking at us. We didn't complain about it. We
kept waiting thinking, "Well, maybe they are not going to do
anything.
They're going out of business."
But eventually they came in, they slapped up some stucco
on it.
They put a bunch of dead trees on there and have a line draped
from tree to tree to water it. There's no sprinklers there. The
ground is brown. The grass is brown. The trees are half dead.
Those that are not half dead are all dead.
In any case, all we want is to maintain our neighborhood. I
can't see that that isn't what anyone here in Collier County or in
the City of Naples would want to do. Our trepidation about what
would happen with this cut-through, which, incidentally, this
cut-through is through -- what is it -- an activity center for
tourists coming off of 75. It has nothing do with Livingston
Page 284
February 27, 2001
Woods. That whole activity center around Exit 16 has to do with
the benefits to the tourists for restaurants, gasoline, whatever
they want to do there.
It was always supposed to be separated from Livingston
Woods.
And that was one of the things we were very concerned about
with Race Trac was that they were going to come through, who
knows, going into the convenience store, buying who knows
what, and coming over into our residential area, sitting around
drinking and throwing their whatever cans -- I don't know
whether it's beer. We have found an awful lot of trash since that
area has been developed. Livingston Woods has never been so
dirty on Livingston Woods Lane from the trash. And I think Mrs.
Fehr will agree to that.
Now, the one thing that you all should look at is the fact that
this whole thing is going to cost the County money. We have
been led to believe that the County doesn't have money to do
anymore of this developing of this sand path, which is what
Whippoorwill Lane north of Pine Ridge Road has been for the last
seven years that I've been there. It's a sand path.
You're going to have to acquire it. And Christmas is over
and Mr. Yovanovich's clients are not going to give it to anybody.
So you're going to buy it. Once you get through buying that, what
you are doing is you are going to have to re-do Livingston Woods
Lane.
If you will go up there, you will notice that any two cars
coming by one another from opposite directions have to almost
come to a stop to swerve over to let each other pass by. So
you're going to cost money to re-do that whole street. Then
you're going to have to put sidewalks in because right now
Collier High is maintaining that place as a logging area for their
students, which we have no gripe about.
That is not a problem to us.
What will this interconnectivity do for us? Nothing. It is
going to be for the hotrodders trying to get off of Pine Ridge Road
and go over to Livingston Road to get off the traffic lanes. That's
all it is. It's for hotrodders.
What you're going to have to do also is you are going to have
to put speed bumps in. Because you can see from one end of
Livingston Woods Lane to the other unobstructed. And when
Page 285
February 27, 2001
anybody who is driving in a pickup truck or a hotrod sees that
they're going to want to speed. There are enough ground-in
rubber tracks on our street now from people who have been
speeding in there and using it as a hotrod path.
I am not even going to talk about the safety that is going to
be detrimental to everybody there. You're going to have to cover
our neighborhood with the Sheriff's Department because we've
got intruders, we've got speeders, we've got motorcyclists trying
out
their motorcycles.
We're only asking you to maintain our neighborhood. That's
all we want. We've been good neighbors. We've been good
taxpayers. We will continue to be. But save the neighborhood.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Last speaker.
MR. MCNEES: Yes, ma'am. If you will come forward and
state your name for the record, you will save me from having to
mispronounce your name, which I'm certain I would.
MS. BAJAJ: I realize it's a difficult name. My name is Tara
Bajaj. And I appreciate you letting me speak. Although, I didn't
know to sign it.
We just moved here from Wisconsin in August, okay? And
that includes my son, my fiance and myself. I'm one of the
people that Mrs. Fehr talked about. We paid top dollar for that
land. There is a reason we paid top dollar for the land is because
I wanted to be close in to town. I didn't want to drive out to the
Estates.
I wanted my son to be able to run around. I wanted him to
be able to ride his bike. I didn't want to be in a gated
community. I wanted to have trees, things like this.
We did pay top dollar. And then again, you know, the
building market down here. We spent top dollar again to build.
We built a
nice home. We built 3,200 square feet. The County -- I might just
mention the County was very concerned that I should put the sod
next to the road, but, you know, my commercial neighbors aren't
living up to their bargain.
I guess one of the real points that I really need to make is
that I'm definitely concerned that property values are going to go
down. I think that it's almost assured. And I want you to know
Page 286
February 27, 2001
that before I bought my land -- and I want to stress this before. I
came to Naples. I investigated the schools. I got the school
reports.
I also am not silly enough to be looking at commercial
property and not go down to the -- to the County and see the
PUDs and see. And I read it and it said, "We won't. You have
these kinds of neighbors for commercial people. And we will not
have any sort of access."
I realize that, you know, you may say to yourself, "Well, you
know, we made a mistake," this and that. But you know what,
sometimes you just have to say, in your case, Ms. Mac'Kie, with
all respect, '1 made a mistake. Okay. Maybe I did make a
mistake, but I have to stand by my word. Because I gave my
word to the people and those people invested a lot of their hard
earned money."
And I'm not a millionaire. I am a working person. My fiance
is a working person. We have taken whatever we had in our life
and we
came down here and bought this land.
I will be very honest with you, if I thought that there was
going to be that cut-through coming through and that I had to tell
my kid, "Hey, don't go out there and ride your bike, Rich. No,
Mom doesn't want you out on the street, honey. You ride up and
down the driveway only. Don't go over to your friend's house. I
have got to take you in the car and drive you," I really wouldn't
have paid that much for the land. And to be honest with you, I
wouldn't have bought it.
I feel that if you let this go through, you're letting down all
these other people. You're letting down a lot of people that were
here this morning, but because of the delays they couldn't stick
around. A lot of these women said, "1 have to go home. My kid is
coming home." You know, you're just going to be letting down a
lot of people.
It is not that we are trying to segregate from the rest of
Naples. We're not trying to do that. We're not even here
complaining about the tiny issues about the light that comes off
from these businesses and things like that. We're not trying to
nitpick with you, but we are trying to say, "Please, stand up and
do what is right."
That's all we're really asking is stand up sometimes and be
Page 287
February 27, 2001
counted and say, "Okay. We gave the folks our word, our word is
good." Gone are the days where you had a handshake, but I
thought when I came down and I looked in the records and I saw
it, I thought that was something I could take to the bank and sign
my name on the check and say, "Okay. This is what I am going
to be buying." So, please, stand up. Thank you.
Mr. Feder, I have some
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
questions of you, sir.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'-
So do I.
What is different now than was
different in 19967
MR. FEDER: Basically, I think the County has recognized the
need for interconnectivity. I think what I heard was some very,
very strong arguments of concern. Obviously there has been
historical issues related to this. And I recognize that.
You do have two very strong policy issues that the County
needs to come to grips with as we find where we are now and
how we are going to move forward. Probably the strongest thing
that I heard was the issue with Harley Davidson and test driving.
Although, my reaction to that was very, very strong.
I'm not sure you're going to keep them off because they're
the closest local street even if they have to go up to Livingston
to come in. I don't know if there's a way to exclude it, but I think
the people have a very, very strong concern there on a test drive
track.
You don't want to see that happen at all, whether you open up
this road or not.
I will note to you that there are still those two policy issues.
I didn't say it was an easy item to answer. That's why I said to
the folks out here that I did speak to in the community that I
recognize that. The interconnection, the issues we've had
relative to Whippoorwill to the south and the like.
And the other one is -- and I know there's some very strong
statements about the desire for basically private roads. If the
public is to operate and maintain those roads, then I don't think
we can treat them as a private road community, which is
essentially what is being asked for. Although, I appreciate why
they want it and the concerns that they are expressing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Norm, some people here said
that you said and somebody else said -- Mr. Mulhere said that this
Page 288
February 27, 2001
wasn't something you were going to fight really hard for.
MR. FEDER: I said to Mr. and Mrs. Falls that I was going to
raise these two policy issues, but that I understood there was
some historical background on this. And it was not going to be
an easy issue for the Board to have to address, but that I was
going to raise
them, which is what I have done. I don't think you saw me jump
up and down. And I don't for a minute feel that I want to be on
the other side of the podium.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, you know, that's -- that's --
the crux of the question for me is -- frankly, the way that you sold
me on this -- on supporting the punch through of the road is that
we will have wasted public money on the impact fee credits
across the street if we don't punch this through.
Did I not hear that right or am I overstating it?
MR. FEDER: I presented to you the fact that we made a
strong commitment across the street with impact fee credits to
start a process to develop the alternates to. Everything has to
go through the two arterial intersections and then the County
would need to pursue that.
Now, I think even their-- the client's representative made a
strong case that it's a little bit different situation with the nature
and the level of development on that. And I'll acknowledge that
right now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me get that straight.
Because this -- what you have been telling us and what the staff
has been telling us over the last year or so is that we're going to
have to bite the bullet, do the hard thing because it's the right
thing to do and require interconnection of neighborhoods
through commercial. And, you know, we talked about it so many
times that we don't want people to get on a major arterial to buy
a loaf of bread.
Is this the classic case or is this a case where that is just
not -- it doesn't really apply here because they do have these
other connections to Livingston and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're doubling it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE'- You know, so -- so that's my
question.
MR. FEDER: In fairness, I don't want to label anything as a
classic case, but, unfortunately, yes. I would have to answer it
Page 289
February 27, 200t
very honestly without a question. The fact that they have two
access points onto a single arterial is not interconnection.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I know.
MR. FEDER: If I'm dealing with a gated community when
they tell me that they've got two gates on two different arterials,
that is not interconnection either. What they have effectively
said is they feel comfortable with their access, but that access
then brings them through that intersection to get to that loaf of
bread. And they're comfortable with that because of other
attributes that they hold strongly. And that's what they've
expressed to you very well here this evening.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if I -- unless I am just reading
things wrong, Mr. Mulhere, I thought I saw you saying, no, it is
not a classic case. I would like your opinion, too.
MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere. I think that
there are a couple of differences. We have the history behind us
of commitments that were previously made.
There is a little bit of a difference here. And the difference
is that on those other PUDs there was no opportunity to punch a
road through. There was no road to punch through. It was only
until this particular piece of property came in that the
opportunity to connect
Whippoorwill straight through arose.
So the Board really never dealt with this issue because they
never dealt with this piece of property before. It is a new issue
and I think that's why Norm raised the issue.
On the other hand, you know, there is interconnection
between the commercial properties in an east/west fashion
through a service road. But, I mean, this is the first time that the
Board has ever had the opportunity to look at this piece of
property, which has, you know, the -- by its location, the
opportunity to connect Whippoorwill Road north and south.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And how many times do you
think we've preached and cajoled you that we want
interconnection to be real? I mean, that's just a hypothetical
question. Because I know the answer to that.
You know, this is just as hard a decision as I've had since
I've been on the Board, frankly, because these are wonderful
people that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Pam, this is nothing. This is
Page 290
February 27, 2001
nothing like you're going to come up against very shortly when
they start talking about taking houses. This is just the beginning
of it.
You've got a road network that you're going to try to keep
the integrity of it. And this figures into it somehow. I'm trying to
figure out how it all comes together on that part there.
Is this a domino that is going to take the rest of it with it or
is this something that stands alone by itself?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' I mean, with Fox Fire -- when
you went up against Fox Fire, in that particular situation some
serious errors were made. Are we going the same way with this?
I don't know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can't keep doing -- if you keep
doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've
always gotten. And I don't want what we've always had. We
have to at some point bite the bullet and do the hard thing. I
guess, this is where we have to start.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I hope that each and every
one of you would take a look in that lady's face that has those
two kids that live on Whippoorwill Lane and tell to her, "You don't
need to worry about the mechanics road testing those
motorcycles down there. Don't worry about your kids."
MR. BLOUNT: Excuse me. Can I make a comment about
that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, sir. We have taken public input. I
have taken it all. It's under due consideration. I respect all of
you.
But if I let you up here, that opens it up to everybody else in the
room. So I must--
MR. BLOUNT: I understand. But I was asking you to look at
the PUD for Harley Davidson.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sir, we are going to look at that.
Absolutely we'll look at the PUD for Harley Davidson. Because I
would have to go back -- and it was my understanding there was
a testing limitation on where they could drive those Harleys.
And if my memory serves me correct -- I want to be
corrected here. They were not allowed to test drive Harleys in
Livingston Woods. That's an enforcement issue.
Page 291
February 27, 2001
Well, that's true. But, again, that's part of a PUD. It's a part
of a legal document. And I don't care what it takes to enforce it.
I want it done. Because no matter what the decision is here, I
don't want to see Harleys, other than those owned by the people
who live in Livingston Woods, going up those streets and testing
them out.
Now, that doesn't mean that if you see a Harley going down
the street it's a test run. But if you see 20 Harleys going down
the street, I would suspect that we are using it as a test run.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have we closed the public
hearing?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, do you have any further
questions regarding any of the comments?
I do feel compelled to say one more thing about punching
through Whippoorwill Lane. When we were talking about south
of Pine Ridge Road, the reason that the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you talking about
Whippoorwill?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, Whippoorwill. The reason for the
impact fee credit is because not only were we doing it
north/south is that you wanted an east/west connection. And so
you were looking to move a lot more traffic off of Livingston
Road. The new Livingston Road
was going to come through. So I think that that distinguishes
and you accomplished your goal of interconnectivity --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On that side of the street.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- on that side. But, I mean, you also
have your interconnectivity on the north/south -- on the north
side because you have got all of the commercial parcels
connected. I don't think your policy says that in every
circumstance you're trying to go and put commercial traffic into
a neighborhood. And I believe --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course not.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Frankly, probably from my client it is
better to have the interconnection and the punch through to
Whippoorwill Lane, but my client respects the neighborhood and
has committed to them that they would not request an
interconnection. We'll do it if we have to, but it's not our first
choice.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I am going to close the public
Page 292
February 27, 2001
hearings and then we will have discussion among the Board.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much. I feel a lot like
Tom does. But, then again, I live on Lakewood Boulevard and I
see what's impacted us. And I know it's an inconvenience for
people to have to continue down and they're complaining about
all of the traffic. Yet, I see that it's a real safety problem on our
streets having these cars coming through. Of course, we had
27,000 cars coming through a day on my street and we're backed
right up to the street.
I just don't want to do that to a neighborhood, especially
when these people have bought in good faith thinking that we're
going -- they're going to keep their neighborhood closed. It is
very difficult for me.
And then Norm did say it was not a desirable cut-through. I
wrote that down when he said that. I think it would destroy that
neighborhood. But anyway, that's my feeling.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' What did you mean by not a
desirable cut-through?
MR. FEDER: The issue on interconnectivity here is
predominantly in -- and the neighborhood has said that that is not
necessarily their desire. But, nonetheless, is the ability of the
neighborhood to access, whether it is 1-75 or other points,
without having to go through the intersection of Pine Ridge and
Livingston.
So it is mostly because I wouldn't see a lot of people going
westbound on Pine Ridge trying to find a way to avoid. I will say
if you had a major accident at the intersection, this being open
would be a way to divert traffic. That's what the police officer
was saying.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It is true. What about -- when I am
going -- when I am pulling into a commercial section, I usually
slow down. Wouldn't that slow traffic up to have to turn into that
commercial area to cut off to wind through these people's
neighborhood, which they will have to slow down anyway?
MR. FEDER: That, and a stop sign, and the circuitous nature
of getting on to what's old Livingston to get over the connection,
go over the canal and get onto Livingston, yes. There's a number
of turns.
So I'm not looking for it as a ma]or connection necessarily
Page 293
February 27, 2001
for Pine Ridge to Livingston, but rather from the community to
Pine Ridge, rather than going through the intersection itself. And
that's the interconnectivity issue. And the other issue, of course,
is the public roads and whether or not they're maintained open
for traffic, other than the local traffic, which, if they're public
roads, the County operates and maintains them.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner
Henning. I got that look like you wanted to say something.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' I've got real concerns over how
we are going to go into this. I mean, we are all ridden by guilt by
what we have heard here today. We also know that we made
promises when we were running our campaigns that we were
going to provide roads
throughout the County. We hired Mr. Feder and are paying him a
decent salary -- probably not enough -- to show us the way.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: He would probably agree with that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To show us the way on this.
And I -- my concern is that we've had it come up today where
there was concern over about taking homes, which we should
be, about the alignment of roads. We're willing to sacrifice one
thing or another.
I think pretty soon that if we don't establish some priorities
here and get a direction, we're going to end up with what we've
got right now. We're going to be no better than the previous
commission where we come to a dead stop on our roads. We're
never going to get the new roads in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Huh? No offense.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me just go on. I think what
is happening in the south side of Pine Ridge with Whippoorwill
and the north side is two different things because there is a
density
difference. Those on the south side are very dense. These are
two and a half acre lots, five acre lots.
And I see having an interconnection is just a way for
delivery trucks to get to their destination, whether it be the gas
station, whether it be the 7-Eleven. There's going to be the
drugstore on the
corner. It's to cut through Livingston, go down into these
Page 294
February 27, 2001
people's
community, Livingston Woods Lane, up into Whippoorwill. That's
what I see this being convenient for. Commercial traffic in there.
Besides the fact, this PUD calls for a motorcycle repair.
We're going to have two of them. Not only Harley Davidson, but
Honda, Suzuki. So then you're going to have --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, why don't we remove --
let's start at the beginning. Why don't we remove about the
motorcycle repair from one of the choices?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What are you going to do about
the delivery trucks with the rest of that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's go to Mr. Feder on it. I am
just trying to see all the possibilities on this. You're asking for a
hard decision and I understand where you're coming from.
Mr. Feder, one more time. What can we expect from a man
who supposedly has a tremendous amount of experience with
these kind of situations; are they going to have a large amount of
commercial traffic going through there? Are the roads going to
built in such a way that it's going to impede this kind of --
MR. FEDER: I will use a bit of logic because I don't have my
crystal ball. Experience and logic. The experience and logic
would say no.
If the item that the Commissioner was raising is that I'm
going to be a big delivery truck, I'm driving south on Livingston
and I'm going to go into one of the entrances, traverse, make a
turn, make a second turn, make a third turn, to come to a stop
sign to make a final turn, to then access -- all that through rather
narrow roads in my delivery truck -- the commercial, when I
could have come straight down Livingston, through the
intersection, and had a signal at which to turn directly into the
commercial, I'm not sure I understand why I would do that. NOW --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about --
MR. FEDER: -- would I say there would be no cut-through
traffic in any way, shape or form? No. I'm not saying that. But I
don't think that the issue of major delivery services deciding to
take that trip through the community to reach the commercial
center makes a lot of sense.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I am talking about like a bread
truck. I am not talking about a gasoline tanker.
Page 295
February 27, 2001
MR. FEDER: I'm also saying a bread truck that might run
into a car when I'm being told that basically two cars slowly go
by each other. That bread truck, why would it want to go
through that route to reach its destination when it has six-lane
facilities at its disposal?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, you have UPS and FedEx.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I answer that?
MR. FEDER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's because your intersections
are clogged. So he's got a time line that he wants to get his
delivery truck so that he can get home to his family.
MR. FEDER: Okay. And the major point that I am making to
you -- and I told these folks that I didn't want to get into a long
discussion about this. I would like to be there, but we will take
all of the traffic that is in this community that isn't necessarily
going north that wants to get onto Pine Ridge to access any of
the commercial there or out to 75 and the like and send them
through that same intersection that you're telling me is
congested.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to make a motion to
approve the project with the interconnection.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I will give you a second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion by Commissioner
Mac'Kie and I have a second by Commissioner Coletta to
approve the project with an interconnection.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're saying that it's okay
for this new motorcycle company to come in and use Livingston
Woods Lane as a test facility?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What you can do is -- if you want to
amend the motion, you could restrict out certain uses on the
property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not in favor of the motion.
I'm just saying this is what the motion is. It's saying it is okay
for -- it is not okay for Harley Davidson, but it is okay for Honda to
go through there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're right. I will amend my
motion to add the same restrictions to this motorcycle repair
shop's use as --
MR. YOVANOVICH: They're already there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- they're already there -- as to
Page 296
February 27, 2001
what Harley Davidson has.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
other uses here?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
with the uses. I'm sorry.
In other words --
Have you taken a look at the
I have. I don't have a problem
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What are the other uses that you
have a problem with, Tom, please?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Laundromat.
Oh, we've already talked about that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner, for the record, Page 9 of
our PUD does prohibit the use of Livingston Woods as a test
facility for the motorcycles. So we already have the same
restrictions that Harley Davidson does. So we're prohibited from
using Livingston Woods Lane.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, I want to make sure I
understand it.
This prohibits, as far as the PUD goes. How is it enforced as far
as law goes?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Code enforcement.
MR. BLOUNT: Yeah, right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I don't know. That's why
I'm asking the question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the answer. Code
enforcement.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Or I suppose you could restrict this
PUD by not allowing another motorcycle dealership.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that was my thought.
That's what I was going to go for is that -- you've already got a
contract with these people for the motorcycle or is this just a
whole bunch of things that you're looking for?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, I do not already have a
motorcycle dealer under contract.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you seriously object to us
removing that from --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I would have to check with my
client on that. But my request is that we already have limited
ourselves just like somebody next door is limited. We would not
be allowed to use Livingston Woods Lane. So I don't know why it
would be a problem for us to have the same restrictions as
Page 297
February 27, 2001
Harley. I mean, at least we are -- it's our property.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You are being honest with me
and I'm just asking you to help us out a little bit, if you can help
us out. If your client doesn't have a contract at this time with a
motorcycle seller, maybe they might be willing to waive that. Is your client here now or no?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. My client -- no. My client lives in
Arizona. So he is --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They are, what, three hours
earlier there?
MR. YOVANOVICH: So do you want me to call while you're --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, please.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We'll check into that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Other questions, comments from other
Board members?
Commissioner Fiala, any comments, any input?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I said it all. I worry about the
safety of these people. That's my big concern.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, respectfully maybe
the right thing to do then is to call the motion because it's not
going to pass if it's 3 to 2. It takes four. And if Commissioner
Henning and Commissioner Fiala are going to oppose the motion,
then let's don't sit here while he's calling Arizona. Let's just
move on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I don't know how
Commissioner Carter is going to vote.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you know --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It doesn't make any difference.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- how Commissioner Coletta is
going to vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, Henning.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning is not going to
vote for the motion. And if you say that you are not going to vote
for the motion, well then --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's call the question.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll call the question. All in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 298
February 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
MS. BAJAJ: No.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You need four votes, ma'am.
MR. YOVANOVICH: She is okay. She is okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You need four votes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the motion failed. You're
okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The motion failed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve with the
Planning Commission's recommendations and stipulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any discussion?
Do you want to include in that a restriction on --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll have a fence, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Oh, that's right. You've got a fence.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.}
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You got what you wanted, guys.
(Applause.}
MS. FEHR: Thank you. Will we have to deal with it again?
(Multiple speakers simultaneously speaking.}
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Guys, she can't possibly get this
on the record.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. First of all, we can't get it on
the record. The answer to the question is will we ever deal with
it again, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's our next item?
Item #12B1 & #12B2
ORDINANCE 2001-08 REGARDING PETITION PUD-86-22 (2), MR.
WILIAM HOOVER, REPRESENTING MR. PETER LONGO OF OHIO
SEALANTS, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PINE RIDGE
CENTER PUD AND ORDINANCE 2001-09 REGARDING PETITION
Page 299
February 27, 2001
PUD-88-11 (2), MR. WILLIAM HOOVER, REPRESENTING MR.
ANTHONY JANCIGAR, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
PINE RIDGE WEST CENTER PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF PINE RIDGE ROAD AND WEST OF
WHIPPOORWILL LANE - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next item is --
MR. MCNEES: 12(B)(1).
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 12(B)(1). Thank you, Mr. McNees.
That is sworn in. We need to swear in everybody in regard
to PUD 86-22.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Disclosures?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Disclosures. I spoke to the
petitioner's representative.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I spoke with the petitioner's
representative and the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the petitioner. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't believe I spoke to anybody.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You spoke to me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, was it you talked to me on this?
Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I also spoke to Rich and the
neighbors that live behind there also and they mentioned it about
this one, too, in passing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I went
over this in quite detail.
MR. BELLOWS: I would just like to point out as a companion
item with PUD 88-11-2.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. We have got to do 88-11-2
because what they're asking for is not only to re-approve this
PUD, but they are asking if they can have similar uses in both of
the PUDs.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Look at the master plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I make a motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are there registered speakers on
this item?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I only have to make one point so Norm
doesn't have to speak.
Page 300
February 27, 2001
MR. FEDER: Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: There is a median cut where you see
where our cul-de-sac intersects with Pine Ridge Road. I need to
clarify for the record that is not a full median cut. We have right
in and right out and left in. We don't have a left out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are there registered speakers?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that acceptable?
MR. MCNEES: Only Mr. Yovanovich.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We could close the public
hearing.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll close the public hearings. Do I
hear a motion .- motion to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have one request that the motioner
and the second may want to consider. I'm not willing to expand
the uses that are in this PUD as was in the original PUD. I think
both need to stay with the original uses as they were presented
in the first PUD. I'm not willing to expand additional PUD uses.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was it represented where;
where was it represented in the original?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: In the original PUD there was specific
criteria. And what they have done now is put two together and
they want to change the use to be more inclusive than was in the
original PUD when it was approved some time back, whatever
the time line was.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, I think basically the intent of the Pine
Ridge Center and Pine Ridge Center West was to do a combined
project, as is depicted here, all along. They're just separate
owners on Pine Ridge West versus the Pine Ridge Center.
They're only adding a particular use, a contractor's general
office, which would be now Tract B in the center of the site with
-- and they provided strict architectural standards of how this
office -. general contractor's office will work.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's also my understanding they were
adding the use of like a grocery store.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Along the remaining tract along Pine
Ridge Road. They were adding apparel stores, food stores,
general merchandise stores, as noted in the executive summary.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is your concern,
Page 301
February 27, 2001
Commissioner Carter?
Because I asked the petitioner about -- is there going to be
outside storage with these contractor offices and there is no
outside storage. So --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: My concern is -- I don't know if they're
going to end up doing what they're saying they're going to do
today. Once you approve this, that means if that deal falls
through they can put anything in within those classifications.
And that could include retail, it could include grocery stores, et
cetera. I'm just not willing to expand the use. Let them deal
with what they already have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you saying that you want
specifics on the uses? Because what I see here is the LDC uses
numbers.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' And they gave us a little sheet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't understand.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They gave us the codes and all
that stuff. Is the -- what was the reason this isn't on the
summary again?
MR. YOVANOVICH: The only reason was the issue of traffic
on Pine Ridge Road. And that's -- that's your policy. Your growth
management plan already addresses that issue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So staff's recommendation was
that these uses were appropriate for the property?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. It's very similar to the Pine
Ridge PUD to the east and that we're also providing this
east/west interconnection with this amendment that will connect
with Pine Ridge east/west and all the way over to Dudley, which
is the existing PUD with the service station. The Chevron
service station.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do have one question. When are
you going to be building this?
It says that our roa.ds are going to be finished in 2002. I
believe that's what it sa,d someplace. I was just wondering: Will
this be built before then; will they be building it during our
construction period on the road?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner Fiala, at this time we
don't have a contract purchaser. So as each day passes, the
likelihood that you're going to get done first increases.
Page 302
February 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. So we have a good chance of
not impacting the already overcrowded road.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And I would point out,
Commissioner Carter, that all we're doing is asking our PUD to be
consistent with the other PUDs in the area. And we are adding
some interconnects that will make access better between all of
the PUDs.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, you haven't convinced me, sir.
But if there's not a second or any amendment to that, I'll call the
question.
Okay. All in favor signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign?
Aye.
Motion carried.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that for both of these?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Both, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4-1. All right.
That takes us down to communications -- Board
communications.
Item #15A
REACTIVATING THE CITY AND COUNTY
MANAGER/ADMINISTRATORS COMMITTEE - APPROVED
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I have something. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It better be good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's great.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, if you're still getting your
thoughts together, I'm just going to move to the one I had. And
that is reactivating the City and County Manager's
Administrators Committee for the Regional Planning Council
because of the growth management plan, because of the
changes that are going on in the total region.
The executive director, Wayne Daltry, has requested that we
Page 303
February 27, 2001
reinstitute that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous votes of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
Item #15B
STAFF TO ADVERTISE AN AMENDMENT REGARDING SECTION 3
OF THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT COMMITTEE ORDINANCE
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mine is simple. I just want to
change the wording just a little bit on our beach renourishment
committee. I have Penny Taylor here to vouch for the fact that
the City is in agreement. I know that Marco Island will also be in
agreement. I have checked with our County Manager and also
with our County Attorney and they are all in agreement that the
words define and get a closer look at what we really wanted to
say in the first place.
And so you will probably have it. It's in Section 3 here. The
underlying things. It says, "Except that the appointments of
members from the City of Naples and the City of Marco Island
shall be appointed from a list containing one or more qualified
applicants submitted by the respective governing bodies of those
cities."
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We still got the 3-3-3, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. We still have the 3-3-3. The
only thing we're doing is allowing each city, Marco and Naples,
and also the County to submit their names for the people they
want on that committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Didn't this come forward just
recently where we had a problem with the fact that it was
getting political?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. But what I think what
happened was when it went back to the City of Naples that they
wanted to be sure that if they designate applicants who meet the
qualifications that we have agreed we will take them.
Page 304
February 27, 200t
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was the key there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It needs to be advertised.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they might submit four or five
names to us.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, we get the
final pick and the final say or we can reject them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. We take their list.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And as long as that's
understood in there, I don't have a problem with it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you all have a copy of this,
right?
Would you like to read it over for a minute just to make sure
that it's a complete agreement?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just understood that we
advertised this. It's going to be on a public hearing coming up.
MR. WEIGEL: You're right. The direction that you would be
giving staff or the County Attorney is to provide and advertise the
appropriate amendment to meld this into the ordinance that you
just recently--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I withdraw my motion and
just give that direction.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Give staff direction to do that and
bring it back in two weeks.
MR. WEIGEL: Very soon.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I just wanted to touch
base a little bit about what was happening here today. And we
need to give some serious thought of how we're going to handle
future road needs in this County or else we're not going to
succeed. I have a real concern about how we're heading into it.
And I hope you hold my feet to the fire when it's in my area
and if I ever give you a hard time about interconnectivity. Go
ahead, remind me of this day.
COMMISSIONER HENNING-- Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thanks, Tom. I know you will.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Carter, I'm going
to drop one thing that I was going to say. But the Golden Gate
master plan, what I would like to see is have an ex-officio from
Page 305
February 27, 2001
this Board to see that things are carried out. And also there are
certain things that -- I mean, I will send a memo.
There are certain things that I would like to see happen on
the Golden Gate master plan, such as affordable housing. I think
we need -- really seriously need to look at industrial and that
stuff.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So you would be basically our
liaison to that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to, yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that's appropriate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: To the Golden Gate master plan?
That would work.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one little thing though. The
Golden Gate master plan encompasses an area that goes all the
way from the Estates right on through. The reason I didn't
suggest it before is because I -- I wanted to make sure that the
committee that's meeting will not be hindered by a
Commissioner being on the actual board itself. I attend the
meetings myself and I sit by and listen so I can be totally
informed.
Mind you, this is an initiative I started and I'm very
concerned how it goes forward. And if Mr. Henning is the
ex-officio member, I can't participate.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, that's a good point.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, there's something -- I
had heard something that was coming back to us was when we
discussed this business about freezing development permits in
the Estates pending this -- this comp plan re-look, the master
plan re-look, I was thinking east of 951 or -- you know, I was
thinking Estates. I wasn't really thinking Golden Gate City. So it
might be that we're mixing apples and oranges here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, possibly we may
have to break it off into two units.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
sure,
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
I would like to see --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
No. It is all one and inclusive.
It has been before. That's for
I mean, I have a lot of input that
Oh, I do too. For sure. Very
Page 306
February 27, 2001
much so.
I mean, I was on the original one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand that. And I was
just trying to take the pressure off of you because you're having
so much heat of putting commercial development in part.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't appreciate that at. all. I
really want to have the heat on me. I accept the respons,bility
for District Five and plan to be totally involved in any way I can
be.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So maybe, in effect, the two
commission districts would be better off without a designee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right.
Okay. One last thing. Based on the discussion with Pelican
Bay this afternoon, I am going to recommend to staff that we
look at March 21, 22, or 23 as a possible -- one of those three
dates to hold a town hall meeting, time to be determined,
whether it's evening, whether it's an afternoon.
We need to get the Commissioners to advise Sue Filson
what date works so that she can coordinate with Mike McNees
so that we can get
the appropriate people invited and to be there and work through.
And I will work with David Weigel to work out the particulars
and communicate with the Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That would be great.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Does that give us sufficient time to do
what we need to do?
MR. WEIGEL: I think that's fine. I think that's just fine.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
If there's no further discussion or input by this Board, the
meeting is-
Item #15C
SIXTY DAY EXTENSION ON OFFER FROM MR. PAUL HARDY FOR
THE BAREFOOT BEACH PRESERVE PARCEL
MR. WEIGEL: One last thing. If you can hear me, what I
would like to say is Commissioner Mac'Kie had received from
Paul Harvey an offer in regard to the Barefoot Beach Preserve
Page 307
February 27, 2001
parcel that was good until the 28th, tomorrow. And it was for an
express sum, including a lease time over years. And it was made
to her.
We've been working with Don Pickworth in that regard. And
I met with Don Pickworth last Thursday for quite some period
and he said that if the Board has a desire for him to extend that
offer, that it would need to provide that direction or request.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would like to provide that
request.
MR. WEIGEL.' He said not indefinitely, but for a time certain.
I would say about 60 days. And the reason I say 60 is because
even in less than 60, we're committed to come back to you with
some other
thoughts. And I expect that I'll be coming back to you
intermittently, both privately by meeting, and memo, as well as
by Board meeting in regard to this.
We're working very astridulously with Leo Ochs in real
property, the title commitments, the appraiser and the appraisal
that we need.
And the reason I tell you about the appraisal and the appraiser
that will be doing an appraisal for us is that the offer that Mr.
Harvey gives us may mean very little based upon the final title
work that we do ourselves and are satisfied with, which tells us
of the developability of the property.
And so I will communicate with Don Pickworth -- he's the
attorney with Harvey. I don't talk with Harvey myself -- and tell
him that it's your general consensus that we're requesting 60
days extension of the offer. Whether he gives it or not may be
really immaterial to the work that you've already empowered us
to do. But I felt constrained to bring it up today while we could.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. So all you're looking for is staff
direction?
MR. WEIGEL.' Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' I hope we keep that up.
MR. WEIGEL: A commitment or an expression of the Board
that Harvey extend his offer 60 days.
COMMISSIONER HENNING.' Okay. I can just say that I am
interested in the purchase, the acquirement of the property, not
a lease.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm more interested in
Page 308
February 27, 2001
acquiring the property, too.
MR. WEIGEL: That's a very important point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To keep all doors open.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All doors are supposed to be open.
And I don't think this in any way, shape or form limits us. It's just
-- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- extending a time line to deal with
one piece of it.
MR. WEIGEL: That's exactly right. And no commitment
whatsoever.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's past my bedtime.
MR. WEIGEL: All right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
***** Commissioner Mac'Kie moved, seconded by
Commissioner Coletta and carried unanimously, that the
following items under the Consent and Summary Agenda be
approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 2001-51 RELATING TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF
VEGETATION REMOVAL IN THE RURAL AREAS OF THE COUNTY
IN RESPONSE TO THE THREAT OF FIRE
ITEM #16A2
RESOLUTION 2001-52 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "BAY LAUREL ESTATES AT PELICAN
MARSH UNIT TWENTY-ONE"
Item #16A3
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2001-04 RE PETITION CARNY-2001-AR #369,
DUANE WHEELER, OF THE ROTARY CLUB OF IMMOKALEE,
REQUESTING PERMIT TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL FROM MARCH
1, 2, 3 AND 4, 2001 AND MARCH 8, 9, 10 AND 11, 2001 ON
COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST
PORTION OF THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT, 520
Page 309
February 27, 2001
AIRWAYS ROAD - WITH WAIVER OF APPLICATION FEE,
OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE AND SURETY BOND
Item #16A4
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR RITZ-
CARLTON PARKING GARAGE AND RELEASE OF THE UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE
DEVELOPER'S AGENT
Item #16A5 - Continued Indefinitely
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR BOYNE
SOUTH AND RELEASE OF THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE
SECURITY TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OF THE DEVELOPER'S
AGENT
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 2001-53 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "FIDDLER'S CREEK PHASE lB, UNIT
TWO"
Item #16A7
RESOLUTION 2001-54 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "FIDDLER'S CREEK PHASE lA"
Item #16A8
RESOLUTION 2001-55 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "FIDDLER'S CREEK PHASE lB, UNIT
ONE"
Item #16A9
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "NORMAN ESTATES AT
Page 310
February 27, 2001
PELICAN MARSH UNIT 23 REPLAT OF LOTS 3 THROUGH 18 AND
PART OF TRACT B".
Item #16B1
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 3 WITH BETTER ROADS, INC. FOR
ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR REVISING
LIVINGSTON ROAD FOUR LANE TO LIVINGSTON ROAD SIX LANE,
PROJECT #60061 - IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,280~371.86
Item #16B2
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 5 WITH APAC-FLORIDA, INC. FOR
ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR THE WIDENING OF
IMMOKALEE ROAD FROM 1-75 TO COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951),
PROJECT NO. 69101 - IN THE AMOUNT OF $212,057.01
Item #16B3
EXTENSION OF CONTRACT #98-2821, CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND STREET LIGHTS - EXTENDED
THROUGH APRIL 30, 2001
Item #16B4
STAFF SELECTION OF PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE SERVICES FIRMS AND AUTHORIZATION TO
NEGOTIATE AND AWARD AGREEMENTS TO SAME FOR FIXED-
TERM PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
(RFP #00-3131) - TO SIX FIRMS AS OUTLINED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16B5
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FUNDS TO THE LELY GOLF
ESTATES MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING UNIT (MSTU}
BEAUTIFICATION FUND
Item #16B6
Page 311
February 27, 2001
SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION FROM THIRTY MILES PER HOUR (30
MPH) TO TWENTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR (25 MPH) FOR ALL
LOCAL ACCESS STREETS IN GOODLAND PER RESOLUTION
96-340
Item #16B7
APPROVAL OF THE SHORT LIST FROM RFP #00-3152 FOR AN
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT FOR CLAM BAY RESTORATION
AND STAFF TO NEGOTIATE W/TURRELL AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Item #16B8 - Moved to Item #8B1
Item #16B9
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
INSPECTION CONTRACT TO CONSUL-TECH ENGINEERING, INC.,
FOR THE WIDENING OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD, COLLIER
COUNTY PROJECT NO. 62031, CIE NO. 55, RFP NO. 00-3081
Item #16B10
SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF "TIDEFLEX" VALVES FOR OUTFALL
PIPES UNDER US 41/DAVIS BOULEVARD INTERSECTION,
PROJECT 31805, FROM RED VALVE COMPANY AND
INSTALLATION TO BE PERFORMED BY A LOCAL CONTRACTOR
IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $32,000
Item #16B11
BARE LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
WCI COMMUNITIES, INC., FOR USE OF VACANT COUNTY-OWNED
PROPERTY - ANNUAL RENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,240 TO BE
PAID BY WCI
Item #16B12
RESOLUTION 2001-56 PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
AN AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE INPUT AND
GUIDANCE IN THE AESTHETIC APPEARANCE OF THE I-
Page 312
February 27, 2001
75/GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY INTERCHANGE AND THE GOLDEN
GATE PARKWAY CORRIDOR AS THE GATEWAY TO NAPLES AND
GOLDEN GATE CITY
Item #16C1
SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST REAL
PROPERTY FOR ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE AND DIRECT THE
CLERK OF COURTS TO RECORD SAME IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #16C2
AMENDMENT NO. 9 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH HUMISTON AND MOORE ENGINEERS FOR
WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE BIG MARCO AND CAPRI PASS
INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN - IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,000
Item #16C3
CHANGE ORDER NO. I TO AMENDMENT NO. 6 OF THE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HUMISTON AND
MOORE ENGINEERS FOR THE BIG MARCO PASS AND CAPRI
PASS INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN - IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000
Item #16C4
RESOLUTION 2001-57 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS
FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE
COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16C5
RESOLUTION 2001-58 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS
FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE
COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Page 313
February 27, 2001
Item #16C6
RESOLUTION 2001-59 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS
FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE
COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16C7
RESOLUTION 2001-60 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS
FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE
COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16C8
RESOLUTION 2001-61 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS
FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE
COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1995 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16C9
RESOLUTION 2001-62 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS
FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE
COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16C10
SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND
AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WATER AND/OR SEWER
SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
Item #16C11
Page 314
February 27, 2001
WORK ORDER UNDER THE FIXED TERM STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT WITH KRIS JAIN AND
ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR DESIGN OF A STORAGE BUILDING FOR
THE NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY - IN THE
AMOUNT OF $33,000
Item #16D1
BID 00-3186 FOR THE RE-DECKING OF THE EXISTING
BOARDWALKS AT TIGERTAIL BEACH - AWARDED TO MODERN
SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $73,000
Item #16D2
ACCEPTANCE OF AN ADDITIONAL $62,667 IN STATE AID TO
LIBRARIES IN FY01
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 2001-63 REGARDING ROAD CLOSURE OF STATE
ROAD 29 FOR ROBERTS RANCH ROUNDUP CATTLE DRIVE ON
MARCH 10, 2001 FROM 9:30 A.M. TO 11 A.M. FOR A CATTLE
DRIVE
Item #16D4
CHANGE ORDER #1 FOR VINEYARDS COMMUNITY PARK
PROJECT - WITH AGNOLI, BARBER AND BRUNDAGE, INC. IN THE
AMOUNT OF $7~622.75
Item #16E1
RESOLUTION 2001-64 AMENDING COUNTY PURCHASING POLICY
BY MODIFYING CURRENT STAFF AUTHORITY AND EXPEDITING
PROJECT DELIVERY SCHEDULES
Item #16E2
CERTAIN COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY DECLARED AND
Page 315
February 27, 2001
AUTHORIZED AS SURPLUS PROPERTY FOR A SALE AND
APPROVAL OF SALE OF SURPLUS BID NO. 00-3160 DOUBLE-
WIDE TRAILER TO SUNCOAST STEEL IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,500
-AUCTION TO BE HELD MARCH 3, 2001
Item #16F1
BID NO. 00-3155 FOR THE PURCHASE OF EXPENDABLE MEDICAL
SUPPLIES FOR THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT - AWARDED TO VARIOUS VENDORS AS OUTLINED
IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16G1
BUDGET AMENDMENT #01-185
Item #16J1
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented
by the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the
various departments as indicated:
Page 316
· FOR BOARD ACTION:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
February 27, 2001
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes,
Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for
the period:
1. January 3 through January 9, 2001
2. JanUary 10 through January 16, 2001
3. January 17 through January 23, 2001
H:Data/Format
February 27, 2001
Item #16L1
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT
ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 258 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. DAVID G. HURLBUT, JR., TRUSTEE, ET AL,
CASE NO. 00-1398-CA (GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD, PROJECT
NO. 63041) - STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE SUM OF $700 INTO THE
REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Item #16L2
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT PROVIDING PAYMENT FOR THE
COUNTY'S INTEREST IN PARCELS 101 AND 803 ACQUIRED BY
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN STATE OF
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION V. JOHN N.
BRUGGER, AS TRUSTEE, ET Al.. - IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000
Item #16L3
RESOLUTION 2001-65 CLARIFYING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE PLANNING AND
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2001-04 REPEALING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE
74-3 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL
DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT IN ITS ENTIRETY
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2001-05 REPEALING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE
75-9 THAT CALLED FOR A REFERENDUM TO ESTABLISH THE
COLLIER COUNTY FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ONE IN ITS
ENTIRETY
Item #17C - Continued to March 13, 2001
ACCEPTANCE OF A SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL IN THE CASE OF
WALDEN OAKS OF NAPLES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC.,
Page 317
February 27, 200t
ET AL V. COLLIER COUNTY AND BIC'S INVESTMENT
CORPORATION, CASE NO. 98-2540-CA AND CASE NO. 98-3135-CA
PENDING IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:25 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CHAIRMAN
~?"ATTEST:
DWIGH'~ E. BROCK, CLERK
Attest as to Chalnm~'$
signature on15.
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented / or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES BY: Dawn Breehne, Heather Casassa,
Elizabeth Brooks and Kelley Marie Blecha
Page 318